When you do the calculations it cost about one million dollars more to put someone on death row than it is to give the life without parole. Then the 1 million dollars can be used for the community. Not to mention the executioner will most likely have PTSD (Post traumatic stress disorder) from killing someone like most military people have after coming back from war. So the death penalty is not helpful to economy but harmful
It is so mean to kill people and omg i like hate killing people and i know sometimes you have to. But its still mean. By the way, im 10. And i have like never killed anyone! And I will never kill anyone! Because killing people is so evil!! And it says that in like the bible as well I think.
The death penalty is a barbaric and inefficient way of punishing criminals. Not only is there the risk of killing an innocent person, the system is terribly expensive. In many areas of the country, the death penalty system of appeals and trials makes up 60-80% of the total criminal justice cost, despite holding only <1% of the criminals in the state. Lastly, the methods of execution often inflict mental and physical pain on the criminal, breaking the constitution freedom from cruel and unusual punishment (yes, even criminals have constitutional rights).
There are many reasons why the death penalty is bad. Some are practical/empirical (e.G., poor people are more likely to get it), while some are more theoretical (e.G., the state has no moral right to kill one of its citizens, absent the informed and voluntary consent from the citizen himself or herself). / But, there is an even deeper issue, a legal one. You see, for civil cases (like lawsuits regarding contracts), the burden of proof is either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of the evidence. That's because the penalties have to do with money, ceasing certain activities, and so on. Then, we have criminal cases, where the burden of proof is a bit higher, because the potential penalties are higher, such as jail time and prison time. And the applicable burden of proof for a case where someone can be incarcerated is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But then we have the death penalty, which would require the burden of proving guilt beyond ANY doubt, which is (literally) an impossible burden of proof to overcome. Because there can ALWAYS be doubt, even in cases with confessions and pleas and video-tapes and the most damning evidence imaginable, there should NEVER be a death penalty. Therefore, yes, the death penalty should be abolished nationwide. / HOWEVER, because of federalism and the separation of powers, I am not necessarily saying that Congress or the Supreme Court should do it. Maybe it should be done state by state, not sure. (For federal cases, of course, Congress has every right to abolish the death penalty, for those laws are within Congress's purview.)
Some criminals are mentally ill or had a bad/ rough life and don't deserve to die because of it. In fact, some criminal suspects are innocent, what if an innocent person got killed? And, I don't think the death penalty is a very good punishment. If its just a lights out sort of thing, it only lasts for a little while, whereas staring at a wall for years or without parole seems more punishing because it lasts longer, and bores you out of your skull. Bringing up another point, if we take away things like their TVs and computers in prison, it'll save money, lives, and give a longer and boring punishment to criminals.
If we have a death penalty people will be less inclined to murder people. If you murder contributing members of society we will kill you back. And it is cheaper to have someone on death row then it is to serve a life sentence. So we can fund more important things like public safety and education.
That we can accidentally kill an innocent person but.. I feel like there needs to be a lot of proof before putting someone down. People who are evil came out evil, there's honestly no point in keeping them around because they're broken human beings with low sympathy - it has nothing to do with how poor or rich one is; it's a genetic deal. Sympathy and empathy levels vary among people. Bad people are a waste of time and energy, there's no point in wasting tax dollars supporting them.
But only in certain cases. Take for example, Vince Lee. This crazy mofo pulled out a hunting knife on a bus, carved the head off the guy next to him, and took a few bites out of it. He then taunted the cops with the head when they showed up. Now, thanks to Canada having a lame justice system, he was deemed criminally insane and unaware the things he was doing was wrong. A year ago, he was granted supervised parole.
Someone so messed up in the head that they don't know cutting a dude's head off and eating parts of it is wrong should be put down. Now, here are the 3 most common arguments against the death penalty.
1. It's up to god who lives and who dies.
2. You might execute an innocent person.
3. It's not a deterrent.
As for number one, even if god exists (which he doesn't), I think it would be a good thing for him to kill evil people.
I completely agree with #2, I don't want innocent people executed. I think the death penalty should only be used in Vince Lee situations, where there's multiple witnesses, and video evidence. It literally couldn't be anyone else. If one guy is a suspect, but nobody witnesses it, or he doesn't confess to doing it, he shouldn't be executed.
And who gives a damn if it isn't a deterrent? It stops one guy from ever killing again, isn't that enough? Plus, I wouldn't kill someone if I knew I would die because of it, I can promise you that.