Has the death penalty actually worked?

Question

Considering I live in the Philadelphia area I do have to question if the death penalty actually works. In the past couple months 4 police officers have been shot and one killed. It doesn't seem to be a deterrent. Also the costs of executing someone are much more than locking them up and throwing away the key.

Answer 1

First, look at this;

Fact is, only 1% of murderers are sentenced to death, of that 1% only 2% actualy receive their penalty. 68% of death sentences are overturned and as it stands now we have over 75 inmates on death row who have been there over 20 years...

If it was legitamate, yes I think it would work. But as of now... it does not.

Answer 2

There are some crimes that are so foul that the death penalty is almost a necessity. In the Detroit area, two men broke into a jeweler's home. They led each child to the basement, one at a time, and executed the kid by gunshot. Then they came back upstairs to get another child, until the whole family was dead. Michigan has no death penalty. There was nothing very bad that the men could be sentenced to. Michigan's refusal to execute in such a case is a terrible mockery of society's rights. And if the men kill a guard while they are in prison, they STILL cannot be given anything worse than an additional life sentence. (And remember that they have a lifetime to watch for their opportunity to slay a guard.)

Answer 3

I see some people are laboring under the misapprehension that the cost of keeping people locked up for 30 years or more is greater than the cost of executing someone. It isn't. Duke University did a study and found that it costs over $1million extra on average to carry out a death sentence than it would be with LWOP. The reason for this is that death sentences come with mandatory appeals, because society recognizes that once the sentence is carried out, you cannot correct any mistakes. Because of this, the costs involved are larger than trials and appeals without the DP.

Because relatively few murders are pre-meditated, execution style and are, in fact, committed in the heat of the moment, it is doubtful if the DP acts as a detterent.

So, I have to agree with you. The DP does not work and it is expensive. There is no need to keep it.

Answer 4

You are absolutely correct on the facts. You don't have to condone brutal crimes or want the criminals who commit them to avoid a harsh punishment to ask whether the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and whether it risks killing innocent people.

124 people on death rows have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. 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.

The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

The death penalty isn't reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It doesn't apply to people with money. 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.

Note to LeprOkan- check out www.deathpenaltyfocus.org for why the death penalty costs more than life in prison. Click on facts and then on costs.

Answer 5

I'm not necessarily pro-death penalty or not, but I do have one question. How is the cost of executing someone more than keeping them locked up for years? I think having to pay for that individual to be housed and fed for 30 or more years for a life sentence would be far greater.

Answer 6

The states with the highest number of death penalty inmates, continue to have the most. If it were a deterrent, you would see a spike once the state started giving out a lot of death sentences, but they as decline as it deters. But that doesn't happen.

Answer 7

If you want to make sure a murderer never murders again, the death penalty makes this a certainty.

The long delay between comission of the crime and the penalty takes away the deterrent factor to some degree. But do they care...of course, these low life weasels you want to house and feed for the rest of their lives fight for every last miserable second of life through court appeals.

Answer 8

Sure it has. Executed killers haven't been able to kill again. The real question is whether the innocent that we will never know about who have lost their lives in executions. Would you prefer to die or spend life in prison? How many people have been exonerated through DNA and why do prosecutors fight DNA testing when it isn't to their benefit?

Answer 9

I dont think the death penalty is designed to act as a deterrant. (isnt life in prison scary enough?) Its function is to get rid of the person! That way tax money isnt spent on feeding and housing them, plus it keeps them from killing again.

Answer 10

death penalty has never worked did it stop slaves in Rome wanting to be free are any others fighting against tyrants in history are any other criminals it didn't stop young kids stealing apples who were put to the gallows in the early nineteenth century either.