advantages and disadvantages of lowering death penalty to life?
435811
Advantage - if prosecutors purposefully or accidentally made a mistake, they can release the guy from jail.  They can't, however, un-dead him.\n\nAdvantage - Imposing a life sentence is cheaper (even counting the cost of incarceration) than imposing the death sentence.\n\nAdvantage - If you don't execute the person, you don't have to turn someone on the state payroll into a murderer.\n\nAdvantage - Life inmates can work.  Death row inmates are not allowed to work.
222060
I am against the death penalty as it does not make any solution. When we are giving a person death penalty, we are doing the same bad thing that we can't. Nobody has any right to murder other, the final judgement is in hand of God. That we can do maximum against a criminal is to give him/her an imprisonment for several years.
898891
i am unsure, my first thought was yes after all a 25 years sentence reduced to 12 for 'good behaviour' doesn't fit the crime. So a life for a life would seem logical and possibly reasonable. However we have all heard of miscarriages of justice, what possible compensation could we give to those people who have had family members wrongly put to death. \n\nTough i realise there is server over crowing in prisons and that this needs to be addressed i don't think the death penalty should be the way to do it.\n\nHowever if there was stronger sentencing in this country to say that the criminal never gets out. Many more people would be put off and i think the families of victims and the public would be reassured.\n\nThese days it is sad to say that you get more time in jail for stealing money from the government than you do for crimes against a person including violence offences and rape. It's very unbalanced.\n\nCrimes such as paedophiles should never be released as there is NO evidence to ever even suggest that there is a possibility that they could be rehabilitated. Why do we let these people continue to abuse the privilege of freedom? only to destroy young lives and the lives of those around them.
600447
Yes, for 2 reasons - they made their choice when they took a life & why should we as taxpayers pay to fed, clothe, educate & guard life sentence criminals.\nIn our state it is rarely given - must be cruel - like all murder is not cruel. Murderers forfeit their right to live.\nMy brother was murdered while buying a gallon of milk during robbery. They got the death penalty but it was overturned & they get out this year his 3 children are not even out of college yet. They grew up without him.
155423
No difference.  Death penalty has limited deterrence because it takes so long for the actual execution.
273211
Justice and sentences are a complex subject.\nTo answer in a quick way, I'd just say I'm totally against death penalty, no matter the crime, no matter the death. Matter of principles, education and logic.\nSaying "they canno't be rehabilitated" is as stupid as saying "they will never do it again". It really depends on the person and on its personal case... but "Yes" some can be rehabilitated.\nOne last sad point: the USA carceral system and culture do not foster good rehabilitations. That has sad consequences: they go on with their troubles and the ones who believe that they canno't be rehabilitated think being right!!
818894
Life in prison or death penalty..
56324
For the worst crimes, I am for the death penalty.  Main reason?  I feel that someone that willingly takes the life of another person should not receive a lifetime of getting all of their needs, and even a lot of luxuries, for free.  Prisoners get free clothing, free food, free cable TV, free weight rooms, free college courses (through correspondence)free health care, the list goes on and on.  I have seen sickening websites like "Pampered Prisoners" dedicated to "making their time easier"  WTF?????  What about the VICTIMS of the crimes?  They get nothing for free, assuming they survive the attack of the criminal, they have to pay their own health care.  If they cannot afford the health care, they are left to suffer by the doctors, yet the prisoners that inflict the injuries get health care for free!!!  \n\nWhat do you do with a vicious animal, who only attacks and harms, and cannot be trained to behave the right way?  You put him down.  Same should go for a vicious human, put him down.\n\nFor me, the only alternative to the death penalty (and I am talking severe crimes like murder, or those that have proven themselves to be just vicious and untrainable) would be to use the predators for testing instead of the innocent animals, who have done nothing to deserve the torture inflicted on them.
167985
I think is a little extreme.But then again a life time penalty makes someone suffer much more.By killing them they only realese them
849298
No.\n\nAs a matter of PUBLIC POLICY, I would cite the following reasons:\n\n(1) Death is an irreversible punishment, and overzealous juries/prosecutors get it wrong WAY too often.  (RECENT EXAMPLE:  Read "The Innocent Man", a nonfiction book by John Grisham.)\n\n(2) Taxpayer dollars spent on criminal sanctions should be designed to protect society, not dish out retribution. Yet, statistical data is clear that the death penalty and tougher criminal sentences does not deter murder or violent crime.  Why?  Most violent criminals are sociopathic/psychopathic and simply do not rationally weigh the consequences of their actions before committing violent crimes.\n\n(3) The numbers indicate that the death penalty is not imposed upon the worst of the murderers (i.e., the person who actually pulled the trigger and killed).  Why?  Truly disturbed seriel killers more often than not have mitigating circumstances that get them out of the death penalty (e.g., severe abuse as children).  Second, the death penalty is most often sought where the prosecution can get an easy sentence (i.e., the person who drove the person who pulled the trigger, because the person who actually pulled the trigger ran to the police and got a plea deal for life without parole).\n\n(4) Prosecuting the death penalty costs taxpayers more than simply giving them a sentence of life without parole.  Why?  Courts want to do everything they can to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death.  Unfortunately, innocent people are being released from death row routinely, despite the fact that they had numerous appeals.\n\n(5) The death penalty is not fairly applied.  For example, Harris County, Texas prosecutes more death penalty cases than the rest of the State of Texas combined.  Is that fair?  Is it fair that a black defendant who kills a white victim is 8 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white defendant who kills a black victim?  Is it fair that over 90% of the defendants on death row in states like Texas, which have no public defenders, had no money to hire an attorney and had to receive court-appointed counsel, most of which have no criminal law experience?\n\n(6) Once again, criminal sanctions should be designed to protect society, not dish out retribution.  Although victim's families will say, on the eve of execution, that the death penalty gives them closure; pyschologists who actually follow up with victim's families will tell you that is a fallacy.  (Read up on it for yourself.)  If the government wants to be in the business of making victim's families feel better (as opposed to making society safer, which is the primary purpose of criminal law), then it would better devote the financial resources to providing psychological services than seeking death penalty prosecutions.\n\n(7) The assertion that a person who commits murder poses a risk that he/she will murder again is ridiculous if the alternative sentence is life in prison without possibility of parole (as it is in most states for murder).  A rapist or other violent criminal is just as likely to murder or commit violent crimes on other inmates than murderers are.  We are not making other inmates (all of whom commited violent crimes if they are in high security prisons) statistically safer by killing murderers.\n\nNow, my Christian view:\n\n(1) One of the Ten Commandments given to Moses says "Thou shalt not kill."  That's a period at the end of that sentence.  It does not say, "Thou shalt not kill unless the person you are killing killed someone else."  There is no "unless", no "if", no qualifiers whatsoever.\n\n(2) In response to all of those "good Christians" who are often so quick to cite the Old Testament (Exodus 21:23-25) as grounds for supporting the death penalty, I would direct you to two passages from the NEW TESTAMENT:\n(i) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a too
606214
http://www.mcadp.org/LancetEditorial4_05.htm\n\nPersuading people to be against the death penalty
1034800
Execution can be viewed as the physical manifestation of Justice carried out on those found guilty of killing.\n\nI doubt death penalty advocates are really getting off knowing that criminals are dying.  The argument that never seems to be heard is that, aside from being a (alleged) deterrent to crime, the death penalty allows Justice to be done.  When one takes another life, it isn't hypocritical to take the life of the killer-- it is Justice.  It would threaten our integrity as a Just society, a crime far worse than hypocrisy some would argue, if our society allowed one of the most heinous crimes to go (relatively) unpunished.
800060
I am so torn on the death penalty issue... I don't have a stance yet.\n\nFrom a strictly economical side, I'm against the death penalty, because I've heard in multiple places that it costs 2-3 times more than life in prison w/o parole.\n\nFrom a moral standpoint, it's hard to say.  Killing someone removes them once and for all as a threat.  Granted, while in jail they are only a threat to other inmates and the prison guards, but still, you cannot make a blanket judgment on whether those people (in the case of the other prisoners) deserve the threat, or (in the case of the guards) willingly accept the threat by being in that job.  Also, there's always the chance of escape.  You don't have that chance with death.\n\nIn addition, there's the obvious fact that if you accept the death penalty, almost regardless of standards for conviction, you're going to eventually get an innocent person in there.  Making the standards for conviction extremely high just leads to multiple expensive appeals, which brings us back to the economic reason to be against it.  It also makes the death penalty so rare that any appeal to it being a deterrent is just silly at that point, because even if you are convicted you'd have to be one of the unlucky ones to get the chair.\n\nIn fact, I have not seen any evidence that it actually serves as a deterrent, regardless of the extensiveness of its use.\n\nI do believe that the highest value must be placed on human life, but when you have one human life that continues to threaten others, isn't it respecting that value to end their life?\n\nI don't know.  I'm an atheist struggling to have a position on this.
244465
This is long, so bear with it...\n\nA few weeks ago, the US reached a bit of a milestone, with an execution in North Carolina 1,000 people have been executed in the US since the re-instatement of the death penalty.  Think about that number, 1,000 people.  It’s a lot, with more to come in the near future.   It is one of the most divisive issues in the US today.  This is not an issue where there is any middle ground, it’s either you are for it or against it. \n\nIn the state of Texas, we execute more people than any other state of the union but even in Texas, the death penalty is hotly debated.  Not all states in the US have the death penalty but those that do have the same issues with it as here in Texas.\n\nLet’s start with a few of them… Firstly, the original reason for the death penalty was it was suppose to be a deterrent for crime.  It’s still touted as such in the states that do have the death penalty.  But, if you look at the statistics in the states that do have it you will see that it is not a deterrent at all.  Crime rates have not drastically dropped since its implementation.  If it were the state of Texas would be the state in the union that has the lowest violent crime rate, it doesn’t.  The only deterrent effect it has is that the person that is put to death will never again break the law.  That doesn’t drop the crime rate or make us any safer.  The realism is most criminals think they will never get caught, that they are too smart.  When criminals are doing whatever they are doing that is going to send them to death row they are not even considering the death penalty while they are performing the crime.  So that throws out the argument of being a deterrent and lowering crime rates.   \n\nSecondly, it was also suppose to lower costs of prisons.  If you execute the criminals they aren’t going to cost as much to feed, house or be taken care of.  Like the crime rate argument, this one is false as well.  In all actuality it takes more money to execute someone then to house them for life.  That has to do with the legal system and the appeals process.  Most of those on death row have court appointed lawyers because they can’t afford to hire one.  So the tax payers of the state end up footing the bill for not only the prosecution and housing the prisoner they end up paying for his legal defense as well.  In Texas, it costs almost three times more to execute someone then it does to house them in the highest security level for life (stats come from www.deathpenaltyinfo.org).  So how is that fulfilling the promise of lower costs?\n\nThirdly, it is considered retribution.  Unlike life imprisonment, where someone can lead a fairly normal life and have some luxuries, the death penalty does not allow that.  For some that are pro-death penalty that is acceptable because it is a true punishment for a crime, not a chance to rehabilitate the criminal.  With varying degrees people do agree with this, citing the ‘eye for an eye’ quote as back up for it.  But others feel that the states don’t have to right to impose retribution on an individual, that as ‘man’ we don’t have that right to take another life.  A lot of the belief systems that argue both for and against this have to do with religious principles.  But should states have that ability and be able to enforce death when they bluntly always say the state is not there to give retribution?  Isn’t death the utmost in retribution rather than punishment?\n\nFourthly, there is recidivism.  That is that some criminals repeat, repeat and repeat crimes no matter how many time they are sent to jail.  This is true.  There is a certain class of criminals that do repeat their crimes over and over, each time getting worse.  There seems to be nothing that can be done with these people that will work to rehabilitate and reform them.  Repeat offenders do seem to dominate the criminal justice system and are a big chunk of those that are incarcerated.  From the peop
395319
I think the death penalty is for cowards and sadists:  It's easy to support murder when someone else does it for you.\n\nOver 150 WRONGLY CONVICTED people have been released from death row in just the last 30+ years - and those are only the ones we *know* about.  \n\nThe death penalty doesn't make you safer - it makes you a killer.  Don't buy the con from politicians who scare you into believing this policy works.  It doesn't. \n\nIt's racist.\nIt's classist.\nIt's 2-6 times MORE expensive than life without parole.\nIt makes us cruel as a society.\nIt doesn't prevent new criminals from developing.\nIt takes the lives of innocent people.\n\nSomething tells me from the knee-jerk verbiage of the questioner that he/she doesn't care about these types of facts.  Regardless, check out the sites below before *you* make up your mind.\n\nThe way we treat the least of us is a clear reflection of who WE are... at least that's the way God sees it.
901115
I'm an American now living in the UK. I'm in complete agreement with the death penalty in murder and rape cases. I feel that if you take a life, your life is forfeited. Rape takes a life in a different way. Chances are a woman that's raped won't ever be normal again.
2165
The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent and has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.\nNo I don't believe in the Death Penalty.\nCheck out the link below for more information.