Death Penalty???

Question

When speaking of homicide and violent crimes, is the death penalty an effective deterrent in our criminal justice system? I have mixed emotions about this, I would like some opinions of others and an explanation of why you think this way.

Answer 1

This is not something to decide only on the basis of emotions. You don't have to sympathize with criminals or want them to avoid a terrible punishment to ask if the death penalty prevents or even reduces crime and to think about the risks of executing innocent people.

The death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Rates of violent crime are higher in states and in regions with the death penalty than in those without it.

To deter others a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. Certainly the death penalty prevents the criminal from reoffending, but so does life without parole. Life without parole, available in 48 states, means exactly what it says and costs less than the death penalty.

The death penalty costs so much mostly because of the legal process which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

126 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 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.

Answer 2

I'm sort of mixed, I'm for the Death Penalty in certain cases because I believe in true justice. If you take a life your life should be taken. As someone earlier mentioned that it's retribution not a deterrent, that's true. There is no deterrent to crime besides ones own conscience or lack thereof. As for cases of people being proved innocent after the death penalty due to DNA evidence, I think the following should be the rule of thumb when determining the Death Penalty.

1. When a case of a possible sentence of the Death Penalty occurs it is the burden to the State or Federal Government to produce hard DNA evidence that proves the guilt of the accused.
2. If the burden cannot be met: a death sentence cannot be handed due to the possibility of human err and a life sentence should be handed instead.
3. If hard DNA evidence is found at a later date after the life sentence has been handed out that proves the guilt of the convicted, a new sentencing hearing should occur attempting to show the new evidence as undeniable proof that the man cannot be innocent in any way and the death penalty should be assigned. (Some might argue double jeopardy : You may not be accused of the same crime twice, doesn't say you cannot be sentenced twice)

Like I said earlier and I believe in true justice. Explain to the father of a raped , tortured and murdered little girl that even with hard DNA evidence proving it was convict. He still should have the right to breathe air. That's not justice.

Answer 3

The question is wether you think anyone commits a crime in the belief that they will have a pay a price for it...whatever that price may be.

And the answer is that they don't.

Nobody commits a crime and accepts that they may be caught and punished, they assume that they will get away with it.
So it doesn't really matter what the punishment is because they don't intend to ever have to pay it.
For that reason no punishment is a true deterrent.

Nobody will ever convince me that someone kills another person and is willing to risk it on the grounds that if caught they will "only" get life in prison and not the death penalty...that makes no sense at all.

People commit crimes in the belief that they will not get caught, so whatever the punishment is it doesn't really matter.
It's only when they are caught that they get something of a shock.

All punishment is about retribution, revenge if you like....it's a human trait.
We dress it up and convince ourselves that we are keeping society safe when these people are either dead or in jail sure...but the bottom line is it's getting our own back on them for what they did.

So...as long as we are comfortable with that there isn't a problem.
If people do certain things we jail them and if they do other certain things we kill them....that's the deal.

The only problem is some folk are in denial about it, about the reasons why.

I'm not saying it's either right or wrong or that it works or doesn't work, I'm just saying I know what it is and what it isn't.

It isn't a deterrent....it's retribution.

Answer 4

Death Penalty just get the perpetrators to be eliminated. At least, there is one less perpetrator in the world. However, with modern media, one killer can generate a big number of copy-cat, esp. in the case of serious killing. Hence, death penalty did little help.

We can see the truth via the religious history. From Genesis, Jesus sentenced all human being to death as the punishment of our original sin. However, man still commit crime before his death. Did the death make the society better? It only provided a lot of topics for academic investigation and philosophical studies.

Answer 5

Knowing and associating with murders, I can say the death penalty wouldn't have stopped a single one of them from murdering. The death penalty would definitely stop them from another murder. Some convicted murderers are innocent. And when the government executes them, the government is the murderer. Or as in the current war the government committs mass murder. The executed, murders or innocent are then better than those who murder them for morality, religion and society. Try treating cons as people, maybe a society with simple houses, regular jobs, regular entertainment, both sexes in a fenced in community removing them from the non breakers of laws and there could be improvement. Put anyone in they are going to be worse when they get out. I'm a good example. Reformatory ar 12, innocent of anything but being buggered by preachers and turned into a thief, drug user, drug dealer and thug. The way law is in the US, you might as well execute for parking tickets. You make the criminals.

Answer 6

I support the death penalty, simply because I value the feelings of the victim over the life of a murderer.

There are many types of violent crime, for instance, negligent manslaughter should not warrant execution, but first and second degree murder should.

Although there is no proven deterrent to crime, in most cases nations with significantly higher executions have significantly lower crime rates. That may be the result of many factors, but from experience, generally people are more afraid to commit crime than they are in the USA.

People sit on their high horse and talk about capital punishment being murder and cruel/unusual and all that, but when the poop hits the fan I doubt the naivesunglasses are on.

I support an increase in the usage of the death penalty, and now you know why.

Answer 7

One of the most violent Crimes was in the 14th century when the English shipped most of their diseased Criminals into an neutral Continant, violating the Peoples of that Continent.

Since, unified Criminals and all their comglumerated Allies have enforced deceptive orders that feed upon Children, and the weak in mind; and with the formation of the Monitary system, the degenerated Criminals support their Crimes of denile with the unified front of compassion and a false act of understanding.

With all the aforementioned, and keeping in mind Ambiance and Vanity; there should be no Justice for Criminals, as much as Justice for the innocent; Criminals do not need Justice, they do need Allies, support groups, and Cash.

I think this way simply because I was setup by a group of developing degenerates, that though they can not confront
the issues at hand; the fact that they are a growing Cancer
within the County we share, as well as they have no problem
sharing what is left of their vial Souls; they exist in Satanic harmony; with all the benifits of their past errors.
***END***

Answer 8

Whether or not the death penalty is effective depends on what/who you are trying to deter.

If you are trying to deter violent crime GENERALLY...that is, don't kill anyone or do something that might lead to someone dying becasue the state will kill you for it, then the evidence is clear that the death penalty is not a deterent. For most of the planet, governmets recognize that the threat of death has not and will not reduce violent crime. Indeed, the US is one of few countries (in a club with China and other "evil doers," like Syria) on the planet that has broad use of the death penalty and we have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. That is ahead of countries with populations with more diverse races, ethnic groups, religions, economic classes. We (Americans) are just more violent with no other demographic indicator to explain why.

Now, if your goal is to prevent a SPECIFIC person from committing violent crime any more, then yes, the death penalty works in two ways. First, it takes the violent person off of the streets for years and then kills that prisoner so that the prisoner will not kill again. Second, maybe while the prisoner is in, s/he kills another killer on the inside, saving tax payers the expense of having to deal with appeals and the cost of killing him ourselves. Win/ win.

The harder question for you has to be this...with a new person walking out of jail almost DAILY with actual evidence of their innonence, including 200+ people who were on death row at the time that they were exonerated, are you comfortable enought that we get it right to run the risk of putting an innocent person to death? What if that person were your neighbor, or your family member, or you? Still ok running the risk?

Answer 9

Now the death penalty was effective at one point in time in our history. What changed? Public vs confidential is what changed. Death is nasty ugly business and if you don't see it....you would never know of the stuff that a body does as it goes through the process. This is missing from the criminal mind's eye. If they do think of death (and most do) they think of it in some heroic way as a foot soldier against the system. They don't think of it as a body in a chair with vomit, feces, and other bodily fluids coverring their corpse.

To rectify this, I would say that executions should be public for the prison that they are held in. That way you get to show the punishment in all of it's glory to those in the system without tramatizing young children.

Answer 10

The Death Penalty does not deter crime. A problem with it is that once you are given the Death Penalty, you can be as evil as you want because they can only kill you once. And, there have been cases where years later new evidence has been discovered showing that the convicted person is innocent.