* At least in Canada during the late 50s into the 60s most people were against the death penalty, but that has changed a great deal now. Most Canadians are for the death penalty if it is warranted to fit the crime of taking another's life. Many will argue this resolves nothing and doesn't bring the victim back or make the families any happier, but the reasoning for this is that people that murder are going to do it again and most are let out on parole sooner or later and that in itself often upsets the families. Also keeping prisoners costs the tax payers a great deal of money, so murders are of no use to society. Canada is fighting for stricter laws all the way around and not just including murder. In the U.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States States with/without the death penalty: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates== == * There are more cons. It doesn't matter how much money death penalty vs. no death penalty costs, because you can't put a value on innocent human life. Killing the murderer won't bring the victim back, but using the death penalty will occasionally result in an innocent person being executed. Since the death penalty inevitably results in a net loss of innocent life it is unjustified. If it was possible to know 100% then I'd have no problem with the death penalty, but it's not possible. It actually costs more to kill the criminal than to keep the criminal in prison for life.
Is the Death Penalty Right or Wrong? The idea of putting another human to death is difficult to completely fathom.
The advantages are:
Justice, and the sense of 'societal retribution' that the murderer has met the same fate they gave to their victim
Deterrence
Cuts the cost to society of imprisoning the guilty party for a lifetime
Disadvantages:
The argument is that the length of stay on death row, with its endless appeals, delays, technicalities, and retrials, keep a person waiting for death for years on end. It is both mentally cruel (to BOTH the guilty party AND the victims family) and it is costly to society.
Death is final - if someone is innocent they can never be revived
Does not discourage crime
The death penalty costs the state and US government millions of dollars for each person put to death, making it obsolete compared to keeping the person in prison for life. Religion can also play a part in this, as many religions disregard and don't believe in putting a persons to their death. by the way im biased and have not a clue what im talking about
The Pros are that it is cheaper than feeding & heating and imprisoning someone for the rest of their life. And it provides for revenge & retribution. The cons are that someone has to make the decision and ensure its justification....A Godlike power. If the perpetrator does not have the right to take life, what gives the State to do likewise ? The case in UK recently of Stephan Kischko is a terrible injustice. A man of limited intelligence he served 16 years of a life sentence for child murder: DNA proved his innocence & he was released a few months before he died. A man has since been convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed. But some would still try to justify State power to take life. I am not among that number, by simple moral argument, juries make mistakes however well they might be directed. I ,as an individual, can be as vengeful as I wish to be: but to empower Government to legally murder someone is not for my justification. War is different, that's why we empower soldiers with lethal force, that's why we pay Armies to defend us.
There are many cons of the death penalty. One of them is that it is permanent and that later, if someone is found to be innocent, you can't reverse an execution. Another is that it is actually quite a bit more expensive to execute someone, largely because of the appeals process, than it is to simply give them life in prison without parole (LWOP). Yet another is the racial bias issue. If the murder victim is white, the defendant is far more likely to get the death penalty than LWOP. In the 1987 case McClesky v Kemp, which made it the the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), it was acknowledged that there is a lot of racial bias but said they cannot do anything about it because it would "open the floodgates" and cause "too much justice". SCOTUS basically said the system is flawed but there is nothing that we can do about it. To find out more you can research the above mentioned case and the 1972 case Furman v Georgia, or you can look up "Capital Punishment Debate" on the Wikipedia, much of the material on there comes from the works of very well respected death penalty scholars who are cited at the bottom of the page.
Pros of the death penalty include that it helps to reduce overpopulation in prisons, deters future crimes from being committed, and gives peace of mind to families. Cons of the death penalty include that the cost of the execution is much greater than a sentence to life in prison, innocents could be convicted and put to death, and a death penalty does not undo a person's crimes.
A con of the death penalty is that it costs the taxpayers a lot of money. The death penalty also comes with moral concerns.
For. If most of the citizens in Texas did not want the death penalty, there would be no death penalty.
Now, no death penalty in Romania.
No,the state of Nebraska does not have the death penalty.
no, you dont die with the death penalty
No,the state of Missouri does not have the death penalty.
anti- death penalty i am a anti death penalty... because death penalty is not a human punishment..
No members of the EU use the Death Penalty.
Yes. Jamaica does have the death penalty.
Yes, Ohio has the death penalty. They have executed 32 individuals since 1976. But their death penalty is different, they use the lethal injection method.
yes the death penalty costs money.
Hawaii abolished the death penalty in 1948.