I strongly oppose death penalty. It is very cruel and inhumane. Death penalty is a very lethal weapon that the government possesses. So it should be used in the rarest of cases. In fact it should be avoided to the utmost.
Morally, socially and economically, the death penalty is a bad public policy. Do we really need to kill in order to punish criminal and protect society? There is a better way. Killing for killing? Killing someone because he has killed someone else is not the right approach. It is only an insane way of taking revenge. There is a better way.
It costs six times as much to kill a person as it costs to incarcerate that person for life; all the more reason to eradicate death penalties. Politicians claim they are tough on crime by supporting the death penalty. But why can't they spend more on preventing crime rather than on the aftermath? Facts show that over 94% of the criminal justice money is spent after the crime instead of on prevention.
When the race of the victim is white, the perpetrator is at least four times more likely to get the death penalty.
[http://www.cuadp.org/facts.html]. According to a survey conducted by CUADP (Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty) more than 50% of the people support life without parole for at least 25 years to death penalty. There is always a chance that an innocent person may get death penalty. http://www.cuadp.org/pris/pot.html shows the list of potential cases which were convicted wrongfully. When the criminal kills somebody, it is called a murder. When the government kills the criminal for murder, it is called execution. Why is this difference?
Considering the amount of pressure on the government to take action, death penalty becomes a very viable solution...