What do you think of death penalty?

Question

Are you for or againt ?
Thanks

I was particularly thinking of Arnold scharzenegger when I asked the question...

What do you think of swigaro's question:" If it was wrong for a ciminal to kill someone how can It be right for us to kill them?"

I agree with you Susan S

Answer 1

The death penalty should be used for "cruel & unusual" crimes, serial killers and the string of cops that seem to keep murdering their girlfriends/wives, when there is no doubt as to their guilt.

It's not about wanting to "get back" at someone, it's about protecting our society and not wasting our precious tax dollars on someone who can't be released or rehabilitated.

Yes, you could argue that the punishment itself is cruel & unusual, but in some cases, it is a necessary evil.

In the US it costs roughly $26,000 a year to keep 1 prisoner alive in prison. Not adjusting for inflation, which would make it worse, if someone stays in prison for life, from age 25-85, that costs us 1.3 million dollars, just for that one person.

If they committed truly heinous crimes, beyond a shadow of a doubt (think Jeffrey Dahmer types) where there is no way we would ever let them out, and rehabilitation is out of the question, do us all a favor and use that 1.3 million to do something good in the world.

Yes, I'm sure some innocent people have been killed by accident. By if you examine their "innocence" you often see those individuals are far from being upstanding members of society. Not that they deserved death, but usually they are lowlifes who have committed many other crimes and/or were associated with the actual killer. A necessary risk in my mind.

The biggest need for change in the Death Penalty is how quickly we apply it. It should happen within 6 months of their conviction if there is irrefutable proof.

Answer 2

You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people.

125 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.

We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person, and most of us would find that intolerable.

Answer 3

I am for the death penalty. Sure innocent people have been executed and that is obviously bad, but by and large I'm of the opinion that far far more guilty people are than innocent. I disagree with the fact that they do sit on death row for years and years eating taxpayer money while lawyer after lawyer argue why they should be let out. It is my opinion that once you have been foudn guilty of a crime, you are allowed one appeal and can change the venue if you need to and can PROVE that you need to. Then you're done and your sentence is carried out immediately.

I'm also of the opinion that while you are breaking the law, you cannot claim protection from the law. For example: if you break into somebody's house and they find you there and shoot you, you do not get to sue them for assault. By breaking into their house, you have put yourself outside the law's protection. However, if you are arrested and afterwards are shot or beaten, then that is different becasue you are not actually violating a law at the time.

Answer 4

The idea is fine, but two problems I have. 1: Sometimes we find out years later that a person was convicted of a crime that they did not commit and 2: Death row lasts for years while appeals are ongoing. So is it the best answer? I don't know.

Answer 5

I'm against it. Too many innocent people have died because of it. I'm also against it for people we know 100% did commit the crime. This is because of the expense it takes to execute someone. Not only that but with the constant appeals the victims family suffer for a longer period of time. If you give them life in prison, you lock them up, throw away the key and move on.

Answer 6

If a bunch of law students with no budget can manage to get hundreds of death row inmates cases overturned, then we have no business executing anyone. If we could make our judicial system foolproof, and guarantee that no innocent person would ever be executed, maybe we could talk. Until that day, I say get rid of it. Besides, if it was wrong for the criminal to kill someone, how can it be right for us to kill them?

Answer 7

I am for it, there is an exaggeration about how many innocents have been executed. The truth is many criminals will still commit murders, even in prison (I have witnessed this and knew one CO who was killed by an inmate), many will say "What can you do to me, I am serving life!!" We need to show them that the value of life is so great that they risk theirs for committing the ultimate crime.

Answer 8

It should only apply for bad politicians like Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini or reasonable modern facsimiles.



Vote Ron Paul and join the rEVOLution.

Answer 9

people get life in prison but still get parolled and kill again, some dont get out but manage to kill people in prison including other inmates and gaurds,

but not one person has received the leathal injection and harmed another living soul afterward

Answer 10

well we don't have it in the UK,

but i,m for it , A life for a life;

yes they say you might give it to some one who was later found Innocent,
but think that there should be strict rules,
lately there have been to many shootings etc, i,m sure if there was a death penalty kids in gangs would not be so eager to carry guns / or should i say shoot them,