will the death penalty keep murderers from commiting murder?

Answer 1

Nope.
Murder is, usually, a crime of passion. It often occurs in the heat of an argument, during a fight, a result of another crime gone wrong.
There is no thought of the consequences at the time it occurs.
Therefore, the murder will take place regardless of the penalty.

Answer 2

The short answer is "Yes, if..." and "No, unless..."

Yes, if they aren't released from prison again to murder anyone else. Convicted murderers, by and large, especially here in Texas are soon executed, stopping them from victimizing anyone else again. If released from prison, a number of studies (some reputable, some not) show that a significant number of convicted murderers recidivate (a word meaning "are likely to do it again"). Those most likely to kill again are young men in gangs or involved in organzed crime.

No, but the question really is, does it stop potential murderers? Is the death penalty an effective deterrent? Of course not. If it was effective, murder would not happen to the extent it does today. Supporters of the death penalty argue that it stops people from considering resorting to murder, which is obviously not true.

The US is among the last modern countries in the world to continue using the death penalty. There was a short period where it was outlawed by the Supreme Court. There are many significant, logical, common sense, and emotion-based arguments for getting rid of it.

Skylor Williams

Answer 3

Deterrence means that if someone is punished for a crime, others will not commit the same crime. The term used for preventing the same person from repeating the crime is incapacitation.

The death penalty is not a deterrent. States with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states that do not have it. People who commit murder do not think they will be caught, if they think at all.

Society needs to have ways to keep us as safe as possible from criminals. 48 of 50 states now have life without parole on the books. It means what it says, and 23 hours a day in a tiny cell is certainly no picnic.

Life without parole incapacitates the criminal. It costs much less than the death penalty.

Answer 4

According to all of the studies it would appear that in actuality states with the death penalty have a higher incidence of murder than do the non death penalty states. Therefore rather than deterring murder, the death penalty appears to actually increase the potential for this crime.

Answer 5

Yep, especially after they are dead. My take on the death penalty is this....if it would be acceptable to kill a person in the act of committing murder, rape, etc., then certainly the death penalty as a punishment is entirely appropriate.

We need to be smart enough to remove the predators from within the human family.

Answer 6

The death penalty as actually practiced in the US is not going to deter potential murderers. According to FBI statistics (source a), there were nearly 17,000 murders in 2005 (down from a high of 24,700 in 1991, BTW). For capital punishment to have any sort of impact on this type of murder rate, there'd probably have to be 5,000-10,000 executions a year, most carried out with six months or so of the crime. However, only several dozen people are executed each year in the US (see link b), and most of these executions are carried out an obscene number of years after the commission of the crime.

I personally believe the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances but am skeptical as to how it is actually done. Certain murders and other crimes are just too heinous not to merit putting to death the culprit. The Nuremburg defendants, Saddam Hussein, and Gary Gilmore--to name a few--were guilty of acts that put them beyond the pale of humanity and could only be dealt with with the harshest measures.

The problem, though, lies in how sentences are carried out. At one level this is purely technical: the Iraqis' taunting of Saddam on his way down to Hell or the State of Missouri's hiring of a dyslexic doctor to carry out lethal injections. More serious is the gamesmanship that prosecutors and law enforcement officers often show in seeking and having applied the death penalty. Especially for prosecutors, capital trials and subsequent executions are too often about winning dramatic verdicts rather than finding justice Exculpatory evidence can get lost, and innocent people--innocent, at least of that particular crime--can risk wrongful execution.

I don't think there's any magic way to reconcile these imperatives. The efficient delivery of justice is one of the hardest things people and their governments can do. We just have to try our hardest to render justice to the vile insects like Saddam who deserve to be exterminated while steering clear of seeking vengeance for its own sake.

Answer 7

Nothing will stop ALL murderers from committing their FIRST murder. The death penalty is 100% effective in preventing the person from committing another murder.

Someone said 'most murders are crimes of passion'. Please cite your source. I bet more murders are drug related than crimes of passion. I'll look for a source when you cite yours.

Answer 8

It definitely deters the murderer that has been put to death. Not a great deterrent for most, the problem is they don't consider getting caught when the crime is committed.

Answer 9

No. Because you only get the death penalty if you are caught and convicted and you don't make a deal for a lesser sentence. How many people commit a crime thinking that they are going to get caught?

Answer 10

More often than not it increases murder rates probably due to the fact that after 1 murder they have nothing more to lose and/or some sort of psycho/social dynamic.