Isn't it sad how the death penalty is being abolished in different states b/c the system is more concerned->

About whether the killer is suffering when he is put to death? HELLO!!!!!!! Since when are the rights of killers more important??? Did they think they should be given a party with balloons? Or tickle them with a feather as their punishment? There is a reason why they are being put to death. they killed innocent lives without remorse without any pity for their victims. Doesn't anyone notice that Eurpoe has been suffering major crime problems since abolishing the Death Penalty? This society in general is becoming more %26amp; more wimpy when it comes to handling killers. Don't be suprise dto see killings %26amp; crime going up for states that abolish the death penalty.

Isn't it sad how the death penalty is being abolished in different states b/c the system is more concerned-%26gt;
soon we will be prosecuting the victims and spoiling the rapists..
Reply:You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people. Your question is much too important to settle without looking at these things.





125 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.





The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in those that don’t.





We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.





The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.





The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?





The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.





Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.
Reply:It is called liberalism, they are more concerned with killing babies, and terrorist being tortured, and the rights of convicted murderers, then the rights of the victims, and then they complain about prison over-population.
Reply:I don;t agree with the Death Penalty particularly, but if it is to be abolished I hope we see the first example being set by our friends the murderers. Can't remember which Senator said that, but it makes sense.
Reply:Unfortunately that's how the laws are these days...the people who murder, or kill are put in prison which is like being in a country club.The more money you have, the more you can get away with....example - O.J. Simpson. So what you are saying is it's okay for these people to kill others %26amp; we need to worry about how the lethal injection hurts them??? What is wrong with you? Say it was someone in your family that got cut up into little pieces by some weirdo...how would you feel about it then? Ya think they shouldn't suffer...okay, shoot them, that's quick n painless. Yes electrocution was horrible but an injection is nothing. I have no sympathy for killers that inflict horrible pain %26amp; suffering on their victims who have no rights the way the judicial system is today. Oh...they're dead so they can't testify but y'all are concerned about the killers feelings??It is very true...every country that has abolished the death penalty has had an increase in crime. Why??? Because they know they will go to prison, watch TV, movies, go to the gym, go swimming %26amp; eat better meals than most of us do. If you truly believe killers have rights too, then I feel sorry for you. You need to open your eyes %26amp; look at the truth. The lady %26amp; guy from Ohio who killed that little girl in Texas %26amp; kept her body (which was cut-up) in a tote in a shed at their house before they dumped it....Should they be exempt too???
Reply:I think the victims family should mandate the punishment, not the courts, and secondly, It should only be allowed IF dna or Actual Witnesses can prove the crime....I don't want to see crimminal's walk, but everyone is entitled too a fair trial.


even the bad guys.
Reply:Oh man, I so agree. I think that putting them down using any HUMANE form is just too good. How about killing them the way they did their victims. For example, if they raped and then shot their victim, then maybe they should have to suffer through that same punishment. Absolutely ridiculous to get rid of the death penalty because it causes suffering to the killer. Well, hell, he should have thought about that before he cut someone up. Freaking lunatic politicians trying to make themselves look good, when all they are doing is saying, "Hey, it's okay, commit murder, we'll just house and feed you for free for the rest of your life. So stupid. I personally think the death penalty that is in place (for the states that still have it) is too good for the common murderer.
Reply:Indeed. The UK abolished both guns and the death penalty and the murder rate in Britain is growing ever larger. Not to mention other violent crimes, like rape.
Reply:There are many other concerns. A death row prisoner is much more expensive to house than a lifer. They get more appeals and cost the state huge legal fees. Also, some innocent are killed. etc, etc.
Reply:I really don't like it when people say that we are executing innocent people; so therefore, the death penalty should be abolished. We are only talking about executing guilty people for their crimes. We should also be talking about finding ways of executing guilty, rich murderers for their crimes also, instead of concentrating on abolishing what is just punishment for heinous crimes. Who says that 'life with parole' is adequate punishment? Who thought THAT one up?


Who says that the death penalty doesn't deter crime? How many people think about society's penalties before doing something evil? Honestly, I have...and I'm sure I'm not the only one.





No, the death penalty to me has nothing to do with revenge! It's justice! Is a life worth only 15 years in prison? Welcome to Germany where you can murder someone and probably get off with a minimum of 10 years....maximum is 15 years even though they call it 'life' in prison.





My life and the lives of my loved ones is worth more than 10 years in prison...thank you very much!
Reply:I completely agree with you...We are fast becoming a nation of liberal sissies. What can we do about it? Constantly check the voting records of politicians. If you don't like their voting records, get involved in the political process and promote a better candidate.


All politicians need to be reminded who they work for.
Reply:"Don't be suprise dto see killings %26amp; crime going up for states that abolish the death penalty."


That argument hasnt ever held up. the facts are that states with the highest percent or murders per 100,000 are all states that use the death penalty.


look up the facts yourself


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table...





These are the massive problems with the death penalty:


#1. the fact that we have a 1 in 35 error rate. (3440 people on death row, 1096 have been executed, 125 have been exonerated after being found innocent.


#2. States do not want justice, they want closure. If states wanted justice, then every single piece of evidence that comesto light after a person has been executed should re-open the case. States/judges refuse to open cases to look at this new information.


#3. Its a barbaric outdated process. 194 countries in the world, 133 have abolished the death penalty.


#4. costs. It costs far more to execute someone, then to keep them locked up in some super max prison for 60 years. This has been well documented in every state.


#5. Plead guilty=serve life in prison


plead innocent=face the death penalty


THis is simply not a choice. Do you honestly trust the justice system enough to prove your innocense, or do you take the path that wont end in your death? Im sorry, but given this choice, and the amount of unbelievable errors in our system, i would plead guilty.





Until we can fix those issues, we cannot continue to support the death penalty.
Reply:You and I have no more right saying who is fit to live and whom to die in this life than we do who will be saved and who not in the afterlife. Human ego and hubris oversteps its bounds in capital punishment, and I for one am delighted to see the law acknowledge that right to life is more important than your desire to hurt people.





Peace
Reply:Should a gov. that can't fill a pothole right be allowed to determine life or death?





A life sentence is reversible, dp is not
Reply:Highly unlikely





Except for extreme circumstances all civilized nations abolished the death penaly a long time ago. In America the first nation to do that was Venezuela in the 1800's.
Reply:It does seem a bit silly. An execution probably can never be made pleasant.





But those who argue against lethal injection or electrocution are, at bottom, trying to see to it that we remain civilized about it.


I strongly doubt that they are sympathetic to child rapist/killers, for instance.





Still, the law ought to establish the point that it is impossible to abolish all unpleasantness for the condemned.





Let's just make it quick and get it over with.





edit: another suggestion. let's not execute these people as a form of punishment, but only because those of us who value human life have the RIGHT to remove them from the face of the Earth quickly and permanently. (I know the law doesn't really express this right, but it should)


Let's also cremate the body and dump the ashes in the ocean. No grave. Just get rid of them.





But we need to be careful about false convictions. If a massive overhaul of the rules of evidence and trial procedure is necessary for this, then so be it. Let's get it done.