Is it the governments job to end the lives of murderers, thieves, rapists, and pedophiles? Or is a term in prison enough to change their thinking?
Answers:
I think that if somebody kills somebody or rapes or molests somebody, they should die.
Robbery, not so much
kill them all
i think that both ways are wrong. i think they should put all those who are sentanced to death in a gladiater torniment. have them fight eachother and go thur deadly obsical coursed. the winner gets to live and the losers dont, simple as that.
I like the death penatly. As long as it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, then execute them. However, I do not agree with the whole "sit on death row for 15 years" thing. I honestly think that within 2 months of being convicted the person should be executed, It would mean less money being spent to imprison, feed and house these guys, and we could be putting this extra money elsewhere.
prison term is more harsh in some ways, but death is a better "deterrent"
I have always had mixed feelings about the death penalty. I think that yes it is wrong and on one hand should be outlawed but then I think about the victims families. If one of my relatives had been killed especially viciously, I would probably want them dead (meaning lethal injection). But it seems that it is just a killing circle. One illegal and one legal. Who knows. The arguments can go both ways.
I felt as a christian that we should stop the murder of the government because it was unchristian to take another life.
Today all I can say is that I am so tired defending the lives of people like the belt way sniper of a serial killer.
Some people are just too mean to be a part of society, but capital punishment gives me the creeps. I can't watch movies about people on death row or anything like that. I believe that there is always room for error--in fact, recent DNA evidence has proven that some convicted people who have been in jail for years are really innocent. The only time I think it is truly justified is with serial killers or people who were actually observed committing a murder who were arrested at the scene of the crime. Yet, Charles Manson, and the persons who killed Bobby Kennedy and John Lennon are still alive. If anyone should have ever been executed, they should have been. I wouldn't trust a stay in prison to rehabilitate people like these.
The Death Penalty is overall harmful to our government and people. It serves no purpose except to appease the victims with vengeance. (Aka: Justice?)
On a whole, every argument made for the death penalty does not hold up well under scrutiny. It costs more than $1,700,000 to execute someone, assuming everything goes smoothly. If it does not, or we execute the wrong person (I don't mean mistaken identity, I mean wrong suspect), the costs easily increase to more than double. If we incarcerate someone, the costs are $40,000 a year, which comes out to about the same, but over a much larger period of time, which very little chance of increased costs, and that's if the prisoner is actually incarcerated early in life (20's), and lives to old age (70's). From an economical perspective, incarceration is much more sound. Not only do we skip the moral dilemma, if the person is found innocent, all we have to do is pay their back wages (at a rate of $40,000) a year for the time they were incarcerated. In case of execution and then declared innocense, we are required to pay their cumulative lifetime pay with punitive damages on top of it.
From a moral perspective, we must not only considered the righteousness of killing a guilty person, which too is questionable under every existing religion and moral philosophy; we must also question the fact that our Judicial system like all human instititions is not perfect, and we risk killing and have certifiably killed, many innocent people. Not only is the cost exhorbitant for killing an innocent person who's family must then be compensated (Well compensated!), there is the moral dilemma that we have jointly as a nation endeavered and succeeded in the murder of an innocent person. Remember, a pardon means nothing after a death sentence.
And why is killing someone, with all the risks both morally and financially better than incarceration? Certainly society has a right to protect itself, which is why the prisons exist. Prisons are not a treat to the people in them, and are more than sufficient to keep society safe. And I'm talking about murderers only. What possible justification is there to kill Pedophiles who are almost certainly mentally ill in most cases, or Rapists who are usually not too bright. They need treatment and perhaps indefinate incarceration, but forcibly taking their lives serves little perpose except to appease the blood lust of the victims. And thieves? Really now, is your $500 Rolex watch worth a person being killed.
Generally speaking, supporting the Death Penalty requires ignorance of the situation, or an apathy to the reality of the sitation. Ignoring the sensationalism that surrounds this debate (" What would you do if it was your Daughter,Wife, Rolex Watch?") it is all pretty simple.
The other thing that people forget, is that in cases where somebody would currently have a chance to get out, they would now know their death was coming, and would not peacefully surrender to police. Our current death rate for police officers is currently larger than any other industrialized country, and do you think it would be going down if people know they will be killed if captured.
It's already the case in all states with a high use death penalty. Currently every state with a death penalty has higher murder rates, and high police death rates than places with out it. We are the only industrialized country (Except Communist China and Japan (Although rare for Japan)) to execute people. As far as the deterrent factor, it does not exist and the statistics back that up now.
Remember, if we were to quit letting criminals "Get off easy", we would have more cases like we did a few years back in Texas. We had a guy pulled over by police, and he ran off into the woods to get away from them. When they chased him he shot two of the officers, one fatally. Then he shot himself in the head. And as it turns out the statute of limitations had expired, and he would have had to pay a fine. That will become the rule, and not the exception in places with a high use death penalty.
Hope that helps, thanx
Who cares about changing the thinking of convicted murderers and rapists? While I have my doubts about the morality of the death penalty, I have no doubt that if you incarcerate them for the rest of their lives, (that means they never get out of prison...ever) then they are not in society.
That's good enough for me. For now.
If you're worried about paying for it, just quit paying for all the freebies for illegal immigrants. There'll be money left over!
I believe the death penalty is necessary. If a person takes anothers life they should have their life taken away as well. They should only get one appeal and only get up to about a year to use their appeal so more court cases could go through faster and so we won't be wasting too much tax payers' money on the criminals. The gladiator tournament idea is alright. You could have a pay-per-view to raise more money for the state's to have to spend. Lose the first court case and be found guilty then lose the other court case after the appeal and you are scheduled to be in the tournament. A term in prison is hardly enough to change a criminal. It is usually like a vacation for most of them, especially the prisoners who live in violent neighborhoods.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment