Should the United States still carry the death penalty?

Question

Is there a need to sentance a criminal to death for a crime they may or may not have committed? I don't see how sentancing someone to death for a crime they may or may not have committed can make things better for the victims. I can't see how it could be used as a deterrent for criminals.

On the positive side of things, I suppose it could be argued that it frees up prison cells.

With pressure groups in the western world becoming forever bigger and stronger, it must be nearly over for the death penalty in what remaining states still use it.

Answer 1

The death penalty is part of our culture, and the average citizen don't really care what europeans think about us.

The death penalty should be used...only when a person is convicted of a capital crime...not if they "may or may not have committed the crime".

It is a deterrent, but it would be a better one if it was used more swiftly. Could you imagine if all punishments for crime took 15-20 years to levy on criminals?

Lastly, there is no recidivism rate for those who experience capital punishment.

Answer 2

The Death Penalty is, invariably, not a good thing.

Sure, as some smart git said, the rate of recidivism amongst those receiving the death penalty in nil, but it's not even remotely a deterrent as others have said.
If it was a deterrent those places in America which still practice it would have a lower rate of crime than other places which don't. And do they? No, they don't.

No justice system is so infallible that it can safely say all the people it executes were guilty. Not in the US, not in Britain, not anywhere. Police are occasionally corrupt and fabricate evidence (numerous high profile cases in the UK, notably concerning IRA terrorism) or even simple errors mean the wrong man gets convicted. I'm sure all you people who think the death penalty is great wouldn't mind being injected/ electrocuted or however it's done over there for someone else's crime.

And, specifically for Gordon Gecko... Yes, we poor Euro types fully understand that Americans largely don't care what we think. I've noticed that only very rarely does your government pay a blind bit of notice either.
All we'd ask, therefore, is that your government stops playing God with the rest of the world, because no one else cares what you think. Just being a US citizen does not automatically make you right.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

I know that there are lots of people that are not for the death penalty for many reasons.

I am for the death penalty for one reason and one reason only. If someone murder or kill someone in my family, especially one of my children, on purpose or in the act of another crime, I want that person killed.

All my children are grown, but no one has the right to deprive me of their prescense for as long as they are naturally here on this earth.

You are right it will not bring back my family. It would however get that criminal off the streets and keep me from becoming a criminal.

Now I take that one step forward, because some people that are against the death penalty are hypocrites. They are against the death penalty until one of their family members is killed or murdered by a criminal.

I refuse to be a hyprocrite, so if I want this S.O. B. killed for killing or murdering someone in my family, I think it is only right that a person should be killed for murdering someone in another person's family.

Now how would you feel if your mother, father, sister or brother was murdered by a criminal in the act of a roberry where you mother or father refused to give up the mortgage money for their house and were murdered.

We do not live in a perfect world and from what I see it is getting worse each and every day.

I just say a news article where a church had to hire an armed guard to protect it members from being harmed while attending church. Now that is just a small portion of what is
happening in today's world.

I hope this has been of some use to you, good luck.

"FIGHT ON"

Answer 5

You have asked more than one question.

The answer to the first question "Should the United States still carry the death penalty?" is:

Yes, some deserve the death penalty.

The answer to your second question "Is there a need to sentance a criminal to death for a crime they may or may not have committed?" is:

No, the death penalty should not be assigned to anyone who "may or may not have committed" a crime. In fact, someone who "may or may not have committed" a crime is supposed to be found not guilty.

The death penalty does not have to be a deterrent for criminals to commit a crime. It only needs to carry out justice and make sure that the same guilty criminal does not commit the crime again.

If someone murdered one of my children I would be willing to kill them myself without hesitation. As a matter of fact, if they only harmed them severely I would also.

Maybe it should be up to the closest family members of the victim to decide if they get death or not. For example, if someone rapes, tortures, and murders your six year old child you can let them off light if you want so long as they are never free to do it to someone else.

Seems fair to me.

Answer 6

When you sentence someone to life in prison, they can still kill other inmates, corrections staff, even visitors. Without the death penalty they usually say, "I got life, there is nothing else you can do to me."

So by keeping the death penalty, we are ensuring that there is still a punishment available, so long as you are alive, to prevent you from committing some very serious crimes.

Answer 7

Absolutely.Especially in cases where there is no doubt they are guilty, such as several eye witnesses or video tape of the crime. They chose to take a chance on forfeiting their life when they decided to commit the crime. The burden of supporting these people should not be placed on the backs of the taxpayer.

Answer 8

under the form, the states reserve rights to themselves that the federal government does not have. So- the respond on your query is quite 50 solutions. (fifty one in case you % to contain Puerto Rico.) The loss of existence penelty is a state-by ability of-state difficulty. unsure whilst all 50 would have an identical regulation concerning this component of criminal regulation. comments appropriate to the dimensions of time (and the concomitant expenditures) it takes to execute somebody are apropos, yet are comments, no longer information. must be so, through fact the somewhat value of incarceration as against execution would desire to be subjectively interpreted. ... Take care!!

Answer 9

Absolutley not...there have been too many miscarriages of justice. People argue that DNA evidence is proof positive of guilt. My son is a forensic biologist and says it is not 100% proof and there can still be errors.
I don't feel we can have irreversible punishment whilst there are flaws in the judicial system.
Think of the Guildford 4, or the 'Birmingham bombers' (in UK) who would have been hung if we still had the death penalty...they were later proved to be innocent and had been framed by the police.

Answer 10

The Death Penalty goes all the way back in time, Even Biblical Times and it was law....Should we give criminals big screen TV and air conditioned suites for raping, killing, chopping off limbs and heads of people all ages, even babies and little children.....Let's get real ....If there is no punishment severe enough , then crime becomes inticing and encouraged.
Keep the death penalty