CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
First off, let me just say that I believe in the death penalty 100%. I think it is philosophically and morally justified to execute anyone who has murdered another human being. There are few mitigating circumstances that excuse this behavior.
When someone does something wrong, they have to make up for it completely. If a person take a life, the only way to make up for it is to forfeit theirs.
However, we have one major problem: application.
People have, and will, be executed even though they are innocent of the crime. We may never know, 100%, if someone has or has not committed the crime of murder. There is no way to make up for the mistake, there is no way to bring a person back to life.
Unless we can come up with a system that almost always guarantees a fair trial with a correct verdict, I don't think it is right to put innocent people at risk.
Right now, though, I am not convinced that our system is accurate enough to make me comfortable with execution. If we could get it to 90-99% accuracy, I would be fine. But it looks abit more like 60-70% accuracy at this point.
Also, it's actually more expensive to execute someone in the United States than to support them for the rest of their life- it's ridiculously impractical, and why waste more resources?
Death Penalty Costs Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP & Fact Checking Required
Dudley Sharp, contact info below
As a general rule, the death penalty cost studies are worthless. Those that purport to compare life without parole costs to death penalty cost are, in most cases, comparing apples to kangaroos not apples to apples.
There is no reason that the death penalty, in general, should be more expensive than LWOP and, in many, if not most cases, the death penalty should be less expensive.
1) Virginia: How the death penalty will save money over life without parole (LWOP).
Virginia executes in 5-7 years. 65% of those sentenced to death have been executed. Only 15% of their death penalty cases are overturned.
(Source Virginia AG)
With the high costs of long term imprisonment, such a system, as Virginia's, a true life sentence will be more expensive than such a death penalty protocol. All states could duplicate this protocol, with the major exception that you can't transfer Virginia jurisdiction judges to other states.
2) Texas cost study - I have told the Dallas Morning News for years, to stop using their totally inaccurate cost review. They still use it.
They found that it costs $2.3 million per average death penalty case (for 5 cases), more than 3 times more expensive than a $750,000 life sentence. (C. Hoppe, "Executions Cost Texas Millions," The Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992, 1A)
The death penalty costs are for pre trial, trial and appeals and incarceration. Yet, the life cost is only for confinement for life. Big problem.
In addition, an academic review, by a neutral academic, found that the verifiable costs in the DMN article actually found the death penalty was cheaper.
Almost exclusively, this study is presented, by media and anti death penalty folks, as the best example of the death penalty being much more expensive than a life sentence. Fact checking reveals just the opposite.
This study has been so distorted in the media and within anti death penalty literature that it really should be mandatory teaching in journalism schools as a fact checking disaster. I cannot find one example where the authors of the study ever corrected these distortions, thereby reflecting poorly on them, as well.
Prof. Cook, one of the authors, has a new study out, which claims an $11 million savings for NC, by ending the death penalty. I haven't read it yet. Maybe it really finds the death penalty saves money.
8) Kansas - The study most quoted found that death penalty cases cost 70%, or about $500,000 more per median case cost than for the equivalent non death penalty murder case, but, the foundation was this: " . . .there was nothing we could look at to verify the accuracy of any of the data assembled for this report." (page 2). "Actual cost figures for death penalty and non death penalty cases in Kansas don't exist." (page 10). On pages 29 and 31 the study discussed methods of saving money. Again, please refer to "Cost Savings: The Death Penalty". ("Performance Office Report: Costs Incurred for Death penalty Cases", A K-Goal Audit of the Department of Corrections, by the Legislative Division of Post Audit - A Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee, December 2003)
9) California - There are a few cost study numbers that are quoted, based, exclusively on analysis by anti death penalty folks. California considered a thorough, objective study by RAND, below, but rejected it. It was too expensive!
"Investigating the Costs of the Death Penalty in California: Insights for Future Data Collection in California, RAND Corp., 2/2008
Coming from New Zealand, another proud democratic country like america,we choose to give up the death penalty some fifty years ago, yet our murder rate is somewhat lower than the USA.Other democracys such as australia and britain have significantly lower rates per capita/head of population than USA. Obviously the system is flawed,perhaps the problem lies with gun control, the lack theirin?
There are many things that contribute to New Zealand's lower murder rate, but gun control isn't one of them. Most people in the United States who use guns for violence don't buy them, legally from their local sporting goods shop. The buy them "under the table" so to speak. The core of the issue is violent people, not the tools that violent people use. When people are driven enough to commit acts of violence, they seldom care about the legality of their weapons. As for the death penalty's ineffectiveness in the United States, I would attribute it to the fact that it is not done enough, and it's always carried out away from the public eye. Most criminals are not terribly afraid of the justice system in the United States because it usually isn't as hard on them as their own life of crime. More frequent executions may very easily resolve that.
Okay on the topic of gun control... five or ten or fifteen more laws are not going to stop some one from shooting some one else. And plus if you take away the Second Ammendment to the Constitution or restrict it the only ones with guns are going to be the people who happen to have already bought theirs on the black market and have no conscience in shooting people.... and the people that have no conscience about killing some one in cold blood should also be killed
On the contrary, The cost of the death penalty is much higher than other punishments. Everything that is needed for an ordinary trial is the same for a Death Penalty case, only more so.
More pre-trial time,
More experts,
Twice as many attorneys,
2 trials instead of 1, 1 for guilt, 1 for punishment,
And a series of appeals during which the inmates are held in high security of death row.
It's also a well-known fact that people with resources get lighter sentences. They can afford better lawyers than others. This is just one fault in our legal system.
As the saying goes, Capital punishment means those without capital get the punishment.
Yes, it may cost to execute, however you will be greatly reducing the cost of dealing with crime, as criminals will worry about dieing(for example, murder). The crime rate was higher after the death penalty than before it.
Then you should reduce the costs of the execution. The only reason it is more expensive is because people make it more expensive with a overly complicated process.
Also, it's actually more expensive to execute someone in the United States than to support them for the rest of their life- it's ridiculously impractical
So if it costs more to maintain, choose the "practical" option? By that logic, no one should have children and everyone should be getting abortions since it costs less to kill a fetus than to bring one up.
I'm sorry, was the convict thinking about how much it would cost to kill the person they murdered? How much it would cost the rapist to rape the rape victim? No, of course not. So I don't think we should, either. Until it comes to absolute necessity, of course.
That's only partially true. The cost of execution is dependant on the state the prisoner is to be tried and executed in. Some states (such as Texas) have streamlined their court system to more easily accommodate execution. the current plan has been in place for 7 years now and with over 10,000 executions, there hasn't been a single false conviction. Texas' system of capital punishment is less than a quarter the cost of housing a criminal for life.
Haha, yeah, hasn't been a single false conviction.... Here's the part you're missing: Texas doesn't allow official investigations into cases where people have been executed. Also, there's an estimated 30% margin of error in terms of innocent people being executed.
Also also, 10,000 Executions? That's a surprisingly high number seeing as how there have only been 1191 executions in the COUNTRY since 1976 back when execution became legal. (actual numbers for texas: 448)
Also also also, it isn't just the state law that comes into play, it's also federal law. If the prisoner passes through the State collateral review, they can apply for Federal habaes corpus. The court process is long and expensive.
Also, there's an estimated 30% margin of error in terms of innocent people being executed.
I will retract my claim that there hasn't been a single false execution. My point is that it is very low. Your 30% by the way is only one of several projections ranging from 1% to 40%. The reason why there is such a wide spread of numbers is because in many capital cases, after many appeals and retrials, the defense is finally able to plant a seed of "reasonable doubt" and a sympathetic jury exonerates the defendant, even when his actual innocence is very questionable. Furthermore, even if it is 30% as you claim, the risk of the average Joe being killed by wrongful conviction is incredibly low. Much less than the chance of getting killed in a car accident. Should we ban cars too?
Also also, 10,000 Executions? That's a surprisingly high number seeing as how there have only been 1191 executions in the COUNTRY since 1976 back when execution became legal. (actual numbers for Texas: 448)
Actually I was going back to the days or the Republic, so the 1976 legalization and the 448 criminals that were executed after that don't mean much to my argument.
I assume in what follows that we, the country or the state, execute only for the crime of murder, though many capital punishment adherents would use it for other crimes, such as child rape, treason, arson, robbery and even fraud.
I say this:
We show we are better than the muder convict by not executing him/her.
What does this mean? Well, the murderer (if he/she is truly guilty - a separate reason to be anti death penalty is that sometimes there has been a miscarriage of justice and the convict is innocent!) has shown no mercy by killing someone. If we, that is, the country or the state, extracts an eye for an eye (sometimes on a spurious religious basis) by executing the murder convict we surrender the moral high ground and lower ourselves to the morally bankrupt level of the murder convict. We make ourselves less by doing the same as the murder convict - that is, not valuing a human life.
I call for an end to the death penalty in the USA (it has happened already in Europe). It is barbaric for the above moral reason i have outlined.
Excuse me but I believe what you are referring to is justice and letting the person sit in jail while our tax dollars are paying for him to sit there and not be rightly punished is so totally wrong
"People have, and will, be executed even though they are innocent of the crime."- there is no evidence of anyone ever being wrongfully executed in the United States.
"Unless we can come up with a system that almost always guarantees a fair trial with a correct verdict, I don't think it is right to put innocent people at risk."- ill answer this with another quote: "if government functioned only when the possibility of error didn’t exist, government wouldn’t function at all." If its not right to put innocent people at risk, then why are people allowed to drive?
I assume in what follows that we, the country or the state, execute only for the crime of murder, though many capital punishment adherents would use it for other crimes, such as child rape, treason, arson, robbery and even fraud.
I believe in the death penalty 100% too, but I’m disappointed in the non-needed politics behind it. I hear of plenty of obviously-guilty people in the news that committed absolutely deplorable acts that get only life in prison. As a citizen in a state that rarely utilizes the death penalty, I’d like to see THESE people succumbing to their damned fate. States like Texas need to be more conservative in their sentencing of the death penalty, and states like Pennsylvania need to be more liberal. The death penalty needs to become more equalized.
The death penalty doesn't need to become more equalized. The death penalty is useless deterrent from crime. Granted, someone, who bestows great harm onto a family for egregious acts, doesn't give the government the right to kill that person. The eye for an eye biblical crap is barbaric and outdated. All death penalty should be abolished. If anything, the death penalty is a easy way out for most of the criminals instead of living and suffering in a small cell with crappy food. Maybe instead of killing inmates, they should get rid of more privileges like going outside and visitation. The death penalty is saying that we give up on this person, and we enjoy watching people die.
2- Morality - If it's not acceptable for people to kill people, what makes it ok for the government to kill people? The state-sanctioned killing of a country's own citizens is a hallmark of third world nations. State run executions are done in the interest of political gain (usually occurs in dictatorships) or emotional fulfillment (such is the case in America). Either way, nothing is undone with the killing of a prisoner. To quote Gandhi: "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
3- Deterrence - The fear of death doesn't deter anymore crime than the fear of life imprisonment does. The people who commit crimes that deserve such heavy punishments don't think about the consequences. If they did, then they probably wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. Also, the death penalty in the US isn't a painful, public spectacle. The criminals have no shame or pain to fear. The death penalty may have deterred crime in the 17 or 1800's, but it is simply out of place in modern society.
4- Accuracy - No justice system is perfect, so it is unwise to assign punishments that cannot be reversed. With life in imprisonment, judicial mistakes can be rectified. With death they cannot
Cost - Includes investigation, trial, appeals, and incarceration costs. Without the trials and appeals, death penalty cases would be much cheaper than confining inmates for the rest of their lives.
Morality - When people kill people is usually isn't justifiable. When the government makes the decision it is based on evidence, logic and non-bias. Even if a person does kill another person justifiably it isn't their job to do it. In the same way it's not their job to arrest people, bank people's money, act as a defence lawyer etc. it is not their job to murder even in a logically, morally, calculated way. They should leave that to the government to make the decision and actions.
Deterrence - The fear of death doesn't deter because there isn't a fear of death.. there isn't even death. Read the statistics on the website you provided and you'll find that less than 5% of criminals get executed. With federal cases averages to about 27%. People know they aren't very likely to be put to death because they are able to appeal, reappeal, rereappeal, rerereappeal, rererereappeal, rererererereappeal and at worst they'll be put on death row but never executed.
The problem with the death penalty doesn't lie with the death penalty itself but how it is carried out. It should not be so easy to defeat and be appealed against. For something that's meant to be tough love.. it doesn't really give it. Not only would it reduce costs.. it would also increase the deterrence.
Cost- "Without the trials and appeals, death penalty cases would be much cheaper than confining inmates for the rest of their lives." So are you saying that in order to prevent costs we should just kill people without trials or appeals? The fact that life sentences cost less is due to the fact that they are treated no differently than the general prison population and have limited appeals (this is because while the convicted person is alive, the possibility of a wrongful incarceration can be rectified, whereas death sentences cannot.). The whole point of unlimited appeals is to try to explore all possible evidence before an irreversible decision is made. If the death penalty were simply abolished, there would be no endless chain of appeals and therefore cost would decrease.
Morality - "When the government makes the decision it is based on evidence, logic and non-bias." The fact that the death penalty is considered makes the government inherently illogical in this aspect. There is no gain to be had by killing a person besides emotional satisfaction. No crimes are undone and there is no punishment or hope of redemption for the convicted. The government's job is not to satisfy the feelings of its people by killing the citizens many people would consider to be "bad."
Deterrence - "The fear of death doesn't deter because there isn't a fear of death.. there isn't even death." Since there is no fear of death as you say, why bother having a death penalty? The fact that there are limitless appeals brings us back to a first argument. You need to have unlimited appeals to make sure that the person who you are executing is the right person. The ability to appeal is very important in death penalty cases, and their existence is not a legitimate way to excuse the ineffectiveness of a death penalty system.
Unlimited appeals only waste time and money. It's basically swing and a miss. Keep swinging and you'll hit something which may alter the minds of the judge and jury - doesn't necesserily mean they're innocent. It's like begging a girl day in and day out to go out with her. Eventually she'll say yes. I've got nothing against appeals. It's the number of appeals that creates an inefficient system.
The fact that the death penalty is considered makes the government inherently illogical in this aspect. There is no gain to be had by killing a person besides emotional satisfaction. No crimes are undone and there is no punishment or hope of redemption for the convicted. The government's job is not to satisfy the feelings of its people by killing the citizens many people would consider to be "bad."
LOL?? What kind of bullshit are you talking about? LACK of death penalty is the exact same thing. Infact in todays western world where the majority of people are against death penalties (I think) it's appeasing the citizens by not executing. Life sentences are based on emotions about life and what not.
Capital punishment vs Life sentences
Kills the guilty vs. MAY, POSSIBLY kill the innocent
Deters crime vs. .......no/very limited deterrence on crime
Cheap to uphold vs. Expensive to keep a person alive for the rest of their lives.
ETC. ETC.
Since there is no fear of death as you say, why bother having a death penalty? The fact that there are limitless appeals brings us back to a first argument. You need to have unlimited appeals to make sure that the person who you are executing is the right person. The ability to appeal is very important in death penalty cases, and their existence is not a legitimate way to excuse the ineffectiveness of a death penalty system.
Read what I said. There would be a fear of death.. if there was death. But because nobody is actually executed.. people aren't afraid. IF they WERE executed then they WOULD be afraid. I hope you actually read the link you posted. I hope you read about trials of capital punishment. The trials do NOT the majority of the time clear the guilty to innocent. It plays on people's feelings that this man should not be put on death row due to so and so. NOT because of the reasons you have stated.
Look at countries around the world outside of America where the death penalty is more commonly used and see what their society is like. Singapore for example has very little drugs because of its tough stance on it. If countries like America and UK were tough on crime, it would be deterred.. but they're soft and THAT is why crime is so much higher.
"Unlimited appeals only waste time and money. It's basically swing and a miss. Keep swinging and you'll hit something which may alter the minds of the judge and jury - doesn't necesserily mean they're innocent."
Actually, if you know how the court system works, when the judge and jury say you are innocent, it means that the government recognizes your innocence and would therefore have no right to kill you. What you are actually criticizing is the success of a free appeals system and saying that it would have been better to kill an innocent man because that would have been cheaper and made a better point.
Emotional appeasement
Had you the capacity to understand the argument I was making, you may have answered it better than: "LOL?? What kind of bullshit are you talking about?" I'll make a chart like you did because apparently that's an easy way for you to understand things.
Capital punishment vs life in prison
-may permanently kill the innocent vs possibility of wrongful incarceration with ability for rectification
-convict has no chance for redemption vs convict has opportunity to change
-convict is suffers for about 10 years vs convict suffers for 20-30 years
-cost 10 times as much per inmate vs lower cost of one regular inmate
-provides biblical "eye for an eye" justice vs punishment in a humane and civilized manner
"There would be a fear of death.. if there was death. But because nobody is actually executed.. people aren't afraid. IF they WERE executed then they WOULD be afraid."
In order to have a justice system be as fair as possible while incorporating a death penalty system, a lengthy appeals system is needed. You cannot allow your government to kill its own citizens just to prove a point to other possible criminals. Your government needs to spend the time and money going through every bit of evidence to make sure that the decision it makes is justified. Other countries have death penalty systems that are more effective because their citizens don't have the luxury of appeals, countries like China and Iran. Your government shouldn't proceed to end a person's life without adequate investigation because it simply didn't fit into the budget, or thought your life was expendable anyway.
The sort of extreme punishment you are advocating may be effective in some places where they flog you for spitting gum on a sidewalk, but its certainly not fair, and certainly not constitutional. For example, I'm certain speeding would stop if people had their fingers cut off instead of being ticketed for violations, but that's definitely not a society I'd like to live in.
Actually, if you know how the court system works, when the judge and jury say you are innocent, it means that the government recognizes your innocence and would therefore have no right to kill you. What you are actually criticizing is the success of a free appeals system and saying that it would have been better to kill an innocent man because that would have been cheaper and made a better point.
No, no and nope. How many innocent people have been executed..? How many appeals did they have?
How many people on trial for deathrow have been proved innocent? a VERY LOW number. MOST of these cases get turned to life sentences. The defendents actually plead guilty so that they're put on life sentences instead of deathrow.
I'm all for appeals used to prove innocence. That's not the case I'm afraid. Appeals are used to lessen their sentences.
Your chart clearly states that life sentences are for emotional appeasement. I just want to get that out of the way.
Your table is bullshit. Only the top 2 hold any weight and that's for a soft stance against crime.
In order to have a justice system be as fair as possible etc.
Haven't you just proved my point with deterrence? the LUXURY of appeals lowers the deterrence.
thought your life was expendable anyway.
See, this is where our views are different. I'll put it differently - Sacrifices must be made. I am against taking a person's life for the wrong reasons especially innocent, but for the right reason lives should be taken. Innocent lives MAY (and probably WILL) get taken but that's better than living in a world where justice doesn't prevail.
definitely not a society I'd like to live in.
I know. I would prefer to live in a society where no death penalty was handed out cause there was no crime. I choose the lesser of two evils.
I disagree with all three of your points, but the most telling point is the one you ignored, accuracy. The fact is that we as fallible humans have yet to devise a system that determines guilt with certainty. Death is irreversible and an innocent person who gets executed won't even get the satisfaction of hearing you say "oops".
Disclaimer: This is a philosophy I am trying out. I have no guarantees that it is correct.
Justice in terms of punishment is something that humans have decided is necessary, but it's just a concept. A murderer being killed doesn't change what happened, it just satisfies people's need for revenge, and fulfills our society's concept of "justice". But what really happened? One person died, then another person died. That's it. Of course, we have guaranteed that the second person can't hurt anyone else anymore, but we can come close to guaranteeing that with a very high security prison.
To me, the system's job is one thing: To prevent a similar crime from happening again, not to fulfill a concept that we have invented.
Again, this is just a theory of mine. I may or may not believe it myself. But it kind of makes sense to me.
Justice is only a concept, but it's an important one. Punishing those who do evil creates a deterrent and solidifies the values that keep people behaving properly. It's one of the main things that allows us to function as a society.
I agree, but I guess my questions are: 1. Does the death penalty deter evil more than life in prison? and 2. Is it wrong to kill someone in the name of a concept we invented?
The death penalty is useless deterrent of crime because in the states that have them, they are not any more inclined to commit a crime because the threat of death penalty particularly if it is murder. The death penalty is scam because it assuages the self perception of vengeance in the victims eyes. It is a waste of time and money.
I think its indisputable that the only justification for taking a life is to save a life.
The death penalty is sometimes claimed to save lives through deterrence. However, with life in prison or pretty much any other severe sentence, the benefit to a murderer of killing someone is already far outweighed by the cost. Therefore, murderers are beyond rational cost/benefit calculation and adding to the cost will not create further deterrence.
Thus, it has been demonstrated that the death penalty is not justified.
Yes, the death penalty should be banned, I have no idea why they still invoke this penalty. You can see why the death penalty should be banned by looking at a single argument.
1. Some people think it is worse living in prison in life then dying.
2. Some people think it is worse dying then living in prison for life.
3. Therefore, dying and living in prison are probably morally equal.
4.Living in jail for life costs less money then the death penalty.
5. This money which goes to the death penalty which could be spent in prison rises the americans tax payments.
6. Whenever the death penalty is performed instead of life in prison, the American is paying more tax then he needs to.
7. The American should not have to pay more tax then he needs to because of someone else's actions.
8. Therefore, the death penalty should be banned.
A few figures to support my argument:
Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.
“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”
In addition, it is evident that the death penalty does not deter murder rates. In a chard found on: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty- have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout, it shows that the murder rate is higher in death penalty states in the last 15 or so years. The percent dwindles around 10%, which may seem small at first but is actually pretty large when considering all of the deaths. So death penalty somehow increases murder rates, maybe a survey will help us understand why. On blurtit.com, their is a survey that shows 55% of people would prefer the death penalty to life in jail. Why? because life in jail is a plainly bleak existence. So what are the reasons for the death penalty again? Oh yeah, their arent any.
In judicial administration, there are basically three types of punishments awarded to people who have committed crimes: the first is what are known as "reformative " punishments, in which the purpose of the punishment is to enable the criminal to reform himself. Punishments here would be in the form of community service,jail sentence etc..; the second is what are known as retributive , in which the punishment is in the form of public lashing, cutting off hands or legs etc., which is expected to work as a revenge and should satisfy the person against whom the crime is perpetrated; the third is what is known as "deterrent" punishment, whereby the object of the punishment is to deter any other person from committing similar crimes. Death penalty is usually a deterrent punishment, and it can be argued that many would-be criminals would be deterred from committing the crime if they know the penalty that would meet them is their death.
Whether death penalty should be available as an option in a judicial system or not, depends upon the sensitivity of the society to the criminal acts. If some people in that society feel it is "worth it " to commit a crime, because they can serve some term in prison and come back into the society, then it may be necessary to put the fear of life ( death sentence ) into such people by showing that others who have done such crimes have been put to death.
The question of whether death sentence should be allowed to continue or not, is therefore dependent upon the society and in general a society that has evolved as a "civilized" society would not need such punishments.
America, has no doubt evolved as a civilized society, but it has terrible enemies who would work from within its society and this may be a reason for wanting to continue death penalty. But then, by awarding death penalty to such people, you make martyrs of them. Therefore life sentence would also serve as a better deterrent in such cases. So death penalty should be banned.
First off, killing by a person, an army or the state is wrong. Secondly, innocent people are found on death row periodically and some of them have been killed already. Life in prison would guarantee that innocents are not killed.
The majority of countries have abolished the death penalty. Most executions took place in these 14 countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, US, Pakistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Japan, Yemen, Indonesia, Libya and Sudan. I am against the death penalty because we have an imperfect justice system in the U.S. Mistakes are inevitable and not worth any perceived benefit. The debate was formulated using the word America but I think it more appropriate to say should the U.S. ban the death penalty since the U.S. does not have claim to all of America--North, South etc.
I think America should ban the death penalty because no man/woman has the right to kill anyone even if the have done something wrong, because i believe that only God should have the power to take people's lives.
If one commits a murder, they are for sure the scum of the Earth. If one commits more than one, hell has been specially reserved for them. But in real life, who are we to judge whether someone should live or die. That's an awfully big responsibility on the judges. Rather they should be forced (if convicted of course) to contribute to society, while remaining in prison. You kill someone, fine. You still have the right to appeal, but you must work as a slave or close to that status for the duration of your sentence. It's illogical how we would just lock up a killer, to waste tax dollars rotting in prison, or to kill the person, doing unnecessary things like say giving the person antiseptics before a lethal injection.
The death penalty is not used for what it is supposed to be used for.
We will kill a man that shoots a man sleeping with his wife but we will not kill a man that has murdered hundreds of women because he can tell you where a few skulls may be.
Our Prisons house people that do not need to be locked up as they are not threats to society and then complain they had no room for the molester or rapist. Now they are back on our streets and will probably kill their next victim as we have seen over and over again.
Prisons are for people that can not function in our society without menacing other citizens and the death penalty is for those that have committed horrible murders against other human beings.
We can not change our entire prison system but we can stop executing people based on the fact they have nothing to give us in return for their life.
Examples: Scott Peterson is going to die on death row however Gary Ridgeway (Green River Killer) will spend life in prison because he could tell you where he buried someone 25 years ago. Scott Peterson deserves his fate but he could have received life in prison had he just killed a few more people.
If we are not going to use it for serial killers the why do we use it at all?
1.)the death penalty violates the right to life...
2.)the death penalty also is premediated murder,it demeans the state and makes society more violent!
3.)the death penalty is also discriminatory in its application what i mean is that through out the world the death penalty is disproportionately used against disadvantaged people .some condemned prisoners from the most impoverished social classes would not have been sentenced to death if they were from a wealthier sector of society!!!!!
The death sentance is not supposed to show that killing is wrong. People should already know that, and the ones who murder don't care that it's wrong. It's there to show people what will happen to them if they get caught killing.
Those who committed horrible deeds should not be killed. That would be too easy a punishment. Would you prefer someone who killed five children for no reason dead, or in prison till the end of his miserable existence? I know my point of view.
People who are desperate or deranged enough to murder are usually living a very difficult existence beforehand. Prisoners however, get a roof over their heads with comfortable beds, 3 meals every day, amenities like a gym, personal weight rooms, pools, arcades, billiard halls, you name it. The fact of the matter is that our current judicial system babies our criminals. US prison inmates live better than over half the world population and their only drawback (albeit a significant one) is their confinement.
I was going to exclude serial murderers, then realized this was an all or nothing question.
1. Murder is wrong. Period. Nothing justifies state sanctioned murder.
2. Depending on the person, many people are not the same 20 years later. Some murders are done spare of the moment, it doesn't make it right, but people can change. Crimes done in younger years may not be committed again as an older person.
3. There's no need for the death penalty. All you have to do is put them in with the general prison population and it will be taken care of - its all a matter of survival of the fittest and won't cost us a penny.
As of last week, here are the stats for US executions - top 8. Texas put to death Cameron Todd Willingham for example who was innocent and has had 41 exonerations since 1989 and many of those people were on death row. Again they were predominantly blacks.
Texas 465
Virginia 108
Oklahoma 96
Florida 69
Missouri 68
Alabama 50
Georgia 49
North Carolina 43
Not to put too fine a point on it, but all southern states.
Texas put to death Cameron Todd Willingham for example who was innocent and has had 41 exonerations since 1989.
One example of a presumably false execution. They are extremely rare. You are at far greater risk of dying from a car crash. Should we ban cars too?
and many of those people were on death row
Yes Texas tries very hard to administer a just punishment as often as it can, but the problem with this is appeals. When someone is being tried for a capital offense they are given appeals to higher courts, often up the supreme court, but of course they hardly ever make it there, so they sit for decades on death row enjoying their wide screen TVs, spacious cells, and personal weight rooms. This is the reason the death penalty is so expensive, and it's also why, after many trials, the defense is able to plant some seed of reasonable doubt, and a sympathetic jury exonerates them. Even when their actual innocence is very questionable.
Again they were predominantly blacks.
Of course they are. Blacks are committing a greater proportion of crime:
Number of white people in prison: 736 per 100,000
Number of black people in prison: 4,789 per 100,000
The numbers speak for themselves.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but all southern states.
That's because they are mostly conservative, and conservatives don't see a problem with ending the existence of a murderer or rapist.
It doesn't matter how rare they are. One is ample enough.
I agree that it is a tragedy when a wrongful death occurs, but realistically, it is a very small percentage. And the payoff is that it provides (or should provide) a fear of the justice system, thus preventing further tragedies.
Blacks are committing the majority of crimes? Umm, so the good ole boy white network no longer exists in Texas? Yeah right!
Again, I will cite my earlier argument:
Number of white people in prison: 736 per 100,000
Number of black people in prison: 4,789 per 100,000
That's a national average.
This good ole boy white network doesn't hold a candle to the crimes committed by Negroes.
I've often wondered if conservatives lack the empathy gene. Personally, its not something I would brag about.
Nope. We lack the bleeding heart socialistic gene. And we're happy about that.
The death penalty would be great and very practical, but the duration of time it takes for a prisoner to eventually be executed is over a span of decades and there are hardly any peopleto be executed. That's how it is in America anyways. If the death penalty were to be in effect immediately when sentence, then it would be practical. But now? The whole idea sound far too vestigal and drawn-out. Make the guilty feel penitence for there misdeeds for the span of the lives, rather than going out in peace and closure after fifteen years of dwelling on it.
I would have to say that I support that they should live. Those people that have done something wrong should be given a chance to if they are truely repentant. It would also have to depend on the extent on the murder, whether it was an accident or non accidental, also the number of people slaughtered.
so they can live every day of there life and thing about the persons life they kill it take them long to kill people on death row it take them three or more year to sat a day so why not let them live some people on death row or wrongful conviction so what about those people they can not die
If we continue to allow the death penalty, we are no better than the murderers and rapists that we punish with the death penalty. Killing the criminal would just make others angry, since there are other ways to take criminals out of the streets, like life sentences. Also, this could inspire modern-world vigilantes and gang members to have an "eye for an eye" mentality, which means that they will return violence and murder with violence and murder. They will think that if the government does it, it's right for them to do it. And what about the criminals' families? What will they think when they're family member has been murdered by the government? Criminals, as bad as they may be, do have families. The death sentence is just one of those things that makes the cynics right, it is a disgrace to fix a problem with murder.
If we continue to allow the death penalty, we are no better than the murderers and rapists that we punish with the death penalty.
Yes we are, actually. See, murder is immoral. Justice isn't.
Killing the criminal would just make others angry
Who cares? Morality doesn't care about your feelings.
like life sentences.
And what kind of justice is that? Letting a murderer, a rapist, etc. live?
Also, this could inspire modern-world vigilantes and gang members to have an "eye for an eye" mentality
Don't they already? Usually vigilantes are doing something because someone did something to someone. Gang "vengeance" is the same.
they will return violence and murder with violence and murder
That's what criminals do, music.
They will think that if the government does it, it's right for them to do it.
Right, that's called justified homicide. Which is already a thing.
the criminals' families?
Again, who cares? Yes, they weren't involved with the crime but the convict did what they did. It's not of importance to the government what happens to the criminal's family, particularly because they didn't do anything illegal.
What will they think when they're family member has been murdered by the government?
Nice incorrect usage of they're.
Second, the death penalty isn't murder. The death penalty is legal as well as moral, murder isn't either.
Third, I don't care. It's not my concern. They aren't my family, and the criminal should've known they'd be putting their family in jeopardy through the crime.
The death sentence is just one of those things that makes the cynics right, it is a disgrace to fix a problem with murder.
The cynics? Okay. A disgrace to fix the murder problem? No. To reiterate, the death penalty is not murder. The death penalty is moral and legal, murder is immoral and illegal. Plain and simple.
Yes we are, actually. See, murder is immoral. Justice isn't.
You're right, it's wrong to kill but in death penalty we're making killing as justice but justice should be right, and that's the flaw in your concept.
Who cares? Morality doesn't care about your feelings.
Yes, you are right again, so we should not let our feelings control our justice system, our emotions do not imply what is right and what is wrong
And what kind of justice is that? Letting a murderer, a rapist, etc. live?
Restorative justice bro
Don't they already? Usually vigilantes are doing something because someone did something to someone. Gang "vengeance" is the same.
Both the criminal and the government are the same, it should not be, the government should be different from the criminals.
That's what criminals do, music.
That's what the government also do, end the music
Right, that's called justified homicide. Which is already a thing.
justified homicide? Nope, people are still whining about the government's identity (killer) because it isn't acceptable.
Again, who cares? Yes, they weren't involved with the crime but the convict did what they did. It's not of importance to the government what happens to the criminal's family, particularly because they didn't do anything illegal.
You're right, the inmate's family is out of the inmate's case
Nice incorrect usage of they're.
Second, the death penalty isn't murder. The death penalty is legal as well as moral, murder isn't either.
Third, I don't care. It's not my concern. They aren't my family, and the criminal should've known they'd be putting their family in jeopardy through the crime.
You contradict yourself,
Murder or the act of killing is wrong but in the death penalty you have to kill,
Perhaps you mean killing an innocent is wrong but it is right to kill the criminal
If this is what you mean, it means that it is also okay to kill the government because the government is not innocent they do the work of criminals and everyone who kills exchange their innocence
Now I have explained to you how you contradict yourself, if I'm wrong then justify .
About the Third, Why is the criminal family endangered if it does not do anything wrong?
The cynics? Okay. A disgrace to fix the murder problem? No. To reiterate, the death penalty is not murder. The death penalty is moral and legal, murder is immoral and illegal. Plain and simple.
Yes, the death penalty is legal killing but killing is unhuman-like, being inhumen is not moral. Yes killing a criminal is legal but not all what the lawmakers say is right, they are just a human that can make mistake.
If it is easy for you to kill ,for us it is not because we value human life and we believe that no human life is more worth than the money being saved from every time the death penalty is fulfilled. There are other solutions than killing, believe me, We are wiser than we expected.
If we continue to allow the death penalty, we are no better than the murderers and rapists that we punish with the death penalty.
They started it.
Killing the criminal would just make others angry, since there are other ways to take criminals out of the streets, like life sentences.
The death sentence has been used since the beginning of the United States, and rarely, if ever, has there been an occurrence in which someone avenges the death of a murderer or rapist. And life sentences cost a considerable amount of money. Execution does not.
Also, this could inspire modern-world vigilantes and gang members to have an "eye for an eye" mentality, which means that they will return violence and murder with violence and murder. They will think that if the government does it, it's right for them to do it
I will reiterate my previous argument. There has seldom if ever been any occurrence in which someone has violently avenged a murderer's death. And the death penalty has been around for a very, very long time.
And what about the criminals' families? What will they think when they're family member has been murdered by the government?
That's entirely dependant on the family's relationship with the murderer. But to say that we shouldn't punish someone because of what the family would think is impractical. the family would think the government is harsh if they were imprisoned or even fined because of their bias. That should not sway anyone's judgment.
Not to mention the fact that the justice system is very flawed and people who are innocent somehow end up in prison under bullshit court trials all the damn time. I don't want to watch court recordings anymore. I'll faint at more outrages.
I think the death penalty is an archaic and obsolete form of punishment, even for the crime of murder.
For the record, I think prison is no better.
Here is my take, and why:
1. There are so many ridiculous laws in our country, that virtually everyone is guilty of something. This kind of beaurocratic pressure lowers quality of life, and is one of the causes for increased agitation amongst people. Long story short, when the system fails to serve the people and becomes a totalitarian vampire, vicious crimes will undoubtably rise, due to frustration and perhaps even mental breakdown. Add to that extreme levels of police brutality in the last decade, is it any wonder so many people are reacting in a violent manor?
2. Does the system work 100% every time? Of course not. If even one innocent person is incarcerated or murdered (by the state), that is one too many.
3. Does prison work? Are inmates happy, well adjusted people when they get out? Or are they more angry, bitter, and violent?
When a person is in 'jail', they have to become more cunning, ruthless, and violent just to survive in there. Would you agree that putting an already dangerous person into a survival situation that requires more violence might make them even less equipped to deal with society once they get out?
4. I have to chuckle at the creative ways this government kills people. Electrocution, cyanide, ... What kind if sick people think up ways to kill those that commit crimes? I understand that families who have been victims deserve justice, but allowing the government to doll out murder is ridiculous. It would be more fitting if the victim pulled the trigger, so to speak.
I don't have all the answers, honestly, but a proper reform Center or perhaps even exile to an island might be a better solution. The best solution, of course, would be for society to realize it is on the brink of self destruction, and reform itself before its too late.
There are no upsides to the death penalty. Once you kill someone, you can't say oops and bring em back after discovering they were innocent (and people DO go to jail innocent. If the prosecution cannot prove it beyond a doubt, the jury simple votes. How convenient. And the prosecution can use whatever stupid heart strings or bitchy rhetoric and appeals they want.). It gets swept under the rugs. And if it doesn't... the people who have killed the most under the death penalty will end up strapped to that bed too if they make it a capital offense to accidentally kill an innocent person.
Not to mention that the death penalty is more costly than simple life in prison in both money and time. The money saved could be used to help victims out.
Not to mention that it makes America look barbaric vs the many other countries that have banned it.
Not to mention that it seems to be applied inconsistently (women and whites get it less, and general instability in how its applied even THEN.
Not to mention that it makes more victims (the killer's family.)
Death shouldn't be a "penalty."
Sorry, but death penalty-ers are killers too, just like soldiers in killing games are. But it's easier to excuse death penalty killing than trying to make killing okay "because it was a war," (like that makes the loss of fathers and mothers and the physical torture alright? Get for real, sick freaks!)
I 100% percent Disagree with the Death penalty. It should be banned from every country.
My first point is why should anyone have the right to kill someone for killing someone, that is justifying what they had been punished for in the first place. If someone does kill an innocent person. YES they should be punished a life sentence in jail is an appropriate punishment for someone who has committed certain crimes NOT DEATH.
My second point Is there are allot of cases out there now where people have been wrongly convicted and have been in prison for a life time before new evidence had been found to let the certain person convicted to be released. I feel having being given a death penalty and certain individuals knowing there not guilty could be one of the worst things ever and i wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
My last point is how a character can change and how sorry people can be, I met a man in Jamaica while i was working there a few years ago he had been prosecuted in America and had spent 15 years in Jail after committing second degree murder, Gang affiliation, drug trafficking and armed weapons. This man had come out of jail and was clearly a reformed character and i don't think i know any other person i can trust,confide in and get along with better. DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!
I do not believe in the death penalty. I believe that humans should not be in control of life, something that they didn't create. Also i don't think that we should be able to take away something we can not give, therefore i believe in life sentencing to prison. This way, they are still not out roaming the streets and are serving a penalty, but not death, Humans should leave life to God and stop trying to take it into their own hands.
The death penalty is final. This means that the court has to be 100% sure of a guilty verdict. Consequently, the death penalty does not account for the possibility of new evidence emerging which could prove vital for proving a man's innocence. The death penalty does not account for the error of forensic technology (e.g. DNA tests). This uncertainty makes it impossible for a court to be 100% sure that a human being is worthy of the death penalty therefore the death penalty should not be a punishment used by the government.
Let me just say that I believe in the death penalty but you can't nesaicarly ban something that we don't do. We haven't done the death penalty for at least 18 years.
It most certainly does not. Bullets cost about 20 cents a piece. A 6 foot length of rope is about 2 dollars. 700 joules of electricity is about 10 cents. What is costly is the ridiculous system of appeals that puts them on death row for 10-20 years awaiting appellate or even supreme court jurisdiction.
Not really. It actually even relates to his side, namely "Hang 'em high!". There's nothing horrible about saying ropes are cheap, Liz. It seems that yours, not his, is the "stupid comment" which "should not be on the site or anywhere".
I'm from Australia, and too often I've had to witness murderers and rapists being released onto the streets. In my opinion, those who perform those acts of their own free will deserve to die. It's not eye for an eye. It's to protect all other eyes.
I also believe child-bashers and animal-bashers should receive a death penalty.
I have met too many victims...and lost many friends, I have no sympathy for monsters
animal bashers?? people who hurt animals should be killed too?? maybe we should start with what crimes warrant the death penalty.
I think your argument is part of why the death penalty should be abolished. The government makes errors in releasing people who are still dangerous and in capturing people who are actually innocent.
I believe the death penalty should be used only in cases that are proven guilty without a doubt. As in the case of the scum who raped and tortured and murdered ,nurse Anita Cobby in 1986.
Anita Cobbys' RAPISTS AND MURDERERS JUST TRIED TO RECENTLY APPLY FOR BAIL. THEY SHOULD OF BEEN PUT TO DEATH, A LONG TIME AGO.Certainly they should not be allowed to be released!
IF YOU THINK THEM DOING THEIR TIME HAS PAID FOR THE CRIME , THEN I THINK THAT YOU DONT THINK MUCH AT ALL.
ONLY IN THOSE CASES OF PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND DOUBT!
WHEN THERE IS AN OBVIOUS CASE , THERE IS AN OBVIOUS CASE. WHEN SOME ONE HAS EVERY BIT OF ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE AGAINST A INDIVIDUAL/S ,WHEN THERE IS ABSOLUTE ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,WITHOUTTTTTT A DOUBTTTTTTT.
ONLY WHEN , REPEAT,ONLY WHEN THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT.
Once again, how can you know for sure? There are a LOT of cases where people think that they know for sure, but it turns out they convicted person is innocent.
but when there is an ABSOLUTE CASE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE CASE.
When every bit of evidence supports that the person is gulty and there OWN confession is also added to the pile of damming evidence say like caught "RED HANDED".
THIS IS WHAT IM MEANING WHEN I SAY WITHOUT ABSOLUTE DOUBT!
I understand what you are saying but i dont think you understand what i am saying.
No, I understand what you're saying, but I'm disagreeing that there is such thing as an absolute case. Have you seen the movie 12 Angry Men? That's an example of what I'm talking about. Its about a group of men on a jury that think that it's an open and shut case beyond all reasonable doubt, but they realize it's not. There's no such thing as an absolute case.
Ah, bummer, try to check that movie out, it's a fun watch :)
I'm not trying to be rude. All that I'm saying is that it's hard to tell when a case is definite. Emotions can get in the way, the defendant can have a shitty lawyer, etc. I'm just saying that because of all the possible variables that can confound the results, it's too risky.
please do dispute me - my username is justignoreme - it is meant tongue in cheek
i think most people here are arguing that our justice system does not require absolute certainty in order to sentence someone to the death penalty, and we can almost never have absolute certainty. even people who have confessed have been later found innocent (taking the fall for someone else, coerced confessions, etc.)
“TRIED TO RECENTLY APPLY FOR BAIL” – I don’t think this is accurate since bail is not used once a person has been convicted. You may possibly mean that they sought to appeal, or were up for parole though I have not found any evidence to that effect.
Worst case scenario – which does not seem to have happened here – would be that a dangerous person is let go, this would not be a valid argument for the death penalty, rather an argument for reform of the parole process, etc.
The only thing we know for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN is that we are all sinners – yet we do not preemptively lock everyone up.
when there is an ABSOLUTE CASE THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE CASE.
When every bit of evidence supports that the person is gulty and there OWN confession is also added to the pile of damming evidence say like caught "RED HANDED".
THIS IS WHAT IM MEANING WHEN I SAY WITHOUT ABSOLUTE DOUBT!
I understand what you are saying but i dont think you understand what i am saying.
sorry.
No i dont believe Australia should have the death penalty but , i do feel that there is some rather far gone realities that people just dont seem to comprehend.
You would be amazed at some of the convicted murderers that I DONT think should recieve the death penalty.But thats a long list also.
Human nature is one thing- Evil is something else all togeather.
- My automatic response is a dangerous thing , this is why I should not be the judge of such final decisions.
In the case of Anita Cobbys' murderers , and others
I at least believe that they should NEVER be released.AND they should contribute to society. , VIA many forms until they die. they get it too fucking easy in jail anyway. protection etc.
BY YOUR REASONING , PEOPLE SHOULDNT EVEN BE INCARCERATED JAILED
W/E
Yes , they do indeed need a reform of the system .
i dont believe Australia should have the death penalty
they should NEVER be released
I think many people here would agree with you - including me - they should just be locked up - if they are never safe to be released into society, they should never be let out.
(though you have posts here that are tagged 'hang em, put em in the ground, and let 'em live - so i am getting mixed messages...)
Absolutely True!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like the sudden release of convicted child rapist Dennis Raymond Ferguson ....CAN I TAKE THIS MOMENT TO SAY TO HIM IN CASE HE JOINS THIS SITE-- ( THE FUKD' LAWS CAN ONLY KEEP YOU SAFE FOR SO LONG ARSEHOLE , YOU ARE OUTVOTED. AUSTRALIANS HATE YOU AND WE HATE YOU WITH A PASSION. AS I SAID , THE FUKD' LAWS PROTECTING YOUR HEAD ,
WONT STOP THE ONES , WHO WANT YOU DEAD. YOU WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS ACCEPTABLE , WE HATE YOU!!!!!ps. STAY OFF OUR BEACHES PRICK ! ) SORRY princessplop ----- i agree with you. That mongrel does deserve to die. If you see him before i do , get a good one in for me , ok. Thanks ... i will stop now.
Those people may deserve to die but it's nobody's job to kill them. I have no sympathy for monsters either but better to have them rot in jail with regret than be set at ease.
What does them being released have to do with the death penalty? You could simply vote for them like, NOT being released. You're a killer too, and not just of killers, of people who simply committed abuse. Killing everyone else just makes more people depressed and sad. It's more loss of life, of parents and family. I don't know why you think you should be seen as cooler than them.
Not to mention that it's completely irresponsible. Would you like to receive the death penalty for people that turned out to be innocent that you soberly murdered? No? Didn't think so, bitch.
Animal-bashers? I can understand execution for a murderer, but for killing an animal? That is lunacy. Animals are killed for food, what difference does it make if they are killed for a different reason?
I believe i used the term 'animal bashers'...not farmers or slaughterhouse workers.... I mean people who think its okay to kick a dog or tie fire crackers to a cats tails. I actually like steak.....and I am not a hypocrite! Those animals get put down humanely....not tortured and beaten for days on end. I am for veggos by the way.
Your neurologically imbalanced attitude is not only worrying, it is psychopathic. How would you prove guilt on somebody who 'kicked a dog'? And, in what way, is kicking a dog so morally abhorrant as to warrant a death sentence for the given act?
If you are willing to kill somebody for kicking a dog then you are contradicting yourself most terribly. Surely, if you support the death penalty, a mad vigilante who clubs somebody to death for kicking their pet should be the first person to be chlorinated from the gene pool on a lethal injection table?
You have the mentality of a seriously uneducated potential serial killer. It is my advice to you that you search for some professional psychological help, or you could end up killing some random person, and getting arrested by the law enforcement.
And then it will be you that your lynch mob demand as a tree decoration.
Your neurologically imbalanced attitude is not only worrying, it is psychopathic. How would you prove guilt on somebody who 'kicked a dog'? And, in what way, is kicking a dog so morally abhorrant as to warrant a death sentence for the given act?
If you are willing to kill somebody for kicking a dog then you are contradicting yourself most terribly. Surely, if you support the death penalty, a mad vigilante who clubs somebody to death for kicking their pet should be the first person to be chlorinated from the gene pool on a lethal injection table?
You have the mentality of a seriously uneducated potential serial killer. It is my advice to you that you search for some professional psychological help, or you could end up killing some random person, and getting arrested by the law enforcement.
And then it will be you that your lynch mob demand as a tree decoration.
Obviously you have never been around when an animal has been beaten to death right in front of you. If you had, maybe you wouldn't be so quick to sign people off to the loony bin. But before I contradict everything that you have said in your pointless waste of space argument, let me tell you something. You are an insensitive jerk. You know nothing about me. Therefore, as you obviously know next to nothing on anything about me, get off your high horse and smell the manure. Or I could just rub your face in it.
If the dog is yours, and you just kick it for no other reasons than a failure to communicate, then you are the one worthy of being kicked, not the dog.
And worse, if the dog isn't yours, and you just kick it because that's how you get off, than you are the neurologically imbalanced psychopath. Why don't you witness an animal beating (heck, you'll probably partake in it you freak) and see how you feel then. If nothing changes, then you are the one in need of 'professional psychological help'. If you need a good therapist, my door is always open. Obviously you have issues.
Any person who displays such a weakness of character cannot be allowed to contaminate the gene pool any further. Therefore, they must be put down. If a dog bit a human, they would be put down, so why no do the same to a human?
The fact that you believe a person should be executed for kicking a dog demonstrates that you are one f those unhinged vigliante sorts; your sort should be chlorinated from the gene pool before you become a serial killer.
Your argument is disturbing; you need help from a psychologist. You are probably going to murder somebody; hopefully it will b in a place with the death penalty and then you will get what you deserve.
to put animal bashing in context with the original arguement, murderers and serial killers are profiled in their early years by animal crulety, thats how they start! clearly shows a lack of empathy to life or suffering of others, even on a small scale.Im a meat eater by the way,though i do not condone the suffering of animals in any form
iv heard a arrangement of points being said on the side of wanting them to live. such as it cost more?!?!? are you crazy, maybe if you use top secret unknowing area 51 stuff for every death sentence to kill them. but these sickos who liberals say "o he did not mean to decapitate the little girl then hide it in his closet" or "well just because he killed a person out of anger dose not mean we must kill back in anger" these people who defend murders make me sick. it is more expensive to pay for the prison fine or the mental hospital find for these criminals to get the easy way out, and to watch them end up doing the crime again. not only are we bringing justice to these wrong doers, we are protecting others from future crimes they may do. i guarantee you if the shooter at fort hood lived, you would hear every left wing nut job in your community praise him as a hero and say he was just in his acts. yes are Court system is pretty missed up. but it dose not stop the act of bringing justice to some one who commits murder, i mean its pretty obvious if they did the crime or not, outside witnesses can tell you that most of the time, and as for accidental death crimes, we have protection for people who end up in theses unfortunate situations, we don't just kill every person charged with murder.
In fact mudkipz, many people would prefer the death penalty of life in jail. An the people put in jail have a very small chance to get out, next to none in fact. I don't think you understand that life in jail means LIFE in jail WITHOUT parole, so they cannot committ further crimes. In addition, the way you talk about liberals sickens me, you are the kind of person that intelligent conservatives rue, people like you give them a "bad name".
Why should you defend the murderer? If they killed someone, the same should be done to
them. "Do unto others as you would want to be treated", no?
Also, Hillary Clinton did defend a rapist in court (no, it's not exactly the same crime) and liberals/Democrats defended her on this, even when she admitted that she knew he was guilty. So, I think he's correct about most liberals being against the death penalty.
By killing a murderer, it is not only he who suffers. It is everyone he knows, especially his parents. In this way instead of stopping sufferings, it prolongs them. Can you prove that killing a murderer is beneficial?
Besides the fact that it gets rid of that member of society once and for all (Do we really want to keep Charles Mansons in BTK Killers alive in jails with the chance of escape?), I believe the death penalty has deterred at least some people from committing murder.
I would much prefer that the Manson's & BTK's of the world be held under study for life without parole so that we can better understand why they turned out the way that they did, so that others need not go down that same path in the future.
We do know a lot about why they became mass murderers. Even if we kept them alive in a cell, there's no guarantee they would cooperate. We can get more information from a third party anyway. If you want to find out about a person's character, the best people to ask are people who are close to them. The person in question is likely to exaggerate the truth and omit details.
Do you honestly think a mass murderer is a viable source of information? I've heard stories of these people before. My mom worked in a place designed to handle paranoid schizophrenics and people with bi-polar disorders. One person there actually killed his entire family when he was younger, except for his sister because she got away in time. When asked why he killed them, he said that the chickens on his farm told him to grab a wrench and beat them all to death. So now that we know he's insane, we should allow him to walk the streets? I'm sure if they could track down his sister, they'd find out a lot more things about his life that they didn't know beforehand.
Also, if you're going to downvote an argument, explain why. And "I disagree" in any form is a very bad reason.
"Do you honestly think a mass murderer is a viable source of information?"
Do you honestly believe in science?? I do, and I know that through studying things that we learn more about how & why they occur, period.
"When asked why he killed them, he said that the chickens on his farm told him to grab a wrench and beat them all to death. So now that we know he's insane, we should allow him to walk the streets?"
LOL...who says that we need to release people that are a danger to themselves & others?? That's a strawman argument.
As for your buddy, he obviously had a specific mental disorder, but WHY did he develop it?? Wasn't chemical, biological, his treatment as a child, etc., etc.?? We need to KNOW these things in order to prevent others from falling into the same trap of mental illness!
Very logical, I agree, the family or friends would be a more reliable source because they are less deluded than the person who thought it was right to kill others. This isn't to say that the murderer's verbal accounts of his own experience could not also be valuable information to piece together the puzzle.
Ok, so we should weigh up the good and bad that comes from it. It has deterred at least some people from killing others. However it has led to the deaths of many more people (all the murderers) compared to the number deterred.
"Do we really want to keep Charles Mansons in BTK Killers alive in jails with the chance of escape." I believe the chance of escape is remote especially considering the amount of security provided for such high profile cases.
But when you weigh the deaths out, the deaths from crime are all (well mostly) innocent people: women walking home from the grocery store, children playing in a yard, families and friends. The people dying from the death penalty are guilty people who have taken the lives of others. I have heard that there are false verdicts and that some innocent people are killed accidentally, but that number is decreasing year by year. Back in the 70's, they didn't know how to test DNA, but now that we can, verdicts are far more accurate.
Your reasoning is solid. I agree that the people who are killed are mostly innocent people and that those killed by the death penalty are almost certainly guilty of the crime. We differ in our ideological basis whereby I believe that even a serial killer's human life is precious. I believe that people are essentially good but their view can become twisted and perverted and they lose control and basic morality. Society should be protected by all means from such people ie, life sentences, I only wish that their lives could be spared in the hope that some good may come from them. Thanks for the debate
If someone is bad enough to be considered for the death penalty then they must have had sure evidence that they are guilty if they are then they shouldn't deserve the right to live among people they could kill
It puts a lot of strain on the prison systems and they aren't always held there like they should be. Execution makes more financial sense if it's done correctly.
It's already been proven that the costs to try & convict a death penalty case far & away costs more than trying & convicting a life without parole case (including the money that it takes to house the prisoner afterwards).
That is partially correct. But what is not being accounted for is the long-term strain placed on prison facilities. When that factors in, execution is much more cost effective. That's the problem with the current system. It needs to be streemlined to accomodate execution more efficiently and accurately.
Many, many people have already been exonerated AFTER being convicted of a capital crime. Just because the prosecution says that you are guilty doesn't make it so.
As have there been many people struck by lightning. And compared to the ammount of falsly convicted people, the lightning strikes win by a longshot. It not an overstatement it's a FACT. look it up.
Look, your arguing with a meteorologist (not that you knew that until now).
The odds of an average person living in the USA being struck by lightning in a given year is 1:700,000. In the USA, between 9-10% of those struck die...for an average of 40-50 deaths per year (there were 28 in 2008).
According to The Innocence Project, a U.S. DOJ & Columbia Law School study estimates a 5% failure rate in the U.S. justice system, which suggests as many as 100,000 falsely convicted prisoners. Other reports place the estimate as high as 10% or 200,000 falsely convicted prisoners.
This is a notoriously sketchy study to begin with. Finding an exact percentage for the rate of falsely convicted prisoners is very difficult to do. Estimates range from 1% to 10%. I don't care where you got your information, there is no sure way to know.
And you know this how? For us to know how likely this is, we'd have to know how many are wrongly convicted for capital cases. And if we knew that, then they wouldn't be convicted.
Occasionally (and very rarely mind you) evidence is found after a conviction that casts doubt on the convicting evidence, and the death row inmate (if he's still alive) may be exonerated with a retrial. The number of times this happens in a given year is less than the number of people who die of lightning strikes.
Occasionally (and very rarely mind you) evidence is ---->FOUND<--- after a conviction that casts doubt on the convicting evidence
Keyword here being: Found.
This says nothing of total number of wrongful executions, it only speaks of those that are FOUND to be wrongful. What of those that were never found to be wrongful but were? Do you have a figure representing these cases?
What is the ratio of wrongful executions that were found versus those that were not found?
We don't know how many cases are not found, so it's impossible to say how likely or unlikely a wrongful execution is.
This says nothing of total number of wrongful executions, it only speaks of those that are FOUND to be wrongful. What of those that were never found to be wrongful but were? Do you have a figure representing these cases?
It all comes down to reasonable doubt. Most people who are executed have an enormous amount of evidence that indicates their guilt. But even if (for the sake of argument) every single person that was executed last year was innocent, the number still wouldn't be higher than the number of people struck by lightning.
Most people who are executed have an enormous amount of evidence that indicates their guilt.
I would agree
But even if (for the sake of argument) every single person that was executed last year was innocent, the number still wouldn't be higher than the number of people struck by lightning.
This only shows that not many people are executed. Of those that are executed it does not show how rare a wrongful execution is. If every person executed was innocent, this would give us a 100% failure rate.
This only shows that not many people are executed. Of those that are executed it does not show how rare a wrongful execution is. If every person executed was innocent, this would give us a 100% failure rate.
Obviously not every person executed is innocent, I was using that for the sake of argument. My point is that capital crimes (and being executed) is not that common, so even if it did have a 100% failure rate, it would be incredibly rare for you or anyone you know to ever fall victim to it (like being stuck by lightning). And if the evidence stacks up beyond a reasonable doubt that a suspect is guilty, the chance that the state is killing an innocent person goes a lot lower than that.
The exact rates really aren't that relevant to the debate. If even a small number--let's say 1%--are executed and were innocent, the capital punishment system has failed completely. Those are lives you can't get back. The solution is to give convicted murderers life in prison without possibility of release or parole, so then the punishment can be transmuted if sufficient evidence arises to prove the prisoner innocent.
just because someone is believed to have done something wrong doesnt mean that they are bad people who deserve to die...what if that happened to you? A person who happens to look like you rapes a woman and you are accused, u should die?
Some states (such as Texas) have streamlined their court system to more easily accommodate execution. the current plan has been in place for 7 years now and with over 10,000 executions, there hasn't been a single false conviction. Texas' system of capital punishment is less than a quarter the cost of housing a criminal for life. This is the way the justice system SHOULD work, however, year after, liberals in the government keep lobbying for measures that will make it harder and more expensive to execute. I for one don't feel like paying one cent of my tax dollars to go to keeping these people (if you can call them that) alive or pay a ridiculous fee to execute them. America should be streamlining it's justice system, not allowing the liberals to complicate it more.
"with over 10,000 executions, there hasn't been a single false conviction."
LOL...TX has only legally executed 1,196 people my GOP friend. Also, Texas has executed persons who were, in fact, innocent. One notable case involves Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004 for murdering his three daughters in 1991 by arson, but where a 2009 article in The New Yorker, and subsequent findings, have cast doubt on the evidence used in his conviction. In 2009, a report conducted by Dr. Craig Beyler, hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the case, found that "a finding of arson could not be sustained". Beyler said that key testimony from a fire marshal at Willingham's trial was "hardly consistent with a scientific mind-set and is more characteristic of mystics or psychics.”
BTW, once again, you've offered exactly ZERO evidence that anything that you claim is actually true.
you have presented ONE case of false execution. Even if there has only been 1,196 people executed (which I find very unlikely) One false conviction does not justify your case. Give more referances.
LOL...why am I not surprised that you are undaunted by actual facts?? You've already stated above that the real facts of the matter will never change your mind on this issue. Give it up wing-nut...I'm DONE wasting my time with the ignorant likes of you.
Wrong again, there have been many, many, many more cases that that:
OK, so even if all these people were executed incorrectly (which they weren't), it would still not even scratch the surface in terms of a danger to society. You're far more likely to be killed in a car crash than be falsely executed. Should we ban cars too? Secondly, I doubt the innocence of all of these "falsely convicted" inmates. Oftentimes, after many appeals and retrials, the defense will be able to plant a seed of "reasonable doubt" and a sympathetic jury will exonerate the suspect, even though his actual innocence remains very questionable.
"Even if there has only been 1,196 people executed (which I find very unlikely)"
My numbers are correct GOPer...quit denying them!
Your numbers don't go back to the Republic. That's what mine are based on.
You don't even appear to know the real reasons why TX has had so many executions:
Yeah the "real reasons". The first one says that judges are elected and want to appear tough on crime. Well of course they should! They're judges, they need to be tough on crime whether they are appointed or elected. It also said that judges don't seem to make scholarly or intellectual reports on their decisions. I find this to be a moot argument since 1) it is as left wing biased as Fox is right wing biased, and 2) it is a matter of interpretation, which allows the aforementioned bias to say whatever it's opinion is. The next point is "Texas does not have a public defender system for indigent defendants, and instead relies upon court-appointed lawyers who likely do not have experience in capital murder defenses or appeals." This is irrelevant when it is appealed to a Federal circuit court which often happens in a capital case. The third point is "Until the early 1990s, Texas did not permit jurors to adequately consider mitigating evidence in the sentencing phase of a trial. Thus, there are a number of people currently on death row that may well not be there had information about their mental illness or youth been weighed." They did this because such information would lead to a bias. Most Texans don't believe it should matter if you're a kid or insane. A crime is a crime, and exceptions only lead to unfairness.
LOL...why am I not surprised that you are undaunted by actual facts?? You've already stated above that the real facts of the matter will never change your mind on this issue. Give it up wing-nut...I'm DONE wasting my time with the ignorant likes of you.
Here you go again with the "real facts". I will agree that some people probably have been falsely executed. But it doesn't change the fact that it is far more accurate than inaccurate, and it serves it's purpose in ridding society of bad people. Everything else you've "proven" is mere conjecture or outright bias and opinion.
Pro-American thoughts - Enforce the death penalty and do not allow it to be disputed as easily.
Anti-American thoughts - Ban the death penalty altogether so that convicts get more rights and America takes one step closer to hell.
All in all I'm for the death penalty. The reason it is not such a strong deterrent is because it is so easily disputed. If it was used more liberally then it would be a LOT stronger as a deterrent. Giving people life sentences is worse than killing them. Economically, morally, ethically etc unless ofcourse there's a strong reason for it. Innocent people will be put to the death penalty.. and even though I don't want this.. it is for the greater good.
"Anti-American thoughts - Ban the death penalty altogether so that convicts get more rights and America takes one step closer to hell."
Wow, calling something "Anti-American" without any direct evidence is a pretty weak "argument".
"Giving people life sentences is worse than killing them. Economically, morally, ethically etc unless ofcourse there's a strong reason for it."
Life without parole costs the justice system WAAAY less than death penalty cases do. I agree that having to live with your horrible crime for life without the possibility of parole is horrendous, but I have little sympathy for those that are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Don't think that all liberals "love" criminals, because we really don't.
"Innocent people will be put to the death penalty.. and even though I don't want this.. it is for the greater good."
Wow, calling something "Anti-American" without any direct evidence is a pretty weak "argument".
Don't take that too seriously dude....
I dunno how to post links to posts.. but I've made a post disputing sirius's post on this debate about how and why death penalty cases are so much more expensive. The reason why killing them is better is not just the economic benefits but also the deterrent it causes.
The reason why it's not successful in America is because most of the cases are not given death row and those that are haven't been executed. There's no action behind the words i.e. when a parent tells the kids they'll get beats if they jump on the bed.. and after they jump on the bed they don't get beats.. they'll ignore the threats.
"Innocent people will be put to the death penalty.. and even though I don't want this.. it is for the greater good."
Who's "greater good"???
Firstly there has been no proof that an Innocent man has ever been placed on death row.
Secondly there will be a place and time that somebody innocent will be executed, but you cannot stop the whole system due to one wrong execution. If it is a regular occurance then ofcourse... but in general an anomaly should not be a preventer.
"I've made a post disputing sirius's post on this debate about how and why death penalty cases are so much more expensive. The reason why killing them is better is not just the economic benefits but also the deterrent it causes."
Look, studies have consistently shown that death penalty cases cost the govt. FAR MORE than life without parole cases.
"Firstly there has been no proof that an Innocent man has ever been placed on death row."
OF COURSE THERE IS...see far below...my goodness!
"Secondly there will be a place and time that somebody innocent will be executed, but you cannot stop the whole system due to one wrong execution. If it is a regular occurance then ofcourse"
...which is the whole point! People are regularly put on death row that have been proven innocent eventually.
Look, studies have consistently shown that death penalty cases cost the govt. FAR MORE than life without parole cases.
Have you read that post I made to sirius? These studies always take into account the costs of appeals and reappeals and with death row cases there are always tons of them which increases the costs dramatically.
OF COURSE THERE IS...see far below...my goodness!
Couldn't find anything about that...
...which is the whole point! People are regularly put on death row that have been proven innocent eventually.
I doubt it's a regular occurance but it probably does happen more often than it should. But I still think America needs to use deathrow a lot more often. Atleast 1,000 a year :D:D
"These studies always take into account the costs of appeals and reappeals and with death row cases there are always tons of them which increases the costs dramatically."
Duh! That's the point! Taking the death penalty completely off the table SAVES the govt. money in the long-run.
"Couldn't find anything about that."
You need to unhide all the comments on this side of the argument. I hate how the site automatically hides them. Does anyone know how to change that feature??
"I doubt it's a regular occurance but it probably does happen more often than it should."
More than it should?? The studies are very clear that people are routinely convicted of crimes that they never committed, period.
Duh! That's the point! Taking the death penalty completely off the table SAVES the govt. money in the long-run.
What needs to be done is reform. There needs to be less appeals.
You need to unhide all the comments on this side of the argument. I hate how the site automatically hides them. Does anyone know how to change that feature??
I did, but got low patience so probably missed it.
More than it should?? The studies are very clear that people are routinely convicted of crimes that they never committed, period.
I would love to see the statistics. What you also miss is a lot of guilty people get let off deathrow.
"What needs to be done is reform. There needs to be less appeals."
Riiiight...less appeals basically equals "guilty until proven innocent", which is NOT what this country was founded on, period. If a conviction is worth it's weight, then it's worthy of further scrutiny of the appeals process. We're talking about a human life here yanno...ugh...
"I would love to see the statistics. What you also miss is a lot of guilty people get let off deathrow."
LOL...hello?? You make a wild claim like that with absolutely NO support?! Please...
As for your "statistics":
"DNA Tests Prove Justice Has Failed"
"Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, 33, spent nearly half his life in a New York prison for a rape and murder he did not commit. DNA testing cleared Deskovic and he was released Sep. 20 from prison."
"In 2004, Ryan Matthew, convicted for the murder of a local convenience store owner in Louisiana, escaped the death penalty after prosecutors dropped all charges on the basis of DNA testing results."
"Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented at least 38 executions carried out in the United States in spite of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt since capital punishment was restored in the mid-1970s."
"Moreover, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented 123 death-row inmates who, since 1973, have been exonerated and freed before their executions."
"The staff of the CWC pioneered the investigation and litigation of wrongful convictions, relying a great deal on DNA testing. Their work proving the innocence of 11 men sitting on death row in the U.S. state of Illinois was a driving force behind former Governor George H. Ryan's decision to suspend executions in Illinois in January, 2001."
"The Innocence Project, which worked to free Deskovic, only handles cases where post-conviction DNA tests can yield conclusive proof of innocence. To date, it has helped exonerate 184 people, proving that wrongful convictions are not rare."
-In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review that found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed."
"Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed, Judge Says"
"'In the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood,' the judge, Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court in Boston, wrote in a decision allowing a capital case to proceed to trial.
He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row based on DNA and other evidence."
-Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented 38 executions carried out since the mid-1970s where there was compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Another 130 death row inmates were exonerated, instead of executed, between 1973-2008 due to emerging evidence, including DNA analysis. A smaller number of people have been exonerated posthumously. The Death Penalty Information Center estimates for every seven executions, one death row inmate is exonerated.
The death sentence is a good thing. Well if the crime is bad enough they should be killed. not for like steeling or anything but murder and terrorism and stuff like that the person should be. also i dont think they should be held in prison for years after the trial because they are going to be killed so we might as well kill them soon so we dont have to pay for them with our taxes.. (our taxes pay for prisons)
"also i dont think they should be held in prison for years after the trial because they are going to be killed so we might as well kill them soon so we dont have to pay for them with our taxes.. (our taxes pay for prisons)"
It's already been proven that non-death penalty cases end up costing much less than death penalty cases, and this includes the cost of incarceration.
First of all, I'll bet you that murderers probably don't live by that phrase. They're murderers, for heavens sakes. Similarly, that phrase as applied to capital punishment would read as, "Only execute others if you wish to be executed yourself."
They killed someone, why should they get to live in the luxury of prison, with all the food, tvs, computers, etc. that they want? Some prisons are horrible, but you guys should really read the 'News of the Weird' by Chuck Shepherd - he writes about all the weird things that happen, not just in prison.
Look at it this way, would you rather have a criminal locked in a small cell with other,in some cases far more dangerous criminals, for life looking over their shoulder,where they dont get many of the basic freedoms we take for granted or access to their loved ones, or quickly put to death? Death penalty is too good for them!
I think that it is possible to exonerate people after they have been tried and been convicted as guilty. I think that even though it never happens, it can.
Criminals should live all their life thinking about what they have done, and even if the state does not recognize it, they can repent in their heart.
I don't think we should ban the death penalty, but should be used very sparingly.
"I think that it is possible to exonerate people after they have been tried and been convicted as guilty. I think that even though it never happens, it can"
...and it already has happened...many, many times.
To be very frank and brutally, terribly awfully honest... we'd be better off without so many bad people, (yes, bad acts make bad people) and our population's getting kinda high...
As a society we are losing the ability to know right from wrong. If someone kills a cop, or hacks some family with a machete then that person deserves to have his own life ended. Period.
And when people give such a lame argument like "there is a slight chance some of these people may not be guilty", then for me it shows a complete lack of spine on their part. They would rather be noncommittal than do what is right.
Using that type logic, why send them to jail then?
Even if someone deserves to die (I'm not going to get into that debate; it's a purely ethical argument that can't be won), the ten or so prison workers per execution that have their lives ruined or ended because of the execution don't. According to EJUSA, "Corrections officials, haunted by the experience of putting people to death, have committed suicide, turned to alcohol, or suffered mental and physical health problems." These are innocent people that take their own lives because of the broken justice system. No matter how you look at it, that's just plain wrong.
You retard, IT COSTS MORE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN TO PREPARE PEOPLE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.
Would you like to be killed for the accidental oopsies when people turn out to be innocent? Irresponsible as FUCK. I seriously want everyone on the "hang em" side to be convicted of something they didn't do, be saved in the last moment, and feel a hallejujah moment.
i THINK we should keep the death penalty but for very strict reasons and crimes,if someone goes on a killing rampage and rapes people then yes death penalty for just one murder no probably not but even when you give them life so what i mean they can still appeal for bail,porrole or whatever.
the prisons are overcrowded as it and why prolong someones life who took someone elses i mean they don't deserve to live out there life. why was the person they killed undeserving of there life???? the average cost of an inmats healthcare is $50,000 which is 5 times more than they spend on students!!!!!! why do me and you the tax payers have too pay for these basterds healthcare it makes no sense to me. of course you cannot base your desision completely on the expens's you must consider that if someone is going to be put to death they had to do something pretty bad. take scott peterson for example he cut his pregnant wife up and dumped her in a lake should he live????
Why should the public have to pay for a murderer to live for the rest of his life in a guarded, high-security cell. What is the point? Many people say it is more costly to give the death penalty due to the number of appeals. Why? Why should people who have been convicted be aable to appeal over and over untill he can no longer afford to appeal. It is insane. One appeal is enough for one man. If he looses at that the Hang 'em High!
The death penalty right now is to easy even I think. Come on couple of shots? No way! That is way to easy. If we still hung people I could guarantee that there wouldn't be as many people doing things to get the death penalty!!
Americans SHOULD NOT ban the death penalty! If and when the people who are accused get convicted i believe they should have to suffer the same way their victims did!!!! They should suffer the consequences that fit their crime!! If you kill someone or hurt a child i believe you should get the death penalty!!!
for those of you that say yes to band the penalty think of this, imagine any one of your closest family members or friends being murdered by someone you never knew and never met, that even the person who was killed. your first response is, that person should die, of course. also remember this "The punishment, must fit the crime" "You ended the life of this woman, therefore we the people shall end your life" be in a situation where you lost someone closest to you, then say that person should live.
I think we should HANG 'EM because they are they not only deserve it but they would save the tax payers alot of money, money we desperately need to keep building our economy.
Would you keep a murderer in your house? That is the same thing when you keep a murderer in society. Most of me hates the death penalty because i will always have sympathy. I don't believe humans have the right to kill other humans. Because we are not God but i know God is understanding and kind. And in our shoes, we would agree to the death penalty because it meant saving more lives than just one. He allowed his Son to die on earth so he can save us all from harm. And he kicks Satan out of Heavan. These two examples is revelant to keeping the death penalty open.
People today are not held accountable for their actions. If a person MURDERS another person. Why on Earth would they be able to live? Eye for an eye? People always want excuses and to point their fingers at someone else. People should be held accountable. If a person steals someone else's car shouldn't they get in trouble? If a person KILLS someone else. That victim has a family, that is a father, brother, sister, mother, cousin. That victim is someone's world, and the person who killed them gets to live to see another day? He gets to go to prison and eat 3 meals a day, shower, sleep under a roof. NO NO NO! They should be held accountable. HANG EM HIGH
For people who have committed crimes beyond a reasonable doubt like:
1) hard drug dealers,
2) rapists,
3) dangerous stalkers
4) murderers (who kill without a reason)
5) violent gangsters
6) hate crimes/hazers
7) corruption (stealing from the public, putting money ahead of safety)
8) decisions based on bias
Kill them. History has shown that simple talk doesn't work. People will lie and defend their bad actions and blame it on the victims. Keeping these criminals alive will increase tax rates and costs to the general public, increase the money that goes to lawyers, increase the likelihood of them escaping, fan groups etc ...
A sped up death penalty will fix all this. Furthermore, a quick death is more humanitarian than imprisoning bad men. Of course, the people in jail should have a choice.
What the hell, why is this an argument. If they killed your family i dont think you would want them to be alive. Why does the public get to decide this. The public should not be paying to keep serial killers alive. The taxes we pay everyday go to our prisions to keep them fed. Honestly if they are put on death row it probably means they would have no problem re commiting this crime. I dont know why we shouod just trust the laws we have now, they are there for a reason.
No we should not ban the death penalty in fact make it worse. Criminals get off easy these days. If a man rapes a woman what is their punishment? Community service if you jaywalk that is what happens to you. Can't you see this is unfair
Personally, I don't think we should. Sure, people can talk about how much it costs to execute someone but really, do we need all the bells and whistles? Just shoot them, I say. No problem there. That shouldn't cost too much, and in fact I believe Utah still permits execution by firing squad.
Unfortunately, no matter how I'm going to put this. It's going to be the same answer that I've come up with more than a few times now, especially when I've been asked by my more conservative and liberal friends/coworkers.
I've always stood firm on the notion that the death penalty was not something to like, nor do I actually like it. But I cannot go without acknowledging the fact that it is a necessary evil of the days that we live in.
I've been across the world when I was till in the service, even at such a young age. I've seen multiple court cases here that would tribute weight to the notion, that there are just some people alive, who the rest of the world would be better off with them not being as such anymore.
I don't like the idea of incarcerating them for the rest of their life and I do not like the idea of offering some form of parole, especially when it's known that they willingly did such a crime that landed them in that position.
I will point out however that such enforcement of the law would need to be addressed, especially if the death penalty would be brought back in full effect, across the country. As well as the ability to correct investigate such instances and ensure that the correct party is prosecuted in the end.
I've always stood firm on the notion that the death penalty was not something to like, nor do I actually like it. But I cannot go without acknowledging the fact that it is a necessary evil of the days that we live in.
I'm pretty sure that was Hitler's argument for why we needed to kill the Jews.
Seeing as the death penalty in the US is based on culpability to the breach of law. I find it strange how you're attempting to impose something that Hitler did our of his own personal vendetta, with what our country uses as a legal function, that is supported by not only our laws, but the laws of others.
I think you should do something to get either your obsession with Hitler, or your hatred of Jews off the brain. Because neither of them lead to good things.
Capital punishment is what is keeping America alive. Without it, we would all be dead. Of course, no state really enforces it with the appeals and the parole and stuff that basically lets murderers scape by while people who didn't do anything get accused, tried, and convicted for nothing~! V
"Capital punishment is what is keeping America alive. Without it, we would all be dead. Of course, no state really enforces it with the appeals and the parole and stuff that basically lets murderers scape by while people who didn't do anything get accused, tried, and convicted for nothing"
Your argument here is completely convoluted, and you just contradicted yourself over the course of just two sentences! How could it possibly be true that "capital punishment is what is keeping America alive" if basically (in your opinion) "no state really enforces it"??
If anything, this kind of "argument" is an argument for abolishing the death penalty, since it isn't used uniformly across the entire country. It certainly doesn't seem like the portions of the USA that don't have a death penalty are "dying".
Most of these countries like mine choose to outlaw death penalty did so out of moral convictiction, cant you see the irony/double standard of of killing a killer? unlike what some think here, prison is no picnic,or hotel for that matter,unless you share your home with violent offenders that is!
I don't think it is wrong to kill a killer because, to put it simply, they started it. Everyone has a chance to be a good, contributing member of society, and if they fail so tremendously in that as to take an innocent life, I don't think they deserve their life. Furthermore, their death can be useful as a crime deterrent. The reason it seldom works in the united states is because we are all very divided on the issue, and can't seem to make effective legislation to ensure it's effectiveness. Also, regarding prisons, there are places in the United States in which people are living in such dire slums that a prison sentence would be an improvement. Because of this, often times people simply don't care who they harm because they have no fear of the justice system.
I agree with you again veronica. If we didn't have the simple threat of death for murder, then people would commit that crime more often. I thought that we should of hanged Sadam Husein high in the court yard of the white house then let the Middle East have him to drag his head thru the streets on a pole!!! Just my personal opinion~! C
How does a law that establishes a zero recidivism rate not deter crime? If we kill people who commit crimes, do you think that they will commit them again? No, because its impossible. Capital punishment offers little deterrence, but its wrong to say that it has an effect on future crime equal to zero.
"How does a law that establishes a zero recidivism rate not deter crime?"
You're making a HUGE assumption that the person being put to death is actually guilty. We know for a FACT that innocent people have been put to death already!
"Capital punishment offers little deterrence, but its wrong to say that it has an effect on future crime equal to zero."
You've successfully completely contradicted yourself over the course of just one sentence! Furthermore:
"Capital Punishment Doesn’t Deter Crime – It’s a fact"
"I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point."
Former Attorney General Janet Reno
-No support whatsoever is found for the argument that the certainty or speed of the death penalty provides an effective deterrent to murder. Not a single reputable study has yet to demonstrate the death penalty to be a more effective deterrent to murder than alternative legal sanctions.
"[Capital punishment] violates the Eighth Amendment because it is morally unacceptable to the people of the United States at this time in their history. In judging whether or not a given penalty is morally acceptable, most courts have said that the punishment is valid unless 'it shocks the conscience and sense of justice of the people.' Assuming knowledge of all the facts presently available regarding capital punishment, the average citizen would, in my opinion, find it shocking to his conscience and sense of justice. For this reason alone, capital punishment cannot stand."
Thurgood Marshall, former US Supreme Court Associate Justice
-Capital punishment is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice. When the govt. metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life & human dignity. In a civilized society, we reject the principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist's house. Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of uncivilized society.
-There has been a recent drop in the broad use of the death penalty, as indicated by a 60% drop in death sentences, a 45% decline in executions, a smaller death row, and a decreasing level of public support. In public opinion polls, there is a clear upward trend in support for life-without-parole sentences as a substitute for the death penalty. States without the death penalty have fared BETTER in reducing their murder rates than states with the death penalty. The death penalty concentrates millions of dollars on a few people with almost no control over the outcome. There are MUCH better ways to spend the public's tax dollars than on court cases trying to execute people.
In the United States, guilty beyond reasonable doubt is an extremely high standard. The American government goes to great lengths to ensure protection for its law-abiding citizens. According to a 2008 uniform crime report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there was an average of 17999.5 murders and non-negligent manslaughter instances per year in the United States between 1998 and 2008. In addition to this, the U.S. Department of Justice stated that an average of 70.4 executions a year occurred between 1998 and 2008. Assuming that there is an individual killer for each murder, this data shows that, averagely, just 0.39% of murders are matched with the execution of the people who commit them. The low number of executions and the very high number of murders demonstrates the difficulty for the U.S. court system to execute an innocent person.
The founding fathers, were major supporters of the death penalty. They were the ones who wrote the Eighth Amendment, therefore it cannot contradict their views. Isn't it cruel to society if we give killers a chance to freedom?
Its not really a matter of doing to criminals what they did to other people, its more a matter of giving them the maximum punishment for a terrible crime. Execution by the government is the best form of opposition to murder.
Some researchers have shown that the United States, a country with capital punishment, has a higher crime rate than Great Britain, a country without capital punishment. What has to be taken into consideration, though, is not that capital punishment increases murder rates, but that it is imposed because of higher murder rates. There are other laws that can be attributed to more murder, such as gun laws. Britain, which has some of the strictest gun laws in Europe, has an intentional homicide rate that is less than half that of the U.S.. It is, therefore, accurate to say that reform is needed in other laws, not in laws for execution.
The death penalty has been used as a scapegoat for many people who are against executions. Louisiana, a state with the death penalty and the highest murder rate in the country, has almost no gun control. The National Rifle Association reports that there is no permit needed in order to purchase handguns, rifles or shotguns in Louisiana. In Britain, the maximum sentence for just carrying an imitation gun, such as an airsoft or pellet gun, is one year in prison. In order to decrease crime, the government should decrease guns in circulation, not stop the executions of murderers which probably has no effect on crime rate.
If we assume that complete and utter protection for members of society cannot have a price, then it is accurate to say that the death penalty is priceless and worth much more than alternatives. A sociologist once said that "the actual monetary costs are trumped by the importance of doing justice" referring to capital punishment.
"Jeffrey Mark Deskovic, 33, spent nearly half his life in a New York prison for a rape and murder he did not commit. DNA testing cleared Deskovic and he was released Sep. 20 from prison."
"In 2004, Ryan Matthew, convicted for the murder of a local convenience store owner in Louisiana, escaped the death penalty after prosecutors dropped all charges on the basis of DNA testing results."
"Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented at least 38 executions carried out in the United States in spite of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt since capital punishment was restored in the mid-1970s."
"Moreover, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has documented 123 death-row inmates who, since 1973, have been exonerated and freed before their executions."
"The staff of the CWC pioneered the investigation and litigation of wrongful convictions, relying a great deal on DNA testing. Their work proving the innocence of 11 men sitting on death row in the U.S. state of Illinois was a driving force behind former Governor George H. Ryan's decision to suspend executions in Illinois in January, 2001."
"The Innocence Project, which worked to free Deskovic, only handles cases where post-conviction DNA tests can yield conclusive proof of innocence. To date, it has helped exonerate 184 people, proving that wrongful convictions are not rare."
-In 1987, a study was published by the Stanford Law Review that found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death. 139 "were sentenced to death and as many as 23 were executed."
"Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed, Judge Says"
"'In the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood,' the judge, Mark L. Wolf of Federal District Court in Boston, wrote in a decision allowing a capital case to proceed to trial.
He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row based on DNA and other evidence."
-Northwestern University School of Law's Centre on Wrongful Convictions (CWC) documented 38 executions carried out since the mid-1970s where there was compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. Another 130 death row inmates were exonerated, instead of executed, between 1973-2008 due to emerging evidence, including DNA analysis. A smaller number of people have been exonerated posthumously. The Death Penalty Information Center estimates for every seven executions, one death row inmate is exonerated.
"In the United States, guilty beyond reasonable doubt is an extremely high standard"
...and yet dozens & dozens of people have already been PROVEN to have been wrongfully convicted of a crime that they NEVER committed.
"The founding fathers, were major supporters of the death penalty"
...says who??
"Its not really a matter of doing to criminals what they did to other people, its more a matter of giving them the maximum punishment for a terrible crime"
...which is why I and many others favor life without parole, period.
"Some researchers have shown that the United States, a country with capital punishment, has a higher crime rate than Great Britain, a country without capital punishment. What has to be taken into consideration, though, is not that capital punishment increases murder rates, but that it is imposed because of higher murder rates."
There's absolutely ZERO evidence that having a death penalty statute causes a lower crime rate, period. These kind of laws are NO deterrent!
"In order to decrease crime, the government should decrease guns in circulation"
We are in agreement here.
"If we assume that complete and utter protection for members of society cannot have a price, then it is accurate to say that the death penalty is priceless and worth much more than alternatives."
At what cost do you put ONE human life that is snuffed out WRONGFULLY by the govt.??
Jeffrey Mark Deskovic was never put to death, so I don't know how that is an example of someone who was wrongfully executed.
Ryan Matthew- he wasn't wrongfully executed either.
Northwestern University School of Law- Those researchers were speculating that 38 people have been wrongfully executed. None of the cases were officially proved to involve someone who was wrongfully executed.
"have been exonerated and freed before their executions"- once again, no issue of wrongful executions.
"litigation of wrongful convictions"- wrongful convictions, not wrongful executions.
"it has helped exonerate 184 people, proving that wrongful convictions are not rare"- wrongful convictions, not wrongful executions.
1987 Stanford Law Review study- "found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death"- key phrases: SOME EVIDENCE + COULD HAVE. This doesn't prove that people were wrongfully executed.
"Signs Grow of Innocent People Being Executed"- a sign is not going to prove anything.
"He cited the exonerations of more than 100 people on death row"- none were proved to be wrongfully executed.
It seems like you are trying to show that since innocent people have been placed in jail for very long amounts of time and that people have been exonerated on death row, it must somehow mean there have been innocent people who were killed. I don't understand why you think this because Deskovic, for example, was never killed. When people have been put on death row and found innocent, the appeals process worked. The justice system succeeded in saving the innocent. This proves that the safeguards in place for saving the life of a convict on death row work. It hasn't been proven that these safeguard do not work.
"...and yet dozens & dozens of people have already been PROVEN to have been wrongfully convicted of a crime that they NEVER committed."- not proven, but speculated. Until the US Supreme Court has enough evidence to say that they have killed an innocent person, they will not officially declare a wrongful execution. It is extremely rare for someone with a large amount of evidence against them to even get to death row. Also, since DNA technology could only increase in efficiency in the future, the chance of wrongful execution could only decrease.
"...says who??"- if they were against capital punishment, it would have been abolished the day this country was established. Obviously, none of them chose to end it, it continued.
"There's absolutely ZERO evidence that having a death penalty statute causes a lower crime rate, period. These kind of laws are NO deterrent!"- like I said before, it may have a low deterrent effect, but it is irrational to say that it has a zero deterrent effect. If a killer is killed, he can never kill again. That is deterrence.
"At what cost do you put ONE human life that is snuffed out WRONGFULLY by the govt.??"- it has never been proved that that has occurred.
"Those researchers were speculating that 38 people have been wrongfully executed. None of the cases were officially proved to involve someone who was wrongfully executed."
"1987 Stanford Law Review study- 'found some evidence that suggested that at least 350 people between 1900-1985 in America might have been innocent of the crime for which they were convicted, and could have been sentenced to death'- key phrases: SOME EVIDENCE + COULD HAVE."
Look, it's pretty obvious to all here that you're in denial mode. The FACT is that people have been put on death row for crimes that they haven't committed, and some of them in recent years have been lucky enough to have been exonerated. If you don't want to believe that this has happened in the past (and that it's all just something that has happened recently), then so be it...continue to put your head in the sand & see if I care.
"When people have been put on death row and found innocent, the appeals process worked"
...now that we have DNA evidence that is...and what about before that?? You don't care...that's what!
"Until the US Supreme Court has enough evidence to say that they have killed an innocent person, they will not officially declare a wrongful execution."
Oh, so now you're a Supreme Court expert?? LOL...give us all a break...
"if they were against capital punishment, it would have been abolished the day this country was established."
LOL...thanks for admitting that you have absolutely ZERO proof of how the Founders viewed capital punishment. I appreciate it!
"it is irrational to say that it has a zero deterrent effect. If a killer is killed, he can never kill again"
...and the same thing would be true if that person was given life without parole, period.
"Look, it's pretty obvious to all here that you're in denial mode. "- i thought it sounded kind of like that when I was typing it out because I had to constantly tell you that your information didn't mean anything. If you go through all of the cases that were shown by researchers, none of them prove that the person involved was wrongfully executed. They may show that there is some evidence to suggest that they may have been killed while innocent, but there is no evidence that proves they were completely innocent.
"The FACT is that people have been put on death row for crimes that they haven't committed"- like I just explained, that is not a fact.
"...now that we have DNA evidence that is...and what about before that?? You don't care...that's what!"- why does it matter about the past if it can only get more accurate in the future? If we are talking about abolishing the death penalty, then what is the point in arguing against technology that can only become more advanced?
"Oh, so now you're a Supreme Court expert?? LOL...give us all a break..."- are you kidding me? You don't have to be a "Supreme Court expert" to know that the justices' are the ones who are going to have to admit to wrongful execution. How is that so difficult to understand?
"LOL...thanks for admitting that you have absolutely ZERO proof of how the Founders viewed capital punishment."- i don't understand how that shows zero proof. If the founding fathers were the ones in control of the country when it was first started, then everything that they wanted to occur in terms of legislation changes would have occurred. They would have made sure to ban capital punishment, instead of allow its continued practice, if they were against it.
"...and the same thing would be true if that person was given life without parole, period."- but because of changed laws, there have been people who have been set free even though they were supposed to be in jail for life.
"...in your own closed mind that is...ugh..."- how do I have a closed mind if I don't support something that never occurred?
Yes, it is, and I have clearly shown that...with links to prove it even.
"why does it matter about the past if it can only get more accurate in the future?"
Riiiight, the past doesn't matter...sure, sure...
"If we are talking about abolishing the death penalty, then what is the point in arguing against technology that can only become more advanced?"
Who's arguing against technology here?? YOU ARE! You refuse to acknowledge that DNA evidence has freed people from death row, which it clearly has!
"You don't have to be a 'Supreme Court expert' to know that the justices' are the ones who are going to have to admit to wrongful execution."
Nonsense, the issue of people being put to death for crimes that they likely NEVER committed is only one issue with the death penalty. The death penalty is cruel & unusual punishment, and it has been (and will continue to be) applied unfairly to different racial & ethnic groups. It's just a matter of time before the USA joins the rest of the civilized world & bans the death penalty for good.
"i don't understand how that shows zero proof. If the founding fathers were the ones in control of the country when it was first started, then everything that they wanted to occur in terms of legislation changes would have occurred."
Really?? Well, they also allowed slavery to exist, and they denied Native Americans, women, and people that didn't own property the right to vote. So, I guess we should go back to doing all that now, eh?? Please, you have yet to cite a single quote from ANY of the Founders about the death penalty. In fact, I'll bet that you don't even know or care how they felt on the issue, period.
"there have been people who have been set free even though they were supposed to be in jail for life"
...or been executed, period.
"how do I have a closed mind if I don't support something that never occurred?"
Ugh...we're done here buddy...move along...I'm not responding to you on this issue anymore...there's no point to it...
"Yes, it is, and I have clearly shown that...with links to prove it even."- it is true that you have given me sources, but it is also true that you have misinterpreted those sources.
"Riiiight, the past doesn't matter...sure, sure..."- in speculating the future advancements of DNA technology it doesn't matter.
"Who's arguing against technology here?? YOU ARE! You refuse to acknowledge that DNA evidence has freed people from death row, which it clearly has!"- why would anyone argue against the death penalty on the basis of DNA technology, if it can only become more advanced? When the point that someone on death row was saved by DNA is brought up, it shows that system works because it has saved their life.
"Nonsense, the issue of people being put to death for crimes that they likely NEVER committed is only one issue with the death penalty."- so you are saying that most people put on death row are likely to never have committed the crime they are being convicted for? Considering all the appeals processes that they have to go through, the evidence against them, and the fact that people are trying to execute them, I would say that its highly unlikely that they didn't commit the crime of which they were accused.
"The death penalty is cruel & unusual punishment, and it has been (and will continue to be) applied unfairly to different racial & ethnic groups."- There are many interpretations of the phrase “cruel and unusual” and many perspectives that contest its proper usage. For example, someone could suggest that life without parole is cruel and unusual to the prisoner because it keeps them in a cell for the rest of their life. Others might explain that it’s cruel and unusual to the victim to keep the murderer alive. These arguments are only opinions, though, and cannot be taken in reference with the Constitution. Arguments that support the death penalty are the only ones that can reference the Constitution.
Constitutionally, execution does not violate the “cruel and unusual” clause in the Bill of Rights. First, the Bill of Rights was written by people who supported the death penalty, therefore it cannot be contradictory to the views of those who are in favor of imposing capital punishment. Second, while there are many different interpretations of the phrase “cruel and unusual”, the only one that can be used in reference with the Constitution is the perspective that supports the death penalty. An individual cannot explain that it is unconstitutional to execute someone since the framers of the Constitution believed that execution was not cruel. If the founding fathers did believe that capital punishment was wrong, then it would have been outlawed the day the United States was established.
It’s important to note that, for most people, execution is gruesome and the thought of killing someone is not appealing. What also has to be taken into account, however, is that most of the executed have taken more away from society than what the government can take from them. According to Pro-Death Penalty.com, “The 518 killers who were executed between 1998 and 2003 had murdered at least 1111 people. That is an average of 2.14 victims per executed killer.” Considering this information, I think that it is accurate to say that it’s cruel and unusual to society and the victim’s family if we keep these people alive, and thereby give them a chance to kill again.
"It's just a matter of time before the USA joins the rest of the civilized world & bans the death penalty for good."- then why are you wasting your time arguing about it if your sure that it will be banned?
"Really?? Well, they also allowed slavery to exist, and they denied Native Americans, women, and people that didn't own property the right to vote."- none of that was in the Constitution.
Europe has alot of other leagal variables you're not taking into account. variables that we in the U.S. don't have and therefore have to use the death penalty.
One of the main issues with how differently Europe and the US handle this sort of thing.
Racial and cultural norms are far more varied here than it is in Europe and even among several different racial demographics, we can see that there are still cultural differences that exist in these demographics, that just do not exist in the same level in Europe, as they do here in the US.
Though this also stands to recognize that comparing the two in such a way, is somewhat of a fallacy. Especially given how different the culture between them is.
They have a lower murder rate probably because the criminals know they can go back and violate their victims again since the EU's laws are so lax regarding the sentencing of violent offenders. Having the criminals know their victims are unarmed, thanks entirely to those of this world that put the lives, freedoms and liberties of criminals way before those that are moral and law abiding, is of course a hand up to the criminal themselves. So it just goes hand in hand that the EU's choice to favor the criminal, not sentencing them and giving them easy prey, is just a bonus for them to spend the rest of their lives, if they somehow manage to actually do something so heinous as to be put in prison, being pampered by the gracious tax payers.
"violence rates of ALL kinds are lower outside of the USA in countries with no death penalty"
Countries that don't have the death penalty have LOWER crime rates. Also, within the USA, murder rates are consistently lower in states that don't have capital punishment.
The USA has the fifth highest murder rate in the world:
Have you considered the possibility that these other countries got rid of the death penalty because of their lower crime rate? It seems that you're assuming the correlation between crime rate and countries with capital punishment is that the death penalty encourages crime.
