http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/justice/california-death-penalty/index.html?iref=allsearch
What do you think? Yes or no the death penalty? What are your thoughts, after reading the article, about how the death penalty is administered? Respond in general. Read the article and don't just fall back on the opinion you have, but evaluate and see if that's an opinion you want to keep. It may be! But it may not be! Always be open to re-evaluation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
This one sure is a difficult one, the death penalty can be "good" because someone truly guilty that will receive a sentence of 70 year to life whom is guilty can be seen as unnecessary to keep in prison or jail. It sure costs a lot to keep inmates up and running. But judgements can also be wrong, someone could be given the death penalty and truly be innocent. Another point to look at would have to be how long does it take for someone to be assigned the death penalty? Is it even legal in every state. I'm not very well educated with this topic. But it is controversial. I would have to think that in the long run I am pro death penalty only because I know that a lot of money goes towards feeding, clothing, and providing for inmates. That money could be used for other things like bettering our public education or getting these inmates the proper help. Drug addictions or psychological issues won't be addressed by locking someone up in a cell. Everyone deserves a second chance why not give them the help they truly deserve. I guess I probably just contradicted myself if I'm saying I'm pro death penalty. My lack of knowledge plays a big part. On to the article
-yadira frutos
I disagree with the death penalty, because it cost a lot of money. California alone can save approximately $1billion over 5 years by replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment ,which that money can be use for public education ,one other thing is convicting the wrong person like the inmate Carlos De Luna who was accused of murder and was put on death penalty and 29 years after his execution he was proven not guilty, and well there isn't really a point to keep the death penalty because the government barely executes inmates on death row.For example in California over a span of 27 years only 11 have been executed, so I think life imprisonment with out parole would be better .
-Regina Andres
I am under the impression that the thought of their being a death penalty is arcaic, and that putting a life of a human being in the hands of another human, and I would believe that this would be true. SO in truth I don't beleive killing a human being is righteous, but on the other hand, I do beleive that the death penalty is necessary. There comes a point when a certain human will never change his ways or won't change his ways. So at that momment (depending on his crime) might just have to be killed. It's a terrible truth but there are people in the world that maybe shouldn't be kept alive. It sounds so bad but maybe it would be best for the well fare of the rest the human race. "Just a thought"
I also disagree with the death penalty. Like Regina said, California could save that money and use it more wisely. Instead of using the death penalty, inmates should have other punishments. If the inmates want to, they can volunteer themselves to be tested on for medicines or other products. They might as well be useful for something since they have a life time penalty. That way they will be useful and less animals will die from getting tested on. In my opinion the death penalty is a cruel thing to do and in some ways unnecessary.
I know the the article you gave us came from CNN (a pretty reliable source in keeping opinions out, and focusing on fact), but it still seemed a bit one-sided. I honestly don't know how to feel about the death penalty. Yes, it is expensive to keep doing retrials due to an infinite amount of appeals, but it can be (and sometimes is) more expensive to provide for an inmate that has life without the possibility of parole. That said, we shouldn't have cases where we find out someone we executed was innocent all along. If we are going to execute someone, we should be damn sure they are guilty. I would hate to know that my tax dollars (yes, I pay taxes, and almost everyone posting on this does too) are being used to provide for an individual that is absolutely, with out any doubt, guilty of 13 counts of murder, 5 attempted murders, 11 sexual assaults and 14 burglaries. At the same time, I would also hate knowing that my tax dollars were used to execute someone that was proven innocent after their execution. I think if we get rid of capital punishment, we take away that second thought that someone that is thinking about committing a crime. I would think twice, even three times, about killing someone if there was a possibility of receiving the death penalty. That's not to say that all people think like that, but if we eliminate that thought process, then people don't have to think like that. There is undoubtedly a necessity for reform, but I'm not sure about elimination.
As Ed stated, the CNN article is pretty one sided, but it does a good job pointing out the holes in the death penalty system. Although, there are problems in the death penalty system, I believe that it is needed in the US. What the government needs to focus on is making sure a rapist or a murderer is sentenced for death, not a person who robbed a 7/11 store, and make sure they do it efficiently to reduce costs. Yes, the death penalty does cost a lot of money but it also costs money to keep an inmate in a prison cell. A data census done by the U.S. Census Data and Vera Institute of Justice shows that in California an inmate costs the state government a little under $50,000 a year. Both sides of the issue cost the government money, but what happens when the government can’t pay to build prisons and provide for the prisoner? There have been cases where prisoners were released due to the budget and overcrowding. I understand that the Death penalty is wrong morally but it’s also wrong to a convicted rapist or a murderer.
-Bronsin Benyamin
I find the Death Penalty unjust, i believe that no one has the right to take away the life of other human being no matter how horrible of a person they are. Prison is traumatizing enough for some people and sometimes people do change for the better. But having someone sitting in a jail cell thinking about how they are about to die any moment is just cruel. Its very expensive to keep an inmate in prison, and it seems unfair that someone who committed a crime lives for free of of hard working tax payers money when the money should go towards more important things such as education, Yadira is right the money should also go towards helping inmates better themselves, and no just that but a lot of criminals do the things they do because of such a horrible and traumatizing childhood they had. All of that goes back to POVERTY! Someone who lives in poverty will most likely turn towards crimes to help them get through the day. Instead of using the money to build more prisons to keep more criminals, use it to help those people and families who live in poverty! That could be an idea to lower crime in the country.
-Sabrina Vargas
I am going to have to disagree with the death penalty. There have been multiple incidents in where someone that has been on death row has been killed but had later on been proven innocent. I know that it cost a lot of money to keep an inmate alive in prison, I have done the research and had found out that it would actually cost a more less amount of money if the death penalty was abolished. It cost $137 million dollars a year to maintain the current criminal justice system, but could drop to $11.5 million dollars if the death penalty is replaced by permanent imprisonment.
- Daniel Negron
I disagree with the death penalty for two reasons. One: there is too much room for error if there is no eye witness. Two: It is against the law to murder. There should be no exception for the government. That is just my general opinion on the death penalty. If asked about the death penalty in California I would continue to use those two reasons but there would be more to add. You should not have to be put through the hell of not knowing for certain whether or not your government is planning to murder you. That as well as being left in a room alone for twenty three hours a day are forms punishment that no one deserves no matter what their crime is because they can easily be considered a form of emotional and/or mental torture. I am completely against the death penalty anywhere. It is not humane and as long a murder continues to be illegal, the death penalty should be illegal.
I disagree with the death penalty period. In my opinion no one deserves to be killed no matter what crime they have committed. Killing in the United States is illegal, therefore there should be no exceptions. I consider being on death row as torture and like Gabbie said inhumane, it's very sad for someone to live only waiting to know if they will be executed or not. Too much money is being spent on these executions as well, we are spending money on executions and criminals rather than giving it to people who really need it. But I have to disagree that using the inmates to test certain medicines is any better, we can´t just use these people like animals for whatever we please. I understand that what these people have done is wrong but they should just be kept in jail until proven innocent, and take away the death penalty.
- Sara Gonzalez
A lot of people believe that with enforcing the death penalty they'll get justice. This isn't exactly true. Killing another person no matter the crime will never be "moral." These people are criminals because they're mentally ill and in my opinion, it doesn't seem right to simply kill people who are this mentally sick. No matter how twisted they are, they're still people, and I believe that the saying "an eye for an eye" shouldn't be applied in situations this serious.
I'm not saying that being mentally ill should excuse the fact that they murdered an innocent person, I'm just saying that they can be punished in other ways besides the death penalty. Life in prison without parole is more of an effective punishment since the person gets to live with their actions.
I'm not trying to be sympathetic; I'm being moralistic.
In terms of finances, like Regina pointed out, the state of California could save lots of money by discontinuing the death penalty. As Sara said, paying extra in taxes would be cheaper than continuing to pay for executions.
-Nicole Chellew
I personally believe that the death penalty is immoral. The issue that I have with my belief is that I come from a blessed perspective. I never had a family member or a close friend that was murdered, and I never had to be in a position in which I was begging for the killer to be put to death. This emotional stance is what makes me so conflicted. On one hand, as previously stated by numerous students, the death penalty is not economically beneficial. The state of California would save a lot more money if they abolished the death penalty. Also, as our history has shown, specifically in the article, people have been wrongfully convicted of murders. In some cases, it would take years and years to come up with the new conclusion that the convicted "criminal" was in fact innocent and wrongfully convicted. Fortunately, they would become free again. There is no replacement for all of the lost time that they spent in prison, but at least they ended up free. The death penalty ensures death, so if a new conclusion came out that the "criminal" was actually innocent, it would unfortunately be too late. On the other hand, the death penalty can be used as a way for the fallen victim's family to cope with the loss of their fellow loved one. Granted, some families who had their loved ones murdered just want to see the murderer in prison for the rest of his or her life, and that the death penalty is unwarranted. I just feel that my viewpoint on this matter doesn't carry any weight. If I had a fallen family member or friend, to be honest, I would probably ask for the head of the murderer, assuming he or she turned out to be the criminal. But from the point of view that I currently have, the death penalty is unconstitutional. There are just too many negatives that come with it than the positives, but that viewpoint may change if I was in a position in which I cry every night that my family member or friend is gone for the rest of my life.
-Michael Gelagay
To be honest the death penalty has pros and cons, The reason I say pro is because people do really bad things and they do really deserve the death penalty because it is only fair for them to experience what they did to others. People who do crime like murder shouldn't be let of easy and sentence them for 30+ years, when it comes to murder I think the criminal should deserve this penalty because of the fact that they took a life. therefore I am pro towards the death penalty because to many people get off easy and are sentenced for a couple years and I honestly see no justice in that.
-Louis Bellido
The only part I really agree with, along with most of the others, is that the death penalty is broken. The fact that there are over 200 inmates on death row and only a handful of them have actually been killed is a clear example of how flawed this system of punishment is. But taking it away all together is not only unnecessary, but dangerous. To most criminals, that is their biggest fear, to take that away is to take away the ultimate punishment. Then again, it should be just that, a probability. Keeping criminals who deserve it inside of prison for life is more than enough punishment. There should also be a more developed way of deciding whether or not a felon who actually deserves this fate is actually guilty because as most of us know, there have been cases were the judgment was wrong.
-Christian Trujano
Although there are faults in the death penalty, I still believe in it. One argument that most people bring up is how much money it caused. The inmates that are on death row cause the state so much money because of all the appeals. Having an unlimited amount of appeals isn't the smartest idea, I'm pretty sure after 5 times the government would know if you were guilty or not guilty. If the government were to take away the death penalty because of money, there is no guaranty that it would go to the education system like Regina said.
There are good sides to the death penalty. It can be used as a legal strategy. Many lawyers try to go for the death penalty in hopes of getting 20 years in prison. The procedure of how the death penalty works is definitely broken, and it will take time to fix it. Once fixed though, it will be a helpful part of the prison/legal system.
I would have to dissagree with the death penalty. The main reasons are due to the fact that the government rarely even executes the people on death row and that we would be saving so much more money that could help in supporting education. I don't have a complete understanding about the death penalty and death row , but I learned that we waste billions of dollars on taking care of the inmates who most likely won't be executed. Plus there is always the possibility that the government could execute an innocent person who was possibly framed for a crime, so I believe it would be easier and cheaper to not have a death penalty. I understand this is to punish those who committed horrible crimes, but there are other ways of going about treatment. -Jonathan Greene
Honestly, I can see both pros and cons to this issue, but everyone here seems to agree that the capital punishment system is definitely flawed.
Although the death penalty is meant for high offenders of the law (i.e. murderers) the possibility that the person is innocent of his accused crime is one of the main reasons people are so hesitant about executions. I know that even for civil cases, it can be a very long time before the court even hears that case, so of course it takes even longer to gather evidence in order to prosecute an individual or prove him not guilty of something as major as murder. The fact that one can make an infinite amount of appeals suggests that the justice system is aware of possible lack of evidence/mistakes in judge ruling, and this is again where people become concerned about murdering an innocent person. Obviously it's easier said than done, but if we're going to sentence someone to the death penalty, we have to be dead sure. Unfortunately, there are many situations in which we find out someone is innocent after they've been killed.
Of course there's always the fact that even if someone on death row is guilty of murder, they keep appealing for decades simply because don't want to die. But I think the fact that one doesn't necessarily have to be punished with death and can instead be fed and taken care of for the rest of his life is another appeal to prison life (although perhaps not ideal) rather than a deterrent which prevents him from wanting to go to prison altogether.
From a financial standpoint, whether or not we keep capital punishment, California is still going to be spending billions of dollars a year on taking care of prisoners. Because I can't find exact numbers for each state (and it varies from site to site anyway) I don't know exactly which option is "cheaper"; but it's true that a lot of money is being spent in some way on these prisoners when plenty of other people and institutions can benefit from those billions. (As a side note, spending this money on schools and education for example could help to fill in the gap between rich and poor – which is just one of many factors which contribute to crime – and eliminate crime before it happens.) Spending money more so on punishment than a real solution for crime so we can at least try to prevent as much crime as possible before it happens just doesn't seem like the most reasonable thing to do. (con.)
(con.) As for the people who argue that the death penalty is "cruel/unusual punishment", lethal injection is probably one of the most peaceful, pain-free method of execution. Saying we got rid of capital punishment entirely, however, I've considered what the prisoners would do without death row. Perhaps a number of them are truly mentally insane and can't help much, but sitting alone in a cell for 23 hours a day isn't productive either. I'm not familiar with exactly how the prison system works, but if I recall correctly, some inmates do have jobs in prison. Again, just keeping them clothed and fed costs a lot of money and that can't necessarily be helped because no one can be kept alive "for free" per say. But giving the prisoners something helpful or productive to do is definitely better than letting them sit in solitary confinement all day. Coming back to how the money is spent on prisoners and punishment rather than something that is more of a solution to the problem in general, there just seem to be so many other options.
Even following these considerations, I'm not entirely sure if I support the death penalty because I'm not sure whether keeping it really benefits us more than the opposite. I do, however, think that there definitely should be some sort of reform, but this is where the issue gets even trickier. Maybe we can look into other countries (like Japan) where the death penalty is still legal and see what we can learn from differences in their regulations of prisons and prisoners.
In summary, if we keep the death penalty, courts should be even more serious and sure in their rulings as well as able to enforce more rules regarding appeals and other factors of prison life/capital punishment. If we outlaw the death penalty instead, there still needs to be serious reform in the prison system and how our taxpayer money is spent. Either way, a number of factors must be addressed in order to benefit America's people as a whole. With so many people strictly standing by or against the death penalty, I'm curious what will happen next and whether the final decision will be any kind of solution to the problems we face today with prison/inmate regulations and court trials.
I agree with Jensen Bergvall that the death penalty could work if some things were changed. I believe it is wrong that the courts have a person wait so long to determine when they are to be executed. It would be cheaper and more humane to expedite the fate of people on death row. Other changes should be made but for the most part the death penalty is a good thing. The death penalty helps with the over crowding of jails and the costs of housing and feeding the convicted persons. It also lets the society know that you do get punished for horrible crimes like serial murders, etc... In my opinion the death penalty should stay a part of our criminal justice system.
-Katherine Neal
Although the article states that by removing the death penalty altogether will reduce costs because it will also remove retrials, I don't believe it's the most cost-effective decision. Keeping inmates in prison for life is also very expensive. The government spends more money on prisons than they do on public schools which is outrageous. Instead of removing the death penalty, I believe it should be reformed. There should be a set requirement to receive the death penalty, with maybe one chance for a retrial. That way the number of people they actually execute on death row will go up and it will lessen the cost of dealing with criminals. I agree that at this moment, the death penalty is in dire need of reform but I still support it.
I disagree with the death penalty for various reasons. For one, it is immoral. Many innocent men and woman have been put on death row because of their race and ethnic discrimination. Almost fifty percent of prisoners put on death row today are African American. 1 of 7 people have been executed then later proven innocent. Secondly, there is no credible evidence that proves that people will be discouraged to commit crimes knowing that they could be put on death row. States that have abolished capital punishment completely have seen no change in their crime and murder rates. Thirdly, I feel as though the prisoners should not be killed and suffer through what goes on in prison rather than be put out of their misery. Many people who've lost a close friend or a family member by murder feel that the murderer should be given the death penalty as way of revenge and closure with the case, but that is only a myth. Lastly, the cost of the death penalty is extremely expensive. California alone has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978. We as taxpayers pay $90,000 more per death row prisoner each year than on prisoners in regular confinement. That money should be spent on far more important things that are going on in our country.
-Drew Valadez
I disagree with the death penalty because there are many other ways to deal with it. I think that the criminals that have death sentence should be punished another way instead of taking the easy way out from the execution methods because it is immoral. Since they are in prison for life, they should be put to do something useful. Although it is still expensive to take care of the prisoners, but by making them resourceful can benefit both finance and community. So instead of wasting so much money for the death penalty trials, it can be used for other things such as education.
- Richard Ting
As many people have previously stated, the death penalty is unjust, though this is a topic that has viable reasons on both its sides. Keeping the death penalty could cause someone to be executed and then later it could be discovered that the person was innocent. Then again people's tax dollars are being used to keep a criminal in prison for life when they are clearly guilty of the crimes they have done. The death penalty is a very controversial topic. As Ed said I too would hate to know that my tax dollars were used to execute someone that was proven innocent later. The death penalty is morally wrong, yet still is a topic that hasn't found a definite solution. There is much needed reform, yet I don't agree with the elimination of it. -Markos Kassahun
Based on all the facts given by this article, I think that the death penalty in California is not administered well and inefficient. However, I still support death penalty, and I agree that it should be reformed. The justices should examine the cases carefully and only send a few inmates with the most serious crimes to the death row, so that innocent people will not be executed and not too many inmates appeal. I don’t think death penalty violates the 8th amendment if the crimes committed are seriously immoral. Death penalty can also be a warning to people who intend to commit a crime that they might be executed for what they are going to do. Plus, death penalty can help saving money on the needs for inmates. I understand that it costs a lot for the appeals, but I wonder if it's necessary to spend tax dollars on appeals for guilty people. Before appealing to the court decision, they should have thought about what they did to other people.
-Minh Truong
I personally find the death penalty appalling and completely disagree with it. One reason has to be the money that is invested into it. As stated in the article, California has the most people placed on death row than any other state. This only means that they’re also spending the most money to be able to keep them there. This shows that the government rather spend money on keeping inmates sitting around rather than spending on education. Money isn’t the only playing factor, but there’s also times where an inmate was found innocent after they were executed. How would it feel if you sent an innocent person to the end of their life?
-Melvin Chu
I am against the death penalty and for what it stands for. The death penalty is administered poorly in the state of California and with all the delays to the death sentences of prisoners on death row, there is no point in even having the death penalty. Keeping the death penalty is morally wrong and many things can turn wrong like executing someone who didn’t even commit the crime, but was innocent. I believe instead of sentencing prisoners to the death penalty, they should be put to work inside the prisons and benefit to society other than sitting there waiting to be executed, if they even get executed due to all the delays.
- Anthony Hoang
Despite reading the article first, I still think the death penalty is morally wrong in all circumstances, especially in the case where a man had been wrongfully put on a death row sentence for 30 years. The government put an innocent man to suffer in prison while his whole family grew up without him. Even if he didn’t get executed, the government was still wasting money on trying and taking care of death row inmates like him. This is why we can't have nice things in life, rather than trying to utilize inmates as a source of labor to improve our society, we pay millions to try and end the life of one person. Even if the death penalty changes, I would still think of it as one reason why our society can't be a better place.
The death penalty has always been a very interesting topic, should we kill the killers or have them be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. I disagree with the death penalty because of the uncertainty that comes with it, but I also agree with it because I wouldn't want to have my tax money pay for the housing of murderers and rapists. The death penalty should be reformed to reduce costs and also improve certainty of sentences. There have been way too many cases where people have been found guilty of a crime they didn't commit as well as many cases that are well deserved. Like Bronsin said, I would give a second chance to the man robbing a store, not to a man who kills another person.
The idea of killing someone for their crimes is very Aryan. Killing someone for there crimes is a way of disposing the unwanted, to path the way for the ideal race. Even if the reason you are killing the convict is, because they killed someone else. Think of it this way executing someone, who was convicted of being a murder, does not make you better than he was. Killing him just puts you one his level. Plus like Regina pointed out, it would be cheaper not killing people. However, what Ed said is one-hundred percent true too. If I was ever even considering killing someone, the simple fact that I would be sentenced to death would prevent me for killing anyone.
I do believe in the death penalty. Like Bronsin said it is very expensive but so is housing an inmate that is serving a life sentence. Tax money is going to the prisons where the inmates are better off in there than being out in the real world. Our justice system is far from perfect and could use work but getting rid of the death penalty would do more harm than good. If people aren’t being punished severely then there is really nothing to stop them from committing horrible crimes. I believe in eye for an eye so if you murder someone then you deserve the same fate. That belief may be harsh but it is unfair and wrong for a murder or rapist to get away with their crime by living free off taxpayer’s money.
After reading the article my opinion still stands strong. The death penalty should be removed and replaced with a more effective one. It’s not cost effective and the wait time is ridiculous. Whenever someone is sentenced to death row, they end up staying there for ten to twenty years before they get executed. In general its just not effective. While I understand that most people don’t want to have their taxes going to keeping these people alive in prison, there just isn’t a better way of executing prisoners. If we are going to keep the death penalty alive, it should be reworked so that its more effective.
While the death penalty in California is not efficient and people find it to be inhumane, I still believe in it. It is far from perfect and needs a lot of reforming, but getting rid of it will not solve anything. The death penalty alone can help to get people to think twice about what they are about to do possibly stopping them from committing a crime. Then there is the argument about the cost of it being to expensive, but is housing convicts any less expensive? No, it isn't. Besides, I would personally rather not see my tax dollars going to pay for the housing of convicts, who no longer have any real use in society. However, regardless of the arguments for and against the death penalty, if it is going to continue being used it should be reformed to be more effective and less cost consuming.
do not support the death Penalty, but then again I've never been confronted with a situation of a loved one being raped or abused. Then I probably would then support the death penalty. I don't believe we should waste thousand of dollars to kill these people .But then again I also don't want to waste my tax-payer dollars to provide rapists, and child abusers with television and Grade A food. Just as Juan stated the death penalty should be reformed to reduce costs and also improve certainty of sentences. Like Bronsin said, I would give a second chance to the man robbing a store, not to a man who kills another person.
-Sham Abrha
Personally I agree with the concept of the death penalty. I believe it could be used as a deterrent for crime. I also believe that people who commit these abhorrent crimes no longer deserve to live. What I mean by this is that we do not put a shoplifter on death row, we put serial killers, bombers, and rapist on death row. If someone murders multiple people I don’t see why that person should live. Now after reviewing article I have concluded that due to the cost I support life without parole. I think this punishment is actually less humane. That being said I think we save money and no person has to kill someone. The article has caused me to change sides as I now argue against the death penalty.
I believe that the death penalty should be our last resort. We spend $137 million dollars each year on death penalty. The time that the inmate spends on death row is ridiculous and we're the ones that are paying for it. With the millions that we do spend on ending lives we could put this money in prevention. Mental Health budget has been cut. If we were to take money away from the prison "industry" we could help those that actually do need it to make that difference in their lives. Killing people does not help others become better citizens. Why don't we invest our money in helping people and making our communities safer. Give the help that they need rather than killing off the ones that never received the help. A large factor that does hinder this from happening is the fact that corporations sponsor prisons and that would take the money out of their pockets. Mental Health should receive more tax dollars since these crimes wouldn't happen if people got help.
I don't think that there should be a death penalty because it is a waste of money and there's no reason to have the death penalty if no one is actually put to death. It hardly ever happens. However, I don't believe that there should be life without parole and using people's tax dollars to pay for serial killers food and such. The price for an inmate can be up to over four times the price for a student, it's quite sad really. Isn't that kind of telling people that a criminal is more important than a students/child's education and health. Some people might try to go to jail purposefully to have a place to sleep and have food to eat and they might think why should they work so hard, which leads to no motivation. It's ridiculous how much is spent on inmates when maybe if they had a little more help/ resources when they were younger, they wouldn't have grown up to be convicted felons. Instead of the death penalty( because it's hasn't really been working out so great anyways), the inmates should be put somewhere away from civilization, maybe an island or something, and have to work for their own existence. They would have to grow their own food and things like that, work together, and the ones who don't contribute get less, they don't starve, but they don't get what they could have if they worked. Kind of like a commune, I guess. There would be shipments of supplies sent periodically. But they would have to work for their food and comfort. It could cut the costs so someone's tax money isn't going into paying the meal of the person who killed that someone's friend or family member.
- Keilah Nijmeh
The death penalty will always be a huge controversial topic between those who support or who go against it. However, I do not support the death penalty because it simply deals with putting people to death. Money, safety, and morality tend to be commonly brought up in this topic because, supported or not, our money is put towards criminals to stay behind bars in order to protect our society. When it comes to death sentences, opinions change because we question if killing people is right or wrong.
The article reveals the corruption and disorder in California’s death penalty, starting with California having the most people on death row than any other state. According to Judge Carney, about “40% have been on death row longer than 19 years,” which makes me assume that the people thrown into death row are left there and possibly forgotten. With people wasting nearly 19 years and possibly innocent, it is almost unnecessary to send people there. They may not reform in prison and if some are innocent we cannot guarantee that they will integrate back into society if they were abandoned for years. The California death penalty is clearly disorganized and has not changed my opinion. A possible solution is balancing this and put more focus towards it, rather than supporting the death penalty and killing people or going against it and leaving serial killers, rapists, and other criminals in death row or prisons. Hopefully people will choose morality over money in this debate and balance the state’s penalty system.
I believe that the death penalty is useful and just in some very extreme cases. For example, if a man walked into an elementary school and shot everyone up, similar to the Sandy Hook incident, the man guilty should be killed. However, the current system is flawed as it takes way too long to get someone who is on death row killed, and there are many times when a person is found guilty but is actually innocent. I hear on the news all the time of these kinds of cases, and it would be terrible and bring a lot of uproar if an inmate was killed and later found innocent when new evidence surfaces. So while the death penalty can be used in certain cases, I believe it needs to be fixed, like Ed said.
-Varun Kaushal
When the death penalty is brought up I always think of it as somewhat of a necessity. It can provide a victim's family closure and can also prevent a potentially dangerous person from getting back on the streets. However, after reading how the death penalty is handled in California I feel that maybe other paths can be taken in order to "punish" a criminal. As the article said some people have been on death row for over nineteen years. Imagine what has happened to them over the course of all those years being locked up in a cell waiting to die. That seems to be enough punishment.
The concept of the death penalty makes sense, but the tradeoffs make the death penalty an issue. While we are killing horrible,monstrous people, 4% of people on Death Row are innocent. You can't give states the power to kill people when there are glaring issues with the way it is operated. By having people on Death Row, the constitution is being ignored. In the 8th Amendment, one is protected from cruel and unusual punishment. IF we are going by a literal interpretation , we should change the constitution in order to abide by the law. Race also comes into effect. It is widely known that if a white person and a colored person commit the same crime, the colored person is bound to get a bigger punishment. There are just many flaws regarding the death penalty that make it impossible to even consider it okay to keep it in functionality.
I strongly disagree with the death penalty in some areas. The reason why I said that is that containing prisoners in death row is costing the United States abundance of money, money where it can be used to pay off some of our debts. But what if an individual is truly innocent, but unfortunately gets the penalty? When someone has full control of ending another beings life, but legally its scary to even think about it. Its cruel and unnecessary at times. The reason why I say times because i can understand if someone believes that there are a few people out there that don't have any mental illnesses and will not change their sick ways, and may deserve their life taken away. I feel like life with no parole and imprisonment is a lot more better. This subject definitely has its strong pros and cons
Many people feel enforcing the death penalty will give them the feeling of receiving justice, but do you really feel good after killing someone without knowing everything about them? Of course there is no excuse for killing another human being but sometimes a person is not mentally stable and can make some very bad choices. There are many other forms of punishment that can be used rather thank killing someone. Sometimes the guilt is worse than death. Instead of spending so much money on the death penalty the money should go towards making other things better so there is no need for all these crimes.
-Jasmine Johal
If someone who murders is sent to jail, what makes prison guards doing it any more just? The death penalty is not only immoral and expensive, but contradicting to our values. As Carney has stated that this system "violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." We want to keep killers off the streets yet we are hiring them for our federal prisons.
On to the costs aspect. Like Drew had stated above, California has invested $4 billion on punishment fees. While prison rates run high already, the death penalty is just another add on to that long list of dollar signs. This money could be doing more things to grow our society. Sabrina had stated an example perfectly, poverty. Much of the United States has succumbed to the economical crisis and are living in poverty. With the cost of injecting a lethal needle into a prisoner's arm, there could be programs developed to help those living by the dollar.
In conclusion, the death penalty is immoral and unjust.
The Death Penalty has to be administered to show that the law is a force to be reckoned with. Why keep Murderers and Child abusers to a cell watching tv, and eating grade A food, just as Sham stated. I don't want my hard-earned Money going towards keeping these people alive and living well off than most of us , when they have done very bad things to.other people. We may lose money just to kill these criminals, but it sets an example for those who think" hey if I go to jail, atleast I will able to be fed, have a roof over my head and be able to take showers". This is the reality of some lower class folks who decide to do a crime, prison doesn't look so bad.
-Mia Medina
I disagree with the death penalty. Sarah's opinion is right, no one deserves to be killed no matter what crime they done. Like Louis B. opinion, there are pro and con. California has more people placed on death row than other states. The government spend tons of money invested into it, but why should we spend money on criminals rather than giving to people needed. We spend over $100 million on death penalty, I think we should give it to people who need it instead of spending on executed .I understand that criminals should pay for what their did, but there are other ways we can punished instead of the death penalty. -Nhi N
In my opinion, the death penalty is unconstitutional and should not be legalized. I understand where people are coming from thinking that one person's actions if serious enough should face the death penalty. I do not believe this is right. The value of someone's life should never be used as punishment. Not only that, but as the article states, the process of being on death row is a long and tedious one at that, don't you think we should be spending our time on more important things. The cost of being on death row is also very high when we can be using those expenses for something else.
-Vincent Doan
It's the cold and painful truth that in the end the amount of actually guilty people on death row compared to those who are innocent on death row is really high and it would be a whole lot of work and years of research to even prove ones innocence. This is why I believe that the death penalty should be of even more difficult obtainability than before. I remember seeing on the news as a child that this guy received 700 years in prison, that always confused me until I realized that it is actually easy to shorten the usual sentence of "70 years to life" for a crime such as murder to only about 20-25 years if not less. People who are charged with an outrageous amount of time should be just put on the front of death row with no repeal until an outside source produces evidence. I am a supporter of the death penalty and believe that "those who live by the gun shall die by the gun" . Figuratively speaking of course, death by firing squad could lead to some pain if a fatal shot is not taken. I recently watched a documentary on the whole death row process, I believe that we should have the right to choose which method we are put to death by. In my opinion the electric chair is probably the fastest and most painless of the five options(firing squad, electricity, injection, nitrogen/sulfur gas, and hanging). The electricity paralyzes you and within a split second you cant feel anything at all. I believe that the gas chamber should be completely abolished though because it basically chokes you to death and the gas burns during the process. In the end I believe that it is easier and cheaper to end the life of an unjust criminal than to have him live and eat for free for the rest of his life.
I don’t think that the death penalty should be used, at least until all the loopholes, as pointed in the article, are fixed. As the article said, the death penalty does have many loopholes, meaning, there are many possibilities of someone being executed even if they’re not supposed to be. It also seems very ironic to kill person who’s killed. I know that my sound fair since he killed a person, but wouldn't the person who kills the prisoner then be a murder. Not to mention, there are also other ways of dealing with criminals besides killing them. In the Jones case, couldn't Jones receive help instead of killing him? As the Death Penalty Focus executive director said, “It better to keep give them a life sentence than to waste taxpayer money”.
-Francisco Alvarez
I disagree with the death penalty. Like Gandhi said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. Although I understand that the victims’ family would want closure and justice for their victim, I don’t think killing the criminal would do much “justice”. I think that imprisoning these criminals is a punishment itself. There’s also the factor of executing the innocent. Like many who said before me, the death penalty system is flawed. There have been innocent people who have been executed, and that is not okay. I also disagree with the death penalty from the financial aspect because it is very expensive to go through the death penalty trials. -Vicky Le
My opinion on the death penalty is that it should be outlawed. It is such an excruciating and tedious process getting orders carried out as evidenced by the extremely long times that the convicts have to wait.
It would be all just better to lock them away for life and let them "rot" in their cells for their crimes. I also believe that lifetime imprisonment is a more harsh and thus, a just punishment for murderers, rapists and all kinds of sick folk. The death penalty in California should be ended and the constant sucking of taxes will end as well. Our money should not be allowed to be spent killing people. As much as one might and should hate these maniacs, it is totally unjustifiable taking their lives away. They'd be much better kept in a cell with nothing more than to think of their hideous crimes and the innocent lives they've taken.
-Luis Godinez
I also extremely agree with Vicky's quote of Gandhi :)
-Luis Godinez
The death penalty will always be a debate that lingers into the gray area for me. It gives the opportunity of removing those who have committed heinous crimes and those that are a threat to society and allows the family of the victims of the criminals to receive closure, but on the other hand these criminals linger on death row, most for almost more than nineteen years, without a worry by being feed and sheltered till their execution. The current death penalty system has many faults. The prisoners are left on death row for numerous years, some long enough that they have died of other causes, the most recent execution in the state of California was on January 17, 2006, almost a decade ago, and 87% of executions since 1976 are done by lethal injections, some that are hard to obtain the right combination of drugs. This all leads to the death penalty to being a costly system that just doesn’t work. What I want from the death penalty is not its abolishment but its reformation into a system that can truly judge a criminals actions and quickly follow suit with its decision.
As others said death penalty is injustice. I personally don’t agree with capital punishment because taking life would not make any wrong, right. If death penalty is imposed as a prevention measure then after so many deaths how come crime is on the rise even in the countries that has the most number of executions? The root cause of crime in most cases is poverty, lack of education, social and economic injustices. By executing criminals without addressing the root, causes of the crime would not prevent future criminal activity. On the other hand if execution is a means of applying justice for crime then lengthy imprisonment of criminals rather than taking life of a human being would be a more civilized way of punishment. According to the article, executions cost a lot of money, so instead of using our tax monies for executing people they can use it to provide a better public health care for free.
-Maryam Mostafavi
No. Even if it takes away one deterrent, there’s still others. Crimes, especially federal crimes, are always very complex and have many factors at play. That being said, however, we do need to reform, and lots of it. Personally, I completely agree with Cynthia, if we actually put in the effort to provide help to the root of why criminals act the way that they do, society would be much better off. No matter how horrendous the crime, it doesn’t change the fact that the criminal is a human being. One that most likely if not definitely was influenced by their own negative experiences. Now, this doesn’t justify what they did in any way shape or form, but it does show that we are only trying to get rid of the problems on the surface and not addressing the major problems that need attention. We spend millions of dollars a year on (essentially) different ways to kill another person, and since the wait to actually reach a decision and methods are so shaky, it’s really just a hassle at the moment.
At first, I was a staunch proponent of death penalty, but after reading this; I'm more lenient. If there was more than enough substantial/concrete evidence which links the criminal to the crime, and they had a fair trial, the execution should be administered within a year. However, I'm against it in a system where the defendant doesn't know when they will be executed, after being in solitary confinement for many years, which seems like an unbearable form of cruel and unusual punishment to me. If you add in the fact that some of those sentenced are innocent, I am not going to pay to put such a life to an end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pz3syET3DY We need to reform the entire system in general for incarcenation.
I disagree with the death penalty for two reasons. One of them being who are we to punish someone and take their life away. No matter how big their crime was we shouldn't be the ones who decide if they deserve to be executed. Having a human execute another human is as bad as someone killing another human being and their punishment being the death penalty. Its two different views but if you think about it, its actually the same thing. The other reason that I disagree with the death penalty is that its expensive and we could be saving that money and have it used for something that is beneficial to all.
The Death Penalty is unconstitutional and is morally wrong in so many ways. If you put someone on Death Penalty, you are becoming the killer yourself. That is exactly what makes the Death Penalty morally wrong. What people need to realize is once you kill the person who has committed intolerable acts, you are actually making things easier for them. They no longer have to live with the guilt of committing such a horrible crime. The Death Penalty can also be potentially unuseful. It is supposed to keep crime off the streets, when in reality, there is still crimes being committed everyday. Not only is it unuseful, it is also costly and a hassle to most tax payers.
- Luis Plascencia
I do not entirely support the death penalty, I disagree with it overall but i also understand its purpose and think that its something that we should not completely do away with in the United States. I do disagree with how long it can be threatened for, sometimes for many years after conviction. We should reform the death penalty to where after one year of conviction it is no longer an option. I find it disturbing to have individuals under constant fear of being put to death for years. Although it may save money on some sixty thousand we spend per prisoner per year in California its still wrong to have it longer for so long. It would just save less money not because with a reform it would still take place only people wont be getting put to death for a crime from fifteen years ago.
We should develop a more efficient way of locking up inmates for life. If we could develop and automated system that could efficiently incarcerate our millions of inmates at the lowest possible cost while somehow not killing people with taxes.... oh wait, that is impossible. I think people put on death row should work their cost and actually benefit society until they die. Like slaves but they work to even out the money we waste on taxes.
I think that the death penalty is definitely in need of some reform. I don't feel that it is right to make people wait for such extended amounts of time waiting to find out if they will die or not. However, I do believe that the death penalty could be effective if it were only practiced in a more efficient way. I believe that people on death row that have undeniable evidence against them like photos or videos then they should be executed (Of course there will still be more complicated cases such as those having to do with mental illness). I think that if this was applied to the practice of the death penalty it could save a lot of money and time.
Post a Comment