English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Reasons for the death penalty? 10 points to best answer.

2006-11-29 06:45:27 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

8 answers

I find it interesting that most of the answers so far refer to "general deterrence" -- the idea that by having capital punishment, it will deter people from committing crime. Of course, over and over, it has been proven that capital punishment provides NO general deterrence value. First, most of the murders in society are committed by family members against family members, either calculated or in some sort of altered emotional state. Second, the truly "sick" murderers are sociopaths and/or psychopaths -- those who can tell the difference between right and wrong but have no conscience, no morality, and no desire to be subjected to society's norms. Thus, no deterrent system will work. Third, the states with capital punishment have murder rates the same as, or higher than, states without capital punishment. One would think that if the death penalty was a deterrent, then the capital punishment states would have at least a marginally lower murder rate.
Thus, general deterrence is not a genuine argument for capital punishment.

(WM Critter's argument about deterrence is interesting. Sure, that might deter some people, but not many, because so many murders are not truly rationally contemplated. Further, killings in the heat of passion, or in "imperfect self defense" or when under the influence of substance, or under the influence of other people (i.e. gang shootings), and killings by sociopaths or psychopaths would not stop. That's JUST about the entirety of all murders committed.)

There are only two supportable arguments: Incapicatation and retribution. Retribution has a bad connotation, but in criminology / legal theory, it means simply giving the criminal his "just desserts." To some extent, we punish because people have taken actions we have deemed to be wrong in society, and society has a right (and obligation) to express its collective displeasure for that antisocial behavior. The capital punishment argument goes like this: By murdering with aggravating factors, the person has done something so abhorrent to society that the only effective way to show our displeasure is by taking the persons life. By murdering, he has forfeitted his life, and it is society's obligation to put him to death. Or, more straightforward "The guy's a sicko and deserves to fry."

This also tails into the argument for "incapacitation" -- the idea that society needs to protect itself from the offender reoffending. By killing him, he certainly can't reoffend. But of course, the counter to this point is that he can be locked up with no possibility of parole to be just as effective.

Treatises have been written on these purposes of punishment, and I can't sum them up here. But that should get you started.

2006-11-29 07:01:17 · answer #1 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 0 0

1.) Justice: if you steal $5, then you owe $5. You must balance the scales and restore what you took. If you take a life, the only thing that can balance the scales of justice is to give your life, nothing else is of equal value.

2.) Safety: if we put dangerous people in jail for life, then somebody must guard them. It is not fair to put the guards' lives in danger. The only 100% way to protect society from a dangerous person is to kill the dangerous person. Otherwise they could kill a fellow inmate, a guard, or escape and kill your family. It makes no sense to take that risk.

3.) Deterrent: it is not now a deterrent, but it would if it was used right. In 2005, there were ~16,000 murders and only 60 executions. So murderers have a less than 1% chance of being executed. That won't deter anyone. However, if there were 16,000 murders and 16,000 executions, then there would be a 100% chance of murderers being executed. In this scenario, it would be a deterrent as someone thinking of murder would know with certainty that it meant their own death.

2006-11-29 06:53:16 · answer #2 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 0 0

capital punishment is allowed so people can think they are getting revenge. people ought to be put to hard labor and do jobs that no one else will do instead of being put on death row, it has not been a deterent and it costs a lot of money.

2006-11-29 06:50:45 · answer #3 · answered by Docbrown 2 · 0 0

Capital punishment, in united statesa., is a incorrect equipment through quite a few parameters. it isn't utilized both. In different words, in case you deal with to pay for to manage to pay for a sturdy lawyer, fairly than an over-labored and fewer than-paid, eco-friendly Public Defender, you'll likely no longer get the death penalty for committing an same crime as somebody else. it really is now particular, given DNA evidence, that many human beings on death rows in each and every of the States did not truly commit crime for which they have been sentenced. this signifies that, unavoidably, probability free human beings were performed in the previous. Justice Hugo Black stated it best, "better ideal to launch one hundred accountable adult males than to execute one probability free guy." Or words to that impact. there's no sociological evidence to help the perception of the death penalty operating as a deterrent. truly, there is archives that shows that, in case you study 2 adjoining states, one with the death penalty, one devoid of, the state with the death penalty might want to have the better homicide price. protecting someone in detention center for existence is likewise more low priced, in the longer time period, than executions. that is in protecting with study complete through - of each and every person - the Texas record. ultimately, at the same time as the U.S. of A. has the death penalty, it places us in large agency, international-huge. We connect N. Korea, China, Syria, Iraq, Iran, as fairly some the few international places that still condone capital punishment. Heck, even Russia has given it up! imagine, Russia being better innovative than the U.S.! Kinda' boggles my thoughts.

2016-10-07 23:20:27 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Severe penalties will never stop criminal atrocities, but they do help to decline the number of occurences.

2006-11-29 06:48:22 · answer #5 · answered by Velociraptor 5 · 0 0

Hopefully it will deter some of the maniacs that think nothing of committing the most horrible crimes like murder .

2006-11-29 06:51:26 · answer #6 · answered by IT'S JUST ME ! 7 · 0 0

To deter continuing this type of behavior in society!

2006-11-29 06:48:50 · answer #7 · answered by Jack G 3 · 0 0

cause it makes me sooo hot!

2006-11-29 07:46:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers