Often times there is no actually determination of guilt. Judgements are incorrect. Innocent people are convicted of others' crimes. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm
Prison sentences give the prisoner a chance to redeem his/herself.
For the guilty, as the dead simply cease to have consciousness, over time, serving a life sentence can be more painful.
We claim to be intelligent and creative yet the only idea that comes to our mind for serious disturbing crimes is death? I'd say we live up to our claim of being the greater human beings. Mainly because no crime is like another, there need to be more options and possibilities to get justice for victims and society. This can however not include violence or death. Justice is not about revenge and lower instincts. And what seems fair to the victim is not always the right thing to do. Does it help society to draw a black and white picture and to draw a line between life and death that we decide about? Concidering that we are never able to fully understand another human, a certain crime nor will ever have all the facts - I will say no, we are simply not clever enough but we should be clever enough to understand this and act according to this.
At least in the United States, capital punishment has consistently proven itself to be a non-viable option. The costs to the state are far higher than jailing them due to trial and legal processing costs, the judgments aren't necessarily reliable, and the impact is negligible if not negative.
The cost of a trial that pursues capital punishment is, on average, eight times higher than that of a trial pursuing life in prison without parole--even if that capital punishment trial is resolved by the defendant pleading guilty, you can still expect an average cost of three times that of the one with life without parole. Just to use California as an example, simply having the option of capital punishment open in sentencing from 1978 to 2011 has cost the state roughly $4.6 billion more than would have been spent if the harshest option was life in prison without parole. In that span of time, with $4.6 billion spent, a total of 13 people were executed.
So even if it costs a lot, it must at least make crimes less likely, right? Interestingly, states that enforce capital punishment on average seem to have consistently higher homicide rates than ones that don't enforce capital punishment. To add to that, in 1996 an estimated 83.6% of expert criminologists were of the opinion that capital punishment does not reduce crime rates. In 2008, that number had risen to 88.2%.
Weeeell... At least all of those people were guilty, so they're out of the way. Except sentencing someone to death isn't quite so reliable. In fact, from 1973 to just last month (March 20, 2014 was the last time I checked) a grand total of 144 people were convicted, sentenced to death, and later completely exonerated (acquitted, pardoned, or the charges were dropped) while on death row. The jurors doing the sentencing were interviewed, too: about half of them decided on what they would put forth as the sentence before the sentencing phase of the trial. (To clarify, the sentencing phase is where the information pertaining to sentencing is given and neatly explained--how the process works, what factors make the person deserve a harsher sentence (such as being a repeat offender), what factors make the person deserve a lighter sentence (such as being a first-time offender), and so on.) Of those jurors, 60% more decided on capital punishment over life in prison without parole--that many people decided a convict should die before being told why they would deserve or not deserve it.
At least from my view, it's quite clear capital punishment is completely non-viable in the US. It doesn't save money (if I recall, the figure was something like one person executed spending enough money to imprison three people in a life sentence, but don't quote me on that 'cause I'm not sure), it doesn't deter crime, and it irreversibly kills innocent people.
So... Why is it still there?
When someone dies its the end, nothing can be gained but fear and a body. Jail isn't always the best either. If your arm was cut off you'd care. This procedure shouldn't happen while one conscious in the most brutal way possible, but it can depend on the severity of the offence. Right handed rapist of up to 5 people? Remove at least the thumb. Multiple homicides at a school? If they're a lefty cut until the left elbow. But you gotta kill some of 'em.
Many people though they have not actually committed a crime are given wrong punishment which is death, if we ban it at least the poor man or woman will not lose his or her life. This can help giving partial justice to the people who are very very innocent. Thank you
We have been doing it for centuries. Just now we are better at determining if they are actually guilty. And it's often times less painful. Traitors and premeditated murders need to be punished with an iron fist. And this whole arguement that it is revenge, the whole justice system is about revenge we just sugar coat it to make it sound good. And this whole arguement about prisoner rights is stupid. They are in there for a reason. This isn't cidna mine yall wake up.
The state doesn't even try use the death penalty to try to prevent crime, for a good reason, too. Crimes like murder are impulsive and compassionate, so having something like the threat of death on your mind won't affect your choice.
About the only viable argument for the death penalty is "justice", although that's debatable. The difference to me is that the death penalty is the most extreme form of premeditated murder, as the case was considered by several people beforehand and they condemned the criminal to it. The death penalty really just boils down to an expression of extreme state vengeance.
Death penalty: the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime.
I do not believe that death penalty should be illegal entirely or legal entirely. I believe that there are certain and rare occasions in which death penalty is appropriate. I do not think we should throw everybody under the sun who commits a crime straight to the electric chair. For an example, by definition, Osama got received capital punishment and was executed- not in the ordinary fashion though. I find it hard to say that people like that don't deserve capital punishment. I don't think killing people to show killing people is wrong is the way to go.
If someone steals $5,000 from you or a family member, do you think the least they should do is pay back the $5,000? These are not people that just stole a loaf of bread or even stole a car, they are not even people that accidentally caused a persons death, these are people who have been found guilty of murdering at least one person in cold blood. These people intentionally took someones life, the least they should do is pay back the debt.
In my opinion, we should make the deaths public like a public hanging or beheading. After all, the public get the chance to see innocent people murdered in the news, why not do the same for the guilty. If we even went even more old school we could put their heads on a pike on the prison wall so not only can the convicts see it, so can people outside as a warning.
On the down side, some people may not be willing to convict someone if they know the person may be put to death. This could mean that even though the entire jury would agree that the person is guilty, some may still vote not guilty and possibly let a known murderer go free.
I do have an option for the death penalty though. In the past, we had a very severe prison system that left even non-violent offender more dangerous when they came out than when they went in. Since then, we have changed the prison system to be more humane and better suited for rehabilitation. Unfortunately, this turned hard time into more of a vacation by comparison. They have access to phone, visitors, mail, exercise, food, clothing, shelter and develop social structures within the prison. Some convicts even manage to run their criminal operations from the prison. For some lesser crimes, this may be okay but in cases of murder, we should lock in a small cell with no connection to the outside world. Instead of a set number of years to be deemed as a life sentence such as 25, 50 and such, lets make it till they die. If they wish, we could offer them the option of volunteering to be put to death. Either way, they owe a debt of life and one way or the other, the debt needs to be paid.
There are crimes and offences committed that deserve the death penalty. These people should not just be put in a confined cell for a period of time , if they are eliminated then there would be a significant decline in the rate of crimes and murders. It should only be used if one is fully deserving of it though.
Now i know many will argue that its cheaper to keep some one in jail for life. Its all over the internet go look. But realize that its our tax dollars that are paying for all of this. Inmates get free health care, free dental, free tv, free cable, free food, and many more perks of prison. Could this money be used for other things? The tax dollars could be use to better our education, for people who need Welfare, Medicare, (not the people who take advantage of it.) the money could be used to fix schools, road, parks, etc. If there was a a ban on the death penalty then give then prisoners the bare minimum. Kind of like the Joe Arpaio and his prison in Arizona. ( look him up and read about him.) I know this my sound harsh (and they could cut back on how harsh, i don't agree with some of the stuff that he did.) but if some one is convicted of the death penalty or life they should have know what they were getting in to. They should have to surrender some of there rights because of the crime they have committed.
These people who have committed horrible crimes and the scum of humanity. They are the worst of our society. Instead of paying for their long prison lives we can use the death penalty to end this excess cost. Some people just don't deserve the same respect and treatment as everyone else. If you commit an atrocity then you should have your life snuffed out. Its not to warn other people off committing these crimes its just to snub out some of the worlds dark and hate.
Some of those criminals are very dangerous and are just so crazy to kill. It's not fair that people who work everyday for more than 8 hours have to end up basically putting some money with the taxes being taxed to them. These people have committed ferocious crimes that harm our society and I believe they should lay accordingly to there crime.
If someone kills 20 people such as the many triadic events in the world should we spare there life just because or should we remove these type of people from the earth? Our gov't can't just say that these people have a mental illness. In most cases there are normal people who can make there own decisions and they need to be punished for there actions. This punishment needs to be used wisely and at the correct time and situation. I believe it will be used in rare situations. But I know killing someone for killing people isn't the best way to go tho either
After you yourself put this miscreant in jail for murdering your family, and lets say he breaks out; would you trust him in public? Would you trust him around other inmates in jail? Even if he was in solitary confinement, is that a better way to treat someone who can't handle society, rather than just putting them out of their misery?