What's your opinion on the death penalty?

Question

I'm doing an essay on how the death penalty shouldn't be legal. So, what arguements should I put in? And, if you for it, tell me why? Do you have a bias? What the point of having it around if murder rates are still high?

Answer 1

immoral. you cant take away another person's life. un-christianlike

Answer 2

There are 2 motives for opposing the death penalty which maximum folk of the united kingdom inhabitants agree on, which strengthen into why the death penalty strengthen into abolished in 1998. they are: a million. Inhumanity. it relatively is imposssible for a state to homicide somebody and shelter the ethical 'severe floor' 2. Miscarriage of justice: if some thing is going incorrect, and it does circulate incorrect in capital cases, the guy who's comprehensive cant come back.

Answer 3

There is a terrific resource specifically for students writing papers or debaters at
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1917
In the meantime, with sources below---

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.

126 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

if i was the law there would be know killing

i'd torture the guy till he's barely alive when i get hard proof that he did something

after that ill make him do back aching work until his time is over and still torture him a little more

if i dont got any proof ill use

water torture
tickle torture
mental torture

and if they strangely like the torture then i will just kill them for being that sick

if there guilty

the lighter yet still painful torture

Answer 5

I say that it is wrong...very un-Christian like and that sometimes...the people that get the death penalty aren't even guilty! so it is wrong...very hypocritical because lets say the person being put in death penalty is a murderer...then you murderer him...it's very hypocritical at that point

Answer 6

You should put in two arguements. One: The death penalty should be allowed. Two: The death penalty should not be allowed. I'm for it because I think that killers should not be allowed to live. Lol, i don't know what a bias is. The point of having it around is that at least theres least killers on the streets!

Answer 7

It should be used for extremely violent criminals, such as mass murderers.

Answer 8

Some people should be killed, but the government can't do it because the justice system is imperfect. Innocent people get murdered. For that reason, the death penalty should be illegal. It's also inhumane the way they do it. Lethal injection is just easier to watch. It has to be terrifying for the person being killed. If you're going to execute someone it should be quick, like a bullet through the back of the head. Yes, I have bias. Everyone does.

Answer 9

Murderers are rarely recidivists even when there isn't a death penalty.

However, the death penalty can't be "reversed" if the person is found not guilty. This is why Britain has no death penalty any more - the film "Let Him Have It" is about the case that basically ended it.

Liechtenstein was the first country in the world to abolish it, in the 1700s. Abolition is also a mandatory condition of joining the European Union.

Answer 10

i dont know how people can say its un-christianlike. ever heard "an eye for an eye?" yea. thats in the bible. I say roast em. shouldnt have done whatever despicable thing it was they did in the first place.

Answer 11

I think that it is okay if the person killed more than one person. I dont really know what to think.... it is one of the ongoing debates in the USA!!!