Membership is FREE, giving all registered users unlimited access to every Acorn Domains feature, resource, and tool! Optional membership upgrades unlock exclusive benefits like profile signatures with links, banner placements, appearances in the weekly newsletter, and much more - customized to your membership level!

Sign to bring back capital punishment

Status
Not open for further replies.
If they are beyond any doubt whatsoever then gas them, hang them, feed them to lions or whatever - thats fine. The punishment would fit the crime, and it would be cheaper than keeping them locked up forever.

It's actually widely claimed than in the US the death penalty is about twice the cost of 50 years or so in prison at around $2m-$2.5m per case. I remember touching upon this topic several times at school in Economics (Human Development) and Human Geography. I'm no expert, but if anyone is interested in reading up about this then I'd say do not base your opinions on politically skewed newspapers, instead there are plenty of accredited scholarly articles on Google Scholar etc. They basically suggest that the economic and social cost of the death penalty are greater than a life term. There are also shockingly high statistics related to innocent people being executed. The debate will continue, but I feel it is unlikely the death penalty will return. As Ash says, our prison systems need fixing, but killing off the guilty will unlikely scratch the surface of the overcrowding problems...

What I would rather like to see are greater punishments for those who speed past my house, use mobile phones whilst driving etc because a 2 digit fine and a slap on the wrist is nothing for those who can afford the car, insurance and phone and feel it is appropriate to break the law in that way. If they have happened to have stolen the car and the phone, the punishment isn't that much worse!
 
Last edited:
Going back to an earlier post, I counter with the fact that Norwegians are on the whole, better educated than people in the UK, and have a better standard of living in general. A more educated population is less likely to commit serious crime as they can appreciate the results of their actions. As such, they are also more likely to feel regret and far less likely to reoffend.

If you say they are more civilised than we are, I'd have to agree, but that is down to better education and a higher standard of living. Horses for courses; you can't expect the same results across the board between different societies.

You point to the States where they have a high crime rate - to that I'd counter that until a few short decades ago they still had segregation. Their further down the evolutionary chain than we are. I'd also point to countries like Saudi Arabia where hidious punishments are handed out but crime is very low.

Ok, so we put norway on the side because of its education, do we do the same for all the other countries with far lower crime rates than here? You suggest we are all savages inside, then you say they are better than us. I don't follow that logic!

You also say that America are further down the revolutionary chain than us, yet you approve of their punishment system and not intelligent Norway's?

Saudi Arabia also behead homosexuals publicly. I really don't think you should look upto their system. Also, many researchers have stated that the 'official' crime rate is only low due to many instances of crime being 'dealt with' outside the judicial system. I.e: You stole from my shop so I will cut your hands off. Do you look up to this?

Of the countries below the UK in homicide rate, only a couple have capital punishment (out of 20+)

Costs fact:

In New York, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1995, costs for each person condemned to death were approximately $23 million.

Do you think people should live in fear of a governing body?
Just wondering, would you consider yourself a racist?
 
Last edited:
I've always thought that this would be the best way to carry out a death penalty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiEJKvbpOF0

I personally feel that if such a penalty is to exist within a country, it should solely be about 'removing' that person, rather than inflicting further pain, even if it is on the person who commited the crime.

Realistcially though, I can't see a scenario where I want the death sentence re-introduced. I don't really look to any of the current countries with death penalties and see them as safer than our own. The old "lock 'em up, and throw away the key", would be the route I'd take, especially with the current joke senetcnes being handed down.
 
I would also like to add, that I see life time imprisonment as a bigger punishment than capital punishment.

Living with what they did, being tormented by their own actions would hurt far more than a little injection.

Ian Huntley also tried to kill himself in prison, does he deserve that easy escape?
 
I was hoping the government might fancy making the petition site independent..

My Petition website has just had a facelift. Although maybe not the best choice for parliamentary type petitions, better suited for local/personal petitions
 
I was hoping the government might fancy making the petition site independent..

My Petition website has just had a facelift. Although maybe not the best choice for parliamentary type petitions, better suited for local/personal petitions

I really like the petition site design, Mally!
 
This is a prime example of how the e-petition system can be abused by whipping up support via the Press just for the sake of it. They would be better off petitioning for stronger enforcement of effective sentences instead of raising a subject which pampers to the mob mentality.
 
Ok, so we put norway on the side because of its education, do we do the same for all the other countries with far lower crime rates than here? You suggest we are all savages inside, then you say they are better than us. I don't follow that logic!

You've misunderstood my point regarding Norway, their punishment system; reoffending rate; and education. I argue that their education leads to lower crime/lower reoffending rate - not their more leanient punishments.
And yes, I say that on the whole the human race are still a long way from being totally civilised.

You also say that America are further down the revolutionary chain than us, yet you approve of their punishment system and not intelligent Norway's?

Answer me this; do you think that a maximun sentence of 21 years fits the crime of premeditated murder of 80+ innocent people?

Saudi Arabia also behead homosexuals publicly. I really don't think you should look upto their system. Also, many researchers have stated that the 'official' crime rate is only low due to many instances of crime being 'dealt with' outside the judicial system. I.e: You stole from my shop so I will cut your hands off. Do you look up to this?

The same could be said for the 'official' crime rate in this country where often people don't bother reporting crimes because they have been a victim so many times and nothing has been done about it. Another slewing of the official UK stats comes from the fact that so much crime by repeat offenders goes undetected, ie shoplifting, pickpocketing. In Saudi if someone gets caught steeling they lose a hand. In the UK they're back on the streets again in a few hours and back robbing again. Some UK thieves have hundreds of convictions - I bet there aren't any in Saudi with three.

Of the countries below the UK in homicide rate, only a couple have capital punishment (out of 20+)

Costs fact:



Do you think people should live in fear of a governing body?

No, I think we should all live in fear of reprisals for getting caught for a serious offence. Don't you? Do you honestly believe that being more lenient on criminals could possibly be a greater deterent?

Just wondering, would you consider yourself a racist?

I was going to state that it was nice to have a proper debate without things flaring up, but then I saw this...no, I don't - but you obviously do, so please - tell me how you come to that warped conclusion from anything I've written.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14423760

This guy got six years for 'turning a blind eye' to the abuse which lead to the murder of a todler. Would he have done so if he'd known he could be killed? Maybe, but far less likely.

I remember when someone said to Anne Widecombe that the death penalty didn't reduce the chance of people commiting heinous acts, she said "well, it reduces it by one". It was a joke of course (and quite funny actually), but I do think that's pretty much where its effectiveness begins and ends. I don't think the death penalty would reduce crime on a wider scale.

Someone could just as easily surmise that a death penalty culture can lead to a more bloodthirsty society, not a more beneign or safe one. The kind of people drawn towards commiting heinous acts, doesn't strike me as the type to lend much time to thinking about the consequences of their actions - regardless of possible sentencing. I'd prefer longer sentences and would plough money into making prisons more cost effective. Not so much as a deterrent, just to keep people locked away for longer if they are not deemed capable of achieiving a basic standard of behaviour within society.
 
You've misunderstood my point regarding Norway, their punishment system; reoffending rate; and education. I argue that their education leads to lower crime/lower reoffending rate - not their more leanient punishments.
And yes, I say that on the whole the human race are still a long way from being totally civilised.

Ah I see your view now - that because they are better educated than us, they can have a better prison system, because we are less educated, the punishment our prisoners would truly appreciate is capital?

Answer me this; do you think that a maximun sentence of 21 years fits the crime of premeditated murder of 80+ innocent people?

I think killing the person is letting them off lightly, I would prefer for them to suffer, knowing what they did wrong, have it torment them, rip them up inside for that kind of atrocity. Ian Huntley TRIED to kill himself, he WANTS to die. Why should we give him that pleasure.

The same could be said for the 'official' crime rate in this country where often people don't bother reporting crimes because they have been a victim so many times and nothing has been done about it. Another slewing of the official UK stats comes from the fact that so much crime by repeat offenders goes undetected, ie shoplifting, pickpocketing. In Saudi if someone gets caught steeling they lose a hand. In the UK they're back on the streets again in a few hours and back robbing again. Some UK thieves have hundreds of convictions - I bet there aren't any in Saudi with three.

A fair point, but I think you overlooked my point regarding all the other countries with a lower rate which don't have capital punishment, their are 33 countries with a lower intentional homicide rate than us. Of those 33, the majority are lower intellectually and don't have capital punishment - you can''t use 1 country to back up your point when there are 30 to condemn it.

No, I think we should all live in fear of reprisals for getting caught for a serious offence. Don't you? Do you honestly believe that being more lenient on criminals could possibly be a greater deterent?

Yes, I think we should be scared to commit a crime, but I don't think that we should be terrified that an officer might possibly think we committed a crime we didn't and have our hands chopped off. Like with the man who stole bread to feed his starving family, does he really deserve to be mutilated?

I was going to state that it was nice to have a proper debate without things flaring up, but then I saw this...no, I don't - but you obviously do, so please - tell me how you come to that warped conclusion from anything I've written.

Warped conclusion? You pretty much called Americans apes. I too am enjoying our debate.

Their further down the evolutionary chain than we are.

I dislike the fact that you pick and choose which of my points to answer - whereas I quote and reply to your whole message.

Could it possibly be you don't have a counter argument and that you could in fact be wrong?

Here's a quote from a survivor of the recent Norway attack, Helene Bøtei, whose mother was one of the first killed said during her speech in Norway.

"Instead of hating the terrorist, show compassion and love to the people who are close to you."
 
I think killing the person is letting them off lightly, I would prefer for them to suffer, knowing what they did wrong, have it torment them, rip them up inside for that kind of atrocity. Ian Huntley TRIED to kill himself, he WANTS to die. Why should we give him that pleasure.

Pleasure? We should let him do it.

A fair point, but I think you overlooked my point regarding all the other countries with a lower rate which don't have capital punishment, their are 33 countries with a lower intentional homicide rate than us. Of those 33, the majority are lower intellectually and don't have capital punishment - you can''t use 1 country to back up your point when there are 30 to condemn it.

Can you name some of those countries please, or at least link to where you've drawn that information from?

Yes, I think we should be scared to commit a crime, but I don't think that we should be terrified that an officer might possibly think we committed a crime we didn't and have our hands chopped off. Like with the man who stole bread to feed his starving family, does he really deserve to be mutilated?

Now you're just inventing scenarios to back up you view. I certainly didn't say that police officers should be judge and jury.

Warped conclusion? You pretty much called Americans apes. I too am enjoying our debate.

For the record, those are your words, not mine. You've taken what I said and drawn your own extended conclusion.


I dislike the fact that you pick and choose which of my points to answer - whereas I quote and reply to your whole message.

Could it possibly be you don't have a counter argument and that you could in fact be wrong?

Nope.

Here's a quote from a survivor of the recent Norway attack, Helene Bøtei, whose mother was one of the first killed said during her speech in Norway.

"Instead of hating the terrorist, show compassion and love to the people who are close to you."

I agree with her. Hate only hurts the hater, not the target of that hate. Whilst she offers insight on how to deal emotionally with what has gone on, there is no mention there on how she would like the killer to be punished...those are two seperate issues; can you see that?
 
Pleasure? We should let him do it.

So give him what he wants, not let him experience his wrong doing and set it as an example for others?

Can you name some of those countries please, or at least link to where you've drawn that information from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Now you're just inventing scenarios to back up you view. I certainly didn't say that police officers should be judge and jury.

Thats not what I was suggesting - I was pointing out that innocent people could be victims of capital punishment and any physical punishment - It can't be undone. You could end up with people who were innocent mutilated for the rest of their lives.

For the record, those are your words, not mine. You've taken what I said and drawn your own extended conclusion.

Here is an exact quote from you: "Their further down the evolutionary chain than we are"

Nope. [In reference to not having a counter argument]

Good, so answer all my points, when I raise them. Not ignore them because you can't answer them.

I agree with her. Hate only hurts the hater, not the target of that hate. Whilst she offers insight on how to deal emotionally with what has gone on, there is no mention there on how she would like the killer to be punished...those are two seperate issues; can you see that?

No, they aren't separate. She is telling us that we shouldn't want to exact vengeance on the killer by killing him. Your response is an understandably emotional response - You mention Ian Huntley whose actions received a lot of publicity. However there have been lots of emotion based murders. You ARE hating on the murderer by wishing them death.

Capital punishment does not work, this is proved by statistics and by history. I don't quite know why you wont accept the facts, but this argument is going nowhere. Perhaps your have been blinkered by some newspaper, maybe even personal tragedy. (and if that's the case, I'm sorry)
 
So give him what he wants, not let him experience his wrong doing and set it as an example for others?

Not as good an example as if he'd been killed.



Haven't had time to look through yet - will later.


Thats not what I was suggesting - I was pointing out that innocent people could be victims of capital punishment and any physical punishment - It can't be undone. You could end up with people who were innocent mutilated for the rest of their lives.

You could end up with innocent people spending a long time in prison, which by your rationale, would be a harsher sentence; you ok with that?

Here is an exact quote from you: "Their further down the evolutionary chain than we are"

Well like I said, you've drawn your own extended conclusion...by deciding to miss out many stages of evolution to try and infer something that wasn't there.

BTW, had to go back and check...'their' instead of 'they're', ouch...should check before I hit the submit button.

Good, so answer all my points, when I raise them. Not ignore them because you can't answer them.

Not all points merit a response. Those that do will get one.

No, they aren't separate. She is telling us that we shouldn't want to exact vengeance on the killer by killing him.

You're applying your imagination to try and use her words to support your view. She doesn't mention vengence or punishments, only hate, which is an emotion and has nothing to do with justice. A jury isn't asked if they hate a defendant, they're asked to deliver an unemotional verdict of guilt or innocence. That's how our justice system works.

Your response is an understandably emotional response - You mention Ian Huntley whose actions received a lot of publicity. However there have been lots of emotion based murders. You ARE hating on the murderer by wishing them death.

Totally incorrect. In fact it is you who has displayed more emotion in this thread, not I.
Proof?
To quote you:
I think killing the person is letting them off lightly, I would prefer for them to suffer, knowing what they did wrong, have it torment them, rip them up inside for that kind of atrocity.

I see you're stuggling with this; you need to seperate this talk of hatred, from a desire to see true justice metered out on behalf of the victims, and in the interests of providing a proper deterent.

Wishing someone be killed as a fitting response to the evil they have commited has nothing to do with hatred. It is very difficult to genuinely hate someone you have never met.

Capital punishment does not work, this is proved by statistics and by history. I don't quite know why you wont accept the facts, but this argument is going nowhere. Perhaps your have been blinkered by some newspaper, maybe even personal tragedy. (and if that's the case, I'm sorry)

Who's not accepting the facts? Were there more UK murders and cases of paedophilia this past decade or during the last decade that we had capital punishment?

If you say no, you're in denial. If you say yes, then your whole argument has been based on cherry-picking information from different societies to support the fact you're in denial.

Either way....guess what?

..............

I'm guessing from your stance on this topic that you're quite young and idealistic? No children? If you have children, the thing you want more than anything is for them to be safe - that's a parents number one job. Having kids changes your view of the world, from idealistic, to realistic. You see things how they are, not necessarily as you would like them to be, and we can only deal with what is real.
 
Last edited:
Not as good an example as if he'd been killed.

I have already stated, but will repeat - There is absolutely NO proof capital punishment works as a deterrent.

You could end up with innocent people spending a long time in prison, which by your rationale, would be a harsher sentence; you ok with that?

Not if they knew they were innocent - its a harsh sentence because they will come to hate themselves. The longer time is spent in prison instead of executing the more likely it is an innocent will have a successful appeal.

Well like I said, you've drawn your own extended conclusion...by deciding to miss out many stages of evolution to try and infer something that wasn't there.

Perhaps 'less developed' would have been a better word than 'less evolved'? I would dispute that too, but I think thats what you mean too say, and presumably only some areas?

BTW, had to go back and check...'their' instead of 'they're', ouch...should check before I hit the submit button.

Yeah I didn't wanna be a dick about that ;)

Not all points merit a response. Those that do will get one.

By overlooking my point about the statistics before you looked like you didn't have an answer, perhaps once you look over the tables you will do :)

You're applying your imagination to try and use her words to support your view. She doesn't mention vengence or punishments, only hate, which is an emotion and has nothing to do with justice. A jury isn't asked if they hate a defendant, they're asked to deliver an unemotional verdict of guilt or innocence. That's how our justice system works.

Correct, and its brilliant in that its a punishment based on the brain, not the heart. Capital punishment is vengeance, it is stemmed from hate. An eye for an eye, you murder so you will be murdered.

Who's not accepting the facts? Were there more UK murders and cases of paedophilia this past decade or during the last decade that we had capital punishment?

Recorded cases. Maybe our police system has actually improved? Which is a FAR better deterrent.

Criminals are far more deterred by a higher chance of being caught, than the punishment if they are - everyone thinks they will get away with it.

If you say no, you're in denial. If you say yes, then your whole argument has been based on cherry-picking information from different societies to support the fact you're in denial.

I'm guessing from your stance on this topic that you're quite young and idealistic? No children? If you have children, the thing you want more than anything is for them to be safe - that's a parents number one job. Having kids changes your view of the world, from idealistic, to realistic. You see things how they are, not necessarily as you would like them to be, and we can only deal with what is real.

Right so I have no place in this argument because I dont have kids, sure. Well done on picking out that card, I was waiting on it.

My view of the world isn't idealistic, as much as I would like it to be, I have seen death and it's not a pretty sight, I have read about it, I have viewed videos, pictures, even witnessed it. No, my view is not a pretty little ideal where everyone holds hands.

Anyway, in summary:

Capital punishment does not work as a deterrent.
Capital punishment is an act of vengeance and is driven by emotion.
Capital punishment kills innocent people
Lifetime imprisonment is a better way of preventing re-offence, it is cheaper and would not kill innocents.
Capital punishment does not provide closure for the family, one murder does not fix another.
Capital Punishment is incredibly expensive.

Now I am backing out of this argument before you talk down to me some more.
 
I have already stated, but will repeat - There is absolutely NO proof capital punishment works as a deterrent.

Of course there is. More evil crimes now than when we had it. Is it because that is so obvious that some people discard it?

Not if they knew they were innocent - its a harsh sentence because they will come to hate themselves. The longer time is spent in prison instead of executing the more likely it is an innocent will have a successful appeal.

'Not if they knew they were innocent'? I don't get that; who?

Perhaps 'less developed' would have been a better word than 'less evolved'? I would dispute that too, but I think thats what you mean too say, and presumably only some areas?

Evolved; developed - you're splitting hairs. On top of that, the above along with this line; 'Good, so answer all my points, when I raise them. Not ignore them because you can't answer them.' Who's trying to talk down to whom?


Yeah I didn't wanna be a dick about that ;)

Cool!


By overlooking my point about the statistics before you looked like you didn't have an answer, perhaps once you look over the tables you will do :)

Perhaps. But then again, what works here won't work in many other countries anyway, and vice versa.


Correct, and its brilliant in that its a punishment based on the brain, not the heart. Capital punishment is vengeance, it is stemmed from hate. An eye for an eye, you murder so you will be murdered.

This is where you're having trouble. Can you not grasp that deciding on a punishment is not an emotional act? It really isn't. What can be fairer than an eye for an eye?

A capital punishment is no more emotional than any other.


Recorded cases. Maybe our police system has actually improved? Which is a FAR better deterrent.

Criminals are far more deterred by a higher chance of being caught, than the punishment if they are - everyone thinks they will get away with it.

Some common ground - agreed. But it stands to reason that the harsher someone views the punishment, the less likely they will be to try and get away with something.


Right so I have no place in this argument because I dont have kids, sure. Well done on picking out that card, I was waiting on it.

How could you be waiting on it? I don't know you; don't know if you've got no kids or are married to the old woman who lived in a shoe...it's just that your stance is that of someone who looks at things from a way I recognised from when I was younger.


My view of the world isn't idealistic, as much as I would like it to be, I have seen death and it's not a pretty sight, I have read about it, I have viewed videos, pictures, even witnessed it. No, my view is not a pretty little ideal where everyone holds hands.

I beg to differ. Because something gets results in one country, doesn't mean it will get the same results with a different culture. Can you ever recall Swiss football fans trying to kick the crap out of the opposing fans?
You can say the same for my pointing to Saudi etc - but we are talking about the UK, and we have more terrible crimes now than when we had capital punishment. FACT. UNDISPUTABLE.


Anyway, in summary:

Capital punishment does not work as a deterrent.

Facts and figure say you're wrong.


Capital punishment is an act of vengeance and is driven by emotion.

Wrong. It is simply a form of punishment - same as any other.


Capital punishment kills innocent people

There is that chance. But as a proven deterent, far fewer innocent people would die as a result of having it, than not having it.


Lifetime imprisonment is a better way of preventing re-offence, it is cheaper and would not kill innocents.

It is a fact that dead criminals have a 100% record of not reoffending.


Capital punishment does not provide closure for the family, one murder does not fix another.

Many things help provide closure. I doubt you can find any figures to back up your claim.


Capital Punishment is incredibly expensive.

Needn't be.


Now I am backing out of this argument before you talk down to me some more.

See the above. Pot calling the kettle black.
 
Last edited:
Of course there is. More evil crimes now than when we had it. Is it because that is so obvious that some people discard it?

Again, recorded, police system has improved. More crimes being reported != more crimes, nor does that directly correlate to capital punishment whatsoever.

'Not if they knew they were innocent'? I don't get that; who?

Re-read the post.

Evolved; developed - you're splitting hairs. On top of that, the above along with this line; 'Good, so answer all my points, when I raise them. Not ignore them because you can't answer them.' Who's trying to talk down to whom?

I am trying to have a proper debate, not spout facts without backing them up or ignoring your points because I don't have an answer.

This is where you're having trouble. Can you not grasp that deciding on a punishment is not an emotional act? It really isn't. What can be fairer than an eye for an eye?

A capital punishment is no more emotional than any other.

Capital Punishment is revenge. You kill someone, you get killed. Also called retribution, retaliation, vengeance or "payback"

This is a punitive measure - it is not aimed to improve the human condition, it is merely aimed to kill another human being.

How can you teach that killing is wrong by killing?

Most people I have spoken to choose to support capital punishment because of an emotional response evoked by the criminals actions, for example - who wouldn't be enraged by a person who kills children. That is why I see it and it's support as highly emotionally based. Its people using their heart, not their head.

I prefer to use my head and look at all the options and in my conclusion, life imprisonment is far superior to capital punishment.

Some common ground - agreed. But it stands to reason that the harsher someone views the punishment, the less likely they will be to try and get away with something.

It stands to reason, but that doesn't make it true, there is no evidence supporting that the death penalty is a larger deterrent than lifetime imprisonment. There is also no evidence supporting that lifetime imprisonment is a higher deterrent than the death penalty.

How could you be waiting on it? I don't know you; don't know if you've got no kids or are married to the old woman who lived in a shoe...it's just that your stance is that of someone who looks at things from a way I recognised from when I was younger.

Its something you come to expect - I am also pretty public about my age on this forum. Anyway, lets just stick to the debate at hand.

We are talking about the UK, and we have more terrible crimes now than when we had capital punishment. FACT. UNDISPUTABLE.

Crime rate has raised at a constant since before and after capital punishment was abolished. There is no correlation between capital punishment abolition and increased crime.

There is that chance. But as a proven deterent, far fewer innocent people would die as a result of having it, than not having it.

Again, no evidence of it as a deterrent, please actually stick to fact.

Needn't be.

Without the 'death row' and appeal process, far more executions of innocents would happen.

Im growing tired of you spouting crap like 'capital punishment is a proven deterrent' there is no scientific proof of this whatsoever, nor is there proof that it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Here:

Deterrence
The existence of a deterrence effect is disputed. Studies differ as to whether executions deter other potential criminals from committing murder or other crimes.
One reason that there is no consensus on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent is that it is used so rarely - only about one out of every 300 murders actually results in an execution. In 2005 in the Stanford Law Review, John J. Donohue III, a law professor at Yale with a doctorate in economics, and Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote that the death penalty "... is applied so rarely that the number of homicides it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot reliably be disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors... The existing evidence for deterrence... is surprisingly fragile." Wolfers stated, "If I was allowed 1,000 executions and 1,000 exonerations, and I was allowed to do it in a random, focused way, I could probably give you an answer."
Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University, authored a study that looked at all 3,054 U.S. counties over two decades, and concluded that each execution saved five lives. Mocan stated, "I personally am opposed to the death penalty... But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect."
Joanna M. Shepherd, a law professor at Emory with a doctorate in economics who was involved in several studies on the death penalty, stated, "I am definitely against the death penalty on lots of different grounds... But I do believe that people respond to incentives." Shepherd found that the death penalty had a deterrent effect only in those states that executed at least nine people between 1977 and 1996. In the Michigan Law Review in 2005, Shepherd wrote, "Deterrence cannot be achieved with a half-hearted execution program."
The question of whether or not the death penalty deters murder usually revolves around the statistical analysis. Studies have produced disputed results with disputed significance.[8] Some studies have shown a positive correlation between the death penalty and murder rates[9] - in other words, they show that where the death penalty applies, murder rates are also high. This correlation can be interpreted in either that the death penalty increases murder rates by brutalizing society, or that higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty. However, supporters and opponents of the various statistical studies, on both sides of the issue, argue that correlation does not imply causation.
In recent years, a number of new studies have been published, mostly by economists, that statistically demonstrate a deterrent effect of the death penalty.[10] However, critics claim severe methodological flaws in these studies and hold that the empirical data offer no basis for sound statistical conclusions about the deterrent effect.[11]
Surveys and polls conducted in the last 15 years show that some police chiefs and others involved in law enforcement may not believe that the death penalty has any deterrent effect on individuals who commit violent crimes. In a 1995 poll of randomly selected police chiefs from across the U.S., the officers rank the death penalty last as a way of deterring or preventing violent crimes. They ranked it behind many other forms of crime control including reducing drug abuse and use, lowering technical barriers when prosecuting, putting more officers on the streets,and making prison sentences longer. They responded that a better economy with more jobs would lessen crime rates more than the death penalty (Deiter 23). In fact, only one percent of the police chiefs surveyed thought that the death penalty was the primary focus for reducing crime (Deiter 25).
However, the police chiefs surveyed were more likely to favor capital punishment than the general population.
Deiter, Richard. “The Death Penalty is not an Effective Law Enforcement Tool.” Ed. Stephen E. Schonebaum. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1998
In addition to statistical evidence, psychological studies examine whether murderers think about the consequences of their actions before they commit a crime. Most homicides are spur-of-the-moment, spontaneous, emotionally impulsive acts. Murderers do not weigh their options very carefully in this type of setting (Jackson 27). It is very doubtful that killers give much thought to punishment before they kill (Ross 41).
But some says the death penalty must enforce even if the detterent effect is unsure, like John McAdams who teach political science in Marquette university : " If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call. "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Rule #1

Do not insult any other member. Be polite and do business. Thank you!

Members online

Premium Members

Acorn Domains Merch
MariaBuy Marketplace

New Threads

Our Mods' Businesses

Laskos
*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • D AcornBot:
    DarkSky has left the room.
  • ukbackorder AcornBot:
    ukbackorder has left the room.
  • T AcornBot:
    ttek has left the room.
  • Admin @ Admin:
    Hello. So, do anyone happen to know anything about Whois and how it can be accessed?
  • BrandFlu AcornBot:
    BrandFlu has joined the room.
  • BrandFlu AcornBot:
    BrandFlu has left the room.
  • Helmuts @ Helmuts:
    Admin said:
    Hello. So, do anyone happen to know anything about Whois and how it can be accessed?
    ;) you are leaking info ;) :D :D
    • Funny
    Reactions: Admin
  • D AcornBot:
    Darren has left the room.
      D AcornBot: Darren has left the room.
      Top Bottom