Killing People When They Have Killed

Question

ok so i was reading the paper and i saw that some people had been released s*x offenders and people who have done some sort of crime because of the jails getting full. So i was wondering why they don't bring back the death penalty you take some one life you should get ur life taken i see in the papa of people just killing people and getting life but doesn't life mean like 20 years or summit but still you might like jail so ur not punishing them what is the point so stupid if i was prime minister or some one who can change the law i would bring back the death penalty and hang people can anyone tell me why they don't bring it back i just think its stupid

Answer 1

A politician with blow-dried hair cannot be trusted to decide death penalty. I have no problem with with the death penalty on a very local level. The folks in the town or county affected should decide, not a scumbag looking for votes.

Answer 2

to expensive.

Answer 3

People in the UK should first take a look at the example of the US, where rates of violent crime are much worse.  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.

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 4

sorry but having the death penalty would make us just as bad as the criminal. If we say its wrong to kill then how can our conscience say its ok for the state to do it. Though i do not believe that many who commit really heinous crimes like rape, and murder in the first degree should ever get out of jail. But that is the system in UK, and that is what we are stuck with. Many of those released early have gone on to commit further crimes, including rape, and murder, so its those responsible for early release of these people who are at fault.