Death Penalty Deterrence

You can support or oppose the death penalty, but not for this reason.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Death
• Penalty
• Deterrent
• eye
• for
• an
• joe
• felice

[garland531]

In 2010, 58 countries had the death penalty. The. U.S. had the FIFTH highest execution rate, 52 people. I am completely against the death penalty, but even if you are for it, is it possible for 52 people to do something so terrible that they no longer have the right to exist?!

[garland531]

@fullclip16117 you have a very good point. The act of killing someone BECAUSE they killed someone is terrible and heartless. The people who believe in an eye for an eye have probably never really looked into it. We need more people like you in the world. I hope you are/will become involved in an organization to abolish the death penalty.

[TeslaDRay]

@CMichaelH

i agree with joe. i believe in an eye for an eye (only with proof, dna if need be and if there is no true insanity) but i generally support the death penalty, not as deterance, but rather individual case. if someone, knowingly goes and massacre's people, then should he be brought to justice, he should be killed. i don't celebrate anyone dying, but it is justice, in my view anyway. drugs or other things should not be punishable by death.

[urnot4me69]

Touchy subject, but here's my opinion- Taking someones life can't be undone. That person ceases to exist and you have shortened their time on earth, effectively taking control of their fate. Not to mention the other lives it impacts stemming from the victim. If you kill someone, you should be killed as well. Not for the sake of deterring future crimes, but because it's just the right thing to do. If the person you killed can't go on living their life, you shouldn't be able to either.

[tripleJ1955]

Too many murderers have either escaped from custody or been paroled and went on to muder again, not to mention the murders of inmates by inmates while in prison. These examples may not be what you had in mind, but execution deters these people from committing any further crimes and is 100% effective in this context.

[drummingdude2007]

maybe if we tortured the criminals instead of just killing them. that would scare criminals more than death. especially if they're religious. but then again, we'd be opening a whole big can of worms. we misewell just have gladiators again

[babybluecebu]

I agree to some extent, however, if the deterrence argument is used only to extend the death penalty sentence as far as they would morally support, then it would not alter the original end result. For example, if a murderer is on trial and some people think he should be executed, they may use deterrance as a means of propelling the argument forward. But I don't think that it would go so far as to change who they think should be put to death, and make that the sole reason they are executed.

[bexter2001]

Hmmm. Doesn't the whole concept of society rest on individuals and minorities having to make sacrifices for the common good? And doesn't that sometimes have to go so far as dying? Nowhere apart from death penalty deterrence is this idea so baldly stated, but it's still true.

I do think that the direct act of taking someone's life for the benefit of society is too extreme and dehumanising for us gentle modernfolk, but I wouldn't call it 'evil'. Just out of date.

[30Galleons]

The death penalty should be reserved for serious and dangerous repeat offenders and for those whose crimes are so abhorrent that they cannot be forgiven. It should not be used as a deterent or even as a punishment, but simply to erase these individuals.

[Dani9901]

The death penalty does NOT deter future crime, however, i do believe society has an obligation to place value on a victim's life by sentencing his or her murderer to death. The death penalty should be restricted to the worst of the worst in society.