Advocates of the death penalty claim it's a deterrent rather than a punishment. Do you think it works?

Question

If it was a deterent and it was working, there wouldn't be anyone on deathrow would there?

Though is the prospect of life in prison enough to deter people from committing serious crimes?

What else can be done?

Answer 1

Not in the way it currently is. Capital punishment is not effective because it takes so long to happen. A guy knows that if he kills a busload of children that he can pretty much stay in the hole or appeal and extend his life by deades before they actually kill him.

Now if it was more of a immediate or at least a definite amount of time thing between sentencing and execution, then you might see some effect.

Answer 2

In my view the death penalty is fundamentally wrong. Over and above the innocent prople who are executed, which should be reason to oppose capital punishment in itself I think, there is a moral question of legitimacy here.
Does the state have the right to take the life of a human being in any event?
Personally, I think not. The state is not a god-given entity it is a temporary set of political arrangements that occupy a place in history. All executions are political statements and in my view the existence of capital punishment is a sign of a lower level of political evolution. Put another way, capital punishment represents a regressive authoritarianism that is an affront to the intelligence and civil liberties of the society in which it exists.

Even if it worked as a deterrent, which it does not (compare the murder rate in the 38 US states with death penalty to those 12 states without it) it would still be unsupportable because 1. the state does not have the moral authority to take human life and 2. the brutalising effect on the population only increases the problem it is designed to reduce.
In the final analysis the death penalty represents the diminished sophistication and bureacratic barbarism of a society in deep social crisis, in simple terms it signals a deficit of civilisation which is in this globalised world a danger to us all.
So far as the economic arguments are concerned, if we seriously want to cut the cost of the criminal justice system (i.e. cut crime) we should cut the number of things we lock people up for. That way prisons would only be used for the most serious and risky offenders and not used to contain people (as in the UK) who have not paid their television licence fee, possessed banned substances or elderly ladies who have witheld parts of their council tax in protest over the behaviour of their local authority.

For statistics on the (non) effectiveness of capital punishment in the US please see link below.

Answer 3

Most criminals (the really bad ones) have been so used to being in jail that it doesn't really serve the purpose of being a correctional facility.
Fear of death for such people is probably the only thing that will work. And I think the crime rates will also drop if the punishment was harsher.
Plus, it would give every victim a peace of mind that her assaulter wont be back on the streets.
In countries where the punishment is harsh, the crimes rates are lower. Think about it, how many murderers and rapists, etc have changed after their first jail time?

Answer 4

Death penalty to me is just a good way to put the victims or their family members at ease. It secures that there is no possibility ever that the criminal will cross their path.

In case of life imprisonment this is not secured. The criminals could break out for one. But more likely they could start writing books, give interviews, start certain groups or do whatever thing that the victims may come across.

I do agree that death row is nonsence, a death penalty should be carried out within a few hours after the last appeal.

Answer 5

The reason the death penalty was abolished in the first place was because of a few people being hanged and then the government finding out they got it wrong.These days with DNA that couldnt happen,so it should be brought back,murderers get off light now ,they can be free after 7 yrs with good behaviour......hows that a deterrant?

Answer 6

we dont have the death penalty in england and we have less murders than in america, admittedly they all have guns and there is a lot more of them to kill and im not complaining death penalty means two less americans rather than just one. you dont see the point in the death penalty it was brought about so we the tax payer) wont have to pay to keep someone alive in prison when they arnt going to get out again. personally they should make the death penelty back and keep it and make it a public attraction that will stop people commiting crimes (if its public ppl will see what happenes if you commit a crime) also lower the tax rate making everyone happier

Answer 7

I think we should have the death penalty in Britain. One of the other people said that America have more murderers than us. What that person must remember is that America is a continent, not a country. We are to relaxed. GThe death penalty is a deterent, as the person who did the crime knows that they will not walk out of that prison again. Bring it back in Britain too.

Answer 8

People will do what they want to do. What the Death Penalty is, is justice for us. The people who believe in Law and Order. Some times the best way to fix these social problems is to remove the area which has the problem. So the death penalty is the solution. It removes the cancer from society.

Answer 9

It isn't really a deterrent, when one considers that most crimes that people deem to merit that particular punishment are not premeditated. As for those small numbers in society who are not bound by any rules of morality so as to murder, rape, et cetera, with a relatively clean conscience; no rule of society could cause such people to refrain from their actions.

The only argument I can put forward for it is that, if you catch a person who is so inherently dangerous to society that they could never be realeased from prison without cause for alarm; it would be better to put them to death so as to reduce the cost of housing them in prison for the rest of their natural life.

Of course, this is open to the objection of ''What if you put to death the wrong person?''. This is quite a convincing argument, considering that the British legal system is founded upon Blackstone's principle that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", or following this reasoning further, be put to death.

Therefore, the ultimate penalty should only be reserved for a small minority of cases where the crime is so heinous - and the evidence is so overwhelming - that it would be reasonable for it to be implemented.

Indeed, proof of overwhelming evidence beyond the current criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' should be a requirement before anyone should be put to death, if we are to avoid the unpleasant appearance of a gross miscarriage of justice.

Answer 10

The death penalty is only used by backwards countries. In my country it was abolished 50 years ago and we have one of the lowest murder rates in the entire world. Life Imprisonment is also only about 12-14 years with parole and we don't have huge problems. I think part of the problem with the death penalty is, if you think you will get executed anyway, you are more likely to commit extreme crimes to try and get away. Think about that. I think the death penalty helps to feed extreme crimes.