would capital punishment work in this day and age?

Question

would it really deter some crimes or just create a state of anarchy?

Answer 1

It never has worked to deter crime. All it does is reduce otherwise civilized people to the lowest common denominator. Tell me: how does killing people who kill people teach that killing people is wrong?

Answer 2

It has been proven that the death penalty doesn't deter, in fact, harsher punishments almost never deter crime. The death penalty is currently being applied at higher rates to minorities although most murders are committed by whites. So there is a problem with the penal system and the death penalty. We need to find a system that works before half the population is incarcerated and the other half is just working to support them, causing a breakdown in all intellectual progress.

Answer 3

I was pro-death penalty for a long time, but I have changed my stance over the years, for several reasons:

1. By far the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the people who have been released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. The deterrent effect is questionable at best. In the U.S., violent crime rates are actually HIGHER in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

4. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”

5. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 4

I worry about capital punishment, was it really the right person? will it really deter etc. However, I do feel that prison life is not fitting to crimes that have been committed, watching telly - making phone calls - gymnasiums? no, I would say bring back 'hard labour' and stop making prisons so damn cushy, 20 years of hard labour (abit like prison camps in Siberia) would I think be more appropriate.

Answer 5

It would if it was used fairly , the well known and rich - - as well as the poor . If it was used promptly, most die of old age before being executed .
If it was used in this way , many would consider the consequences of the crime much more carefully before the act .
For each murder there should be an execution - - - within days of the crime.
The anti- execution people will say that in a few cases mistakes might be made . How about keeping an innocent person in a cage for thirty or fourty years when it's the worse possible torture to him, and he would much prefer a quick death ?
To many , the cage is much worse than death -- - - and it costs the taxpayers a small fortune to keep each one .

Answer 6

I don't see how it could create anarchy if there are strict, uniform standards that are enforced.

Yes,
if you live in a place that does not allow guns, only the law breakers can carry guns and they keep shooting and robbing.

If we all have the right to carry a weapon, then, criminals might think twice on attacking randomly.

The same thing with other punishment from the government.

I think if they know if they shoot someone, their hand gets cut off or something, then they won't go around doing that all the time.

Answer 7

I am all for capital punishment. Too many criminals are released and the public told that they have changed which is a load of rubbish. Once a criminal always a criminal, only thing that will change them is a lobotomy but then we have to look after them. Capital punishment will work because one less murderer, rapist on the road already makes the place safer. Hang 'em high is my motto. I may come across as unfeeling but those people have no feelings or they would not commit their vile and evil crimes. Get rid of the lot of them, my opinion.

Answer 8

It depends what you mean by 'work'. It is not a deterrent. Most murders are not premeditated or are committed under very specific circumstances, so capital punishment does not lower the murder rate, this has been demonstrated many times. On the other hand, some pragmatic people point out that it certainly reduces the re-offending rate!

Answer 9

It is not a deterrent. In fact, homicide rates are higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in those without it. The death penalty is of dubious value in preventing or reducing crime (although it does prevent more murders by the person executed) and risks executing innocent people. In context---with sources--

Risks of executing innocent people-
124 people on death rows have been released with evidence of their innocence. DNA is available in less than 10% of all homicides and isn’t a guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.

The death penalty doesn't prevent others from committing murder. No reputable study shows the death penalty to be a deterrent. To be a deterrent a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions that have it than in states that don’t.

We have a good alternative. Life without parole is now on the books in 48 states. It means what it says. It is sure and swift and rarely appealed. Life without parole is less expensive than the death penalty.

Death penalty costs. The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process. When the death penalty is a possible sentence, extra costs start mounting up before trial, continue through the uniquely complicated trial in death penalty cases (actually 2 separate stages, one to decide if the defendant is guilty and the second to choose the sentence, mandated by the Supreme Court), and appeals.

The death penalty doesn't apply to people with money. Its not reserved for the “worst of the worst,” but for defendants with the worst lawyers. When is the last time a wealthy person was on death row, let alone executed?

The death penalty doesn't necessarily help families of murder victims. Murder victim family members across the country argue that the drawn-out death penalty process is painful for them and that life without parole is an appropriate alternative.

Problems with speeding up the process. Over 50 of the innocent people released from death row had already served over a decade. If the process is speeded up we are sure to execute an innocent person.

Answer 10

Probably would act as a deterant in some cases and in others not. All depends on the individual hun.... also we need to be sure 100% we have the right person....you know how messed up our government is and law system....how many innocent people will the sentance to death to reaslise when its all to late they were wrong?

Answer 11

If you televised a particularly gruesome murder being hung on TV, do you think that person will be able to appeal the sentence? Will they be able to be released somewhere down the road? If released would they be able to commit a similar crime? No. And if others see what and how strangulation looks in real life, do you think they would commit as many crimes? Once a person is convicted of murder and with the use of DNA to maximize their crime, put them on TV being executed by hanging. They will not come back to commit that crime again. In my opinion you don't need or shouldn't give criminals appeals once convicted.