What is detterence in a death penalty?

Question

Any Examples

how is it detterence?????? Detterence...

Answer 1

Deterance; well every person that has ever been executied by society is one less person that will never murder again. No it will not deter most criminals, few of them think that far when they kill someone. So I do't want the penalty used against people who are no longer a threat against society. I would like to see the death penalty reserved for those that are a continuing risk to society: serial killers, spree killers, casual killers and those that will kill and kill again. John Wayne Gacy said that if he was ever released or if he ever escaped he would kill again.

The Death Penalty is a harsh sentence, the harshest that society can give, but I SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY.

If a person killed 15 people then how can his one death pay back that crime? Why don’t we kill him 15 times! You can medically induce a heart attack and then bring them back with a defibrillator. Of course this would be cruel and unusual punishment and it would be illegal according to the 5th amendment. The Death Penalty has been challenged several times in the Supreme Court on the grounds of it being cruel and unusual punishment, it has been upheld each time.

I have mixed feelings about the Death Penalty. People claim that it isn’t a determent to crime; people still murder each other. I also think that that it is used too often, my state is famous for it.

However, the Death Penalty does have some advantages. It is the ultimate determent for the murder. John Wayne Gacy, a serial killer, will never kill anyone again. Even if he was given a life term for each person that we know he killed, he would still be a threat to his guards and other prisoners. What’s to stop him from committing murder in prison? Are you going to give him another life term? That wouldn’t be a determent. And if he should escape then he will go back to murdering people again. However, if the Death Penalty was a possibility then he might think twice about committing another murder. We can’t ask him if this is so, because he is dead, and I think that is a good thing.

Charles Manson is as crazy as ever. He built a “family” and inspired them to go on a killing spree. Charles Manson wants to do nothing more than to incite hate and violence. To that end he has had a tattoo or brand of the Nazi symbol placed on his forehead. If he escapes from prison there is no doubt what he will do. He will start another “family” and send it too off on a killing spree. Manson has even said he will do this. If he were dead, killed by the Death Penalty, then that wouldn’t be a threat. As it is we have to keep him locked up for the rest of his natural life. He is a threat to his guards, other prisoners, and a continuing threat to society itself. We can’t kill him though because he didn’t go on the killing spree himself, he only inspired it. Meanwhile I have to spend my tax money to help support him for the rest of his natural life.

The Death Penalty has its advantages. It is something to hold over prisoners. If they murder another prisoner then they could have to face it. It also prevents us from supporting a prisoner for the rest of his life. That’s a cruel fact, but true. It will also prevent a murderer from ever killing again.

When the Death Penalty is applied it should be done so only as a last resort and under special circumstances.
-- First a higher standard of guilt should be met. The jury must be sure, beyond a SHADOW of doubt that the accused is actually guilty. A murderer can be convicted if beyond a REASONABLE doubt the jury considers him guilty. A higher standard should be held for the application of the death penalty. Just how stringent that standard should be is up to the Judge’s instructions, and the jury. Also our legal system is based on the idea that we would rather not convict 100 people, if that means convicting 1 innocent person.
-- Second the person should be considered a continuing threat to society. A man who finds out his wife is cheating on him and then kills her, may not be a continuing threat to society (unless he gets married again). He may be unstable and should be sentenced to a long prison term, but I don’t think he should be subject to the Death Penalty. The ultimate penalty should only be applied only to people who are likely to murder again; preferable only to people who have committed multiple murders and proved that they will kill again, if given the chance.
In some states there is another condition that can cause the Death Penalty to apply. In New York it is called Special Circumstances. If the crime was especially heinous and awful then New York considers it a crime worthy of the death penalty. The decision to try and apply this penalty is up to the District Attorney’s Office, but the jury should be the ultimate panel to decide if the Death Penalty should be applied or not.

I also think that a death penalty should raise an automatic appeal. This is done in most states, but the appeals process is limited. A case can only be turned over if there was an error committed in the trial. If some rule was broken, or if a procedure was violated. The person cannot be re-tried and new evidence cannot be introduced. I think that the judges should be given more liberal standards. They should be able to weigh new evidence or examine anything that sheds a new light on the case. The case should also be reinvestigated. This doesn’t mean that old evidence has to be recollected, but it should be gone over and checked to make sure it was collected and handled properly. This review should be done by a state official independent of the first investigation.

I don’t like the Death Penalty, and I think that it should only be applied in rare circumstances. However, there are some murderers that warrant this kind of punishment. These people need to have that penalty available to protect society.

You should really check out the Discovery Channel series MOST EVIL. It is about a Forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone who's job is to interview murders, especially serial killers and their like. He has developed a scale to rate these people and he knows about them first hand. He doesn't say if he favors the death penalty or not, but he presents some compelling cases for it. This series will have more examples than I could ever give you.

This article discuses the series better: http://www.realitytvwebsite.com/news062706e.html
If you need more opinions then check out this board: http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8081928318/m/9891942438

Answer 2

"Deterrence" means that knowing the death penalty might be an option could "deter" a criminal from taking someone's life. For example, in California if you kill someone in the course of another crime, like robbing a bank, you are eligible for the death penalty. The "deterrence" part means that in robbing the bank you might be careful not to kill someone, knowing that doing so would move you from spending a lot of years in jail to death.

Whether or not this works as a deterrent is up for debate, but in the past some states had laws that gave much stiffer penalties to people that committed a crime with a gun then with other weapons. This seems to have resulted in fewer crimes committed with guns.

Answer 3

Deterence? Well, the argument goes that a criminal will not commit that crime if he thinks that he will die as a result: deterence assumes that criminals make rational decisions balancing the personal advantages and disadvantages of a crime. Of course, that's quite an assumption- especially when many people would not perform, say, rape, if they knew that they were going to go to prison for life. The deterence philosophy assumes that criminals don't believe that they can evade the law.

Answer 4

There is not a single case in recorded history, when a guilty person who has been correctly killed under a legal death sentence, where he/she has ever committed another crime. It is the ultimate deterrent.

Answer 5

If people know a crime will result in their death, they will be less likely to committ the crime. Ex, you kill a cop, you die. You kill your sister, you get 10 years. Now, less cops are killed. It is an incentive.

Answer 6

Hope this website helps.

On deterrence, I don't think a criminal mind would even think of it.

Answer 7

Probably none but its cheaper for the taxpayer