English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-12-14 15:03:52 · 6 answers · asked by John 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

6 answers

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. Your question is much too important to settle on the basis of sound bites or without answers to these.

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.

2007-12-14 15:10:46 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 2 3

Pros:

Capital punishment ensures those guilty will not re-enter society. However this can also be achieved through life-sentences. It serves as a deterrent. Knowing you might get executed if you get caught for committing a crime might stop you from doing it, theoretically.

Cons:

Some say methods are cruel and unusual and therefore unconstitutional. They also argue killing the killers doesn't make the goverment any better and that all murder is wrong.

2007-12-14 23:21:34 · answer #2 · answered by ctown 3 · 3 0

The only con is the possibility of an innocent man being wrongly sentenced to death. The pros include one less dangerous felon in the world, one less mouth for our tax dollars to feed, closure for the surviving victims/loved ones and if it keeps even 1 other psycho from taking an innocent life, then it worked as a deterrent.

2007-12-14 23:12:04 · answer #3 · answered by Jay 7 · 3 3

there is a man in Michigan
who raped his 8 DAY old daughter
anally and vaginally
she died of internal hemorrhaging
he also beat his girlfriend up while they were on the way to the hospital
I say
Its time to thin the herd

2007-12-14 23:41:37 · answer #4 · answered by angryarron 3 · 3 1

If guilty of a heinous crime then society is guaranteed that it will not happen again.

2007-12-14 23:09:21 · answer #5 · answered by Freedom Guy 4 · 3 3

pros: 0
cons: the state should not kill people.

2007-12-14 23:09:19 · answer #6 · answered by jack spicer 5 · 2 6

fedest.com, questions and answers