A serious question.....?

Susan S

So many answers talk about an eye for an eye. This question should be answered in terms of facts about the death penalty. Here are answers to questions about the practical aspects of the death penalty system, with sources listed 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. 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 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, 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 isnâ€™t reserved for the â€œworst of the worst,â€ 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 donâ€™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. Americans are learning about the system and we are making up our minds based on facts, not eye for an eye sound bites.

Nexus6

The death penalty is basically state sanctioned revenge. Capital punishment is not a deterrent to future murder. Many people advocate its restoration in the UK, but that is very unlikely to happen.

When hanging was abolished in the UK in 1968 the law stated a person could still be executed for Treason, Arson in a Naval Dockyard and Piracy with Violence, but they have long since been changed to life imprisonment.

The death sentence never really worked - innocent people were hanged and so it's not an effective way to deal with serious criminals, but that should mean the public are protected by other rigorous sentences - like life imprisonment meaning a serious criminal dies in prison.

There is so much violent crime in the UK now that something has to be done to stop it. We can start with education but in the end we have to use proper retribution.

Spawnee

That is why I am glad that I live in a country(Britain) where the Death Penalty has been fully abolished even for treason. How many post-humus pardons must take place where miscarriages of justice have happen in countries where the death penalty exists, before the people of that country change the government to one that can should humanity and forgiveness.
If it is such a detterent, how come the USA for example has such a high homocide rate?
I was always told that 2 wrongs don't make a right, it is simple advice and I will pass it on to my son when he is old enough to understand.

digital dan

an eye for an eye leaves a world full of blind men.

but there have been cases of repeat offenders, so sometimes the death penalty can save an innocent life.

it doesn't make it right. perhaps life in prison without parol.

Mr. Knowitall

I live in the US where we have the death penalty, but I think it's wrong. Just as you say, it shows that the state does have the right to take a life. You can't use murder to show that murder is wrong.

People who favor the death penalty sometimes say it acts as a deterrent, but that's never been shown to be true. I think the deterrent argument is just a cover; people want it for -vengeance-. And vengeance should not be something the government does. Government policy towards crime should be based on minimizing the risk of crime. Locking people up does this; killing them is not better. Plus it costs more to execute someone than it does to keep him in prison the rest of his life without parole.

In the last few years dozens of men sentenced to death in the US have been re-tried and acquitted or simply exonerated and released because of DNA evidence. This shows that our police and courts are not perfect (as if we didn't know that already!) and a lot of people in the US are reconsidering the death penalty.

noodle

If the whole world believed in an eye for an eye then the whole world would be blind.

Nommo

state sanctioned murder is still murder, two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr Sceptic

People love to quote the Bible on this, with their "an eye for an eye". But why do they not remeber that Christ said turn the other cheek and urged forgiveness?

I'm not saying let murderers off - but if you are going to use a holy book as your justification for your view, do try to use one without internal contradictions.

The death penalty is, of course, barbaric and has been used too many times on innocent people.

snetterton

That's precisely why we don't have the death penalty in the UK. We are, after all, a civilised society. Unlike some I could mention.

Doethineb

The person who commits murder does so from choice. The judge who sentences him to death for murder is simply an instrument of the legal system which says that death is the appropriate penalty for the crime. He does so not from choice but as a duty.
In most of Europe (Turkey being a notable exception, although most of it is in fact not in Europe anyway) the legislators have decided for us that death is not the appropriate penalty. We therefore no longer have to justify it.

VicusSpyca

The laws of this country are founded by principles written in the bible. The Government is ordain by the lord to be respected and obeyed. The lord grants the power to establish a punitive system base on the LAW. We carry out this law base on the severity of crime. That's why there's legal representation, hearing, counsel, trial by jury, defendants right of accuse and so forth are written in stone. But capital punishment although reprehensible, cruel and sometimes undignified has been voted by the people for the people to be an order of law. Since the majority rules in this country, hence we have capital punishment. It doesn't mean it's right but in the eyes of the law it's just. For those who were violated, and deprive of a generation of relatives base on an individual hedious crime it's also fair to visibly punish those who commit crimes as an example of deterrence and a notice of this countries ground rules. We are fortunate that the LAW doesn't include the relatives of the murderer because no amount of sorry can bring a life back. Moreover, It destroys the moral and ethical fiber of our country choice of freedom of life and liberty so therefore sentencing is mandated by law to preserve respect and decency in society. I know that many don't agree with what I am saying but that's the way I think and the way I want the judicial system to work.

Polar Molar

Your saying that 2 wrongs don't make a right! Well the first one is wrong the second one is right! Why should we have to pay to keep a murder in jail ! The jails are full of theses low life's! If someone killed my child I wouldn't want to pay his way! That's why it is justified to put an end to their miserable life! The murder didn't give the victim a chance so why should we! If you kill somebody you pay with your life!

Good Mop Boy

If someone is a cereal killer then the only way to stop them is to take their life rather then put them back on the street But if u r accused of murder and u didn't do it then the death penalty would be a unjust way of the law.

kate

an eye for an eye, they deserve it.

Mary D

It is not revenge ,it is punishment for the crime !
If you commit crime in a place that has the death penalty for it then you takes your chances and pay the price .

mals2008

my opionion is eye for an eye.

taxed till i die,

It stops them from killing again.If a person commits murder then they have forfeited the right to live.

krzychk30

An eye for an eye......

GAVIN E

I too agree an eye for an eye.

What should give a person the right to live if they have ended the life of another human being.

jillybird

An eye for an eye.
Those who take a life should lose their own in recompense

milo360

with solid evidence that its clear a person is a murderer, i think they should face the death penalty.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: