should we rehabilitate or exterminate criminal scums?
rehabilitate these scums and bring them back to society so they can commit their crimes again or exterminate them via the death penalty?
- Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer
It depends on their crime.
Murderers, rapists and child molesters, extermiante them.
Others MAY be rehabilitated.
- Susan SLv 78 years ago
There are other options. 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 doesn’t reduce 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. As of now, 141 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. We’ll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.
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 big surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. The process is much 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):
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. The death penalty is no more effective in deterring others than life sentences.
Who gets it:
The death penalty magnifies social and economic inequalities. It 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.
Like no other punishment, it puts families of murder victims through a process which makes healing even harder. 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.
- Love.CanadaLv 78 years ago
or maybe get to the root cause of crime, and save money on both
- 8 years ago
Brilliant logic. I'm certainly glad to see that you have such a wonderful sense of confidence that you don't think that the courts EVER convict the wrong person.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- choko_canyonLv 78 years ago
1. It's "scum" not "scums".
2. If you rehabilitate them, then they're not criminals anymore. If they commit crimes again, then they weren't rehabilitated. You might want to look up that word you keep using.
3. Not all crimes are worth being killed for, jackass. Are you suggesting that jaywalkers get "exterminated"? Jaywalking is a crime, so jaywalkers must be scum and should be exterminated, right?