[Jeeper]

Since approximatley only 1 in every 1000 convicted murderers gets the death penalty is it really a deterrent?

[DeltaElite]

Nope, not at all.
However, it does deter the executed prisoner from killing again. :neener:

With all the people being freed on the basis of DNA evidence that were on death row, it sure makes it a scary proposition to execute someone.
Now, I believe that some people just need to die, but we gotta be sure we have the right person.

[Mike Irwin]

I don't care if it's a deterrent or not.

It's not supposed to be a deterrent.

It's supposed to be a punishment.

[Stephen Ewing]

Mike pretty much summed it up.

I'd also point out that watering it down with a thousand appeals taking decades and holding out the promise of blanket pardons sort of cuts into the threat value, no? Any argument that the death penalty isn't currently a deterrent is much like arguing that a given car won't run...after you've removed the engine.

Steve

[TheeBadOne]

What DE said

[JPM70535]

It prevents Recidivism!!!!!

[Blackhawk]

Definitely.

But it's screwed up in the way it works now.

The effectiveness of the deterrent aspect is inversely related to the time it takes between sentencing and execution, IMO.

I also believe that a jury is MORE likely to apply the death penalty when appeals are likely drag out punishment for way more than a decade. If punishment was swift and sure once the penalty was imposed, I believe juries would demand a higher standard of proof from the prosecution, which would result in fewer questionable convictions. I sure would insist that ALL the questions were answered instead of kowtowing to judges and lawyers presenting biased opinions of the facts and evidence, or lying to me in saying I couldn't judge the law and the relevance and admissibility of the evidence.

I also believe that there would be fewer death penalty trials because more of the guilty would cop a plea rather than risk swift and sure application of the death penalty.

When people are given "it doesn't really matter what you decide" choices, they soon catch on to "it doesn't really matter." That devalues the process and any deterrent value it otherwise has.

[4v50 Gary]

Dead men don't rape. Murderers don't murder and child molesters don't molest. Best of all, it's rehabilitation through reincarnation.

[rbrowning]

As long as the punishment is removed so far from the act, it has little or no deterant effect. If punishment was quick AND public it might. But then I think there should be a small guilotine for child molesters too, and it should be used in public, in front of the TV cameras. And the public caning of the kid that spray painted the cars in Singapore sounds like appropriate measures to me. But then, I'm just an old bleeding heart liberal.:rolleyes:

[clem]

It would be more effective if the executions were public. I believe that some "on the line idiot" would say, wow! I ain't going to let that happen to me.

[Delmar]

There might be something about public executions-I was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia a few years ago, and while they may not broadcast it on the TV, they will force those in the square to watch. I did see a couple of Saudi police officers beheaded for the rape of a woman, and, being an American, a couple of guards walked me up front and made sure I was looking.
Afterwards, I asked one of the guards who spoke english what they were killed for, and he was proud of the fact the royals had put 60 some odd people to death. You should have seen his face when I told him that was about 6 months worth in Texas alone! I have no problem with executions at all, but the government better be able to prove to me, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a SHADOW of a doubt the perp did what they say he did. I'd rather have a guilty man live than an innocent one die. As to the guilty walking-we'll get to them later!
As to some of the dirty dealings a few prosecutors and LEO's have played in false convictions-if it can be proven, they should have to serve the sentence they falsely laid on the defendant because we don't need them either.:cuss:

[EJ]

Possibly -- but only reference to murders committed within a prison--IMO--

BUT

Most of us here on these boards are probably pro death penality

And at least a bit concerned by the ineptitude evidenced by our justice system and / or government legislature-- even if we believe that it is well meaning and not malicious--

SO
How can we trust that system to administer death?

We can't -- unfortunately -- because some people deserve to be executed -- but the system is flawed--severly and cannot be trusted with irreversable power--

[Flying V]

Given sufficient proof of guilt under an ideal justice system, I support the death penalty for premeditated murder, rape, arson of an inhabited structure, and kidnap for ransom or rape.

I am hesitant to grant the state such power, and yet, there exists scum for which a swift and painless expungement is undeserved mercy.

[Matthew Courtney]

The death penalty is the perfect deterrant. No one who has recieved it has ever killed again. Many serving life have killed while so doing.

[Mike Irwin]

"I have no problem with executions at all, but the government better be able to prove to me, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a SHADOW of a doubt the perp did what they say he did. I'd rather have a guilty man live than an innocent one die."

My sentiments exactly, Del.

[xjer]

Definately!

They sure want be doing it again.

I aggree with Blackhawk "it's screwed up in the way it works now"
12 to 15 years in appeals or more, where is the justice in that.

[PATH]

Sometimes there are people who need to be removed from the gene pool. Life is just that way sometimes.

[Hkmp5sd]

I wish they would enact a law that gave a condemned prisoner one year from the date of his sentencing to complete ALL of his appeals. If not successful, he's toast on that date.

None of these endless one-at-a-time appeals.

It *MAY* even have a detering effect on other wouldbe badguys.

[buzz_knox]

Rehabilitation through reincarnation. I like that.

"We aren't killing him. We're just helping to move along on the wheel of karma!" :)

[G-Raptor]

No, the death penalty isn't a deterrent, no more than life in prison.

The reason it isn't a deterrent is because the people who commit murder don't expect to get caught. If they knew they would get caught, the probably wouldn't do it - regardless of the penalty.

The death penalty is simply "punishment" for the crime.

[Sean Smith]

My problem with the death penalty isn't moral (I like the idea of dead criminals alot), but practical.

1. The track record for accuracy (i.e. guilt or innocence) in handing out death sentences is pretty bad. DNA evidence has made a farce of alot of "beyond a reasonable doubt" guilty verdicts.

2. The cost is insane. It is cheaper to imprison for life than it is to get someone from the death sentence to actually being dead.

Given (1), it doesn't really make sense to keep the current process for its accuracy, and it certainly makes no sense to make they system less rigorous or demanding. On the other hand, given (2), the current system is already too unwieldy, expensive, and time-consuming as it is, so it makes no sense to keep the current process for its speed and cost-efficiency, let alone make it more demanding.

Either way, you are screwed. With the current way, you are screwed. Thus the death penalty should be dropped.

[Standing Wolf]

I don't care whether it's a deterrent or not. The death penalty stops recidivism 100% of the time, and it costs more to keep someone in prison for a year than it would to send a deserving young person to virtually any college in the nation for the same period.

[Beer for my Horses]

The death penalty is more effective as a plea negotiating tool for prosecutors in capital cases than as a deterent.

As for the death penalty itself, I think life without the possibility of parole is more punishment than letting the murderer off with death.

[Rangerover]

As for the death penalty itself, I think life without the possibility of parole is more punishment than letting the murderer off with death.
I dunno. Old Richard Speck didn't look too unhappy when he was snorting coke and making jailhouse porn flicks on the taxpayer's dime.

[cratz2]

I used to be somewhat 'pro killing convicted bad guys' but I no longer am. I'm sure I am in the minority on this very conservative board but hear me out...

I believe that we should keep our existing prisons for 'not so bad' criminals and put the ones convicted for life or sentenced to death in newly constructed prisons similar to prisons in Mexico. The cells should be filled up with a given number of inmates and semi-permanantly locked. Food should be given to them dropped between the bars. They get sprayed down with water once a day to rinse some of the stink off. If they kill each other, that's fine too. No additional sentence because they're all in there until they die. There would be no running crime rings from inside their prison cell. There would be no bartering for cigarettes or drugs.

I honestly believe that it is a sin to kill another person that is not causing a specific person grevious harm at the time of the killing. But if they act like animals, they get treated like animals. If you don't want to spend the rest of your pathetic existence in such an institution, don't rape women (or men for that matter), don't molest kids, don't kill anyone and don't inflict violence onto to others that did you no wrong. I don't think it's inhumane to treat someone that is inhumane and has proven his or her self to be inhumane in such a manner.