Since the advent of DNA identification over 10% (10 out of 100) death row inmates were found to be innocent, wrongfully convicted and, considering the fact the prosecutors are in a constant contest to win a public popularity contest to keep their office, the question of justice, proof, and personal integrity become moot. What other legal technicalities have been subverted to insure convictions that have as yet to be uncovered?
The dregs of criminal society, Manson, Dahmer, Ramirez, Gacy, Bundy… all unquestionably deserve death, but the not so offhand chance a defendant may be railroaded for political gain is the proven reality. Keep the bastards behind bars indefinitely, and be humane (while grinding teeth).
On that same note, how many non-capital inmates are now incarcerated but innocent? The real figures (U.S. Innocence Project statistics) is 30% +
There is no evidence that the death penalty actually lessons the amount of murders and executing a murderer does not bring the victim back to life. Also there are still cases in which someone is falsely sentenced for a crime they did not commit and if we execute someone there is a slight chance that we could execute an innocent person. I don't think the question of whether the death penalty is just is as important as whether it actually prevents crime.
Also I think prison is actually a more severe sentence in some ways than the death penalty. If you are put to death you have it over with and don't understand that you died. You cannot suffer when you are dead but you can if you are serving life in prison. I mean the mental suffering is probably enough to deter a lot of people from committing crimes so I think prison is harsher than the death penalty.
Look, if a jury finds someone guilty of First Degree Murder, or premeditated murder, yes, death penalty can and should be imposed. Consider this, and I love the fact some argue this point, if a known criminal plans and kills someone you love, how would you feel?? I work in Health care and the amount of damage the human body can take is amazing. We had a man brought in two years ago with multiple gunshot wounds. He was shot by police officers after he murdered a mom, her 2 year old daughter, 13 year old sister (whom was rapped after being murdered) and waited until the dad got home and gunned him down. Now, you tell me, does this animal deserve to live his life in a prison, three hots and a cot or does he deserve to die??
This is awful to say but it would depend on how they killed someone. If they killed them instantly then no. But if they tortured their victim before killing them, then yes. Or if it were a brutal murder like the Manson murders. They deserved the death penalty for what they did to Sharon Tate. They stabbed an 8 month pregnant woman over 70 times and wrote on the walls in her blood. She begged for the life of her baby. They said if they had time they were going to "remove the baby and leave it for the pigs." They should have fried these animals.
For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it isn’t effective in reducing crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.
The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, the state of Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, 139 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in Willingham’s case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict.
Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty
Costs, a surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. Since the stakes are so high, the process is far more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.
Crime reduction (deterrence):
The death penalty doesn't keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent.
Who gets it:
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. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed??
Victims:
People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported it in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
It comes down to whether we should keep the death penalty for retribution or revenge in spite of its flaws and in spite of the huge toll it exacts on society.
I used to be a staunch supporter of the death penalty, especially in the case of heinous crimes.
However, with the recent incidence of cases being overturned due to improvements in DNA technology, I'm not so sure anymore. At least in the case of old trials where the testing was not available at the time, or inadequate to today's level.
If there is just incontrovertible evidence (captured on video, no doubt of what happened and who did it), I don't have a problem with it. But if there is an opportunity for evidence to be inadvertently mishandled or deliberate prosecutorial misconduct, I think we might have to err to the side of caution and foot the bill for Life Without Possibility Of Parole as an alternative.
Well two wrongs don't exactly make a right. What would killing a murderer achieve? Wouldn't we be just as bad as the murderer? I think most of them need therapy (while serving a punishment). Then there's a possibity you've saved a life.
They might deserve it but it's too dangerous to give the government the power to kill its citizens under any circumstances. I personally think that nobody has the right to end the life of another person, even in self defense the killing must be incidental to be excusable.
Comments
Since the advent of DNA identification over 10% (10 out of 100) death row inmates were found to be innocent, wrongfully convicted and, considering the fact the prosecutors are in a constant contest to win a public popularity contest to keep their office, the question of justice, proof, and personal integrity become moot. What other legal technicalities have been subverted to insure convictions that have as yet to be uncovered?
The dregs of criminal society, Manson, Dahmer, Ramirez, Gacy, Bundy… all unquestionably deserve death, but the not so offhand chance a defendant may be railroaded for political gain is the proven reality. Keep the bastards behind bars indefinitely, and be humane (while grinding teeth).
On that same note, how many non-capital inmates are now incarcerated but innocent? The real figures (U.S. Innocence Project statistics) is 30% +
There is no evidence that the death penalty actually lessons the amount of murders and executing a murderer does not bring the victim back to life. Also there are still cases in which someone is falsely sentenced for a crime they did not commit and if we execute someone there is a slight chance that we could execute an innocent person. I don't think the question of whether the death penalty is just is as important as whether it actually prevents crime.
Also I think prison is actually a more severe sentence in some ways than the death penalty. If you are put to death you have it over with and don't understand that you died. You cannot suffer when you are dead but you can if you are serving life in prison. I mean the mental suffering is probably enough to deter a lot of people from committing crimes so I think prison is harsher than the death penalty.
Look, if a jury finds someone guilty of First Degree Murder, or premeditated murder, yes, death penalty can and should be imposed. Consider this, and I love the fact some argue this point, if a known criminal plans and kills someone you love, how would you feel?? I work in Health care and the amount of damage the human body can take is amazing. We had a man brought in two years ago with multiple gunshot wounds. He was shot by police officers after he murdered a mom, her 2 year old daughter, 13 year old sister (whom was rapped after being murdered) and waited until the dad got home and gunned him down. Now, you tell me, does this animal deserve to live his life in a prison, three hots and a cot or does he deserve to die??
Semper Fi
This is awful to say but it would depend on how they killed someone. If they killed them instantly then no. But if they tortured their victim before killing them, then yes. Or if it were a brutal murder like the Manson murders. They deserved the death penalty for what they did to Sharon Tate. They stabbed an 8 month pregnant woman over 70 times and wrote on the walls in her blood. She begged for the life of her baby. They said if they had time they were going to "remove the baby and leave it for the pigs." They should have fried these animals.
For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it isn’t effective in reducing crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.
The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, the state of Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, 139 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in Willingham’s case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict.
Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty
Costs, a surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. Since the stakes are so high, the process is far more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.
Crime reduction (deterrence):
The death penalty doesn't keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent.
Who gets it:
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. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed??
Victims:
People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported it in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
It comes down to whether we should keep the death penalty for retribution or revenge in spite of its flaws and in spite of the huge toll it exacts on society.
I used to be a staunch supporter of the death penalty, especially in the case of heinous crimes.
However, with the recent incidence of cases being overturned due to improvements in DNA technology, I'm not so sure anymore. At least in the case of old trials where the testing was not available at the time, or inadequate to today's level.
If there is just incontrovertible evidence (captured on video, no doubt of what happened and who did it), I don't have a problem with it. But if there is an opportunity for evidence to be inadvertently mishandled or deliberate prosecutorial misconduct, I think we might have to err to the side of caution and foot the bill for Life Without Possibility Of Parole as an alternative.
I say yes for a few reasons:
1.It gets them wiped off the face of the earth, no risk of it reoccurring.
2.It causes fear and is hopefully enough of a deterrent to stop some.
3.It is closure for the victims family.
4.The appeals process is so long and drawn out the chance of an innocent man being killed are miniscule.
5.If they were to just shoot or hang them and not give them special treatment it would cost less than a lifer.
All this applies to intentional murder.
Well two wrongs don't exactly make a right. What would killing a murderer achieve? Wouldn't we be just as bad as the murderer? I think most of them need therapy (while serving a punishment). Then there's a possibity you've saved a life.
They might deserve it but it's too dangerous to give the government the power to kill its citizens under any circumstances. I personally think that nobody has the right to end the life of another person, even in self defense the killing must be incidental to be excusable.
Depends on how many or who they murdered
1 important person no but rest of life in jail
Multiply improtant person yes
At least 7 civilians yes
Another murder no half of life in jail