No. I was pro-capital punishment for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:
1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the people who have been released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.
Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:
2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.
3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’
4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”
5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
No. Here are answers to questions about the practical aspects of the death penalty system, with sources listed below. BTW, you received answers that are wrong about costs and about deterrence. Your question is too important to answer without solid facts.
What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.
Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.
Doesn't the death penalty 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 states that do not.
So, what are the alternatives?
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.
But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process. When the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs mount up even before trial, continuing through the uniquely complicated trial (actually 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases, and appeals.
What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??
Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. 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.
So, why don't we speed 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.
No, I don't think justice administration is fair in any way, neither for boureaucrat-eaten countries, nor for 'an-eye-for-an-eye' cultures.
When it comes to justice, those who can afford 'justice', pay for it, whereas those who are enslaved by the system, remain enslaved for good.
Mark the Roman Empire's laws, which protected the 'Dominos' (masters, landlords, proprietors, or sirs), and on the other hand put blame onto slaves, no matter what. European laws inherited the Roman system, which considers a slave to be nothing but his master's private property.
I guess you can clearly see the point I want to make. What is to be expected from that kind of laws?
'An eye for an eye' is a messy bleeding, as well as an unfair legal system.
Roman enforcement is an orderly bleeding, which does not prevent it from being unfair, too.
I can't say it should never be used, so I'm a YES.
I think that some conduct is so outrageous that society has the right to say, in effect, "people who engage in this conduct have given up their rights to live amongst us." Timothy McVeigh comes to mind.
I think life is sacred and should be preserved, but there are exceptions when other interests outweight the interest in preserving life. Self-defense is the easiest example - killing someone to save an innocent life. War, abortion and the Death penalty also seem to be issues where we argue about when killing is justified.
I recognize that saying NO to the death penalty is more defensible, logically - people who advocate it have to explain what cases deserve death and which do not. It's hard to draw lines and be fair.
But for better or worse we draw lines all the time to decide who lives or dies.
confident, certainly for homicide. perhaps for rape, yet no longer statutory rape the place the youngster concurs, and perhaps baby molestation? the main important element isn't whether or no longer somebody merits the dying sentence for killing somebody. the main considered necessary element is the accuracy/high quality of the sentencing? every person remember why capital punishment grow to be abolished, it wasn't because of the fact it grow to be barbaric! this could properly be a complicated subject.
Yes because Criminals are costing society a lot of money and they do not rehabilitate no matter how much effort Corrections put into it. And also I would like to see the process speed up because it is ridiculously slow especially in California.
We have a social compact, the law. To break the law in a heinous way such as murder you should forfeit your right to life. Its not barbaric, its justice. Society has done it for thousands of years and now all of a sudden some folks think its wrong so we question if its right or wrong? No its the right thing.
Besides how does it make you feel to know a murder is having 3 hot meals and a nice roof over his head, as well as cable TV, education and other things while some folks in this country are starving on the streets? No its bull.
And no it is not cheaper to keep them in prison for life. Its very simple math in that equation. I cant remember the exact numbers now but it is a lot more to keep an inmate in jail than to execute them.
I'll go on step further, I feel crimes like child molestation and rape should be considered death penalty level crimes.
this a really difficult issue, i keep going back and forth
but right now i think that lethal injection( with doctors administering it, which is a whole other issue in itself) should be the only execution method used, the gas chamber and electric chair are just horrifying to me.
Comments
No. I was pro-capital punishment for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:
1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the people who have been released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.
Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:
2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.
3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’
4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”
5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
No. Here are answers to questions about the practical aspects of the death penalty system, with sources listed below. BTW, you received answers that are wrong about costs and about deterrence. Your question is too important to answer without solid facts.
What about the risk of executing innocent people?
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence.
Doesn't DNA keep new cases like these from happening?
DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides. It is not a guarantee against the execution of innocent people.
Doesn't the death penalty 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 states that do not.
So, what are the alternatives?
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.
But isn't the death penalty cheaper than keeping criminals in prison?
The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process. When the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs mount up even before trial, continuing through the uniquely complicated trial (actually 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases, and appeals.
What about the very worst crimes?
The death penalty isn’t reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but rather for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was sentenced to death, let alone executed??
Doesn't the death penalty help families of murder victims?
Not necessarily. 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.
So, why don't we speed 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.
Yes, it happens.
No, I don't think justice administration is fair in any way, neither for boureaucrat-eaten countries, nor for 'an-eye-for-an-eye' cultures.
When it comes to justice, those who can afford 'justice', pay for it, whereas those who are enslaved by the system, remain enslaved for good.
Mark the Roman Empire's laws, which protected the 'Dominos' (masters, landlords, proprietors, or sirs), and on the other hand put blame onto slaves, no matter what. European laws inherited the Roman system, which considers a slave to be nothing but his master's private property.
I guess you can clearly see the point I want to make. What is to be expected from that kind of laws?
'An eye for an eye' is a messy bleeding, as well as an unfair legal system.
Roman enforcement is an orderly bleeding, which does not prevent it from being unfair, too.
I can't say it should never be used, so I'm a YES.
I think that some conduct is so outrageous that society has the right to say, in effect, "people who engage in this conduct have given up their rights to live amongst us." Timothy McVeigh comes to mind.
I think life is sacred and should be preserved, but there are exceptions when other interests outweight the interest in preserving life. Self-defense is the easiest example - killing someone to save an innocent life. War, abortion and the Death penalty also seem to be issues where we argue about when killing is justified.
I recognize that saying NO to the death penalty is more defensible, logically - people who advocate it have to explain what cases deserve death and which do not. It's hard to draw lines and be fair.
But for better or worse we draw lines all the time to decide who lives or dies.
God help us.
confident, certainly for homicide. perhaps for rape, yet no longer statutory rape the place the youngster concurs, and perhaps baby molestation? the main important element isn't whether or no longer somebody merits the dying sentence for killing somebody. the main considered necessary element is the accuracy/high quality of the sentencing? every person remember why capital punishment grow to be abolished, it wasn't because of the fact it grow to be barbaric! this could properly be a complicated subject.
Yes because Criminals are costing society a lot of money and they do not rehabilitate no matter how much effort Corrections put into it. And also I would like to see the process speed up because it is ridiculously slow especially in California.
No why someone should have the right to decide who should live and who should die?
Also, remember there are many people who are charged with crimes who are innocent.
It is really scary to see all these yes answers to kill. No wonder the world it's the way it is.
Yes,
We have a social compact, the law. To break the law in a heinous way such as murder you should forfeit your right to life. Its not barbaric, its justice. Society has done it for thousands of years and now all of a sudden some folks think its wrong so we question if its right or wrong? No its the right thing.
Besides how does it make you feel to know a murder is having 3 hot meals and a nice roof over his head, as well as cable TV, education and other things while some folks in this country are starving on the streets? No its bull.
And no it is not cheaper to keep them in prison for life. Its very simple math in that equation. I cant remember the exact numbers now but it is a lot more to keep an inmate in jail than to execute them.
I'll go on step further, I feel crimes like child molestation and rape should be considered death penalty level crimes.
Yes, because some violations of law and especially those against children and humanity should remove you from the gene pool.
And while they are waiting for that, all prisons should be run like the Maricopa facility in Arizona. Read about Sheriff Joe below.
this a really difficult issue, i keep going back and forth
but right now i think that lethal injection( with doctors administering it, which is a whole other issue in itself) should be the only execution method used, the gas chamber and electric chair are just horrifying to me.