question about death penalty

[kimba1]

it`s said it`s used to deter crime.
but how does it deter if people are willing to pay big bucks to see it.
I forgot the name of one guy who got executed,but folks had a barbecue because of it.
don`t criminals usually think they never get caught so the death penalty is hardly a factor.

[Amianthus]

but how does it deter if people are willing to pay big bucks to see it.

It may not deter someone else, but I can guarantee that once a criminal has been executed, he will commit no further crimes.

[kimba1]

I remember ann richards saying that and i totally agree ,but those are the caught ones

[_JS]

It is not a deterrent, and while the standard reply that the executed criminal will not commit a crime is pithy - it is equally meaningless.

Then again, from a country that has a history of torture, I don't think promoting human life is a high priority.

[BT]

In a cost benefit analysis death is more expensive than a 10 year sentence.

So in that sense the death penalty is a deterrent.

[Xavier_Onassis]

To be a real deterrent, you need to do it as they do in Saudi Arabia: a public beheading within a month of the crime.- But that's cruel.

To kill the guy as painlessly as possible, the traditional Saudi scimitar probably works, but that is unusual.

Shooting from the back at the base of he brain is effective and probably not very painful, but that is hardly sporting, and also unusual.

I think we can lock people up forever pretty effectively, so I'd prefer we do that over any sort of capital punishment.

As we do it here...12 to 20 years between the crime and the execution, it is not any sort of deterrent.

[hnumpah]

To be a real deterrent, you need to do it as they do in Saudi Arabia: a public beheading within a month of the crime.- But that's cruel.

What's cruel about it? Because he gets the chop in public? I don't see that as cruel.

To kill the guy as painlessly as possible, the traditional Saudi scimitar probably works, but that is unusual.

Not in Saudi Arabia, but hey, we could use the guillotine if you're squeamish. Zip, thunk, bumpety bumpety bump...

Shooting from the back at the base of he brain is effective and probably not very painful, but that is hardly sporting, and also unusual.

Well, it's unusual now, but give it time to catch on...

I think we can lock people up forever pretty effectively, so I'd prefer we do that over any sort of capital punishment.

I'm sure you read the news...Seen the stories - several of them - about escapes lately?

As we do it here...12 to 20 years between the crime and the execution, it is not any sort of deterrent.

I agree. That's why I would argue for a maximum of two appeals, one state and one federal, to be completed within a year, with the sentence to be carried out within 30 days of the completion of the last appeal.

[Plane]

It is not a deterrent, and while the standard reply that the executed criminal will not commit a crime is pithy - it is equally meaningless.

Then again, from a country that has a history of torture, I don't think promoting human life is a high priority.

I don't think it is meaningless.

Most of us are not ever going to kill anyone , but the people on death row are mostly high risk for repeat offence.

If someone is a killer he may kill several times a year and killing a guy like that can change the crime rate of a state.

[kimba1]

actually being on deathrow is no garuntee that the guy is guilty
there is a fast track system which kinda blurs serious effert to prove innocence
texas a few years ago executed a teenagers who was found innocent later on
by the confession the guy who did the crime.
but people still find him guilty because confession of a crime is good enough to execute but not good enough to clear somebody.

[_JS]

It is not a deterrent, and while the standard reply that the executed criminal will not commit a crime is pithy - it is equally meaningless.

Then again, from a country that has a history of torture, I don't think promoting human life is a high priority.

I don't think it is meaningless.

Most of us are not ever going to kill anyone , but the people on death row are mostly high risk for repeat offence.

If someone is a killer he may kill several times a year and killing a guy like that can change the crime rate of a state.

There aren't many states in this union that will have a major change in their homicide rate with three or four fewer murders. Would it were true. It is nice to see that your heart is in the right place though. I was concerned about state homicide rates as well.

Besides, do you have a study that defends what you are suggesting? Are detained murderers likely to commit another murder upon release? Mind you we're not talking about committing another crime, even another violent crime, we're talking about another murder. I'm going to have to see the recitivism rates on that one to be convinced.

And what of those who have life sentences and never get back out? Are they likely to be a nuisance to the public? Or "kill several times a year?" I don't think so.

[yellow_crane]

It is not a deterrent, and while the standard reply that the executed criminal will not commit a crime is pithy - it is equally meaningless.

Then again, from a country that has a history of torture, I don't think promoting human life is a high priority.

I don't think it is meaningless.

Most of us are not ever going to kill anyone , but the people on death row are mostly high risk for repeat offence.

If someone is a killer he may kill several times a year and killing a guy like that can change the crime rate of a state.

As the wheel turns, every once in a while, completely innocent people are fried.

This more than any other argument will put executions on stay.

It boils down to this:

You (hypothetical) think a killer should be executed, no matter what.

A person is executed, and later proved innocent.

What about his life? 

What about his killer (you)?

(Or do you think you should be able to just shrink into the crowd, after advocating and helping to convince the powers to execute him?)   

The Christian application does not clear things up:  Jesus might say to execute no one, but his Pappy said to throw them off cliffs by the bushels full, innocent sminnocent.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There are two issues involved with the death penalty. One is the fact that it is fairly easy to get some people to confess to anything, including murder, despite their innocence. And there is also the fact that eyewitnesses are often very inaccurate. There is a skit used by some law schools where a fake murder is carried out during an assembly of future lawyers. One guy goes running down the aisle screaming, and another chases him and shoots him with a gun. Then the students are asked for as thorough a description of the action as gthey can write. Only a small percentage can pick the 'murderer' out of a line up, and many confuse the victim with the shooter.

The other issue is competence of the executioners, if the death penalty is used. The other is the incompetence of the jailers, who lose a few prisoners, even murderers, to escape.

Of course, we all wanted the guy in the Shawshank Redemption to get out, didn't we? If Maine were a capital punishment state, he wouldn't have had a chance to bust out of Shawshank.

So if we must have a death penalty, it needs to be accurate and swift, or not at all.

If we put murderers away for life, then we need better prisons and guards.


I think a guillotine would be preferable to a scimitar, but since even France has abandoned it as inhumane, it would be accused of being far too unusual. I think public beheadings are rather barbaric regardless of tactical

[kimba1]

the whole deal with public executions is flawed
way way too many people want to see it and the wrong people are watching it.
it`s just entertainment .
it`s makes enjoying to see somebody die acceptable.
that`s all it does
I have doubt this kinda behavior is harmless to a society.
if we think porn is harmful
how can we not think this isn`t

[hnumpah]

the whole deal with public executions is flawed...it`s makes enjoying to see somebody die acceptable...I have doubt this kinda behavior is harmless to a society. if we think porn is harmful how can we not think this isn`t

I saw a coupla executions in Saudi Arabia when I was there. They didn't make me want to run right out and kill somebody any more than watching porn ever made me want to run right out and rape somebody.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The point I was trying to make is that watching a state execution is more likely to be a DETERRENT to murder.
I doubt that the Saudis actually keep records of the murder rate, so this is simply speculation.
However, it seems to me that executing the guilty party immediately after the murder should logically be more of a deterrent than executing them 20 years after the murder they committed.

I don't think the death penalty is proper for any modern society, as it doesn't seem to be a deterrent as practiced. States that have no death penalty have lower murder rates than states that do, on average.