Every study that has examined the “deterrent effect” has found that yes, knowing that you could be executed for a crime deters people. The number of murders prevented varies from 3-18, depending on the study.

I am pro death penalty, in the case of certain crimes. However, I think that the finality of the punishment demands that the state use every tool available - including DNA. Every state I know now uses it, and it has freed several people. On the other hand, I think the appeal process is overly long. I think the courts owe it to everybody involved to make these cases a priority and shorten the wait.

Right now, it seems the anti death penalty people are focusing on the method of execution as “cruel and inhumane”. I agree that the current drug cocktail is less than ideal. Personally, I am surprised they don’t just use pure CO2. The killer would just get “sleepy”, pass out and die from oxygen deprivation - completely painless. Death by green house gas - now there’s an irony.

Does the death penalty deter crime?

Let’s see–our prisons are busting at the seams. So, I would say “NO”.

To suzyjax…. Lets see the prisons are busting at the seems… Yeah they are but most of those losers are not eligible for the death penalty. I say put them all to death and quit taking my hard earned money in the form of taxes to support these low life losers!

Wow, it only took one post to stray from the actual question…what a surprise.

The death penalty deters crime, but probably not in the most violent segments of society, which is the segment that needs deterring the most…

One thing for sure–the person being executed will never commit another crime! But as a deterrent in the first place? I’m thinking not. Plain fact of the matter is that nobody committing a crime expects to get caught. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what the penalty is.

On a personal level, I’ve struggled with the death penalty concept for many years. Yes, I will admit that sometimes an innocent party is convicted of a crime they didn’t do and are executed for such. You can always release an incarcerated person if later evidence shows he’s not guilty but you can’t bring him back from the dead. But on the other hand, I also feel that we as a society have to make a statement that some deeds are so heinous we cannot tolerate the perpetrator within our society. In some older primitive cultures a man would just be declared dead and the tribe would no longer have anything to do with him. Alone, with wild animals and enemies galore, to say nothing of the difficulty of providing food and shelter for oneself, banishment was in effect a death penalty. Unfortunately, we can’t use banishment anymore because there’s nowhere remote enough to stick someone.

I don’t think the death penalty deters crime very much. For example, if it was a capital offense act like a Republican, do you think those offenders would reform their ways and start acting like civilized and responsible people? Nope……

I used to believe in the death penalty, but there are too many cases being overturned by DNA evidence nowadays. In our current system it is more expensive for the state to execute someone then keep ‘em locked up for the remaineder of their lives. Personally, I would prefer a quick death penalty rather than serve life w/o possibility of parole if I was convicted of a capital case.

re suzy (2) Our prisons are “busting at the seams” because we have locked up 1.2 million drug users and distributors in the Republican War On Drugs. In fact, right-wing conservatives would rather parole actual criminals (even serial rapists) in order to make room for victimless crime offenders.

Statistically, best we can tell - at least as it is applied now - no, the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime. What is unfortunately purely conjecture is whether or not it would be if those who commit murder knew that they would without fail be executed within a year of their capture. As it stands today, a person will not be convicted for probably a year, then will live on Death Row for a minimum of 10 years even if your lawyer can’t cut you a deal, (or you’re a monster like Timothy McVeigh), and even then, there’s a good chance that the sentence will be commuted to life in prison.

OK, not the question, but I think the death penalty should be halted in this country until it can be guaranteed that it is not being reserved exclusively for blacks, other minorities, and the poor who cannot afford decent legal representation. And as long as there is even a one percent chance that the condemned is innocent, we should never allow capital punishment.

If the death penalty is an effective deterrent, then it must be equally true that those on death row also pondered the death penalty prior to committing their crimes and thought it was worth it. Let’s ask them.

“Does the death penalty deter violent crime? Or does killing a convicted murderer serve the sole purpose of revenge for the victim’s famly?”

Why do you guys always pose questions as though they are necessarily mutually exclusive?

Sincerely,

If a crook is dead, he or she can’t commit anymore crimes. That’s probably the only real deterrent. One wonders if anyone that is stupid or desperate enough to commit a capital crime thinks much about consequences before they act but how could anybody say for sure? People keep doing horrible things in spite of all deterrents.

Of course, if he or she was innocent in the first place, two crimes were committed; an innocent person was arrested, tried and convicted on false evidence and secondly, said innocent person was killed as a result. The law would work much better if the judges, prosecutors or cops responsible for the wrong person being executed were executed for doing it. In other words, if we’re going to execute criminals, let’s be absolutely sure they are. Anyone that thinks some cops don’t manufacture evidence on occasion is living in la la land. I’ve known several of them that would have done it in a hearbeat.