is that death penalty reduces commiting offence?

Question

death penalty is essential or not?

Answer 1

I am against the death penalty.

I live in Canada, there is no death penalty here, and our crime rate is low. The death penalty is a very specific deterrent. It guarantees that the person who was convicted of the crime never does it again. It does not deter others from committing capital offences, because those offences are either crimes of passion or committed by nuts. In either case, the penalty didn't stop them, it wouldn't stop others.

The death penalty is about revenge, pure and simple, but it can't bring back those who have been killed, and it can't erase the pain of losing a loved one. In many cases, relatives who watch executions find themselves depressed to discover that they feel worse than they did before the execution.

There are other issues, like wrongful convictions leading to the execution of innocent people; or the profound hypocrisy inherent in killing people to punish them for killing, but I don't want to write a book here.

Hope this helps :-)

Answer 2

Hello!! :o) I think the death penalty is an essential part of a healthy society. Human beings NEED to KNOW where the lines in the sand are. And they need to know that IF they [or if anyone else] crosses those lines - there will be a penalty. They also need to know that the penalty 'fits the crime'. [i.e. - intentionally take a life - then you will lose your own life] If it doesn't - they will [as many of us have already] lose their faith in the concept of justice. People often play around with WORDS in order to feel comfortable with the idea of a death penalty. Let me give you a fantasy example. The first plane that hit the World Trade Center Towers in New York. One of the terrorists survives. Many who are against the death penalty would hold to that position even with the surviving terrorist. But take that terrorist and drop him off in the middle of Iraq - and kill him THERE in the name of 'war'. ['Unintentionally' - of course!!] And THAT would be OK with most of those same people. I personally do not think that it matters if the death penalty has any effect on someone OTHER than the one who committed the crime. That's not the point. If it was - then why put anyone prison unless we can convince ourselves that by doing so - someone ELSE won't rob a bank. [or whatever] Craig!! :o)

Answer 3

The death penalty was originally meant as a deterrent to heinous crimes. Back in the time when it was viewed by the public and there were sentences such as the rack, hanging, and other harsh and degrading forms of death sentence it did deter people from committing such crimes. Now it doesn't. It's costly (more so than keeping someone in prison for life) and if they show no remorse for what they did, then dying is a reward to them. I say let them sit and rot in prison for what they did and don't give them the satisfaction of being executed for what they did if they don't care. It's not effective any more, nor is it essential to reducing the occurence of heinous crimes.

Answer 4

A death penalty is preferable to several life sentences handed down to a perpetrator. Prison life is extremely unpleasant and to know that you will never be able to leave, would be the worst penalty to most. It would also save considerable money and court time.

On the other side to this question, innocent people could not be exterminated and lawyers would lose alot of the money they rake in from the appeals processes which take up so much time.

Answer 5

I'm not sure about your question and what it is you are asking, but if its if the death penalty the right thing to do, I think it is. There are some people who don't belong on this earth. Why should I pay to have them setting in some jail cell for the rest of their life and playing ping pong and watching TV? Only in this country is it more expensive to execute someone over living their life in prison. That also needs to be changed. There are some bleeding hearts out there who would let people who are responsible for atrocious crimes against humanity live. This is wrong. If the crime was committed against one of their relatives, they would probably think a little differently.

Answer 6

I am against the reintroduction of the death penalty in my country, England. If a mistake is made it cannot be rectified if someone has been executed. However when someone is sentenced to life imprisonment it should mean life. In this country it is not normally more than 15 years and the criminal would normally only serve just over half of that before he or she is considered for release. The trouble in this country is that more thought is given to the criminals than the victims and their families. They say it is all to do with human rights. Whose? Abolish the human rights act and get tough on crime. Make the criminals think twice before they commit crimes.

Answer 7

it cost more to sentence people to the death penalty then anything else, and why should they die?? i mean seriously the way i see it is that they are just getting away from their problems and its just going to hurt their family and close friends more than them why should they get to rest in peace after commiting a terrible crime they should be kept in jail until they die. i mean like people commit suicide to get away from their problems and to be in peace right so killing a criminal is giving them that right also, the bible says that god will forgive people for horrible things so i don't believe in hell only heaven why should a horrible person get the treatment of dying and being in gods presence they should suffer in jail where they have to live with their guilt for the rest of their lives

Answer 8

I don't think it reduces crime coz anyone who does it always thought he won't get caught.

It's not essential. Life sentence is more appropriate.

Answer 9

it's a waste of time. I know lots of criminals and none of them ever consider the legalities before a criminal act, only the amount of effort to comoplete it. Punishment means nothing to them...only success or failure matters.

Answer 10

it would be more effective if the appeals process didn't take 20 years, and they would publicly televise the execution, think about it more people would see it and maybe think twice about the crime vs sentence.