Sarahtavakol's Waterfall
The government is very organized and strict with who deserves penalty and who does not. The death penalty for a murder may only happen is all evidence to find the accused guilty is presented. The accused can only be death sentenced if the murder was planned and the accused did the actual killing. Someone who didn't intend on killing the victim or did not go the actual killing is not sentenced to death. The death penalty for kidnapping or rape is prohibited if the action did not intended to kill the victim or the victim did not actually die during the rape. The death penalty is not a choice if the defendant is insane, even if the defendant was sane at the time of the crime. Minors can not be imposed of the death penalty. Like I said now a days we use DNA testing to prove the accused guilty.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/
You are saying the government is supposed to protect the accused, alright yes their lawyer will protect them. But the government is here to protect the society from delinquents like he/her.
I understand that the data has changed recently but the people of the country should spend their taxes on the old and young, instead of murders, rapists or all criminals in prison.
I understand your point however I know that execution can cost a lot, a capital case can cost 3-4 million dollars to execute someone. The cost of imprisonment costs about 30,000-35,000 dollars every year, but don’t forget about the delinquents increasing cost of health care depending on their age. California ended up paying 137 million dollars for 700 capital cases in 2009 on the prisoners. That is around 2 million dollars per person, so in the end it is near the cost of a execution. Also not only can it cost 2 million dollars but maybe even more depending how long the delinquent has been imprisoned for.
May I also add it also is safer for prison guards and inmates. Dead criminals can not commit crimes. According to this website 60-65 % of americans want death penalty. Having death penalty as a right gives families and friends closure to know that their loved ones murderer, rapist, abuser etc, has been put down for good not being able to hurt anyone else.
I understand that you are saying that the lethal drug will hurt in the end. But waiting slowly to die in prison, because of a sickness or age has the same affect on the delinquent. If a prisoner is dying of cancer, or any illness they will feel the same amount of pain in the end. Dying slowly in a place where you don't want to be causes the same amount of pain to the delinquent. Everyone eventually dies.
Death penalty has kept the worst criminals from re-doing the crimes they have done. Sure you can put the accused in prison, but prisons all over the world suffer from overpopulation of inmates, affected the space and resources inside the prison. When you eliminate the death penalty you let highly dangerous criminals walk around overcrowding the prison, and as I said before what is stopping these highly dangerous criminals for committing a crime inside prison walls? Also death penalty helps protect people from more killing, if we let out the accused on parole. Not only can the prisoner commit a crime on parole but if the delinquent escapes.
Kyle Janek, MD, anesthesiologist and former Texas State Senator, in his Feb. 1, 2004 article "Attack on Texas' Lethal Injections is Bogus," published in the Houston Chronicle, wrote:
"In what amounts to practicing medicine without a license, those critics have started to attack the inclusion of pancuronium bromide as one of the medications used in the lethal injection process. They claim its use is 'cruel and unusual...' As any other anesthesiologist will tell you, this argument involving pancuronium bromide is bogus...
The current argument against executions seems to hinge on the supposition that the second and 3rd drugs in this regimen would be cruel to someone who could feel them...
Yet for that argument to be valid in any way, you must ignore the 1st drug in the process - sodium pentothal - that (1) renders the inmate to be completely unconscious, (2) has been used for decades to induce anesthesia in surgical patients and (3) is given in doses far exceeding what is needed to keep the inmate from being aware or feeling anything."
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/
I understand where you are coming from but with out death penalty prisons all over the world suffer from overpopulation of inmates, affected the space and resources inside the prison. When you eliminate the death penalty you let highly dangerous criminals walk around overcrowding the prison, and as I said before what is stopping these highly dangerous criminals for committing a crime inside prison walls? Also death penalty helps protect people from more killing, if we let out the accused on parole. Not only can the prisoner commit a crime on parole but if the delinquent escapes.
In Baze v. Rees (decided Apr. 16, 2008), the US Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, held that:
"Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of harm" that qualifies as cruel and unusual...
Kentucky has adopted a method of execution believed to be the most humane available, one it shares with 35 other States... Kentucky's decision to adhere to its protocol...cannot be viewed as probative of the wanton infliction of pain under the Eighth Amendment...
Throughout our history, whenever a method of execution has been challenged in this Court as cruel and unusual, the Court has rejected the challenge. Our society has nonetheless steadily moved to more humane methods of carrying out capital punishment."
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/
I understand what you are saying but death penalty creates a form of crime deterrent, crime would be off the charts if there wasn’t the law to deter people from committing these acts. I understand that prison does deter criminals from committing more crimes, but some criminals need more than being imprisoned. There is a chance that the accused can commit a crime inside of the prison walls to other inmates. What is the government going to do, sentence the criminal to a longer time? You can take away the delinquents prison rights but will that make a big difference?
The amendment itself does not allow uncivilized punishments such as cutting of the ears of a man, whipping someone, beheading, public dissecting, burning someone alive just because they feel that the accused deserves it. The amendment does not tolerate torture. The death penalty is used when the court knows the accused is found guilty and has committed a crime worthy of death penalty. The delinquent is unconscious when given the lethal drug.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
The court is very organized and strict with who deserves death penalty and who does not.
The death penalty for a murder may only happen is all evidence to find the accused guilty is presented. The accused can only be death sentenced if the murder was planned and the accused did the actual killing. Death penalty is not something the government does without having evidence against the accused, now a days we use DNA testing to prove the accused guilty.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/
People do believe that death penalty is wrong and that we are killing too many people who can just be put in jail, but around 306 million people kill and a rate of 15,200 per annum homicides occur. That is less than 0.4% of the population that commit homicides in a year. So no the death penalty does not kill a lot of our population because you forget that 99.6% are not killers.
It is a true fact that people can be “sentenced to death” by their own doctors if the patient is ill, but you can't be sentenced by a jury for murdering, raping, abusing etc. That is the question for you.
