Do you think the death penalty would be a deterrent to murder if we killed the murderer almost immediately?

Question

Or, at least within a few days of being caught? I think one reason the death penalty hasn't been much of a deterrent is that you get to live for many years after you get caught.

In particular, I am thinking about the two Connecticut murderers who brutally raped and murdered three members of the Petit family.

Answer 1

We have people on death row waaaay too long. A guilty plea should be summarily executed that same day. (guilty or not guilty,,insanity and diminished capacity are Bull S#!!)

Answer 2

In these answers you will find the same results that I did in over ten years of study on the death penalty, and the American penal system in general. We are split along the lines of justice or retribution. The American system is based on retribution not prevention, rehabilitation or restitution. The reasons why are purely political, and directed by the power base of American society. The death penalty has been around since the 18 century BC, and has never ever been effective at deterring any crime. In ancient Greece, for a time, the only punishment for any crime, was death. Can you imagine a "death sentence" for passing the meter when parking your car? That was how it actually was. To understand why, we have to look at who codifies crimes and what purpose it serves them. The elite of society, have always been the ones that have codified the criminal code historically. They put in what protect their status and appears to safe guard us peons. In truth what actually benefits the common people is seldom if ever codified as more than an inconvenience and fined. So if the Government or Big Business, or Majority voting group tramples on your rights, that's OK maybe a fine or some other slap on the wrist. But not a severe punishment. The Affluent, Articulate, Influential, and Attractive will always seek ways to excuse themselves while sadistically punishing you for the same type of crime. Portia wrote that she is favor of an eye for eye, well so am I, but the term actually means NO MORE THAN an eye or NO MORE THAN a tooth. In other words fit the punishment to the crime. How does a death repay a death? Gandhi once told a murderer to repay the child of a murdered family by raising that child as if it were his own. If you steal you should pay back what you took with interest and in a timely and uncomfortable manner. If you commit arson, you go out to southern California and risk your neck fighting those fires that the Santa Ana winds bring each year. You act in a manner that shows you cannot be trusted to roam free in society and you spend the rest of your life locked up, (but producing something useful), like rapist, or child molesters, or murderers. As I said in 5000 plus years, death sentences have done nothing more than create a criminal mentality that if you are going to do something do it big, because the price you pay may be your life. I have yet to meet a criminal that would be willing to spend the rest of their lives repaying a debt, but have found plenty of people that do care about the consequences of their actions when their passions and fears are in control.

Answer 3

* View bonami28803's Profile
* bonami28803

* Member since: March 17, 2007
* Total points: 353 (Level 2)
* Points earned this week:

* --% Best answer
*

bonami28803
S



I think we should enforce preventative measures so that folks wont be murdering each other. Maybe they should redo the k-12 curriculum to teach how to deal with people and relationships and cope with the things life throws at you. We could have an hour long class every day, possibly last period. If we raise our young to cope with issues and handle things better, communicate better, then we would probably have less violent crimes and murder. Happier society. The kids could use that class as a sort of group therapy. It would probably help the kids deal with peer pressure too. I feel bad for the youth of today. No wonder murder is on the rise.

Answer 4

It would be immoral for the government to execute anyone without having a fair trial. And even with a fair trial, those who are too poor to get decent lawyers usually end up on death row whether they are guilty or not.

Personally, I think all governments are corrupt and fallible that it has no moral authority for death penalty. When you have death penalty, innocent people always get killed.

Sanctity of life, individual liberty, and a fair trial for all is more important than safety and crime deterrent.

Answer 5

Dang Mary!! You and I think alike!

When the evidence is conclusive beyond a shadow of a doubt ... why wait? Firing squad against the court house wall! On cable, all channels!

When the prosecution's case isn't conclusive ... give the convict 2 years to find new evidence ... no new evidence, BANG! right at the prison, firing squad against the wall!

Instead we wait 15 to 20 (or more!) years, after everyone forgets what a complete waste of skin this perp really is, then execute the fool!

Just after Stanley "Tookie" Williams (convicted murderer, charter member of the CRIPS gang and all around scumbag) was FINALLY put to death I heard one of my co-workers say "Damn, why did they kill Tookie ... it ain't like he was convicted of anything!"

Limit appeals, shorten the time lapse between conviction and the final punishment ... and give the con his "fifteen minutes of fame" by televising the execution! Make it required viewing in all history classes in every High School in the country (current events), then ... and only then will the death penalty be a deterrent to crime!

Until then, it's just the end of a violent criminal's "career" (Still good news, that murdering SOB won't kill again!)

From a great country song!

... "Grandpappy told my pappy
Back in my day, son
A man had to answer
For the wicked thing he done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree
Round up all of them bad boys
And hang 'em high in the street
For all the people to see"...

Answer 6

I don't believe the death penalty is right OR a deterrent.
To go into your question, I agree with the premise that 'justice delayed is justice denied', but with a capital charge it is so important that the evidence is properly examined and every avenue is explored. What you are asking for is too imporatnt to be rushed.
But since I believe that the death penalty is morally wrong anyway and never prevented a single murder, to me it's a non-starter anyway.

Answer 7

Possibly. It would also be a great way to kill a whole bunch innocent people without due process.

In the last 30 years, over 100 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. These were people who WERE given due process, and the legal system STILL got it wrong. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases.

There is no such thing as a perfect legal system.

No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Answer 8

I don't think it would make any difference. Generally speaking, people aren't considering the consequences at all during the commission of a murder. If someone is going to take another person's life, they're going to do it regardless of the consequences. Sitting on death row for years, or even their own death, isn't considered until the time they're convicted. Hastening the process of execution won't make any difference in the "heat of the moment" disregard of consequences.

Answer 9

They reason one gets to live on death row for many years is do to so many who have been wrongly accused and are truly innocent.
The Death penalty has never been a deterrent because no one thinks they will be caught and some are never caught (ex. Zodiac)

Answer 10

The death penalty is a disgusting religiously-inspired 'punishment' that is simply revenge of the worst kind. The death penalty has resulted in many more innocent people being executed; did you think about that? The Jews brought it in to appease God but according to Christians Jesus has paid the price.

Answer 11

The problem is that innocent people may be executed. Over 50 of the 124 people on death row who were proved to be wrongfully convicted had already served more than a decade.