Do they honestly believe that if a person is in a rage and about to take someone's life they stop to think "oh wait...i can't do this...i could get the death penalty!"? duh!
2007-01-01 18:17:31 · 9 answers · asked by AL IS ON VACATION AND HAS NO PIC 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
First of all, everyone who commits murder does not do it in a murderous rage. There are a lot of people who contemplate it first. I don't necessarily think it deters crime, but I still believe society needs it. There are people in this world who do not deserve to breathe the same air as decent people. It is not revenge either. It is JUSTICE. And if you ever had anyone you loved, especially a child, taken from you by a sadistic murderer, you might feel differently about the death penalty.
2007-01-01 18:28:14 · answer #1 · answered by truthseeker221 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It probably doesnt stop much when someone is in a rage but it makes em think about premeditated crimes,its still a good deterant
2007-01-01 19:19:26 · answer #2 · answered by frank m 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this is totally a threat that as quickly as they teased out factors besides the loss of life penalty that they ignored particular issues. there is factors that influence the homicide cost few human beings have seen. yet another substantial flaw is that it rejects a international view. It focuses purely on states. it is going to benefit with different worldwide locations, too. maximum ecu worldwide locations have not have been given any loss of life penalty, yet a low crime cost. If the loss of life penalty is so significant for deterrence why is that? in spite of if the loss of life penalty is physically powerful or incorrect hinges fullyyt on deterrence vs. form of harmless execute, so in spite of if it does have some deterrent result we would desire to quantify the form of harmless carried out and learn.
2016-12-11 20:53:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That really isn't the point. I personally think that our death penalty is too lenient. If the death penalty were used for other crimes, i.e. serial rape, child molestation, kidnapping... then people would learn to control their anger, and if not, then they deserve it... My opinion anyway.
2007-01-01 18:34:30 · answer #4 · answered by Ammie 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
So, we should just not punish violent crimes? That'll work really well. By your reasoning, prison sentences won't deter them either. Let's just forget the whole thing then. Let them kill. It'll all work out. Please think things through next time you decide to post a "question".
2007-01-01 18:23:03 · answer #5 · answered by stickymongoose 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What is does is bring the wacko being terminated to a dead stop . . .
he never gets to f--k people over again.
2007-01-01 18:27:44 · answer #6 · answered by kate 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because studies have shown that 100% of those executed have never done another crme.
Sounds good to me.
2007-01-01 18:29:32 · answer #7 · answered by SHOOTER586 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
because an executed person is unable to comit another crime
2007-01-01 18:21:29 · answer #8 · answered by glock509 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It sure does stop them from ever doing it again, don't it?!
2007-01-01 18:23:14 · answer #9 · answered by sabotagecowboy 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋