I thought capitol punishment wasn't a deterrent! It must be a pretty good deterrent, because people stop committing crimes after they are dead, for some reason!
(This is a little extreme) but I know if I would be put to death for drunk driving, I sure would call a taxi! It would be a deterrent to me!
Do you really think someone would rob a 7/11 if they would never leave prison again? They only do it because they get a month or two in prison, and get out on parole
2006-12-07 03:23:45 · 8 answers · asked by i hate hippies but love my Jesus 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
That's an interesting way of thinking about it! I also agree, that if I were a murderer, I probably wouldn't ever kill anyone again if I was also dead!
I think that deterrent refers to people who aren't in prison or dead. Knowing that one could be killed for doing a crime deters them from doing the crime.
2006-12-07 03:33:39 · answer #1 · answered by missmiranda212 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If capital punishment was a deterrent, no more murders would ever be committed in the US, because as you know, the idea is that the first such punishment 'deters others' from committing the same crime.
So I guess it doesn't work, and neither does your idea.
You might also think of the consequences for police; if someone's going to die for a simple robbery or other crime, they may as well try to shoot their way out and take as many with them as they can. And if the risk is so high, why would a criminal ever leave a witness alive?
2006-12-07 04:52:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Using capital punishment as a deterrent would be self-defeating. Yeah, you'd scare them for sentencing them to death, but if you don't follow through with it and you let them out, then they won't take it seriously and they'll commit crimes again. The point of capital punishment is to never leave prison again. You can't put those guys out on parole and expect them to be changed just because we told them they were going to die for it and then we went back on our word.
2006-12-07 03:35:09 · answer #3 · answered by funnygrrl19 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Logical thinking while drunk as skunk is pretty rare.
Most criminals think they are lots smarter than they are.
Most crimes take place when the criminals are in their teens to young adulthood and thats not a time when consequences are engraved into their brain.
So many crimes are a result of passion, or alcohol, or drugs all of which preclude a lucid decision.
Its a common thought for normal people to think that if we increased prison time there would be fewer crimes, but the truth is that we need to give men (and it is primarily men) a way to control their anger and the disappointment in life that leads to drinking and drugging. Thats very complicated and isn't in the cards for some time to come. Warehousing criminals is expensive but at least it keeps them off the street.
2006-12-07 03:33:40 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about some facts to back up the deterrence theory of yours. Since the death penalty was re-instated, what are the murder rates like, the same? Lower? Higher?. Hard to re-offend when you are dead but your question implies deterrence.
2006-12-07 03:47:06 · answer #5 · answered by Bob D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats why Corporations are invented. According to the law, a corporation is a person. So companies can break laws and the owner of the company can avoid certain prosecution. If you want, form your own corporation that would put explosives in other CEO's apartments and certain world leader. Maybe they take crimes by CEO more seriously then.
2016-05-23 03:39:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you to some extent. The death penalty would be a deterrant for me, as well...but you and I are thinking logically, and it is not always fair to assume that others will act with reason as well--particularily in cases where capital punishment is involved. Is a person who wants to kill another person thinking logically to begin with?
For me, it is an issue of faith. I believe that we are all made in the image of God. Our life has value because we are God's children, not because we have done anything to merit or lose that value--I would say, in fact, that we cannot do or say anything that diminishes that God-given value.
So, I am pro-life. I believe that the life inside of the mother is worthy of protection--not because it is innocent although perhaps that makes its end more tragic--but because it is a being made in the image of God, unique unto itself and a product of a thought of God Almighty.
Oftentimes, it is easier for us to God's image in his little ones than in the sinners that surround us in this world. How hard it is to see God's image in a person who is being mean to us! How much harder is it to see God's image in a murderer, a rapist or even a pedophile? And yet, regardless of their repentance or the distortion that they have introduced into their lives, they too are the product of a thought of God. They too were willed to exist by Our Holy Father in Heaven. They too contain the very image of God on their darkened souls. And they too deserve the chance of repentence as much as and possibly more so than any other of God's children.
Thanks for reading and God bless!
2006-12-07 03:36:55 · answer #7 · answered by Mary's Daughter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the principles of America is to threaten everyone with death for doing something wrong. That is a little bit like....dare I say it....Saddam.
2006-12-07 03:32:50 · answer #8 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋