Should the United States continue to use capital punishment?
Answers:
I was pro-death penalty 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 criminals who are being 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."
Yes but the appeal process needs to take no longer than 5 years.
Absolutely, but they need to get rid of all those on Death Row first, we are still support their "upkeep" and it needs to start, if there is enough reason for them to be on Death Row - the follow through and say bye, bye.
We are too tolerant!
No.
1. It cost more taxpayers dollars to execute the said individual than it does to keep them in for life.
2. With the recent discovery of the new DNA results many people previously found guilty are now being found innocent.
heck yes, more states need to follow us in Texas
Absolutely.
http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topne...
No. Punishment never solves social problems. Addicts shouldn't be in prisons either. We should put our resources in medical solutions for social ills.
yes it and should be done more often. Murders shouldn't do 10 or so years in jail get out on parole and kill someone else again
I believe anyone who commits violent crimes, crimes against women and children or repeat offenders should automatically get the death penalty.
In some cases, yes. I've always felt that the States of Wisconsin and Kansas let their citizens down not having the death penalty for people like jeffery dahmer and dennis rader.
Not so much for the punishment aspect, but shouldn't people like this simply be wiped right off the face of the Earth. (Perhaps we never have the right to decide when someone leaves? I don't buy it. In cases like this, we have the right.)
On the other hand, the cases of prosecutorial misconduct frighten me. I would never have believed it was so widespread. Clearly we need to be carefull.
The compromise I would offer would be allow, even mandate, capital punishment for those cases where there can not possibly be any doubt. (such as dismemebered bodies in the freezer) And a higher standard for conviction in the more run-of-the-mill cases.
One other point: are people like dahmer insane? Sure looks like it. But that shouldn't matter. Get rid of him. Not in anger, not as punishment, don't torture him, etc. Just get rid of him.
No it should not unless there is a major change in the entire process.
If capital punishment is to actually be a deterent then there is only one way to do it. The very second a verdict of guilty is read in te court for a capital crime, the baliff puts a bullet into the brain of the convicted person.
This also means that there would have to be repercussions for all persons involved should the convicted person later be found innocent of the crime. I am all for punishing judges, DA's, and police officers for worngful convictions. They should get the same punishment the wrongfully convicted person was sentenced to.
No, too many innocent people get killed this way.
Yes.
But the appeals process needs some work--it takes too long at present to exhaust all appeals.
There's got to be a cheaper way to do the executions as well--it's ridiculous that it costs more to execute a person than it does to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their natural life.
BTW--I don't believe capital punishment is a deterrent except in that the person executed isn't going to do whatever it is he did again. But it doesn't really work as a deterrent for other criminals. There's something to be said for punishment, justice and closure though, and capital punishment provides those things...
No . It's cruel and unusual punishment ; not to mention barbaric ; and it has never proved to be a deterrent for others . For the heinous criminals , lock them up at hard labor for life - and throw away the key .
It needs to be curtailed dramatically. This penalty is overused. Capital punishment should be used for the most heinous of crimes (i.e., serial killers, child murderers, mass murderers), etc...
But only for crimes of that scale or evilness.
No. The trial process is fallible and there are many inmantes who were on Death Row who have been released once DNA evidence or a more thorough investigation showed that they were innocent of their crimes. As well, the legal expenses involved in a death penatly trial are much heavier than in a non-death penalty trial.
Yes. capitol punishment should be allowed. But like most ethical, moral, legal, issues that often have overlapping boundaries of different challenges, either personal or professional, changes and alterations to the 'system' probably need to be addressed, recognized and corrected or adjusted so that the minimal amount of flaw exists within the process while still maintaining the integrity of what is trying to be accomplished. Like many practices of this nature, it will realistically never be perfect, because of the shear overwhelming magnatude of the act itself.
We should continue and continue on a much larger scale than we do now. Someone said earlier that it costs more to execute them than to keep them for life. thats a load of BS. And we can further reduce the cost by mass executions. Or use bullets, a 22 shell is less than 50 cents. I dont really give a rats *** how we do it, just get rid of them.
Why don't we ever take into account the moral and civil rights of the victims who were shot, stabbed, raped, burned or otherwise had their life destroyed?? Eye for an eye assholes.
Capital punishment is one of the few deterents we have left in this Country. The ACLU has nixed most of the others. I feel we should first get rid of the ACLU then go back to the chain gangs and force the inmates to work. A tired inmate is a complacent inmate. We should not treat them better than this Country treats its Army. Inmates should live in tents in large caged areas and not enjoy the luxuries of TV, no AC, exercise equipment, cooked meals, and endless appeals. They should either have to grow their food or eat MRE meals. Prisons are for punishment not relaxation till they can commit a crime again.
We shouldn't. Here are answers to questions about the practical aspects of the death penalty system, with sources listed below.
BTW- at least one previous answer is wrong about costs (the death penalty costs much more than life), about deterrence (the death penalty is not a deterrent) and about speeding up the process (and the risk of executing innocent people.)
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. (and spending 23 hours a day in a tiny cell, forever, is not picnic, contrary to the answer just before mine.)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, largely because of the legal process. Extra costs include those due to the complicated nature of both the pre trial investigation and of the trials (involving 2 separate stages, mandated by the Supreme Court) in death penalty cases and subsequent appeals. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.
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.
But don’t Americans prefer the death penalty as the most serious punishment?
Not any more. People are rethinking their views, given the facts and the records on innocent people sentenced to death. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: