Is the death penalty an effective crime deterrant?

Answer 1

No. Crime rates are higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in states and regions without it.

To deter (keep others from committing the same crime) a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither.

To those who suggest speeding up the process- at least 50 people on death row who were proved to have been wrongfully convicted had already served more than a decade.
Speeding up the process will guarantee executions of innocent people.

BTW I suggest that solaran take a look at actual crime stats for recent years. For example, he will see that New York State, where the crime rate has continued to fall, has seen crime decrease since its highest court threw out the death penalty in 2004.

Answer 2

It's been an observed trend that in states that actively use the death penalty, violent crimes remain at a constant level.

Yet states that banned the death penalty generally have higher violent crime rates that before they banned it.

In that aspect, yes - the death penalty is an effective crime deterrant. But it needs to be altered. For it to be more effective, we need people to SEE it happen. We need to restore public executions, which would mean televising the executions when they happen in prisons. This will show people that the government is taking a hard stance against violent crime.

We also need to limit the time a criminal spends on death row. We have people who were convicted, found guilty, and sentenced to death in the 1980s who still haven't been executed yet in 2007. That is almost 30 years on death row.

That is unacceptable.

Answer 3

I agree with Yak Rider.
The problem is "our" expectation of perfection in the justice system. A lot of media attention to wrongful conviction has supported a real resistance to the death penalty. Since it is such a final solution (remember that phrase?), the courts do have to be held to a high level of integrity when considering such cases. And who is going to determine when a crime merits the death penalty? It's not an easy question.

Answer 4

It's likely that most people who do things worthy of the death penalty will not stop to ponder whether they will recieve the death penalty for their crime. Therefore another's demise did nothing to stop them. For someone lost their life at the end of that long hall and their life did nothing to prevent another's actions from landing themself in the same condition where they too are waiting for death's door to swing open.
It's simpler to belive that what stops most people from carrying out the deviant wishes of harm on another is their rational thinking mind. Most people are swayed not by sentence but by what lies deep inside their conscience.
Now in regards to the criminal who is rationally minded who has commited a crime and is sentenced to death...It's only when they are caught and sentenced does the rationally minded criminal think twice about the actions that took their freedom and sentenced them their doom. It is then that the reality of the sentence lands home. And for those who are bystanders to the one who faces the noose... with lump in throat says," I'm glad that's not me". And may likely walk straighter knowing just how close one can come to the edge of the world and have no clue that tomorrow is the last day that freedom rings.

Answer 5

Even though very few people will admit it, we have to have some type of maximum punishment that even if it stops just one person from commiting a horrenderous crime we know it has done good.
Crime is on the up swing. People commit death penalty worthy crimes and feel they should be given the right to life after they have taken anothers. Most of the crimes that they commit are totally violent and unexpected crimes. The crimes that worry me the most are the youth of today killing, robbing, raping and destroying their lives over nothing. Pride is not worth taking one's life or losing your own. People kill today and have no excuse. They do it because they can.
Beings that I have had a family member personally killed and the people that killed him got only 15 years because they were minors (16 &17). They destroyed and totally violated his body and left him to bleed to death. It was a racially motivated killing. Young kids with nothing to do but attack lone people going home from work.
The pain that the family suffers is beyond explanation. Especially when there is no reason for it. The family of the killers never once said they were sorry or made an attempt to cool public anger.
I do not believe in mentally handicapped or challenged people being put to death as their handicap is enough to bear. One has to be able to know what is going on in order to be punished for it.
If it stops just 1 crime from happening it has done it's job. Would you really want a vicious killer ever left with the possibility of coming back out on the streets?
American's morality is going to pieces due to the lack of family. Without family no one can have the proper knowledge necessary to be a productive citizen.

Answer 6

It is 100% effective in deterring the person executed. It would be more effective in general if the execution occurred at noon on the court house lawn while people still remembered the crime. Executing someone at midnight, behind closed doors, 30 years latter has a limited deterrent effect on others.

Answer 7

In terms of reducing crime rates? Probably not; Texas's murder rate is nearly SIX times as high as Vermont, for example, and Vermont has no death penalty.

But that's not really the point; the point is that sometimes it's nice to take revenge on violent sociopaths.

AS LONG AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY GUILTY, I don't have a problem with the death penalty. But I don't pretend that it has statistical benefits that the evidence simply doesn't support.

Answer 8

No, not because it isn't an effective deterrent but because it isn't used consistently. Everyone knows if you have enough money you can get off, so why bother with obeying the laws? When we get tough on crime our crime rates will fall drastically. For instance, violent crime is down in 21 states, because the citizens are allowed to carry arms and protect themselves! It is no accident crime rates fell, when the law got serious about muggings, robberies and elder abuse, etc.

Answer 9

No, because of the fact with our voyeuristic society and all the reality television courses spoiling the airwaves, "loss of life television" might basically supply the yank public one greater reason to pop the popcorn and convey jointly around the boob tube for the State's contemporary execution and the ACLU one greater stupid component to sue for. What ought to be completed to deter crime is to confirm that when a loss of life sentence is imposed, that the action is taken hastily, without appeals technique for 40 years whilst the criminal sits on loss of life row, no appeals technique ever. the tip of the line, is the tip of the line as quickly as that is been conclusively shown that a criminal is accountable, the sentence ought to be achieved. Stiffer effects for crimes dedicated with a gun, no "3 strikes", that is one strike. and that's all people.

Answer 10

No, it is not effective in deterring crime.

Yes, it is effective in reducing the criminal population by a few each year.

It would be an effective deterrent if it was applied quickly and to far greater numbers of murderers, rapists and pedophiles but we know that's not going to happen. Heaven forbid the perpetrators should be denied "due process", i.e., many years and many, many thousands of taxpayers' dollars to exhaust their appeals and legal shufflings!