|
Post by beachluver on Jan 7, 2011 2:08:48 GMT -5
I cannot stand the argument "The government is only making more victims. & Execution is not going to bring the person or people back." There's only one set of victims, those are the people who were killed by those in prison. The inmates family, friends or supporters are not victims & never will be. It irritates the hell out of me when people say those words.... Of course executing a "murderer" will not bring a "dead" person back. I think anyone who has two firing brain cells can figure it out. It's all about making sure the guilty be held liable to the full extent of their actions.
Many for some strange reason want to call a murder a mistake. "Oh he had a hard childhood & it was a mistake he killed 50 people.....He deserves to live cause he is mentally ill, blah blah blah." I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone who will never step foot outside of a prison, who killed deserves to breath? What is the point in keeping them alive? Is it all about his/her family? .... 99% of the complaint is about money - "it cost most to execute than it does to keep them alive." That particular argument is nothing more than making excuses.
A hand full of people may be innocent - look at the thousands & thousands of people violently murdered a year...No one says anything but, "Oh he/she made a mistake & they deserve to live." Why is a murderers life held in higher standards than an the person or people they killed? I don't get it..... I'm pro-death - I could never justify why a murderer should live when an innocent person was taken out brutally.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Jan 28, 2011 11:48:41 GMT -5
I cannot stand the argument "The government is only making more victims. & Execution is not going to bring the person or people back." There's only one set of victims, those are the people who were killed by those in prison. The inmates family, friends or supporters are not victims & never will be. It irritates the hell out of me when people say those words.... Of course executing a "murderer" will not bring a "dead" person back. I think anyone who has two firing brain cells can figure it out. It's all about making sure the guilty be held liable to the full extent of their actions. Many for some strange reason want to call a murder a mistake. "Oh he had a hard childhood & it was a mistake he killed 50 people.....He deserves to live cause he is mentally ill, blah blah blah." I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone who will never step foot outside of a prison, who killed deserves to breath? What is the point in keeping them alive? Is it all about his/her family? .... 99% of the complaint is about money - "it cost most to execute than it does to keep them alive." That particular argument is nothing more than making excuses. A hand full of people may be innocent - look at the thousands & thousands of people violently murdered a year...No one says anything but, "Oh he/she made a mistake & they deserve to live." Why is a murderers life held in higher standards than an the person or people they killed? I don't get it..... I'm pro-death - I could never justify why a murderer should live when an innocent person was taken out brutally. True... If we cannot execute murderers because they kill.... Then we cannot sentence anyone to prison, for the crime of false imprisonment.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Jan 28, 2011 11:51:15 GMT -5
Oh....it was a "study"....well, there you have it!
|
|
|
Post by jpantz on Feb 23, 2012 19:16:57 GMT -5
Capital punishment continues to hold widespread approval by the public, with 65% of Americans in a May 2006 Gallup Poll calling it a reasonable punishment. It's easy to see why the death penalty has such natural appeal; after all, what punishment of law carries more justice that killing someone who is guilty of killing someone else? Such concept has been around since at least 1772 BC, famously expressed in the Code of Hammurabi. Unfortunately, in modern practice, the death penalty is not creating the same justice that the Code of Hammurabi had in mind. Death Penalty Information Center-gathered statistics indicate that sentencing for capital punishment has been subject to numerous errors in the past, is done with a racial bias and, most importantly, does not provide an effective deterrent to crime. The single largest impact to ideal justice of capital punishment lies in the fact that humans are fallible and capable of condemning the wrong person to death altogether. Between 1973 and 2010, 138 death row inmates were exonerated in the United States - every single one of them standing as someone sentenced to death on a false indictment. The widespread use of DNA as evidence has had a profound impact, as exoneration rates have shot up by 61% since 2000. Juries are continually getting more and more reluctant to hand down sentences of death, and it's not hard to see why. Nonetheless, when juries do hand down death sentences, they run into another injustice in our execution system: racial bias. In North Carolina, a defendant who kills a white man is 3.5 times more likely to be sentenced to death than if that same defendant had killed a black man. The Santa Clara Law Review found strikingly similar results in California, discovering the odds to be three times more compared to blacks and four times more compared to Latinos. Overall, 96% of states that have conducted a study found racial bias - far from just. Finally, for as unfair as the death penalty has proven itself to be in this nation, its entire purpose - deterring murder - is not fulfilled. A staggeringly high number of criminologists, about 88%, find that the death penalty is not effective as a deterrent. Statistics agree with this professional opinion: the South has the highest rate of murders, and they perform 80% of executions. The Northeast has the lowest rate, yet they perform under one percent of executions. Under ideal circumstances, there is little fault in the concept of executing murderers; most people agree such a practice is fair. However, even these brief data show that the United States performs this ages-old task in a terribly iniquitous way. This nation was built on the premise of providing all their natural rights. We should not toss them aside just so we can have an false impression of justice or safety; alas, impartial or dissuading our methods of execution aren't. This blog post is an official entry for the Law Blogger’s Scholarship, sponsored by The Law Office of Joshua Pond, www.joshuapondlaw.com
|
|