I have zero moral issue with the state killing people who have been found guilty of a serious crime. However, I am 100% opposed to the death penalty. Here are my reasons: First, it is more expensive to kill someone than to lock them up for life without hope of parole. These maggots should have the minimum amount of money spent on their miserable lives as possible. Second, the constant appeals process by those opposed to the death penalty (which is a cottage industry in and of itself) makes the family re-live the horror of the crime. Putting someone away for life with no hope of parole limits the appeals. Third, we humans are not perfect. Yet the death penalty is a perfect solution in the sense it cannot be revoked. There have been enough cases where people have been put to death or were on death row for crimes they did not commit to make me oppose the death penalty. Fourth, it has not proven to be a deterrent. Why go to the trouble and expense of killing someone if it doesn't work? Fifth, the death penalty is not punitive enough. There is one of two possibilities: a) there is a Hell; or b) there isn't. If there is, making someone's life Hell on earth for 30-70 years doesn't take much a chunk out of eternity. If there isn't, then you have relieved their suffering, thereby doing them a favor. Let them suffer on earth for a few years before they're sent on their way. Put them away for life without hope of parole, and whatever happens to them in prison, happens. People who are serving life for violent offenses shouldn't be mixed with anyone else without those characteristics. No TV, no weights, no time outside and food enough for sustenance. Put a photo in their cell of their victim, so they never forget. If life is so cheap to them, let them live in a society made up of only those people. If they are raped or killed while in this kind of micro-society, it was their choice.
I disagree. It is definitely a tool to deter. In fact, capital punishment is used in Malaysia for drug trafficking. No trial, nothing. You get caught selling, you meet their firing squad. That country had such a problem with drugs, they raised the stakes to detour people from selling drugs.
I disagree. When we recommenced with the death penalty in 1976, a huge argument was that it served as a deterrent. The deterrence aspect of capital punishment is always a main argument for it.
Do people still sell drugs? If you have a penalty for a crime, but don't enforce it, you're giving everyone the green light to break the law.
It's not a deterrent is the bleeding heart argument against it. It was never supposed to be a deterrent. People murder, penalty or not.
What? People murder regardless of the consequences? No shit, Denny. Did you even bother to read my post? All I was saying was that those in favor of the death penalty use the deterrence argument.
It likely does deter a few murders, but deterrence is the least important factor in why we have a death penalty. The primary reasons are to punish people who commit a heinous crime, and to prevent the person from committing the crime again.
Weak sauce. There's not a single citation to support that claim. Perhaps some advocates do say it's a deterrent, but deterrence is not the main reason to have a death penalty. https://www.asc41.com/policies/policypaper2.html While there may be some outstanding due process issues surrounding the application of the sanction, these are either rare or can be corrected by legislative and administrative reforms. More importantly, as evidenced by public opinion, the most commonly accepted argument in favor of the death penalty in America, today remains retribution. Of those Americans who support the death penalty, polls show that most favor it because of just deserts, or an “eye for an eye” even though this principle is not applied in any other offense – arson, rape, etc. Since this moral justification is not amenable to nor requires scientific testing, it is a sufficient basis for continuing the use of the death penalty. However, when presented with evidence that the death penalty is currently administered in a way that produces significant racial disparities, substantial error rates, and other problems, common moral ground may be achieved between proponents and abolitionists.
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1a.htm For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. (but they kept executing people anyway)
103 on that page bro... Usually it's the numbers that are posted immediately after the sentence. I know reading can sometimes be hard... Would you like me to hold your hand and click the link too?
Deterrence is not the reason we have a death penalty. We had it long before anyone did any studies. Not because it deterred people, but because it put an end to them and was the punishment fitting the crime. And 103 on your wikipedia page I already looked at. It talks about death penalty as a tool for prosecutors in plea bargaining.
That doesn't mean that the Pro death penalty crowd doesn't argue that it is a deterrent. It only means that that argument is wrong.
I don't hear anyone who's a lawyer or judge talk about deterrence. It's punishment that fits the crime, and carrying out the sentence is done so people know the laws have teeth.
