Topic: Should the penalty for heinous crimes be harsher?
June 20, 2019 / By Allie Question:
I personally believe that life sentences are wasteful because we spend all this money on keeping the prisoners comfortable with three meals a day, and excercise and social hour, when instead we should be utilizing the able-bodied criminals for slave labor.
I also believe the death penalty is too easy of a way out for felons. Someone who kidnaps, rapes, then brutally murders an innocent little girl with a hammer should not get a measly little neetle that first induces sleep so you don't feel yourself dying, and then you peacefully dose off.
Instead, they deserve to be put to harsh slave labor and forced to work in septic tanks, mines, and other dreadful places with little sleep and no compensation except for some food. Or, we can use them for human experimentation in laboratories, rather than using innocent animals.
I understand that it is possible that innocent people could be sentenced to such things, but I believe if we were to cut the massive military spending, we could use more of the federal funding to go towards detective work and law enforcement, which could lead to more evidence and more accurate sentences. But I digress.
What do you think? Is our current justice system to weak?
Uz | 9 days ago
For the worst crimes, life without parole is better, for many reasons. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it isn’t effective in reducing crime, prolongs the anguish of families of murder victims, costs a whole lot more than life in prison, and, worst of all, risks executions of innocent people.
The worst thing about it. Errors:
The system can make tragic mistakes. In 2004, the state of Texas executed Cameron Todd Willingham for starting the fire that killed his children. The Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the arson testimony that led to his conviction was based on flawed science. As of today, 138 wrongly convicted people on death row have been exonerated. DNA is rarely available in homicides, often irrelevant (as in Willingham’s case) and can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people. Capital juries are dominated by people who favor the death penalty and are more likely to vote to convict.
Keeping killers off the streets for good:
Life without parole, on the books in most states, also prevents reoffending. It means what it says, and spending the rest of your life locked up, knowing you’ll never be free, is no picnic. Two big advantages:
-an innocent person serving life can be released from prison
-life without parole costs less than the death penalty
Costs, a surprise to many people:
Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. Since the stakes are so high, the process is far more complex than for any other kind of criminal case. The largest costs come at the pre-trial and trial stages. The tremendous expenses in a death penalty case apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death. The tremendous expenses in a death penalty case apply whether or not the defendant is convicted, let alone sentenced to death.
Crime reduction (deterrence):
The death penalty doesn't keep us safer. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this. For people who lack a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent.
Who gets it:
Contrary to popular belief, 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. Practically everyone sentenced to death had to rely on an overworked public defender. How many people with money have been executed??
People assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty imposed. It isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral grounds. But even families who have supported the death penalty in principle have testified to the protracted and unavoidable damage that the death penalty process does to families like theirs and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.
It comes down to whether we should keep a system for the sake of retribution or revenge even though it isn’t effective in reducing violent crime, costs much more than alternatives and, worst of all, can lead to the nightmare of executing someone for a crime he didn’t commit.
there is not any such element as "a million/2 of a life sentence". there's a minimum yet no optimal form of years to serve. once you've been an eternal being and function been convicted of against the law so heinous that you get life imprisonment; then in penal complicated is were you would possibly want to be. 'against the law so heinous' would probable get you life without danger of parole. look it up it really is a sentence.(imagine of Charles Manson). optimal lifers are released by old age. An eternal being does now no longer have that determination.
Yes, just death if proven guilty with forensics and DNA testing. They have a 1 in a 1 000 000 fail rate.