death penalty?

Question

should there be a death penalty for murder...
yes or no and why!!!!!!!!!

Answer 1

You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid terrible punishments for terrible crimes to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime, to look at alternatives and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. However people make up their minds on this they should have the facts and sources. (At least one answer is wrong about costs.)



127 people on death rows released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available in less than 10% of all homicides, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.



The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. To deter others 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 don’t.



We have a good alternative, life without parole, on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure, swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole costs less 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.

Answer 2

"Yes, because it deters crime and is rarely applied except in the most heinous type of homicides."



lol, it deters crime.. explain this:

These are the top 15 states with the highest murders per 1000 people (as of 2005):

#1. DC- doesnt have death penalty

#2. maryland-has death penalty

#3. Louisiana- has death penalty

#4. nevada- has death penalty

#5. alabama-has death penalty

#6. arizona- has death penalty

#7. south carolina- has death penalty

#8. new mexico- has death penalty

#9. mississippi- has death penalty

#10. Tennessee-has death penalty

#11. California-has death penalty

#12. Missouri-has death penalty

#13. Arkansas-has death penalty

#14. North Carolina-has death penalty

#15. Texas-has death penalty



So out of the top 15 states with the highest murder rates per 1000 people, 14 of those are states that have the death penalty. Ya still holding onto that claim?



The fact is, the death penalty is useless, outdated, and barbaric. We release too many people from death row every year for this to be considered justified.

nearly every country in the world has stopped the death penalty practice.

How do you say to someone who has been executed that the state 'messed up' and sentenced the wrong person? ya dont. You have no 'ooops'.

Life without parole is cheaper (99% of death penalty supporters will not believe this. Nearly every state has done investigations on this, and the sources will be below)



So my verdict is no. The death penalty should be outlawed.

Answer 3

yes, there should be. here's why:



-it serves due justice (the punishment fits the crime), and serving due justice is the NO.1 job of a court of law (preventing crime is NOT their job)

-it shows that we are tough on crime

-it gets bang for the taxpayers buck

-criminals given the DP have a 0% recidivism rate

-It holds people responcible for the horrible content of their character. This fulfills what MLKJ always wanted: judge not by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character. The characterof these criminals warrants death

-It holds the criminal responcible for his actions

-appeals and **** aside, it's cheaper then prison

-it decreases the prison population, which saves even more taxpayers money

-Because the death penalty is the punishment given by a neutrel judge, there is no vengance in it. Therefore, there is no moral objection to be had with the death penalty.

-The death penalty defends human rights by establishing a mentality that "we will not tolerate any violation of any innocent person's human right's

Answer 4

I only agree with the death penalty for murder in theory. I agree with "an eye for an eye" and the punishment fitting the crime, but frequently "murderers" are later acquitted of their alleged crimes. Until we can be 100% positive that a given murderer committed a given crime, I do not support the death penalty. After all, once somebody's been given the electric chair, there's no way to bring them back if they turn out innocent after all.

Answer 5

Yes! My father has just called me to say his best friend has been stabbed to death for no reason leaving a wife and three children one of which is just three weeks old. What possible justification is there to kill someone? It has become too easy to murder in the UK with the knowledge that the punishment is all too leniant. If life has no value to these people then they should forfeit their own for the crime. There should be a referendum. Let the people have their say.

Answer 6

yes but only in extreme cases. Example of Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. Many thought they should have been executed but the victims families fought for many years to find the missing bodies. If they were executed this could never have been done. Brady is wanting to do a deal so perhaps the remaining missing victims could be found and given a proper burial. YES if dna supports the case of a extreme crime and the perpetraitor is caught 100% red handed and only for the most horrendous of crimes then yes.

Answer 7

Absolutely, "YES"!!!

Especially in the recent case in Cheshire (UK), where three young thugs, beat and kicked to death, an innocent father (Garry Newlove), who tried to stop them from vandalising his daughter's car, outside his home.

Because there is no doubt of their guilt, these 'twa*ts' should be executed immediately. There's far too much of this horrific violent thuggery being committed by mindless youngsters these days, who think its 'fun' and 'heroic', to cause so many people so much acute and permanent pain, anguish and suffering, knowing that the worst punishment they will get, will be a couple of years in a nice warm bed, good food and lots of molly-coddling by equally mindless, big mouthed 'do-gooders', who protect their "human rights".

It was an "INHUMAN" thing that these little bas 'turds'' did. They ceased to be 'human' when they did it and, therefore should no longer be able to claim ANY human rights.

It might act as a deterrent if other little 'fun seekers' could see that there's no 'soft' punishment for their ignorant, arrogant and violent, anti social behaviour.



EDIT



To *Andrew*, below and those that agree with him. Has it been proven that, although the murder rate is high in those States which have the death penalty, it might be very much higher, if there wasn't a death penalty?

Though I must agree that more care should be taken in bringing a guilty decision.

Answer 8

honestly,,

i believe that nobody should be forced to diee. although those people already did a crime that they're getting punished for some people believe it or not are in prison because they were proven guilty when maybe they might have been innocent. imagine you getting accused of killing someone and then you know you didn't and you were put on death row ? that would hurt like hell losing your life for something you didn't do.



but yet again lets just say you actually did commit a crime and were put on death row ? that would still suck because the officals are killing someone to. sooner or later the guy who commited the crime and officals are going to get punished by god and are going to burn in hell , thats when they're gonna be doing there time. you might as well let the person rot in prison and live a miserable freaking life then just end there time. by killing them. make them serve time for the crime that had absolutely no meaning to it.

i don't believe in death by force.

Answer 9

Hang them, they took a life take their life, the advancement of DNA it safe to say yes to the death penalty try this link.



http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/hangthem

Answer 10

Over 20% of death row inmates have been cleared, after many years waiting for the needle thanks to DNA evidence. Until we can be suer that we aren't killing innocent people, we can't really justify the death penalty.



I was always for the death penalty. Then while researching a doc about Texas crime statistics, I started to read up on the situation and was comepletely dumbstruck by the sheer numbers of people who ultimately were found innocent, sometimes after decades, thanks to DNA proof. It is chilling.

Answer 11

No. I understand why victims families often would say yes. Killing this murderer will not bring their loved one back. I also think the murderer would suffer more if stuck in a prison for the rest of their natural life.

Answer 12

Most folk in the UK think there should be , but it will never be brought back because none of the political parties has the bottle to bring it forward and get their member to support it

So once again the politicians know better than those who elect them . The European Union would also prevent UK from introducing it , so yet another reason for trimming the powers of these bureaucrats

Answer 13

Depending on where you live, there might already be a death penalty for murder. Florida, my state, is one of the few states that executes people. Quite frankly, I don't think it's the way to go. I don't believe society benefits from the murder of a murderer.

Answer 14

Should there be a fine for speeding? A jail sentence for robbery?



Penalties are set to the magnitude of the crime.

Answer 15

Yes. And I don't give a damn about deterrence. It cures recidivism: That particular beast is guaranteed to never kill again. Works every time.

The electric or drug bill should be sent to their families. As a reminder to future generations. Make it a nice one, though, suitable for framing.

Answer 16

Yyes because it gives the victims family real Justice,

I'm not bothered about it being a deterrent

Answer 17

yes, if the circumstances are right, otherwise we waste millions of dollars a year feeding and caring for criminals who are serving life sentences. I know its cruel, but the people who commit the crimes are doing cruel stuff to land themselves there in the first place

Answer 18

Yes its cheaper than keeping them in prison for multliple life sentences

Answer 19

I am in favour of Capital punishment, as it has to be the best deterrent against MURDER.!!

Answer 20

Got to be cheaper than keeping'em in the slammer

Answer 21

Yes, because it deters crime and is rarely applied except in the most heinous type of homicides.

Answer 22

Yes!It is about time they bought back the 'rope'!!

Answer 23

yes i would ...you murder someone and take away their life you deserve to die to me its as simple as that

Answer 24

No, there should only be one for stupidity

Answer 25

eye for an eye baby

Answer 26

yes its fair, you kill someone we kill you