New Mexico is the most recent state to repeal the use of the death penalty in its criminal justice system. Read the article below:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/18/new.mexico.death.penalty/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
and then comment on or more of the following questions:
What are some arguments Governor Richardson and others in New Mexico offered in support of this change?
What might be some reasons to keep using the death penalty?
Should public opinion play a role in deciding whether a state uses the death penalty? Why or why not?
What is your opinion on this issue? Be sure to substantiate your position with sound, logical arguments.
7 comments:
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson argued that more than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years, including four in New Mexico. To exonerate means to free from guilt or blame. This goes to show that our criminal justice system isn't perfect, and makes mistakes. So why should we risk possible innocent lives? 130 innocent death row inmates’ lives were almost taking away because our criminal justice system made a mistake (a mistake that almost killed an innocent person). A reason to keep the death penalty would have to be because it would take the guilty and deserving inmates out of this world. We wouldn't have to feed and give guilty inmates a place to live if they had a life sentence. I believe public opinion should play somewhat of a role in the decision of the death penalty. Governor Bill Richardson could see what other people in his state believe. My opinion on the death penalty is that it should be banned. Why should we take the risk of killing innocent people? Banning the death penalty would also save some money that we could use to make our criminal justice system more efficient.
Mrs. Stotler:
I think that the death penalty is a good thing for certain crimes. Yes the justice system is not perfect but can we afford to pay for a 20 year old who is a serial killer to sit in jail with life without the possibilty of parole for the next 50 or 60 years? If the justice system is becoming corrupt maybe we need to have penalties for the police or lab techs who alter or tamper with evidence to make them more accountable. I think that it is strange that we are talking about the cost of the trail when that is small in comparison to the cost of housing this prisioner for the rest of his natural life. I think that all states should let the citizens have a say in whether or not their state continues to use the death penalty. As population and crime rises we are going to have to find a solution for these prisioners sitting on death row. Only the moral citizen is worried about whether we are doing the right and Christian thing. I know that "Thou shall not kill" is a commandment but sometimes I think that is the only solution.
Dylan Beddow
Governor Richardson uses the arguement that 130 inmates on death row where freed from it when they were proven innocent. He says that our system isn't perfect and we could be killing a lot of innocent people. The death penalty is a good idea though, to hold people responsible and accountable for their actions. If every murder was executed, I strongly believe that the murder rate in this country would take a sudden turn for the better. I also believe that public opinion should play a role. Every state should take a vote whether or not capital punishment should be allowed in that state. Some states would have it and some would not. This would not be such a big controversy if the states that wanted it had it and the states that didn't want it wouldn't be forced to have it. I am a strong believer in the death penalty. If every state had it, our crime rate would be lower. If we made an example out of some people, others wouldn't get the idea to do it again. It doesn't matter to people that are sitting in jail with multiple life sentences and know that since the death penalty in their state is banned, they have nothing to worry about. I once read an article about a guy with four life sentences who strangled a female corrections officer while in prison and tore her limbs from her body. It didn't matter to this man because what was another life sentence to him? These kinds of people don't have a guilty conscience and we should not allow them to live and get the chance to do these kinds of things and hurt more innocent people.
-Rachel Shambaugh
Governor Richardson made four arguments against the death penalty. First, he argued that at least 130 people on death row were innocent, 4 of whom were from New Mexico. His second argument was the cost. Trials for the death penalty are more expensive than non-death penalty trials. Third, he made the point that a larger percent of minorites are on death row. Lastly, more than 8,000 people contacted Governor Richardson in favor of the repeal. A reason to continue using the death penalty is, the reasons stated above aren't because of the death penalty, but rather the poor results of the law. For example, without the death penalty there will still be just as many people senteced to life without the possibility of parol because the law wasn't fixed; the sentence was changed. One of Governor Richardson's problems with the death penalty is that it is final, however a reason to keep the death penalty is because it IS final. There is always the chance of a prisoner escaping or getting away. Also, the cost of the death penalty trials is irrelevent. The main concern should be for the safety of the citizens no matter the cost. Should public opinion play a role? It should, it does, and it did in this case. This can be done without a vote. With a representative government, people can express their opinions to their elected officials. I agree with Governor Richardson that the death penalty should be used only in the worst cases. Also, I belive there are too many problems with the current system, and the use of the death penalty should be stopped.
-Korinne Cowles
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson arguement was that more than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated. This has been one of the biggest arguements of the death penalty. This shows how imperfect our criminal justice system is. I feel the death penalty risk the lives of to many innocent people. I couldn't imagine being put on death row and knowing the whole time that I was innocent. There is also good to the death penalty, I feel for certain crimes their should be a death penalty. But I feel the best solution to this would be to eliminate the death penalty all together. It is very exspensive to put people on death row, so it would even things out with putting them in jail for life.
There is a place for the death penalty: as punishment for the most heinous and evil crimes. Obviously, our criminal justice system isn't perfect. It's terrible that 130 inmates were wrongly sentenced to death. That's why capital punishment should only be used in cases where there is substantial DNA evidence proving the suspect's guilt.
I agree with Korinne that the cost of the different kinds of trials is irrelevant when discussing an issue like public safety. The well-being of the public should be the government's first priority, no matter the cost; people's lives are at stake.
Additionally, the death penalty does deter some would-be criminals from committing serious crimes. And prevention of crime should be the ultimate goal of our justice system. Eliminating the death penalty certainly would not decrease crime rates.
Finally, and most importantly, whatever decision that's made about capital punishment should be written into federal law so that punishment for serious crime does not vary from state to state. Imaginary lines on a map should not determine whether a convicted murderer is sentenced to death or life in prison. That is not justice.
The death penalty isn't the best way to go about treating criminals. Might I point out that America is the only developed country that still holds this type of sentencing? I have many problems with the American way of dealing with criminals, and citizens in general. I don't think we should face the prospect of ridding ourselves of the death penalty until we've made other revolutionary changes that could help to justify it (universal healthcare, *cough cough*).
The American public shouldn't have to face the prospect of having to spend tax money taking care of convicted criminals for their whole life sentence if they won't recieve the same courtesy.
Honestly, I think we need to get rid of the death penalty not only because it may send innocents to their death, and because there is also a chance of rehabilitation. These criminals may become someone incredibly useful to society one day... so why would we rather just 'not bother' and send them on their not-so-merry way?
Also- most of us are aware the EU has outlawed the death penalty, a fascinating blogging site about whether or not it should be REINSTATED is below:
http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?t=6993&sid=a77d55acc6cff42e3626199a9a66d471
Post a Comment