∫∅phi∈ シ

Someone already asked this but the answers I got from the another question but weren't very good.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200901...

1.WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. In the last 35 years in the U.S., 130 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These are ALL people who were found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. So, as long as the death penalty is in place, you are pretty much GUARANTEED to occasionally execute an innocent person.

__________they should execute people who are found "guilty beyond real reasonable doubt" or the ones that admit to it?

and it's not better that those innocent people would spend their lives in jail instead considering it is common for families of murder victims to want them in jail so that they suffer instead of getting the easy way out.

2. EXPENSE: Because of higher pre-trial expenses, longer trials, jury sequestration, extra expenses associated with prosecuting & defending a DP case, and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

__________They still go to trial either way. The cost of something has nothing to do with 'wrong' or 'right'.

Spending money isn't wrong, it's what it is spent on that may be.

It is wrong for tax-payers to pay such ridiculous prices for something so simple.

It cost millions or people to talk in a big room, that is wrong.

3. DETERRENCE: The deterrent effect is questionable at best. Violent crime rates are actually HIGHER in death penalty jurisdictions. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). It is probably due, at least in part, to the high cost (see #2), which drains resources from police departments, drug treatment programs, education, and other government services that help prevent crime. Personally, I think it also has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

__________According to that logic, The government shouldn't do any of the things it doesn't want its citizens to do. Or is it the government who should do what it's citizens want? More people want it than don't from what I found, sorry I don't have the links anymore. Besides people know that they are taking risks breaking the law.

If some people will react violently when the government executes known criminals. Then they are just as hypocritical themselves. either way this "is questionable at best" and irrelevant to weather it's right and wrong.

If people see the death penalty as a challenge, they obviously know the "challenge" they are facing.

someone said somewhere something like "can't pay the fine don't commit the crime"?

So Ted Bundy "chose" Florida because of that? It makes sense, he preferred death to prison. Removing the death penalty doesn't solve the problem since people don't go serial killing because of a law that will get them killed for it. It doesn't really increase the risk of getting caught either.

4. EASY WAY OUT: There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (the architect of the 9/11 attacks) would love nothing better than to be put to death. In his words, "I have been looking to be a martyr [for a] long time."

__________This is what you may call revenge. Since when is revenge considered right?

5. BIBLICAL: Most governments are supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. The New Testament (starring Jesus) is primarily ANTI-death penalty. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus praises mercy (Matthew 5:7) and rejects “an eye for an eye” (Matthew 5:38-39). James 4:12 says that GOD is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

__________Well Jesus was preaching to people not writing laws. I think they stoned people back then... or nailed them to crosses (legally), For the executioner, it's his job, nothing personal, probably doesn't even know the killer. I guess it wrong for him to gain pleasure from such a job but that's another issue.

So why is it wrong to have laws to kill murderers but okay to have laws that lock them up or life when