Verified answer

The only possible justifications for the death penalty are its service to revenge and retribution.

For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it doesn’t reduce crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.

The worst thing about it. Errors:

The system can make tragic mistakes. As of now, 141 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. We’ll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

Keeping killers off the streets for good:

Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:

-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison

-life without parole costs less than the death penalty

Costs, a big surprise to many people:

Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. The process is much more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. These apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.

Crime reduction (deterrence):

Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent. The death penalty is no more effective in deterring others than life sentences.

Who gets it:

The death penalty magnifies social and economic inequalities. It isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender.

Victims:

Like no other punishment, it puts families of murder victims through a process which makes healing even harder. Even families who have supported it in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

That's a pretty tricky question. Some say that capital punishment should be banned due to the 8th amendment "...protection against cruel and unusual punishment". Others say that there should be an eye for an eye type of justice when it comes to the worst of the worst because what is out promise as a society that they will not be let out on a computer glitch or an over zealous defense attorney? None!

I can't, as a human being, no matter what the circumstances/crime may have been that put them in prison vote for Capital punishment. I have battled with this very same topic. It will be on California's ballot this term and I am at odds. I cannot presume to be God. But on the other hand, the corrections department has a long way to go.

If I had the confidence in the justice system that the debauched wouldn't get out, I think it would just vote against it.

In the meantime, I firmly believe the criminals are treated way too kindly. TV? Medical care? Games? Learning a trade? And all our tax dollars go to the very ones who have scarred society. That is my battle. We should treat them like the sheriff from Maricopa county, Arizona. No frills, no nice warm fuzzies. And no orange jail jump suits. They are pink. No kidding. And only repeating violent offenders should be kept in. Because they are not capable of rehabilitation which is one of the main purposes of incarceration.

Inmates should be made to mingle with all of each other. That would take care of the sexual predators especially if they had to wear pink.

So I am not for capital punishment, but disgruntled with the whole correctional department.

To answer is capital punishment justifiable for an accidental homicide? The jury found him/her guilty and the judge sentenced them...so I'm trusting in that(I know, don't laugh). So, any 1 of 13 felonies you name would all depend on the aggravating factors and if the judge imposed any sort of sentence enhancements.

Our judicial system is supposed to have checks and balances...and we are still working in it.

I believe that the death penalty should only be used in cases where it is irrefutable that the person is guilty guilty guilty.....Not just that a jury convicted them, but iron-clad physical evidence. I also believe that death penalty cases should be reviewed by an outside panel of experts that have no interest in the case (unbiased) and a citizens review panel of some kind....After that...fine by me

There was a 1999 movie that was rather good with Clint Eastwood called "True Crime" that dealt with this issue. A career criminal was in the wrong place at the wrong time, came out of the bathroom of a store that had just been robbed and based on being at the scene was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of the clerk. We as a society are quick to judge, and someone with a past criminal history being at the scene while it would raise all kinds of eyebrows doesn't automatically mean they did it.

But no, the death penalty is not going to go away in our country, it may be eliminated by some states but there will still be plenty of states that see it as a powerful enough deterant for lets say a cop killer....///

In parts of the world eye for an eye is still practiced. The death penalty is still used for crimes as trivial as adultery. There is still slavery practiced in north africa.

Sorry it might not be pleasant to judge and kill, but protecting the innocent more than justifies it. There are people who have proven themselves to be monsters. They don't deserve the mercy that they would never show their victims. We constantly read about a monster that has been set free who goes on to destroy innocent lives.

In times of war the best men of a generation are sent marching into sure death by the boatload. At the moment we are doing predator strikes that kill the innocent along side the enemy. Innocent people are starving at the moment, or dieing from lack of simple medicine. Next to this the life of a monster is nothing to agonize over. Why not quit the agonizing over this human garbage and spend part of the money we spend on defending and housing monsters in saving good people in jeopardy?

I suppose it could be for the intentional murder of active duty police officers. If we don't protect those who protect us then who will protect us?

But for everything else I can't get with the death penalty. I think forcing people to live the rest of their lives in prison is far worse. Imagine being in a prison and knowing you will never ever get out for any reason period. Even when you are a worn out used up old person you won't get out. You die in prison. That has to be awful.

Then there is the aspect of being a notorious criminal like Jeffrey Dahmer. I knew he'd be killed if put into general population and he was. Famous murderers often become targets in prison if nothing else for bragging rights or as part of a prison gang initiation. How would like to be in prison knowing there are dozens of not hundreds of inmates who would shank you if they had the chance? I'd sure hate that.

No. I supported capital punishment for a long time, but the extra I learned about it, the extra i have come to oppose it. Ultimately, a couple of motives transformed my intellect: 1. Through some distance the most compelling is that this: repeatedly the authorized procedure gets it unsuitable. In the final 30 years within the U.S., over 100 folks have been launched from death row when you consider that they had been exonerated through DNA proof. These are everyone who had been found responsible “past a cheap doubt.” alas, DNA evidence shouldn't be to be had as a rule. So, so long as the demise penalty is in situation, you might be ordinarily guaranteed to every so often execute an innocent man or woman. Relatively, that must be intent enough for most persons to oppose it. If you need more, learn on: 2. Considering the fact that of higher pre-trial costs, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra charges related to prosecuting & defending a DP case, and the appeals procedure (which is integral - see reason #1), it charges taxpayers rather more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for lifestyles. Three. The deterrent result is questionable at quality. Violent crime premiums are genuinely better in demise penalty jurisdictions. This will likely seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a project, so he selected Florida – probably the most lively execution state at the time – to hold out his final homicide spree). It's more commonly due, as a minimum partially, to the high cost (see #2), which drains resources from police departments, drug therapy applications, schooling, and different government services that help hinder crime. Personally, I think it additionally has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand in opposition to homicide…with the aid of killing individuals. The federal government fosters a tradition of violence by using pronouncing, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ 4. There’s additionally an argument to be made that dying is too excellent for the worst criminals. Allow them to wake up and go to bed day-to-day of their lives in a jail cellphone, and think concerning the freedom they DON’T have, unless they rot of ancient age. When Ted Bundy was once finally arrested in 1978, he advised the police officer, “I desire you had killed me.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the Sep 11 assaults) would like nothing higher than to be put to dying. In his phrases, "i've been looking to be a martyr [for a] very long time." 5. Most governments are purported to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian legislation in this debate, you'll find arguments both for AND in opposition to the demise penalty within the Bible. The new testament (starring Jesus) is in particular ANTI-dying penalty. For illustration, within the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “a watch for a watch” (Matthew 5:38-39). James four:12 says that GOD is the only one who can take a life within the title of justice. In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who's without sin solid the first stone."

Of course.

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

Dudley Sharp

The death penalty has a foundation in justice and it spares more innocent lives.

Anti death penalty arguments are either false or the pro death penalty arguments are stronger.

The majority populations of all countries may support the death penalty for some crimes (1).

Why? Justice.

THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES

Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalt...

2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-mo...

MORAL FOUNDATIONS: DEATH PENALTY PT. 1

1) Saint (& Pope) Pius V: "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

2) Pope Pius XII; "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.

3) John Murray: "Nothing shows the moral bankruptcy of a people or of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life."

"... it is this same atrophy of moral fiber that appears in the plea for the abolition of the death penalty."

"It is the sanctity of life that validates the death penalty for the crime of murder. It is the sense of this sanctity that constrains the demand for the infliction of this penalty. The deeper our regard for life the firmer will be our hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merit." (Page 122 of Principles of Conduct).

4) Immanuel Kant: "If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death.".

"A society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral."

5) Billy Graham: "God will not tolerate sin. He condemns it and demands payment for it. God could not remain a righteous God and compromise with sin. His holiness and His justice demand the death penalty." ( "The Power of the Cross," published in the Apr. 2007 issue of Decision magazine ).

6) Theodore Roosevelt: "It was really heartrending to have to see the kinfolk and friends of murderers who were condemned to death, and among the very rare occasions when anything governmental or official caused me to lose sleep were times when I had to listen to some poor mother making a plea for a criminal so wicked, so utterly brutal and depraved, that it would have been a crime on my part to remit his punishment.".

7) Jean-Jacques Rousseau: " In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgments are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State." (The Social Contract).

8) John Locke: "A criminal who, having renounced reason... hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or tyger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security." And upon this is grounded the great law of Nature, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Second Treatise of Civil Government.

"Moral/ethical Death Penalty Support: Christian and secular Scholars"

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalt...

"The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-...

"The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-...

"Killing Equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and...

1) US Death Penalty Support at 80%; World Support Remains High

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/04/us-death-pen...

Much more, upon request. [email protected]