Is the death penalty society's correct response to murder?

Susan S

The list you gave of "usual arguments" against are not the most commonly mentioned. You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. Your question is much too important to settle without thinking about these things. Here is some of what has happened in the United States.

125 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isnâ€™t a guarantee we wonâ€™t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't 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 those that donâ€™t.

We have a good alternative. 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.

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.

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?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. 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.

Problems with speeding 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.

suet moon

the death penalty is the mark of an uncivilised society - just look at the countries which have it

death sentences are morally wrong, often more expensive to administer than life imprisonment, do not reduce murder rate and inevitably lead to innocent people being executed

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167

given all this it is crazy that anyone with half a brain could argue for the death penalty

i wonder how all the above would feel if someone they knew was wrongly executed for a murder they didnt commit. let's see how keen they are on the death penalty then

well over 100 people have been released from death row in USA after evidence of their innocence emerged. in your world those innocent people would be dead.

the USA - a self-proclaimed christian country which has the death penalty. so much for thou shalt not kill. but then religion is the definition of hypocrisy

shitebird

sorry i don't agree. their are to many innocents who went the gallows. they may not be able to kill as one answer puts it but they will also never be able to live their life.

would you condone the death penalty if you were an innocent victim..

justice should never be about revenge or we become as bad as the criminal.

soldiers are not the same . we understand the risk and we accept it

prison is not kidnapping it is punishment for crime, nothing more. even so the innocent should not be there either.

we as a civilised world must strive above vengeance hate and lawlessness. other wise we are as bad as the criminal or worse

thank you for allowing my point of view

qwid_pro_quo

the problem is the death penalty in not a response, it's meant as a deterrent ... and no, it doesn't work

if we could use the death penalty as a response when we catch a murderer red handed ... its not unreasonable ... but our justice system doesn't work that way

The silent pen

Would you rather have your dog put down then have it trained not to bite?
If you have a column of figures to add up, is it easier to throw the paper away rather than solve the problem?
If a person has a headache is it better to cut there head of or try to cure it?
When someone has an incurable illness is it better just to let them die rather than try to cure them?
To eliminate a problem is the easy way out to solve the problem is the clever thing to do.
Do you still think that murderers should be executed

Al Mac Wheel

We have to balance the need to protect society from a variety of threats, where killing the threat is often the most expedient.

For example ... viruses and germs can kill us ... the best way to protect all of us is to kill off 100% of strain of disease that places us at riks.

Our judicial & law enforcement system can be flowed ... it can wrongfully convict an innocent person. Thus there is an appeals process, so that when a person is awaiting execution, there can be additional evidence investigations.

Another area with flaws is oversight of government officials who are authorized to work in secret due to national security and other reasons.

Remember during WW II, that the Nazis put a group of terrorists ashore by submarine, whose task was to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, and other national Icons of America. One of the "terrorists" had been forced to join the effort via Nazi threats against his family. He and a confederate turned the whole group into the FBI, which did not reveal this at the trial, so all the men, including those that had revealed the plot, were sentenced to death.

There is the risk of this today ... groups of terrorists may have informants ... should they step forward and save America, knowing the risk that they could end up being tortured, because today's system impedes proper oversight like was the case during WW II?

vdv_desantnik

I agree with your points of view and have supported the idea of capital punishment for my whole life

Letting It Stand

In short answer to your top question, Yes.

But the reason why the country stopped carrying out the death penalty was because of the media response in the hanging of Ruth Ellis over 50 years ago. More than anybody else she profoundly affected people because it was reported she shot her racing driver lover, David Blakely, after finding out he was having an affair (and because she was young and pretty). She was reported to have been provoked in the retrial in 2003 and her sentence was posthumously overturned.
The problem with English law is that it rests on one witness and in many cases people have been sentenced to life in prison for a so-called confession while being remanded in prison usually by another cell-mate.

In the case of Huntley he confessed to the murders and it is incredible that that is the most against him. Remembering that now the fact people can have their right to refuse to answer police questions brought up against them in court and you can see how little it takes to have anybody sentenced for any crime.

The death penalty is fair and should be brought back but a tighter investigative, procedural and fairer legal obligations should be brought back before the law is changed.

By the way it will demand a change in UN, EC and international legal treaties before the UK Government can change this law.

ammy =)

It does seem like the right kind of punishment for henious crimes, but I'd rather have them rotting in jail for the rest of their lives.

joan k

I don't agree, there are far to many miscarriages of justice

Smeagol AM

what does a length of rope cost? $5?, what does it cost to keep someone in prison indefinitely, $50,000 per year. question answered

midnightmoon

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. On one hand, why should we murder? This is actually a reason heard A LOT in my section of the country in the Bible Belt.

On the other hand, why should we pay for them to live the rest of their life? Then, with dna evidence and science getting better and better, the risks of convicting an innocent person are lowering.

On yet another hand, I personally know a family where the dad was arrested tried and convicted for murder. My homestate doesnt have the death penalty, so he got life in jail. His conviction was overturned last year (TEN years after conviction) by dna evidence and subsequent confession of the real killer.

Then again, if my child or my sig other was killed, or I was hurt, I would probably be the first one screaming for the death penalty if I didnt go kill the person myself.

But, I like your number two point. In general I have to disagree bc most soldiers sign up on their own free will and know what they are going into and volunteer to do it. But what about the draft? How many people went to war and died that never wanted to? Did we murder them?

kinning_park

"2. A innocent man may die. To protect our society we send innocent men to die every day - they are called soldiers. "

How is justice served and society protected by executing innocent people?

If you cannot answer this, you have no case.

oogabooga37

The death penalty probably provides the best closure for the victims' families. That's the most important consideration I can think of.

news hound

ya staff says it for me and, many many others wake up politicians it is nearly too late.
Today another killing in London how many more before you act.forget, the face saving, it is protection that is needed *here NOW* the police are virtually helpless with <inadequate soft sentences not suitable for todays violent climate>.

ya_staff_sux

Dead men can not kill again

It is the right response to murder

chopper

hang the scum instead of the tax payers having to fork out millions each year guarding them and protecting them

golden

Society takes no responsibility for its actions and as long as the human rights brigade are protecting the criminal more than the victim the country (UK) is on a downward spiral.The deterrent should be if you commit a crime you should spend your time doing hard labour to pay for your cell,costs of the court and compensation to VICTIMS the only plus to the death penalty is the tax payer doesn't have to pay for the luxury todays criminals find themselves in at at a thousand plus pounds a week to the tax payer.

Happy Man

all killers should lose the right to live along with the rapists and paedophiles.

redrum7

*Yes !

Nature takes care of it's defiantly challenged
"wards",so why shouldn't we?
After all if they wantontly kill some one,what good
are they to society? Nothing.
Why should they continue to be a burden on society as a whole,by keeping them caged up?
To what end?
Pull the switch,push the needle,let the door open,
spend $.30 on a hollow point.

So let us wish him a very fond......

Adios...Arrivederci...Au Revoir...Sayonara...
Auf Wiedersehen....
and the good ol' American send off........
So long Mo843r f8253r !

Mary Jo W

we need some sort of deterrent.
if the death penalty were enforced, it would be more effective

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: