Death Penalty?

Question

Do you feel that the death penalty should be abolished or expanded? Why?

I'm basically looking for arguments for and against the death penalty and what your general sentiments are about the issue.

TMUTHIA:
By expanded, I mean do more states need to overturn existing bans of the death penalty, or should the Federal Government step in and unilaterally impose the death penalty for certain offenses?

Answer 1

If we could just convict the truly guilty who have no mitigating circumstance, OK, but we don't. The death penalty, in practice, is ineffective, arbitrary and often unjust.

1. The judicial system is not reliable. As long as we have a death penalty, we will convict and kill innocents along with the guilty. And at least in my opinion, the number of unjust convictions is just too high to justify the death penalty.

In 2000, when Gov. Ryan put a moratorium on Illinois executions, 13 people had been exonerated (mostly by DNA evidence), while at the same time 12 had been executed. Without DNA evidence, those 13 would still be in prison or have been executed.

With many crimes, there is no DNA evidence to exonerate (or convict). Should these people be executed?

The system fails for a number of reasons, including, false confessions, mistaken eyewitness identification, perjured testimony, failure of the police to properly investigate, and just dumb bad luck.

The trouble with the death penalty is that it is final, and we will take the lives of the innocent.

2. There is no definitive evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrence. Yes, there are some studies that purport to show that it decreases the murder rate, but there are other contradictory studies that it actually increases the murder rate. (How would that happen? The best theory I know of is that the death penalty generates publicity for murder, and it helps breaks down the psychological barriers keeping people from murdering people).

3. It is arbitrarily enforced and primarily ends up targeting minorities.

Answer 2

I'm in favor of it.

To the people who say the death penalty has been proven to NOT be a deterrent, what proof are you referring to? That's just a worn out cliche and is certainly not true.

Much crime is commited by repeat offenders. If nothing else, the death penalty will deter that. And frankly, too much of tax payers' money goes into housing these murderers in jail.

If you're worried about convicting innocent people, then this is not an issue punishment but the reliability of the judicial system. Would it make it much better to imprison an innocent man for life?

The only negative issue I have with the death penalty is that hanging is a little barbaric. Leathal injection is much better.

*EDIT*
Bad Santa, another possible theory (mine) is that there is not sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion either way on the death penalty as a deterrent. That is because it hasn't been carried out enough to gather any significant amount of data.

Answer 3

Expanded.
1) No repeat offenders. No possibility of escape. No prison guards must risk their lives keeping them in jail.
2) Justice. If you take a life, the only thing you can give of equal value is your own life.
3) Deterrence. It isn't a deterrent now, but that's because it is never used. In 2005 there were ~16,000 murders, but only 60 executions. If there were hundreds or thousands of executions, then it would be a deterrent.

Answer 4

the death penalty is NOT a deterrent. Proved. They also often get it wrong. Kill the wrong person. Just quit locking up non violent people and there will be plenty of room the the real offenders for life

Answer 5

Death penalty ( capital punishment) is a must.
Otherwise criminal behaviour,activity and criminal offences
will increase , and the crime rate would be higher Some who is involved in murders and planned murders etc., will have no fear of committing such offences as he or she would be aware that there would be no death sentence .

What do you mean by the word "expanded " .










.

Answer 6

I am for the Death penalty,because what gives the right to the criminal to take a law abiding citizens life for a few muzzily dollars for his habits or if they are in a rage?If we had the death penalty,they would think twice before they killed someone,and in this day and age,there is something said for DNA evidence and due process,it might not be 100% perfect,but it is damn close,as for the black guy being in the wrong place maybe he shouldn't be there in the first place?

Answer 7

There are basically two types of people that kill other people.
1. Crazy, sick, mentally demented, socially outcast people- and they should get medical treatment and be studied in order to spot and discourage the creation of more of their type. Killing them is no deterrent as they are mentally unstable in the first place.
2. Crimes of passion, done in a moment of misjudgement or frightful rage. These are usually not repeat offenders and the consequenses of their action did not matter to them at the moment the crime was committed.

That's why I am against the death penalty.
If someone killed my daughter, wife, mom, dad, etc.. of course I would want them to die, but that is exactly why our legal system is set up so that impartial people are given the task of assigning punishment.
Killing a person because they killed people is illogical and resolves nothing. It only makes the state and its supporters murderers as well.

Answer 8

an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, in otherwise if you kill someone you get killed also,unless it was in self defence,that's different, i think if they rape someone they should have a 10 foot pole shoved up there butt and there parts ripped off or out depending on gender,

Answer 9

If someone takes another's life, then they should pay the same penalty.

Answer 10

I believe that there are plenty of people who deserve to die for their crimes, but our inept justice system has PROVEN that it cannot properly determine who those people are.