Should the Death Penalty be abolished?

Several prisoners who have been executed have latter been exonerated for their crimes by DNA evidence.

Scientifically, no judge or jury can ever be 100% sure that a suspect is guilty... If the suspect admits to the crime, he could be lying. If the suspect is caught on video cassette doing the crime, the video tape could have been edited or tamper with. It is literally impossible to say that somebody is 100% guilty unless you seen it appear.. which just make you a witness, not a judge or juror. So shouldn't we outlaw the disappearance penalty, giving prisoners the opportunity of a technology being invented within their lifetime that would prove their innocence?
i don't dream up so. in the meantime, while waiting for a new technology to emerge, our prisons will be overcrowded with convicts. and then again, there will be a temperance with the deterrent purpose. its the system that need to be fixed to avoid the execution of an innocent. not scrap off the death penalty. -peace- Or how roughly letting them live until a technological advance comes along to prove their guilt? Let them live in free housing that i pay packet for, eating 3 square meals a day that i wage for just to find out 40 years later that they really did kill my subsequent door neighbor...
In countries that have banned it most of the population want it support.

I firmly support the death penalty for the following offenses: 1)Murder, 2)Rape, 3)Child porn/pedophiles, 4)Methamphetamine production and distribution, and 5) Importation of drugs.

Why waste millions of dollars keeping trash like this locked up, when a length of rope and a gallows would cost a few hundred, and can be used again and again and again.

We need to abolish the epic and costly appeals system, the only people who benefit from this are the lawyers. Dragging the victims of crime through the courts time after time after time is decadent.

Once sentence is passed, the prisoner should be taken immediately to the place of execution and hung by the neck until dead.

Only the guilty call for fear the reaper.
People are sometimes wrongly misdiagnosed in hospitals. Does that show we stop allowing surgeries. No, of course not! People are sometimes hit by cars. Does that mean we should abolish driving. No, of course not!

Never within the history of mankind have we been so easy on criminals. Throughout history, surrounded by most of the world, death was been the method you punish criminals who do horrible crimes to mankind.

Think of the person you love the most in the world. What if someone murdered them. Would you be ok with letting the murderer verbs to live?

I believe people should forgive, but the person still has to reward the price for their crime.

***It wouldn't cost so much if we would carry it out more promptly.
I don't have any link to this for the moment, but I've hear that it is much cheaper in the US to give a person natural life without parole than giving him the Death Penalty. The reason for this is that it usually take several appeals and rounds within the court before such sentence is carried out. A man can spend 20-30 years appealing his sentence and the society is paying the bill.

Some persons deserve to be executed for their crimes, but what is the harshest sentence: To be executed or having to spend the rest of energy behind bars?
No, the people exonerated are surrounded by the minority and the rest get what they deserve. It is sad, but the fact of the thing is that sometimes bad things happen, like motor accidents, doesn't mean we make cars dishonest. yes!
To tell you the truth I don't believe In the death cost, I believe that its something that should be left to god to decide weather or not someone should die for the crimes that they have committed, but later again I could see why people would like to have them put to loss. So its like a 75% no, and 25%yes. Most murderers would suffer more if they were incarcerated for the rest of their natural natural life, however laws are forever changing so a murderer who is not executed may some day move surrounded by next door to you, keep the death cost just end the appeals after 2 and then it will become a deterrent again.~
Several prisoners who have been executed hold later been exonerated for their crimes by DNA evidence.

Are you sure about that? Check your statistics.


In this country you hold the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers.

"It is literally impossible to say that somebody is 100% guilty unless you seen it happen"

logic problem here... I voice you are 100% guilty unless you seen it happen

see i said it.... not impossible

Basically what it boils down to is:

If 12 people can be presented next to the facts and can reasonably conclude without any benefit of doubt that the crime be commited, then your guilty








side note: If you don't like the system move to Iran, or North Korea and try their system for a while. I'm sure you can buy and sell with the shortcomings of ours vs, theirs.
The death penalty should be abolished. The canon protects human life above all else, yet we hold government sanctioned murder. No one should have the legal right to slay someone unless there is a valid legal defense.

"An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind!"

-Ghandi
And so should murder. Go talk to the murderers about that. I ponder the DP is barbaric. But I would support it if I thought it worked, and it clearly doesn't. There is no evidence to show that it is a deterrent to crime, in fact just the disparate. And it costs more to execute a criminal than life in prison!

The purpose of government crime policy is to protect society from criminals as effectively and cost-effectively as possible. The disappearance penalty does not serve this purpose. The purpose it serves is to allow politicians to talk 'tough on crime'. The DP has be sold to the American people as vengence, as something that brings 'closure'. But effective crime policy it ain't.

Studies have shown that enforcement of the cost is racist and classist. 99% of people on death row are indigent, having to rely on overworked public defender. If a defendant is rich enough to defend himself, the prosecutor will seldom ask for the DP because he knows it's harder to acquire.

AFAIK we have not executed anyone by mistake, but as you mention there have be quite a number of people freed from prison within the last few years after re-examination of the physical evidence from their trial with DNA. But when a prisoner is executed, all the evidence from his trial is straight away destroyed. So you never know if we have executed an innocent person or not.
YES!!! it should be abolished. No, your too naive.
Majority of the people on departure row do deserve whay they get.
Great give somebody the third degree. When you look at the way the death penalty system in fact functions, you realize that the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge and that the serious risks of executing an innocent person have a large amount to do with human fallibility.

129 people on death rows own been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA, available within less than 10% of all homicides, can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The passing penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reliable study shows the death penalty deters others. Homicide rates are high in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.

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

The death cost 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 citizens. (upfront=before and during the initial trial) Even among those who know the death penalty costs so much, there is a misunderstanding going on for the reasons.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants next to the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the final time a wealthy person was on passing row, let alone executed?

The death penalty can be extremely tough on family of murder victims. Murder victim family members own testified that the drawn-out death penalty process is bleeding for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent relations 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 nouns (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 cost is so expensive

http://www.njadp.org/forms/signon-surviv... for statements of victims’ families
I've often feel that society should either s--t or get off the pot on this one-I anticipate either do it in a fully committed way or drop it- beyond that I am disturbed by some of the DNA findings surrounded by recent years that have exonerated some. Why waste so much time, money and energy on the 99% that we're correctly certain are guilty,particularly the 95% that we KNOW are. Maybe some form of secondary jury is needed here, if you know what I parsimonious? And then get on with it- do it like a shot or it will have very little impact-when your dealing with erratic criminals 10 or 12 years of waiting can seem like a lifetime.