2007-05-17 16:19:21 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Yes....as a deterrent to justice...it takes too long to implement and is unevenly applied.
2007-05-17 16:21:35 · answer #1 · answered by Lil Miss Answershine 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't. In the US, states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than states without it. (Sources below).
Deterrence means that a punishment will teach others not to commit the same crime. For a punishment to act as a deterrent it must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. So, why don't we speed it up? Of the 124 people on death row who have been found innocent and released, many had already served well over a decade (Source below) If the process is speeded up we will execute innocent people.
On the other hand, incapacitation means that a criminal is prevented from re-offending. Obviously the death penalty incapacitates.
The alternative punishment for the most serious crimes is life without parole. It is available in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and it is swift (and rarely appealed). Like the death penalty, it incapacitates the prisoner. It costs much less than the death penalty .
2007-05-18 09:24:19 · answer #2 · answered by Susan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not as a deterrent to murder.
There are three prime motives for murder:
1. Money (think drug lords, mafia, etc). These people are not deterred by the thought of punishment because they are very calculating and thus do not believe they will get caught.
2. Passion. (think the man who finds his wife in bed with another) Obviously someone committing a crime of passion is not going to consider the consequences.
3. Compulsion. (think Manson, Dahmer, etc.) These people are mentally unbalanced to the point where they cannot ignore their compulsion, regardless of consequences.
For the rest of us... those of us who spend our Mondays thinking.. "Gosh, I'd kill my boss if it wasn't illegal," the thought of prison alone is a good enough deterrent.
2007-05-17 23:28:04 · answer #3 · answered by sueflower 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Not the way we do it here. The punishment needs to be swift and sure like when they are convicted they have a max of 2 weeks to carry out the sentence.
2007-05-17 23:23:36 · answer #4 · answered by Kristal E 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes and no for some people are to afraid of getting caught and paying the price while others could care less of what will happen if they get caught
2007-05-17 23:26:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it would if we speeded it up instead of letting these murdering,raping,child molesting pigs die of old age when they should have been executed within a month of conviction.no more overcrowded jails or money spent caring for these scum.yes it would work.lets put in an express line and let it roll!
2007-05-17 23:37:18 · answer #6 · answered by dixie58 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think so. People who murder in the heat of passion of as the result of compulsion aren't in the proper mindset to consider the law.
2007-05-17 23:31:07 · answer #7 · answered by Ahni 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, and it would be even better if it were meted out more quickly, and with less appeals!
2007-05-17 23:22:24 · answer #8 · answered by zowar1363 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it would be if they televised it and made sure people didnt sit on death row for 20 yrs
2007-05-17 23:22:11 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes , but mainly to the plaintiff.
2007-05-17 23:22:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋