Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 8 years ago

Do you agree with the death penalty? Why or why not?

I agree with it, because I don't want my tax money going to support these evil people. It's sad that some of these death row inmates have it better than some Americans(shelter, food, etc..). Plus some people are just flat out evil, so them being isolated won't do any good. You can't take the evil out of somebody.


Odysseus, if all the evidence points directly at you, then you deserve to die. Simple as that. Now if the court were hesitant about somebody that was accused of murder, then I agree that, that person shouldn't be executed.

18 Answers

  • 8 years ago


    I see two major arguments made for the death penalty: Revenge and deterrence. I’ll address each one separately and then add some additional points below.


    The criminal justice system is supposed to be about justice, not revenge. If we execute a criminal out of revenge, we are no better than the criminal. As part of this, people often say that it will give the families of the victim relief or closure. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe this is the case. Conversely, I have seen in many instances where the families expressed remorse and sadness due to the execution.


    The fact is, the death penalty does not work as deterrence to crime. The Death Penalty Information Center fact sheet located at states in part:

    · “According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 84% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Akers, 1996)”

    · “Consistent with previous years, the 2004 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate. The South accounts for over 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, again had the lowest murder rate.”

    Other Issues:

    Permanence – The death penalty once applied is permanent. This would not be a big deal I suppose if we could guarantee that an innocent person never would be executed. However this is just not the case. If you spend any time on the web site you will see 205 people that were cleared because of DNA evidence. These people spent sometimes 20 years in jail, many on death row for a crime that it was later proved they did not commit. I have always believed “better that a guilt man goes free than to imprison or execute an innocent man”. Some people fervently disagree with that statement. I expect the story would change if they were the innocent one.

    Costs – Many people believe that executing criminals is less expensive than keeping them in prison for life. Again this is simply not the case. There are two factors that drive up the cost of death penalty cases, the mandatory and automatic appeal process that is built in to ensure the death penalty is fair and appropriate in the case and the additional cost of maintaining a “death row”. The Death Penalty Information Center fact sheet states in part:

    · “The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life.”

    · “In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992).”

    Racism – There is an imbalance in how and when the death penalty is sought. Additionally, it appears to me that the death penalty is used in a disproportionate number of cases involving minorities particularly blacks. The Death Penalty Information Center fact sheet contains a great analysis of race and the death penalty.

    In conclusion, I feel it is time to end the death penalty as I believe it does not serve the interest of justice.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    Okay, I know the christians are going to take away points but here goes.... I agree there is a place for it.. I think each case has to be individual, I dont believe in case law because it sets the bar for future criminals when in fact every crime should be tried alone and decided alone as not all are the same, or even remotely.... if someone is a predatory killer, its best they not be alive, they will kill again as soon as they are released... or predatory child molesters or killers... for sure... get rid of them, you cant help them, they arent right in the head... domestic crimes..... well.... depends.. usually someone who kills someone they know isnt going to go on a rampage.. usually but again... try the case in its indivuality and make a decision based on it and it alone... if the law was set up this way it would be better... case law should not be part of the equation in any seeking of the death penalty. And for all those people who cry "what about executing the innocent" well yes, it will happen but the numbers will be miniscule compared to the saving of future innocent victims... so accidently kill two people as opposed to about 100 who are victims of violent senseless crimes... i could live with that.

  • 8 years ago

    Either you punish the guilty justly, to include death when the crime warrants such a punishment, or you condemn the innocent to suffer it.

    So either put criminals to death, or they'll put the innocent to death. It's really a choice of which one you want to have the death penalty.

    The guilty do not kill quite so readily when they know that doing so has good chance of causing their own death.

    Liberals will argue against this, but everything regarding a criminal's chance of dieing proves them wrong from Autocracies that hand out the death penalty like candy to states that are more likely to actually hand out the death penalty to even armed people who are expected to be armed that are never attacked by armed assailants. No, instead armed assailants attack those whom they expect to be unarmed easy targets.

    Criminals, just like you and me fear their own death, and that potential has an effect on whether they decide to harm someone, or how far they'll take it.

  • 8 years ago

    I don't have a moral problem with it. My only hesitation is cases where sometimes decades later, people are found innocent of the crime they were accused of, and are released from prison. You can release someone from prison, but you can't make someone alive again once you've killed him. I think for that reason in death penalty cases there needs to be very very strong evidence of guilt, such as DNA evidence.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Actually, the death penalty costs far more than life sentences. 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.

    Examples- trial costs (death penalty and non death penalty cases, California):

    People v. Scott Peterson, Death Penalty Trial

    $3.2 Million Total

    People v. Rex Allen Krebs Death Penalty Trial

    $2.8 Million Total

    People v. Cary Stayner, Death Penalty Trial

    $2.368 Million Total

    People v. Robert Wigley, Non-Death Penalty Trial

    $454,000 Total

    This data is for cases where the best records have been kept.

    Some factors:

    • more pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial

    • more pre-trial motions filed and answered

    • more experts will be hired

    • twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution

    • jurors must be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered

    • two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment

    • the trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials

    The numbers vary from state to state, but they all point in the same direction. From a fairly typical state study of the costs of the death penalty:

    “The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).” (Kansas: Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections)

    Source(s): Links to cost studies:
  • 8 years ago

    no, death penalty is just medieval and bad.

    If the government makes a mistake, and an innocent person's been executed, what then ??

    Only in extreme cases,if they are a danger to the whole world, like the Nazi head staff and Hitler, they should be put to death.

    But besides those people, nobody deserves death, not even if they killed someone too. It's not "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" anymore, i hope.

    And for the taxes, you probabely don't pay that much anyway. If you don't live in Europe, you don't pay for old people, handicaped people, free healthcare etc. The government lockes those criminals up to protect the people, so it's only normal we pay for it too.

    Who are we to decide if someone must be put to death or not ? Who are we to decide over someone's life ?

  • 8 years ago

    I only believe in death penalty when there is absolute proof of guilt where (clear witnesses, in ipublic that kind of thing , even if they admit to killing) but not where they may be doubt...the justice system leads you to believe it is always fair...that is a total falsehood

  • 8 years ago

    to some extent I believe its necessary

    like for example: would you want a leader of a genocide to be in charge of a certain city?

    but I only believe that the death penalty should only be applicable for criminals guilty of murder crimes that were considerably illegal murders (I believe the only legally justified killings e.g. self defense or home protection are the only kinds of killings legally allowed.)

  • 8 years ago

    some people kill other people, and that's all it is, robbery homicide, vehicular homicide, toddler left in a hot car, MMA choke out gone wrong... these people don't deserve the death penalty, they don't have the very seed of evil inside them, at the most they have other seeds of selfishness and recklessness, like the love of money, speeding, long hair appointments, and combat training. these people can be reconciled, and will likely feel great great remorse.

    But there are other people, who's methods, and intentions, and enjoyment, are the very seed of evil, Chikatilo, Albert Fish, Ed Gein, Dr. Mengele the demon seed of Auschwitz.

    These people deserve to die.

  • 8 years ago

    I think it's more justice to serve life in jail then to die. BUT I also agree with it to some extent. It depends on the person, the crime, and the way they poise themselves.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.