Why can't death penalty be reserved for the rarest of the rarest cases?

Why can't death penalty be reserved for the rarest of the rarest cases? Topic: Why can't death penalty be reserved for the rarest of the rarest cases?
June 18, 2019 / By Alyse
Question: One person kills one, and he is sentenced to death. This is not "rarest of rarest case". Rarest of rarest case would be multiple homicides or acts of terrorism such as Ted Bundy execution and Timothy McVeigh execution. Troy Davis type cases, do not meet standard of death penalty. They meet life imprisonment standard at most. There are have been numerous cases, where only 1 killing resulted in execution. That is bit too harsh and barbaric. also how often do you see cop getting death penalty for killing an unarmed innocent man? also note, that in some cases 1 killing results in life sentence (when the murderer is white while the victim is not white) and in other cases 1 killing results in execution (if murderer is black and victim is white). Doesn't make sense or if the killer is female, she gets life sentence. but if the killer is male he gets lethal injection. Why such inconsistencies? there have been 887 cases, where white killed black but got life sentence. The other way around is rare. How come? krista: you didn't address the additional details of inconsistencies in the system In one of the cases, back in 2001 a white supremacist man murdered an asian man out of pure hate. In 2003 he was sentenced to death. Then his lawyer appealed and in 2005, the death sentence was removed and he got life imprisonment. Is this fair? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Roque article says -- "On September 30, 2003, Frank Silva Roque, age 44, was convicted of first-degree murder. On October 10 he was sentenced to death. In August 2006, Arizona Supreme Court overturned Roque's death sentence in return for a sentence of life in prison." is this fair?
Advertisement
Best Answer

Best Answers: Why can't death penalty be reserved for the rarest of the rarest cases?

Vic Vic | 7 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. These 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 without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent. Who gets it: 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?? Victims: 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 the death penalty system for the sake of the only two purposes it serves: retribution and revenge.
👍 262 | 👎 7
Did you like the answer? Why can't death penalty be reserved for the rarest of the rarest cases? Share with your friends
Vic Originally Answered: View of the death penalty in most serious cases?
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 doesn’t reduce 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. 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. These 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 without a conscience, fear of being caught is the best deterrent. Who gets it: 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?? Victims: 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 it 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. The worst thing about it. Errors: The system can make tragic mistakes. Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for setting the fire that killed his children, based on what even the Texas Forensics Science Commission acknowledges was junk science. Modern forensics has shown the fire was accidental, not arson. We’ll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn’t commit. As of now, 140 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. It comes down to whether we should keep the death penalty for retribution or revenge in spite of its flaws and in spite of the huge toll it exacts on society.
Vic Originally Answered: View of the death penalty in most serious cases?
because of the fact its the main civilized, effective way of coping with the social ills of society? or perchance because of the fact its a place the place some human beings nevertheless think of "a look ahead to a eye" is a suitable, rational reason to kill somebody. How approximately those blood-lusters quoting something else from the bible? "He who has not sinned would forged the 1st stone", to illustrate? or perchance "turn the different cheek"? each and all of the appropriate, maximum innovative, worldwide places have the dying penalty. I mean, if somebody is shown harmless afterwards, errors take place and its a small fee to pay for against the regulation loose society, like the only united states of america enjoys. the multiple exciting places the place you would be accomplished: Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North, Korea, Libya, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Syria, united states, Vietnam, Zimbabwe i've got self assurance united states of america basically accomplished fifty 8 human beings final 3 hundred and sixty 5 days, so what precisely is the factor of it?

Ross Ross
Eh, i believe that if you take the life of someone else---and legitimate evidence proves you guilty--then you should also give up your right to life. Moreover, I believe that a life sentence should actually mean life, not time off for good behavior. Finally, I believe that prison should absolutely suck. No TV's, no movie nights, no cigarettes, no conjugal visits. I like work prisons (without Joe Arpaio's racism), where prisoners are required to work hard all day long for what is provided to them. I think the problem with prison is that we coddle criminals with all of the comforts of home, without any responsibility. That isn't justice for the victim and it certainly doesn't deter people from committing crimes. As for the inconsistencies, I agree they are wrong. I believe that everyone convicted for manslaughter in the first degree, for example, should serve the same amount of time. It shouldn't be based on their behavior, their skin color, their location in America, etc. And I'm a staunch liberal. Go figure.
👍 110 | 👎 0

Montmorency Montmorency
Personally, I wouldn't even want the death penalty assigned for multiple homicides. That's still just society murdering someone in revenge for murder. It's trying to make a right out of multiple wrongs. The only time I would consider the death penalty is if someone was arguably too dangerous to lock up - like a mafia boss who could order hits from prison, or a cultist whose followers seemed likely to attack the prison, or someone who had escaped from prison previously.
👍 104 | 👎 -7

Montmorency Originally Answered: Is the death penalty pointless?
The death penalty actually costs much more than life in prison. Study after study has found that the death penalty is much more expensive than life in prison. From start (even before the original trial) to finish 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. Examples- trial costs (death penalty and non death penalty cases, California): People v. Scott Peterson, Death Penalty Trial $3.2 Million Total People v. Rex Allen Krebs Death Penalty Trial $2.8 Million Total People v. Cary Stayner, Death Penalty Trial $2.368 Million Total People v. Robert Wigley, Non-Death Penalty Trial $454,000 Total This data is for cases where the best records have been kept. Some factors: • more pre-trial time will be needed to prepare: cases typically take a year to come to trial • more pre-trial motions filed and answered • more experts will be hired • twice as many attorneys will be appointed for the defense, and a comparable team for the prosecution • jurors must be individually quizzed on their views about the death penalty, and they are more likely to be sequestered • two trials instead of one will be conducted: one for guilt and one for punishment • the trial will be longer: a cost study at Duke University estimated that death penalty trials take 3 to 5 times longer than typical murder trials The numbers vary from state to state, but they all point in the same direction. From a fairly typical state study of the costs of the death penalty: “The study counted death penalty case costs through to execution and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted through to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000. For death penalty cases, the pre-trial and trial level expenses were the most expensive part, 49% of the total cost. The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).” (Kansas: Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections)
Advertisement

If you have your own answer to the question Why can't death penalty be reserved for the rarest of the rarest cases?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.