Thread: Why are some killers sentenced to life in prison and others sentenced to death?

I know it depends on the state and its status concerning the death penalty, but why are there so many murderers that are sentenced to life rather than being condemned? What makes certain crimes more death penalty eligible?

Some crimes are more heinous than others.

politics and lawyers opinions.

its why i am against the death penalty. i think there are people who should die, but to trust OUR government...yeah right.

147 people have been convicted and sentenced to death in the last 10 years, been through at least 3 appeals courts....only to have DNA tests free them.

Question...if 147 people could be convicted, found guilty, and lose 3 appeals each, are we CERTAIN nobody else on the 4000+ death row is innocent???

Usually the death penalty can only be imposed where the jury finds specific aggravating factors that are set forth in the statute, and where they find that those factors outweigh any mitigating factors.

Death sentences are never the rule, they are the exception for the worst murders and murderers.

Because sometimes in order to catch the accomplice they need to offer a lighter sentence to get them to talk. Also, it's lawyers trying to win cases for their clients as well. Also, as someone else said, some are written into the death penalty (capital murder, crimes against children or sex crimes) and some are not.

Well, it's complicated. Sometimes if the evidence of their crime is absolutely sure they did it, they can get the death sentence. Some just get the life sentence. You also might wonder why some murderers get only 20 years. Detectives sometimes don't have absolute evidence that they committed the crime, but they still know they did. Some people have been put in prison but they were freed because detectives later found out that they were innocent.

Mostly because it's hard to get 12 people to agree that someone needs to die. It's a hard thing to be one of those 12.

There are specific regulations on which crimes are qualified for the penalty, so until those are met, you don't see a case for it. Even if you do meet them, usually a plea bargain will ensure that you don't see it. Then there's the law suits over killing people.

Imagine a man walks down the street, pulls out a gun, and kills your spouse. No reason, just does it. He will probably not be condemed to death because it's a simple murder.

Now, if he kidnapped your spouse, raped them, tortured them, dismembered them, then kill released them and killed you, he'll get a hospital visit. If he's found to just be mean, he'll get death.

In death penalty states, including my state of Florida, there are some general ?rules? that are normally applied in murder cases.

A person who commits first degree murder involving one victim will normally get life in prison, with or without parole. If he commits a double-murder or a second one, he will usually get a death sentence. If he commits a particularly brutal murder, such as kidnapping, raping and then killing a child, he may get the death penalty for a first offense.

Many states that have the death penalty don?t really like it because it generally results in public protests and often results in appeals that can last for years. The state has to defend its sentence and its handling of the case, which is time consuming and may cost millions of dollars. In California, a convicted multi-murderer was executed in late 2005 after spending almost 26 years on death row. That surely cost the state many millions of dollars.

But money should not be an issue when a person?s life is at stake, and I am not aware of a particular instance in which it was. However, common sense says that a ?sympathetic? defendant is more likely to escape execution than an abrasive one. Whatever potential jurors may say during voir dire, when it comes time to vote, they are going to rely on their hearts as well as their minds.