who supportes or rejects the death penalty as a means of reducing violent crime?

Answer 1

You have to support it. No violent criminal ever repeated his crime after receiving the death penalty and it was administered. It is not about deterrence.

Answer 2

In theory I would support it, but in reality I say no for the following reasons:
1. So many people have been condemned for crimes they never committed.
2. In the USA it sometimes takes 15 or more years before the condemned person is executed - it takes away the sense of the death penalty, and makes the process so terribly expensive as well. It also is devastating for the victim's family to have to go back to court umpteen times to make sure the person is finally put to death.
So my problem is not with the principle of the death penalty, but with the way oour justice system works. I'd just as soon not have it.

Answer 3

What makes the death penalty seem pointless is that it's often carried out so many years after the crime. I don't think it's a deterrent because of this. Maybe if it was swift and sudden it would be more of a deterrent. But then there's the worry that the wrong person is convicted. I agree with the person who said that prisons should be harsher. We send people to prisons where they can exercise, get stronger and better, get an education. That's ridiculous, they should do labor, not be allowed to smoke, and only get tv and books if they do things to earn them.

Answer 4

Reject. While the death penatly 100% prevents that single offender's recidivism, it is obvious that the threat of the death penalty has NOT deterred violent crime (seeing as it still exists).

As a means of punishment, however, I am for it. IF capital punishment was shown to deter violent crimes and IF it were impossible to wrongfully convict someone of a capital offence, I would be 100% for it.

Answer 5

Smart people say the death penalty does not stop violent crime,i disagree,i believe every one with there right mind has a fear of dying, show it on TV after midnight,let the want a be gangsters see them yelling and screaming for there life,for the life they took,a kind of scare straight.

Answer 6

I reject it.

Being one of the last countries left in the world enforcing the death penalty, and in light of also being the only one where school shootings, crime and violence is so prevalent, I definitely say the death penalty is no deterrent.

Answer 7

Reject, it costs more taxpayer money to put a man to death,
than to keep him in jail. I think it's one million to put someone
to death, 40,000 to keep him in jail for a year.
Besides, alot of states have the death penalty & every year
there are more people in jail. About 2 million +.
Obviously, it does nothing.

If you really want to curb crime, confront poverty. As poverty
increases, so does the crime rate. That's been proven.
I just don't understand why no one gets it!

Answer 8

yup. Bernardo, Hololka, Micheal Berrier....

But then again there is the Christine Jessop Murder. that guy did like 15 yrs....

if there is an admission of guilt yup, if there is DNA yup if there are witnesses yup. any thing Gang related absolutley (if laws dont then they will do each other in anyway)

If there is no definate evidence (dna video witness etc) then maybe.

Answer 9

i think the ultimate deterent is making prison more unbearable!! prisoners need to be humiliated daily, that way they would wish for a death sentence

Answer 10

I support it. And furthermore, I believe we should bring back public executions - specifically the guillotine.