The Death Penalty.I personally am against it.
2007-12-20 07:03:50 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Against.
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 without thinking about 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.
2007-12-20 09:19:50 · answer #1 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I am totally against it. I've watched programs that people on death row were about to be executed and were saved the last second by some new evidence. And others that were executed and found to be not guilty after wards. I know our jails are overcrowded, but I would just give them life without parole, not kill them. I am not god so I can judge no one.
2007-12-20 07:32:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
against
2007-12-20 07:07:36 · answer #3 · answered by Mag 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
against
2007-12-20 07:07:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am for it but only for severe cases.
Such as Charles Manson.....do we really believe a man like that is going to be able to blend back into society without harming anyone else again?
2007-12-20 07:08:36 · answer #5 · answered by Wicked Wanda 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Extreme cases I think it is okay. But mostly no. Some people that are still dangerous to others no matter what even in confinement shouldn't be around.
2007-12-20 07:17:14 · answer #6 · answered by Musiclad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For it, although with the current format in this country, (endless appeals, years and years and years on death row), it is not very effective. It DOES assure that at one piece of scum won't murder anyone else again.
2007-12-20 07:12:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am against but I would gladly do the job myself for anyone who sexually touches or murders children
2007-12-20 07:11:48 · answer #8 · answered by Tre 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Against.
If you believe in reincarnation, then you are just accelerating the time till the person comes back to commit more crimes.
If you believe in heaven and hell, you are sending the person to hell, and not giving him a chance to redeem himself.
If you believe "we only live once", I can't even conceive how you would think anything matters...YOU won't be there! (You think.)
2007-12-20 07:10:49 · answer #9 · answered by Wildcard 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i am against it.
2007-12-20 07:10:18 · answer #10 · answered by Smumph45 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋