Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Entertainment & MusicPolls & Surveys · 1 decade ago

Are you for or against the death penalty?

england dosent have it anymore, but some places in america still do.

2bh im on the fence for this one.

whats your opinion?

50 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Against 100%. I live in Texas (THE death penalty state), and I supported capital punishment for a long time, but the more I learned about it, the more I came to oppose it. In the end, several factors changed my mind:

    1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 35 years in the U.S., 130 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person.

    Really, that should be reason enough for most people to oppose it. If you need more, read on:

    2. Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting & defending 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 jurisdictions. 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). It is probably due, at least in part, to the high cost (see #2), which drains resources from police departments, drug treatment programs, education, and other government services that help prevent crime. Personally, I think it also has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘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 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.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death. In his words, "I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time."

    5. Most governments are 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. The New Testament (starring Jesus) is primarily ANTI-death penalty. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that GOD is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

  • 4 years ago

    You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people. Here are some faq's with sources below. 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 and can’t guarantee we won’t execute 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, which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. 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.

  • 1 decade ago

    Against it for practical reasons. Looking at the death penalty system in action in the US, you realize that the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge, it is seriously (and intrinsically) flawed in application and that there is a serious and continuing risk of executing innocent people. And, it costs much more than life in prison. Sources below.

    130 people wrongfully convicted people were sentenced to death and were lucky to be exonerated and released, eventually. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. If someone is convicted and later found innocent you can release him from prison, but not from the grave.

    The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.

    Life without parole, on the books in 48 states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending 23 of 24 hours a day locked in a tiny cell is not a picnic. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.

    The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. (upfront = at the pre trial and trial levels)

    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?

    Families of murder victims are not unanimous about the death penalty. However, even families who have supported the death penalty in principal have testified 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. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.

    Sources:

    Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members.

    FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_04.html

    The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.org

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pd... page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive

    http://www.nyadp.org/main/70308Statements.html

    www.mvfhr.org and

    www.mvfr.org for statements of victims’ families

  • 1 decade ago

    NO

    and not for the obvious reasons.

    1) it's actually more expensive to kill someone than it is to let them rot in prison (legal fees being the largest part of that, second comes the doctors, the electricity/execution bill/ funeral etc.)

    2) why pay more to put them out of their misery, when you can lock them away and put them through at least some misery. The only misgiving is that "life" never ever means so, which really sucks!

    especially here in the UK, where "life" means anything but.

    Source(s): ha and let me quote the person who I sincerely hope never becomes a judge. "it is not the job of any human being to decide a person's fate (life and death). " - you let people who are guilty walk free and you will have blood on your own hands. Exemplarily of this reasoning is the existence of "serial killers" and re-offenders. However, you will probably answer with "i'd be happy to put them in jail" - and when is that ever better than sentencing a person to death? you're still controlling the freedom of that person. So i can only come to the conclusion you would let many more people die by letting a murderer walk free, because he would be punished by "god". well, I believe in God - but i don't believe in him as a human child minder. He's not interventionist either (otherwise the murder wouldn't have happened, perhaps? hmm) He's like a parent - there for support, but can never influence you enough to change your nature.
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Against.

  • 1 decade ago

    i am sort of on the fence too. i think there are surely some people who need dying, but on the other hand, there are people cleared more and more often on death row, when they did modern dna testing. so i cannot support anything that would kill even one innocent man or women. but i think clearly there are some monsters who should be exterminated.

  • 1 decade ago

    yeh im not really full 100% against it but there r better things that can be used as punishment, killing someone doesnt only end their life, it ends their guilt (if they had any), pain, misery, humiliation e.g Ted Bundy, do u think he gave a **** when they killed him? no he was happy coz its over for him, no pain!

    but then again

    keeping them alive runs the risk of them escaping and killing more ppl, it uses the states and tax payers money to give them the facilities, it endagers other ppl around them...

    im not sure, im just on the fence too

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Against. No one can do a crime so cruel to deserve a death penalty. I think these people should get help and not be sentenced death.

  • 1 decade ago

    i myself am against the death penalty. i believe that one you've taken somebodies life you are a kill. even if you killing someone who has kill another. an eye for an eye leaves the whole World blind. let god do the judging. i think life in jail is better.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    im against it. no matter what someone does we can never live by 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'.

    it is not the job of any human being to decide a person's fate (life and death).

    lets say a person is a murderer... and is put to death for being a murderer. doesnt that make all the people who decided to kill the murderer- murderers as well????

    we are not God... its not our job to punish someone with death.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.