 
|
Jackson P
 |
Well it certainly stops that individual from committing anymore crimes doesn't it.
j |
|
averagebear
 |
No. Most criminals don't think about the consequences of their actions. That's why they are criminals. |
|
domme me
 |
No it isn't.
all studies have shown that it isn't
and I doubt it was much of a deterrent when it was public, either
if you have this idea that 'common sense says it must be a deterrent', just look at the state of the USA |
|
biire2u
|
Not at all
more than 90% of capital crimes are committed out of emotion-- anger- revenge- jealousy-- so when people get emotional logic tends to go out the window and you tend to not worry about the consequences
The other 10% either don't care about the consequences or think they'll never get caught |
|
Max Hoopla
|
No because most murderers are not capable of rational thought and are motivated by alcohol, drugs and testosterone. It is about time that the United States joint the rest of the Western civilized nations and abolish it.
The death penalty may be a regular feature in the news but in real life, it isn't even a blip on the criminal radar screen and hasn't been significant part of the justice system for over a century. When you analyze it, you find it is a big loud package with nothing inside.
During the last 100 years, the most people executed in one year was 198 in 1935. There were 50 or so killed in 2007 and 37 in 2008 (half of those in the enlightened state of Texas.) This represents one execution for every 8 million people. For a nation of 300 million people this is statistically zero, absolutely insignificant when compared with the number of murders that happen. There is much hoopla but little results.
If it was done away with entirely the savings could be spent in ways that prevent murders. Most of the expense is up front at the investigation and trial stage and serves only to let grandstanding prosecutors pander to the public by showing how tough they want us to think they are.
There may be a great amount of support for the death penalty including on this board but I don't think most people realize how insignificant it really is.
In my state, California, there has been about one execution every three years since the death penalty was reinstated. There are over 600 inmates on death row so at that rate it will take 1,800 years to kill them all provided we don't get any more. The most common cause of death on death row is natural causes followed by suicide. Lethal injection is a distant third.
The expense of keeping capital punishment on the books is absolutely enormous. Prosecuting a death penalty case which is unlikely to result in an execution costs about three times what the same case would cost if death was off the table. As an example, the state of Maryland figures it has spent $37 Million EACH for the executions it has carried out since reinstating the death penalty. When you look at the costs, this is a criminal waste of the public's money.
Like it or not, the death penatly is pretty pointless. |
|
Big T
|
No it isn't.
Our only reasonable comparison is the USA, which retains the death penalty in many of its states.
In the USA, those states that still use the death penalty have higher crime rates than those that do not.
Therefore, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.
2 sites of interest:-
www.deathpenalttyinfo.org
www.innocenceproject.org
edit:-
The "saving money" argument is spurious.
Prisons, many of them, exist.They carry with them a burden of cost to the taxpayer. That burden of cost remains constant provided the prisons are occupied. The numbers of people who might be subject to the death penalty is tiny in relation to the total numbers of prisoners. Remove them from the system, even if one were to remove them all on the same day, and the cost would remain static or reduce so minimally as to be invisible. |
|
ghost28
|
No ..because if it was then people would not commit crime in countries were it is used , why doesn't it work, because criminals don't think they will get caught ...the saying "Thick as thieves " has relevance within the sections of the criminal fraternity. |
|
Lucky Man 2
|
It has been shown through studies on criminal behaviour that it is not an effective deterrent. |
|
Maddy
 |
Obviously not, since the states which have the death penalty also have the highest murder rates. Nobody plans to get caught when they plan a murder. |
|
You fumbled my Torpedo
|
No, the only thing the death penalty does is make criminals all the more embittered towards society. |
|
El Guapo
 |
No. Violent crime rates are actually HIGHER in death penalty jurisdictions. 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).
It is probably due, at least in part, to the high cost (capital punishment is WAY more expensive than life imprisonment), which drains resources from police departments, drug treatment programs, education, and other government services that help prevent crime.
Personally, I think it also has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ |
|
greytgreys
|
I have mixed feelings.Most people who commit violent crimes think they will never get caught,so they don't care,one way or the other.If they did they wouldn't commit the crime.I think there are times when the death penalty is necessary.The only thing that worries me,is that sometimes the wrong person may die for someone elses crime. |
|
turniptop
|
No, if it were ther'd be no crime |
|
wensleydale
|
America has the highest murder rate it also has the highest execution rate after China. If the death penalty is so effective as a deterrent then the US would have the lowest murder rate.
A simple explanation of this phenomenon is the fact that when people commit crime, particularly premeditated crime, they don't think they are going to get caught. Therefore no deterrent will work.
When you have capital punishment there is no room for error, but no justice system is perfect and error is inevitable. If you murder innocent people in the name of justice then what is the difference between you and any other murderer?
So here we have a conundrum, we don't want to leave people locked up in prison at our expense for the rest of their lives and executing them can lead to disastrous consequences.
It's time to make long term prisoners productive. They need to earn their keep. We need to start training prisoners to be useful people. |
|
finglas9
|
The key word is "deterrent" it would seem that all evidence indicates it is not a deterrent. It may satisfy some people to dispose of a murderer by death but this disposes of the murderer which is a different question to deterring others from committing murder. I woulld like to see the life sentence tariff have a minimum length, 25 years, at present the average is 12 years. "Deterrent" seeks to prevent others from committing crime, retribution seeks to have our pound of flesh, revenge. Both can work together. |
|
cmdrbnd007
 |
I don't really care if it is or isn't. Some of those people just need to die and it needs to be a slow, horrible death. Maybe then it would be a deterrent. I have absolutely no sympathy for these people, let them fry and let the world see it happen. |
|
Captain Falcon
|
Dead criminal = 1 less criminal |
|
roger.williams20@btinternet.com
 |
I am sure that there would be less extreme violence if the death penalty still existed. If someone knew that he/she would be hung if they were found guilty of 1st degree murder then I do believe it would certainly concentrate their mind. However, many murders are not premeditated and should those convicted receive the death penalty?
My only concern about the use of the death penalty is that there are too many instances whereby people are wrongly convicted and the death penalty leaves no room for subsequent appeal. |
|
Susan S
|
Doesn't seem to be. Homicide rates are higher in states and regions with the death penalty than in those without it. People who are likely to commit murder don't think they will be caught- if they think at all.
By the way, capital punishment is much more expensive than life in prison. The high costs of the death penalty are for the complicated legal process, and the largest costs come at the beginning, for the pre trial process and for the trial itself. The point is to avoid executing innocent people. |
|
♥ღ☆ shoesaholic ☆ღ♥
|
No because most people i know who get blamed for crimes are innocent its called corruption,but for the real criminals yes its a detterant to crime no-one wasnt the death penaly do they? x |
|
whip
|
use to be when it was public. |
|
Ian UK
|
I don't know if it would be a deterrent. Most of the criminals I come into contact with don't think too much about the consequences. The only time they might think about their actions is when the noose is around their neck.
It would however save the country (well those of us that work for a living anyway) a hell of a lot of money as these scum bags who keep going out committing crime will be off the streets for good and not living in the lap of luxury at our expense. |
|
ronnie m
|
It's an undeniable fact that anyone who has been executed has not committed another crime regardless of whether they were guilty or innocent in the first place. |
|
island3girl
|
No , it is not - and that can be proven first of all by the fact that those who kill know it is wrong and think they can get away with it - knowing that they risk the death penalty
Also, you can see by the rise in violent crimes that the death penalty has little effect on violent crime.
By the way, the argument that taxpayers shounldn't have to support these criminals is a poor one because it costs more money for someone on death row than if they were just in jail due to appeals, legal aid, etc. |
|
stonekingsinc
 |
why should tax payers use money to keep some of these people alive that do nothing but harm and will never change. |
|
Karl
|
An effective deterrent? Yes, I believe it lessons the amount of individuals (per capita) who commit crime and get away scott free and alive. So, it reduces the amount of capital crimes.
However, it wil never totally stop capital crimes from happening. There will always be someone who commits the crime for various reasons.
I believe in the death penalty. I would like to see alot more rounded up and shot in the back of the head like they do in China in an open field or maybe hung from the public square in "hxlehcqchop-ISTAN" or somewhere.
During these times, crime is currently on the increase and pacifying lawless persons only increases those who also want to take the easy way out to satisfy their crime spree! |
|
Ray-is-Back
|
I'm pretty sure the people that pay this price never commit a crime again I'll try and find a link to prove my point
You up there would not want to make killers mad at us would we What nest's ladies be sure to thank him after he is done with you and say something nice ''Gee that was unexpected,and nice'' Don't want to hurt is self esteem |
|
Chris G
|
It's irrelevant whether or not it is a deterrent. It IS an effective punishment, however. |
|
NO BO!!
|
It would be if it were ever enforced! |
|
one shot
|
Well, 200 years ago they hung burglars.
Guess what - not many burglaries in those days. |
|
Atticus Finch
|
I do not care if it deters crime. I care that it gets rid of a killer. You can get statistics to prove or disprove its deterrence value. I know, however that when we execute a killer, he has been punished and will never never kill again. |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
