Is the Death Penalty Just or Unjust?

prisoners should or shouldn't get death penalty?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm not a big fan of it myself. I honestly don't know how people have such an easy time justifying it, especially so-called Christians. "Thou shalt not kill," is pretty cut-and-dry. There's no qualifications on it, just don't kill. Anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

    Besides, it usually ends up costing states as much or more to execute a man as it does to lock him up. The resources that go into maintaing death row facilities are very expensive, and they only execute a couple people a year. In order to make the death penalty economically viable, you would have start executing more people and doing it more swiftly. But then you'd inevitably start killing innocent people, as well. So the bottom line, to me, is that the whole deal should just be scrapped.

  • 1 decade ago

    The answerer who wrote about DNA and the person who mentioned and eye for an eye do not seem to have the facts about the death penalty- here are a few, verifiable and sourced-

    Re: DNA

    DNA is available in no more than 10% of murder cases. It is not a miracle cure for sentencing innocent people to death. It’s human nature to make mistakes.

    Re: Alternatives

    48 states have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, is swift and sure and is rarely appealed. Being locked in a tiny cell for 23 hours a day, forever, is certainly no picnic. Life without parole incapacitates a killer (keeps him from re-offending) and costs considerably less than the death penalty.

    Re: Possibility of executing an innocent person

    Over 120 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. Many had already served over 2 decades on death row. If we speed up the process we are bound to execute an innocent person. Once someone is executed the case is closed. If we execute an innocent person we are not likely to find that out and, also, the real criminal is still out there.

    Re: Appeals

    Our appeals system is designed to make sure that the trial was in accord with constitutional standards, not to second guess whether the defendant was actually innocent. It is very difficult to get evidence of innocence introduced before an appeals court.

    Re: Deterrence

    The death penalty isn’t a deterrent. Murder rates are actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it. Moreover, people who kill or commit other serious crimes do not think they will be caught (if they think at all.)

    Re: cost

    The death penalty costs far more than life in prison. The huge extra costs start to mount up even before the trial. There are more cost effective ways to prevent and control crime.

    Re: Who gets the death penalty

    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??

    Re: Victims families

    The death penalty is very hard on victims’ families. They must relive their ordeal in the courts and the media. Life without parole is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Some victims families who support the death penalty in principal prefer life without parole because of how the death penalty affects families like theirs.

    Opposing the death penalty doesn’t mean you condone brutal crimes or excuse people who commit them. According to a Gallup Poll, in 2006, 47% of all Americans prefer capital punishment while 48% prefer life without parole. Americans are learning the facts and making up their minds using common sense, not revenge or an eye for an eye mentality.

    Source(s): Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, for stats on executions and states where they occurred, reports and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/standard_li... the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2005. (Right now, only preliminary stats are available for 2006) Stats found here can be compared to stats on the number of executions in different states.
  • 1 decade ago

    It is just, whether you like it or not.

    The problem is absolute proof needs to be established before a person is put to death.

    It is a relief that there is a body of law students out there re-examining cases of people on death row and achieving a good success rate of getting condemned victims exonerated.

    I suppose it is a credit to what many see as a flawed legal system of appeals.

    Many of those people want to see the death more or less immediately, so thank god the system work.

  • 1 decade ago

    It is Just for some, unjust for other. I believe it depends on how and why the crime was committed.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    should

    however, i believe in smoking gun evidence only for death penalty cases, i.e. confession, dna, video, ect...

  • 1 decade ago

    as long as they show no regret or improvement! 5 years for monitoring is just!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    With DNA testing.... I'm for.

  • 1 decade ago

    eye for an eye....

  • 1 decade ago

    to show people that killing is wrong, we are going to kill you?.......retarded

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.