Please help with this?

Question

hi hav anyone got any arguments for "murderers deserves the death penalty"? Both for/against is ok. pls help? need it for a project!

Answer 1

For: they should be punished with the same they did.

Against: killing them makes the rest of us no better.  

Answer 2

against:

no they dont deserve the death penatly for many reasons. one, death isnt needed if they are going to spend a lifetime in jail, what would the point be? let them live, there is no risk of them kiling anybody anymore because they have a life sentence. Also, killing them would be nicer than making them stay in jail their whole life, kiling them would be a present to them, make them pay for their crimes by doing their time.

for:

yes they do deserve it because they have already taken so many lives its only fair that they lose theirs as well. also, its best the death penalty be given instead of having them spend some years in jail, get out, and then kill again. by giving the death penalty, we save lives of many people.

also,  the death penalty can be used to scare other potential murderers to stop them from comitting crimes.

Answer 3

I supported capital punishment for a long time, but the more I learned about it, the more I came to oppose it. In the end, several factors changed my mind:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 30 years in the U.S. alone, over 100 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people to oppose it. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting a DP case, separate sentencing trials, and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually higher in death penalty jurisdictions. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death. In his words, "I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time."

5. Most governments are supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 4

here are some arguments against, the death penalty doesn't do anything for the person who was killed, and it takes another life, which nearly all societies see as wrong.  it is about appeasing the people who are still alive.  also, it doesn't act as a deterrent, especially i the usa.  you can find stats, but texas is well known for executing the most criminals, but it's murder rate is as high, if not higher than states that don't use the death penalty. another point is that is against the oath that doctors take when they become doctors, so it becomes very difficult to find a qualified person to start the needle for lethal injection, which is supposed to be the most humane way to perform an execution.  if you can't tell, i have a biased view.  good luck

Answer 5

I think that you should only keep someone in prison if there isn't the possibility of setting him free without danger for the community.

If you can't set him free:

they should stay in prison for the rest of their lives, not like in Belgium:

(lifelong is more like 10years, 20years is more like 7-9.

People like Dutroux (child rapist) get away with 20 years or so, and they would never die in jail.)

Death penalty goes back to the stone ages eye for an eye mentality.

Let them stay in jail & think about what they've done.

Answer 6

The Michael Moore documentary "Bowling For Columbine" has a really good section on this, which argues that nations and states implementing the death penalty generally have more (not less) crimes committed for which death is the penalty.

Answer 7

The best place to begin on this topic is at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article....  

It's specifically intended for students writing papers, has links to both sides (click on curriculum) and it's easy to navigate. In the meantime, 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