Capital punishment....?

Question

Do you believe that capital punishment is a valid punitive measure for it satisfies the seemingly valid "just desserts" argument, or that it is a government-sanctioned murder apparatus reminiscent of the Middle Ages?

Answer 1

No offense, but I can't stand that whole eye for an eye thing, sorry.

I believe Capital Punishment is the only effective way to accomplish things. Why should we not do to people what they inflict upon others? If a murderer takes away the rights and life of   a person, I believe that he is not honoring and does not believe in the basic rights. Therefore why should we give him his?

Take the Green River Killer for example. He murdered as many as 70 women. What would our nation be saying if we did not give him the death penalty? In a nation founded on equality, would we be saying that his life is worth more than the 70 women he murdered?

(Sorry if this seems too self opinionated.)

Answer 2

Um, I am for the death penalty, and 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

-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

-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 establishes a mentality that "we will not tolerate any violation of any innocent person's human right's"

-It is a terrific deterrent to violent crimes when it is carried out swiftly, as the United states proved when we had the pre 1960's DP system, and as China is proving today. On the other hand, European countries only have 65 less deaths per 100,000 people per year, despite having millions and millions less people

Answer 3

I believe it is the latter, and completely contradicts the purpose of law.

Answer 4

The human instinct for revenge will probably never go away. The death penalty is uwise public policy. When you look at the death penalty system in action, you realize that the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge and that there is a serious and continuing risk of executing innocent people. Sources below.

129 people on death rows have been 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. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.

Life without parole, on the books in 48 states, also prevents  reoffending. It means what it says, and spending 23 of 24 hours a day locked in a tiny cell is not a picnic. Life without parole costs less than the death penalty.

The death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison, mostly because of the upfront costs of legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people. (upfront=before and during the initial trial)

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 have testified 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. Speed up the process and we will execute innocent people.

Sources:

Death Penalty Information Center, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org,  for stats on executions, reports on costs, deterrence studies, links to FBI crime stats and links to testimony (at state legislatures) of victims' family members.

FBI   http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/tab...  

The Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.org

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcostte... page 3 and 4 on why the death penalty is so expensive

http://www.njadp.org/forms/signon-surviv... for statements of victims’ families

Answer 5

I think capital punishment takes care of problems which otherwise could not be solved.

Answer 6

I am for capital punishment for the guilty.  Against abortion for the innocent.  Most liberals are the opposite.

Answer 7

I believe in it being the former.

Answer 8

yea the death penalty is only a punishment to people who know the person, not the actual convict.

Punishment would be a life term in prison with no parol.

Plus there have been cases of people who have been found innocent by new evidence after being killed by the death penalty.

Answer 9

Some people just don't need to be alive, but you must be absolutely certain that you have the right person. I think in circumstances where there is no question and they have confessed, that their time on earth should be considered fulfilled.

As a side note - I also think that in the case of people who torture and/or kill children, the parents should be permitted to choose the punishment, be it life in prison or death, and if they choose to, they should be permitted to carry out the sentence.

Answer 10

government-sanctioned murder apparatus reminiscent of the Middle Ages

Killing another human doesn't make things right nor does it take away the pain of the victims, their loss will always be with them.

An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind

~Ghandi

Answer 11

yes, capital punishment is a valid form of redress for criminal actions.  

1 - Some crimes are so heinous and disturbing that to leave the criminal alive is an affront to our civilization and way of life.  

2 - The "just desserts" argument is a valid expression of society's norms against those who choose to break our laws.

3 - Some criminals can never be reformed or will never be put back into society.  Capital punishment is a fitting response to these individuals since they have rendered their lives useless.  They are simply a burden on the state and on society, they have no value and should be thrown away.

---

EDIT:

This is what I mean by the term "useless".  Criminals commit crimes voluntarily.  They are sent to prison (never to be released), society will never accept them back into the fold, they will spend the rest of their existence in a tightly confined regiment dictated by the state, hence, there lives are useless.  

The definition I just gave does not fit your examples of the homeless, nor the handicapped.  

- The unemployed have the opportunity to rise above their station in life.  Society will always welcome back someone who has proved themself worthy of merit (through hard work and creating a better life for themself).  So long as the unemployed person has not commited a detestable crime that society will not forgive, there is always a chance for the homeless person to be useful.

- I would say the majority of handicapped people did not do choose to be handicapped.  However the criminals DO choose to be criminals.