Click on the Map for an Interactive Lesson
(If you want to access to the linked articles, and you are not at school, then you will need to enter a username (NE79445H) and password (68046)Capital punishment, or the death penalty, was first used in the United States in colonial times. After facing many legal challenges, the Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972, ruling it violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Four years later, the Court reversed its decision in Gregg v. Georgia. In recent years, the issue of capital punishment has again been taken up by the Supreme Court as justices consider the constitutionality of executing the mentally ill and juvenile offenders. Opponents to capital punishment argue it is immoral and an execution is still a killing. They also cite statistics showing that one in seven Death Row inmates is innocent. Proponents argue the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime and claim some crimes are so heinous they deserve the ultimate punishment. Thirty-eight states currently employ some method of capital punishment including lethal injection, gas chamber, electrocution, hanging and firing squad. Lethal injection is the most common method of execution. Over 900 executions have been carried out since 1976, with the state of Texas leading the nation.
Defenders of capital punishment argue that it deters crime, saves taxpayer dollars for prison expenses and gives closure and justice to the families of victims. In Why the Death Penalty Works, author William Tucker contends that murder rates go down when executions increase. Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney argues that the science of DNA fingerprinting may actually make capital punishment more effective in Can You Build a Foolproof Death Penalty? Public reaction to the Timothy McVeigh case showed strong public support for the death penalty, particularly as it applies to notorious convicts. The demographics of capital punishment support are explored in Even for Death Penalty Foes, McVeigh Is the Exception
Those who oppose activists capital punishment argue that it is as much a murder as the crime committed by the offender, that a life sentence is a greater punishment, that capital punishment does not deter crime, that it is socioeconomically and racially biased and that innocent people are at risk. The many facets of the argument against the death penalty are explored in Reasonable Doubts: The Growing Movement Against the Death Penalty. Sister Helen Prejean, portrayed in the film Dead Man Walking, has been a high-profile opponent of the death penalty. She presents her case in Choose Life! While conservatives are often outspoken supporters of the death penalty, the conservative argument against the death penalty is outlined in The Problem with the Chair.
Information Provided by SIRS Researcher
27 comments:
While this issue may not seem this simple, you have to ask yourself, "Would I rather rot in prison for the rest of my life, or die quickly?" I'm not sure about your answer, but mine was definately the second. Death is not the worst thing that can happen to you, therefore I do not consider it to be capital punishment. If the person who is convicted of the crime is actually innocent, there is still hope for their case to be turned and for them to be released from prison, justice would truly be served in this case. Many innocent people have died from this "capital punishment" and many more will die if we do not do something about it. For those who are guilty, they will serve their life sentence, instead of meeting the peace of death. After all, there are worse things than death. :)
I agree with mashed potatoes. There are things worse than death, and I for one would not enjoy sitting in the cold bitter walls of a prison cell for the rest of my life. Also, if you're innocent you can still hold on to that tiny thread of hope that you will get free.
I've never liked the idea of the death penalty, even in the extreme cases. If we kill the "killers" aren't we just stooping down to their level? Aren't just as guilty for murder as they are?
I'd just like to say i'm the third food to comment on this. Well atleast of the ones posted so far.
Ok, so i don't agree with mashed potatoes or pumpkin pie. Why let them sit in jail and waste away, spending all our tax dollars? You notice they don't sit there for free. They sit there while we pay taxes to keep them warm with clean clothes, blankets, and a place to sleep. They get food and all they have to do is sit around in a room and wait for break time. It's kind of like a job. They sit (work) all day and get their yard time (break time) everyday.
I say we don't kill them. We let them kill themselves. Kind of like the Gladiator approach. Throw a whole bunch of them into a giant stadium and let them go at it. Not necessarily having people attack them, but let them attack eachother until one stands. Then the winner has a choice to either sit in jail or fight again. It makes an income because people will pay to watch them fight and it provides an educational experience to teach their kids what not to do. Although there would be those people that say it promotes violence, they have no argument because our whole world promotes violence.
I first have to ask beef, are you seriously proposing that the United States instate a gladiator-type approach to handling its worst felons?
They say that the best way to understand someone's situation is to put yourself in their shoes. If one of your relatives were convicted of a heinous crime, how would you like to see it dealt with?
I honestly don't think that the majority of Americans would notice the tax breaks if the death penalty were used in it's fullest.
I also don't think that one can say "I would rather die than be here" without being anywhere near that type of situation in jail, so that phrase may be thrown around a little to lightly.
As for my personal opinion, I think that the states should be able to use whatever means they want for the just cases that they have. Plus, haven't I heard something like "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"?
There are some evil people in this world. And when I hear about them in the news, my natural instinct is always "kill him." But once I gather my senses, I remember that America is a compassionate nation and killing people does not show our compassion.
Just put the murderers in solitude confinement for the rest of their life. Give them the bare necessities: shelter (the jail itself), food and water (three meals a day), and clothing. Do not give them the luxurious items that working honorable people earn such as computers, t.v.'s, cars, radios, etc. I want to spend the bare minimum on them through taxes.
Killing criminals such as Osama Bin Laden would make them martyrs to the Jihad and encourage them to do more terroristic acts. We want no glory for criminals.
There will always be that one person who you just really hate their guts. But when they do a nice thing for you, show compassion towards you, it goes straight to the heart and stings. It stings so bad, that no matter how hard you try, you cannot do any harm towards that person. That is the beauty of compassion. That is the beauty of locking up criminals.
As the Roman Catholic Church learned from Galileo, it is very difficult to release a prisoner if they are already dead when found innocent 250 years later. Doh.
America does not want to be put into that same position. We want other nations to look at us with respect and honor.
I agree with mashed potatoes and pumpkin pie. Especially the part about being as guilty as the murderers themselves. What if that person was actually innocent? Then we would be as low as murders because we took an innocent life.
As for beef sandwich, I'm a little confused by your comment. What would the kids exactly learn not do? It would seem that what they would be learning is that it's okay to brutally attack another person which in society is something we don't want our kids to learn. Again, I don't understand what the kids would be getting out of it.
I read the "Choose Life" article and I really agreed with something Sister Helen Prejean said. This was the quote:
"If there is a part of you outraged over crimes," I say, "if you are saying 'These people deserve to die,' you've got to ask yourself an honest question: 'Am I willing to pull the switch?' If you hold back from this, and you've got to hire somebody else to do the killing, is that not a sign that there's a part of your soul that cannot say yes to this?"
I understand people being upset and thinking that it's only fair and the person deserves, but if they cannot be the person to take another's life, to "pull the switch", then there has to be somewhere deep down inside of them that knows it's wrong and it isn't the right choice, right?
I'm with sparky here. I read the Choose Life! article also and I don't think that I could honestly say I'd be able to "pull the switch". Even if I'd seen someone commit a murder my morals tell me that there is still a chance that they could change.
I do feel that some people "deserve it" and in the old testament it was "an eye for an eye"...but in the new testament we find grace and mercy.
(Grace= getting something you don't deserve/ being given another chance.
Mercy= not getting something you have earned/ not having to give up your life for the one you took.)
Idk, if only there were a way to know for certain that someone was completely guilty of a crime...but because there isn't I guess we'll just have to continue the debate of what is really just in the justice system.
Honestly, we complain of prison over-populating, and yet we won't do anything about it. Every time we think we've come up with a "humane way" to kill someone, it's repudiated a few years later. Newsflash: killing isn't humane. The people on death row didn't show humanity to their victims, and neither should we. And now it isn't "stooping down to their level." It's justice.
Killing is not humane. We, America, are a humane society. We are honorable. We do not go low like the criminals. We show a 'lil compassion. We respect live in its entirety: from conception to death. In a civil society (minus war...) no one has the right to kill. It is law. Having the death penalty says it is legal for the government to kill. This places the government above the law. I do not know about you, but, I personally want the law above the government.
So someone murders someone. You stick him in prison for life and you keep him there unless proven innocent. He cannot kill anyone anymore, justice is served.
I think I'm with potatoes and pumpkin on this one. I believe the death penalty should continue, under a few rules. One being if someone is convicted of murder and sentenced to death row after DNA evidence has proven them guilty (DNA evidence has saved innocent people from the death penalty), that they should not sit on death row for more than 12 months before being put to death
After being convicted of murder and less than 12 months are spent in prision, the murderer should not have to suffer a long or inhumane death, such as that by the gas chamber, electrocution, or hanging. It might sound weird, but the guillotine used during the French Revolution might have been one of the fastest and most painless ways to kill someone. I'd rather die by guillotine than by slowly and painfully being bombarded with a few thousand volts of electricity for 10-12 seconds.
People who say America is humane probably haven't taken a look at many of the facts. Humane: Characterized by kindness. Lets take a look at some of the kind things we've done. Slavery, oppressing woman, blacks, and all races alike. Going to war against "terrorism", and killing (some people would argue) unjustly. If America is so, humane, why do we have the death penalty in the first place? Truth is, we like to think of ourselves as humane, but in reality when someone destroys something we love we all think: "Let's destroy them!". It's human nature.
The death penalty could go either way for me. Yes some of the people are innocent, but the fact of the killer being killed gives most people a comfort. Knowing he's no longer around to kill anymore. If he took someones life then why should he have the right to live? I know that goes against most American beliefs, but that's just what I think, and you can't base a law off of that.
On the other side. The debaters of saving us tax money by killing them. Well actually, it costs nearly as much money to do the procedure of killing. So in my opinion that isn't a good enough reason to kill them. I think that it does make them suffer a lot more by sending them to jail, but us HUMANE American's shouldn't make people suffer, now should we?
Basically the law is a matter of state. Some state's have different idea's on this. That's why I'm a Texas fan. (Except when they're against Nebraska football.)
Personaly, I don't like capital punishment. To me, the accused can be put through more punisment by staying alive. There is a possibility that the inmates might not like him/her and therefore torture him/her for the rest of their life. Or the guilt from their crime could be eating him/her up inside. Which is far worse then death. To me death is not the answer.
Hmm, i think I'm gonna have to go against taters and pie. You guys say that "lot" of innocent people are killed but a whole bunch more of child molesters, rapist, and murderers are killed. I'd say that its a pretty good ratio for me. How many felons do u think are actually innocent? Not too many. And the chances are even slimmer of them to be released. I like Beef's approach but i think we should make prison conditions a lot worse so that it actually is punishment. It should be changed to Xtreme-Prison with rabid animals, gay cell mates, and tear gas chucked in their cells every once in a while. To keep them on their toes ya know? And if they are able to beat off the animals, homo-erotic cell mates and build an immunity to the tear gas we'll just shoot them. We wouldn't want ridiculously strong criminals in our society. Oh, and my response to Sparky is that we have taken innocent lives for quite a while. It's in our history. The native Americans, the African Americans, the Japanese and so on. We even got in a war because some of us wanted to keep on enslaving and killing black people. I guess its only an "innocent life" if its one of our own.
Alright, Beef Sandwich (Now Microwaveable!) has returned.
So by reading the comments that have followed my previous post, i now have the sense every other blogger thinks I'm not humane. Every other blogger except phone book, who might i add knows what's up. If we're gonna sit here and complain about how people waste our money killing people, how hard is it just to kill? To just punch a guy in the face and throw him in a jail cell IS NOT JUSTICE! I mean c'mon now. How can we allow people to kill others and just let them sit in jail? You're talking about a person who doesn't really give a crap about human life and just killed someone. Are you going to let the most powerful government in the world, other than a government ran by beef sandwich, show how it doesn't even punish killers?(Seeing as many of you couldn't take a joke from my last blog, i was just joking on MY gov't. There is no way in the world I'd be able to produce such a well balanced bite of Excellence.)
You asked me if I would be able to pull that switch? HECK YES! You asked me if it was my family member, would i be able to pull the switch; If I'd be able to watch my own blood take cruel pain. I'm gonna have to go with no, but this isn't about me. My family doesn't go off and brutally assault people or get convicted of manslaughter or murder. They're perfect!, not! We're talking about men, and women too, who took a life. It's a life for a life. Not a life for room, food, and shelter.
And to add, only cause his blog happens to be right to the left of the comment box, mashed potatoes talks about innocent lives. Define "innocent." Were the African Americans innocent? How about those Japanese Americans? And the Native Americans. An Innocent Life is what?, a Caucasian life.
I also happened to look up a statistic online. Anyone want to guess what state has the most death sentences? Well statemaster.com says it's Alabama. Majority from there being African American. But I don't hear people complaining about how much they kill people.
All I'm trying to say is you people need to wake up and smell the stench of the garbage bag from the can of capital punishment. You act like the people who get sentenced for their death are good people who just happened to swing the knife or pull the trigger. You guys all leave out the family who lost the loved one. How would they feel? All the people who work hard, or don't, who love this nation, and who want the United States Government to show their true power, left to watch a killers get thrown in jail. If we don't show it, more will come because they'll just get room and board for free, with a few restrictions and some crunchy bread.
as larry the cable guy says," in texas if three people saw you commit the murder, you move into the express lane for execution in texas"....
which comes to my point, ok so texas may be overdoing the execution idea a little to much, but i hate it on the news and othe rmedia sources where they show a federal prison, and the prisoners look like they are on vacation! for god sakes they probaly murdered someone! if you ask me they should look like they are starving, dying, depressed individuals, and our viewpoint should be " man i would never want to be there." and a lot of us do say that. but whenever you see it, they get flippin t.v.'s, music, food, the whole thing. they could almost say their life is set for them. gosh it seems like they should just be able to walk through jail with a breeze! and those are federal prisons, where theres the rapists, murderers, lunatics, and dimented. they should get the execution sentence! i mean if hannibal lecter was just sitting there wasting away your tax dollars in jail and he was supposed to die, wouldn't you want him dead? the guy for christs sake eats people! thats just not normal! and its disturbing! and to no suprise there are those crazy killers sitting around in our prisons! wasting our money. and to those people saying what if you uncle was in federal prison and was on execution, well i know for a fact my uncle hasn;t raped 20+ people or eat other people, so i won't have to worry bout him getting execution, and if he still was on execution for killing someone, then he probaly should've thought bout the consequences then before he did the act right?
When statistics show that crime rate goes down when capital punishment increases, that is saying something. To the average human being, nothing is more valuable than their own life. If capital punishment were to be used more frequently, criminals would probably realize that breaking the law (if severe enough) could eventually result in their own death. It is human instinct to protect your own life, and most people will go to any lengths to ensure their own safety. I know that you people who say that you would pull the switch on someone are not thinking logically. Could you really look into the eyes of someone, knowing that you are about to end their life in a very painful way? I think not. Generally, humans hate to see other humans suffer under such excruciating pain, so it would be nearly impossible for anyone that has feelings to bear.
All i can say on this is that i have to take a biblical stance on this. People were throwing stones at the adultress and Jesus said
"He who without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."
And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, even to the last. "
... If she would've been stoned, then she would surely have died, but i would not be able to kill someone myself and give them the death penatly. Everyone has made mistakes, and yes, i do know that some of these people don't think that they are and did it on purpose, but I don't think it is us who should decide to die.
One in seven inmates on Death Row is innocent, so how many innocent people have to die. I don't think this is an arguement about tax dollars, but more about morals.
Personally, my religion and own morals stand against the death penalty. Like the article pointed out, it can be considered murder.
For people who believe it is justified to kill a killer(assuming you are without a doubt they committed a terrible crime and truly believe they deserve to die...) I just want to ask a simple question. Who are you to judge whether a person is going to change or not? Keep in mind these things...Are you all-knowing? Can you tell the future? Are you God? I don't think it is your place to judge. I don't think anyone has that right.
First of all, I don’t think that two wrongs make a right.
I really enjoy Beef Sandwich’s approach to punishing wrongdoers. But if the whole gladiator thing doesn’t work, maybe there is another option, other than the death penalty, to punish criminals and make sure justice is served. Even though I really wish there was World Peace and everyone got along, I’ve learned to live with the fact that there isn’t. So let’s find a way to make it better to live through, if it’s the least we do.
I think that convicted criminals should be jailed. Not in one of those “luxury jails” that Beef talks about. I think they should be punished and have to work for what they did in a way that betters the community. I liked in the old times when they had people working on the roads all chained together. I know for a fact there are holes on 370 and other roads that could used to be fixed; I drive over them everyday. Criminals could be put to work with high tech security devices instead of balls and chains to work on the roads. There aren’t enough roads to be patched to keep the criminals busy for long in the United States, but I’m sure other countries need roads to be fixed? Let’s just deport the criminals…
Anyways, I don’t think the death penalty would be so bad if all the people receiving it were guilty (I still think there are other methods), but they aren’t! Like it said in the article, one in seven on death row is innocent. So that brings me to think that our law and court system needs to be worked on instead of our punishment system. Why do we have more than 14% innocent people on death row? Because they were wrongly convicted in court and the REAL criminals got away. That is definitely a wrong that can and should be fixed with a little work on the government’s (both local and federal) part.
I still stand by: two wrongs don’t make a right, but we should focus first on what is happening in between the two wrongs and deal with the court system and find better ways to capture the criminals.
mzgzo
beef sandwich. a gladiator approach? really? thats even worse than the electric chair or even a firing squad.
although, if we did that, the people that actually murdered someone would have practice, so it would go a little faster.
but thats a horrible idea.
the death penalty is not good, in my opinion[of course.]
if we kill people, we are simply stooping to their level. we are doing the SAME thing they did[not in all cases. but most.] and thats wrong. so i am veryy much against the death penalty.
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
~John McAdams
Many people complain about the people who live off welfare their entire life and who are nothing but a drain on the economy. People that are in jail should be equally criticized. The average cost of a inmate per year is $17,000. Over 50 years that is $850,000. Not to mention how much money is spent on appeal after appeal through our appellate court system. So for people who have been tried and found guilty of committing crimes punishable by death that is the penalty that should be used. Tax payers should not be held responsible for having to pay for the meals of our mass-murderers.
We aren't stooping to their level by ridding society of someone who has committed haneous crimes, we are simply being cost effective by speeding up the inevitable.
& to beef sandwich and your gladiator idea, how bout you go back to 3rd grade where you belong.
& finally to wild wx man, do you seriously believe America shouldn't kill our murderers because we want the rest of the world to think we are a compassionate nation??? I'm pretty sure if that's what we wanted we would have called ourselves Switzerland #2.
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), never declared the death penalty unconstituional. In Furman V Georgia, SCOTUS decided that the death penalty as imposed was arbitrary and capriscious and therefore unconstituional. SCOTUS did not reverse itself in 1976, with Gregg v Georgia. New death penalty statutes had become law in various states and SCOTUS ruled that they were sufficent to allow enforcement of the death penalty.
There are many misunderstandings about the death penalty.
I hope that this helps erase some more.
The Death Penalty in the US: A Review
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
NOTE: Detailed review of any of the below topics, or others, is available upon request
In this brief format, the reality of the death penalty in the United States, is presented, with the hope that the media, public policy makers and others will make an effort to present a balanced view on this sanction.
Innocence Issues
Death Penalty opponents have proclaimed that 124 inmates have been "released from death row with evidence of their innocence", in the US, since the modern death penalty era began, post Furman v Georgia (1972).
That number is a fraud.
Those opponents have intentionally included both the factually innocent (the "I truly had nothing to do with the murder" cases) and the legally innocent (the "I got off because of legal errors" cases), thereby fraudulently raising the "innocent" numbers.
Death penalty opponents claim that 24 such innocence cases are in Florida. The Florida Commission on Capital Cases found that 4 of those 24 MIGHT be innocent -- an 83% error rate in death penalty opponents claims. If that error rate is consistent, nationally, that would indicate that 21 of the alleged 124 innocents MIGHT be actually innocent -- a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the 7800 sentenced to death since 1973.
It is often claimed that 23 innocents have been executed in the US since 1900. Nonsense. Even the authors of that "23 innocents executed" study proclaimed "We agree with our critics, we never proved those (23) executed to be innocent; we never claimed that we had." While no one would claim that an innocent has never been executed, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
No one disputes that innocents are found guilty, within all countries. However, when scrutinizing death penalty opponents claims, we find that when reviewing the accuracy of verdicts and the post conviction thoroughness of discovering those actually innocent incarcerated, that the US death penalty process may be the most accurate criminal justice sanction in the world. Under real world scenarios, not executing murderers will always put many more innocents at risk, than will ever be put at risk of execution.
Deterrence Issues
12 recent US studies, inclusive of strong defenses of the studies, find a deterrent effect of the death penalty.
All the studies which have not found a deterrent effect of the death penalty have refused to say that it does not deter some. The studies finding for deterrence state such. Confusion arises when people think that a simple comparison of murder rates and executions, or the lack thereof, can tell the tale of deterrence. It cannot.
Both high and low murder rates are found within death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, be it Singapore, South Africa, Sweden or Japan, or the US states of Michigan and Delaware. Many factors are involved in such evaluations. Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to find that the most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- deterred none. No one is foolish enough to suggest that the potential for negative consequences does not deter the behavior of some. Therefore, regardless of jurisdiction, having the death penalty will always be an added deterrent to murders, over and above any lesser punishments.
Racial issues
White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black death row inmates.
It is often stated that it is the race of the victim which decides who is prosecuted in death penalty cases. Although blacks and whites make up about an equal number of murder victims, capital cases are 6 times more likely to involve white victim murders than black victim murders. This, so the logic goes, is proof that the US only cares about white victims.
Hardly. Only capital murders, not all murders, are subject to a capital indictment. Generally, a capital murder is limited to murders plus secondary aggravating factors, such as murders involving burglary, carjacking, rape, and additional murders, such as police murders, serial and multiple murders. White victims are, overwhelmingly, the victims under those circumstances, in ratios nearly identical to the cases found on death row.
Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991), Smith College (1994), U of Maryland (2002), New Jersey Supreme Court (2003) and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital indictments.
Class issues
No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts. The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973. Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups?
Arbitrary and capricious
About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial. That would be about 60,000 murders since 1973. We have sentenced 7800 murderers to death since then, or 13% of those eligible. I doubt that there is any other crime which receives a higher percentage of maximum sentences, when mandatory sentences are not available. Based upon that, as well as pre trial, trial, appellate and clemency/commutation realities, the US death penalty is likely the least arbitrary and capricious criminal sanctions in the world.
Christianity and the death penalty
The two most authoritative New Testament scholars, Saints Augustine and Aquinas, provide substantial biblical and theological support for the death penalty. Even the most well known anti death penalty personality in the US, Sister Helen Prejean, author of Dead Man Walking, states that "It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical 'proof text' in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus' admonition 'Let him without sin cast the first stone,' when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) -- the Mosaic Law prescribed death -- should be read in its proper context. This passage is an 'entrapment' story, which sought to show Jesus' wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment." A thorough review of Pope John Paul II's current position, reflects a reasoning that should be recommending more executions.
Cost Issues
All studies finding the death penalty to be more expensive than life without parole exclude important factors, such as (1) geriatric care costs, recently found to be $69,0000/yr/inmate, (2) the death penalty cost benefit of providing for plea bargains to a maximum life sentence, a huge cost savings to the state, (3) the death penalty cost benefit of both enhanced deterrence and enhanced incapacitation, at $5 million per innocent life spared, and, furthermore, (4) many of the alleged cost comparison studies are highly deceptive.
Polling data
76% of Americans find that we should impose the death penalty more or that we impose it about right (Gallup, May 2006 - 51% that we should impose it more, 25% that we impose it about right)
71% find capital punishment morally acceptable - that was the highest percentage answer for all questions (Gallup, April 2006, moral values poll).
81% of the American people supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh, with only 16% opposed. "(T)his view appears to be the consensus of all major groups in society, including men, women, whites, nonwhites, "liberals" and "conservatives." (Gallup 5/2/01).
85% of Connecticut citizens supported the execution of serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross (Jan 2005).
While 81% gave specific case support for Timothy McVeigh's execution, Gallup also showed a 65% support AT THE SAME TIME when asked a general "do you support capital punishment for murderers?" question. (Gallup, 6/10/01).
22% of those supporting McVeigh's execution are, generally, against the death penalty (Gallup 5/02/01). That means that about half of those who say they oppose the death penalty, with the general question, actually support the death penalty under specific circumstances, just as it is imposed, judicially.
Further supporting the higher rates for specific cases, is this, from the French daily Le Monde December 2006 (1): Percentage of respondents in favor of executing Saddam Hussein:USA: 82%; Great Britain: 69%; France: 58%; Germany: 53%; Spain: 51%; Italy: 46%
Death penalty support is much deeper and much wider than we are often led to believe, with 50% of those who say they, generally, oppose the death penalty actually supporting it under specific circumstances, resulting in 80% death penalty support in the US, as recently as December 2006.
--------------------------------
Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, a fair accounting of how it is applied should be demanded.
copyright 1998-2007 Dudley Sharp
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas
Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-Span, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
Pro death penalty sites
homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
www(dot)dpinfo.com
www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis(dot)blogspot.com/
www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_contents.htm (Sweden)
www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.
i dont mind capital punishment. the thing i cant understand is why people are against killing people who killed people. I think that we should kill people the same way they killed thier victims. The BTK killer should be killed by the BTK method. why should we worry about thier feelings when so obviously they did not care about thier victims feelings?
Well, it seems that you all are pretty passionate about this subject, and that's good.
The only problem is that the Judicial System was created to uphold law and justice ( which is supposed to be cold, pragmatic, and withdrawn) isn't supposed to be. Our judges and juries aren't supposed to look at these people with the horror and revulsion of an normal everyday citizen. They're not supposed to rule with the thoughts of "My God! How horrible!" or "What if that had been MY family?!"
Giving these people the ability to decide who is fit to live and who is fit to die creates a serious flaw in our constitutional rights. The whole concept of the death penalty seems to actually run more along the lines of something you'd see in a Dicatorship (no matter how "benevolent" it may be). And yes, there are many evil people in the world, and yes, it would probably be a better place with them six feet under ground--the only problem is that we in the United States like to call ourselves a democracy. Last time I checked, democracies like to deal out punishments, not retribution, and our Court Systems are not set in place to deal with "Retribution."
And whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, life in Prision is a really bleak, hopeless sentence. Even if the criminal never feels remorse for what they've done, at least the victims of their crimes can wake up with that lovely, squishy, warm feeling every morning knowing that they've made someone's life a living hell.
Capital Punishment is again a touchy issue. People first off have to realize, people are not rotting in prison. It's terribly but they aren't locked up in a tiny room all day with nothing to do and no food. Secondly, I am for the death penalty. As the Bible states, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. You have taken somebodys life, you don't deserve yours. Ask yourself this, If somebody you loved was murdered? Someone in your family, or your husband or wife? Would you want that person still on this planet?? No! You would want them killed. And as for the arguement, what if your brother murdered somebody? Well then he made a terribly decision and I would not vouch for him.
Money is not the issue here. It's morals. It's the law. It is against the law to kill somebody. You should have your life taken away as punishment. The Bible states, An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Plain and Simple. Ask yourself this, If somebody you loved or somebody in your family was murdered, would you want that person still roaming the planet?? NO! You would want them killed and punished for their sin. Also people need to realize that people aren't rotting in prison. They aren't locked in a room 24/7 with no food and nothing to do. That would be inhuman. It's a very touchy issue.
My beliefs as Chief are strictly based on logic: if someone murders someone else, they themself deserve to die. But the real problem with capital punishment is that it doesn't always punish the guilty. Sometimes the innocent get caught up in it and suffer the punishment. I am for capital punishment 100 percent only if we can find a way to know 100 percent of the time that we have the bad guy, or girl(to be humanly correct).
Post a Comment