Executions deter murder: Can we now let the executions begin?

Question

And make them more medieval, dammit. Stoning, burning at the stake, firing squads, hanging. Enough with this wimpy lethal injection nonsense. Heck, let's bring back Old Sparky!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

Answer 1

Life in prison is not sufficient punishment for someone who has committed murder. Their victims lives were cut cruelly short, their last moments filled with pain, terror, agony, and sadness that they would never even get to say goodbye to their loved ones... Why should a violent killer be allowed to live? (And to add insult to heinous injury, why should the taxpayers have to pay to provide these monsters with food, shelter, clothing, continued legal counsel, etc..)

No, lifetime in prison is not a life I would ever choose, but it's better than being dead! At the barest minimum, prisoners still have the freedom to escape into their own minds.

I'm 100% for capital punishment and the death penalty... Although I do have misgivings about giving a convicted murderer a fairly painless lethal injection when he caused SO much pain and suffering in his vicitm(s) and their families. It's too comfortable of a way to go--they get to say their last goodbyes, they a chance to atone for their sins and ask their God for forgiveness, and they know that they will not suffer the same horrible fate their victim(s) did.

BUT...

I don't feel it's right to torment them either. (And on a crass note, why waste all the electricity?)

As a benevolent and law-abiding society's final act of mercy--something these monsters never gave their victims--we grant them a painless death. But then they are dead and accountable only to their God, and the victims' families can finally sleep at night knowing the murderer is gone from this world.

Answer 2

Oh sure, that woman who killed her kids because Jesus told her too would have thought twice if she knew she would be burned at the stake for murder right?
.
Lets not forget that student in Virgina who killed 30 of his classmates after he found out that he lost the election for most popular! Yeah, he and all those other nuts who own a dozen handguns will think twice before shooting someone.

Answer 3

It has been proven many times that executions do not deter murder, theft, rape or kidnapping. They do how ever do an excellent job off preventing second offences and wasting money on ineffectual prisons. I'm in favor of the concept guilty beyond any doubt, then a single large cal bullet too the head.

Answer 4

So, should we start with George W. Bush? If executions deter murder, maybe he's stop murdering people if he thought he might be executed for his atrocities.
But, I seriously doubt that any murderer, even George W. Bush, stops to think, "Gee, if I kill someone, I might be executed!" Executions don't deter murder; executions are only a form of punishment that a bloodthirsty, vindictive society demands.
Frankly, I'd rather see a thousand murderers escape the death penalty than have ONE innocent person executed for a crime (s)he didn't commit. -RKO- 06/10/07

Answer 5

I think life in prison is more of a deterrent. Just a difference of opinion.

Answer 6

Start with Bush? ... unless Cheney and Rumsfeld are free.

Answer 7

I don't think the method of execution would matter.
Executions don't deter murder.
Murder is the cause of the execution.

Answer 8

Would you start with all of the innocent people on death row?

Answer 9

We shouldn't do that. It's too cruel even if someone deserves it....

Answer 10

You question is very funny, very ironic, very well done.