Death penalty

“The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990.”
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
So much for The death penalty being a deterrent.
LL

Death penalty proponents are oblivious to facts, their thinking is limited to what makes them feel good. Still, it is good to see yet another study showing the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.

The main problem is that the death penalty as it’s implemented currently is not a deterrent and that’s why crime doesn’t go down. If the judicial process was quick, and the tests for culpability near 100% accurate, the stats would be much different. In other words, if some guy is considering murdering someone, and he knows that there’s an extremely high chance he’ll get caught, prosecuted, and put to death within a month, without ten years of 3 square meals a day, a workout gym, etc. I think he’d think twice about pulling the trigger. As it stands, my guess is, he’d think it’s extremely likely he’ll be able to game the system to his advantage.

The main problem is that the death penalty as it's implemented currently is not a deterrent and that's why crime doesn't go down. If the judicial process was quick, and the tests for culpability near 100% accurate, the stats would be much different. In other words, if some guy is considering murdering someone, and he knows that there's an extremely high chance he'll get caught, prosecuted, and put to death within a month, without ten years of 3 square meals a day, a workout gym, etc. I think he'd think twice about pulling the trigger. As it stands, my guess is, he'd think it's extremely likely he'll be able to game the system to his advantage.
It doesn't work that way. When people were guillotined in France in the 1700s for such things as picking pockets,t he crowds watching the beheadings were filled with pickpockets. It was the same in England when they were hanging people for similar crimes. "Justice" was swift, too. When they're committing a murder, most murderers are notthinking of getting caught. Do you really think they calculate how long it will take to actually be put to death? You are letting your desire for revenge run away with you and you apparently have no respect for due process and making surre the convicted person is actually guilty. Plenty of people on death row have been found not guilty through DNA. If they'd been executed as you suggest, there would be many innocent people executed. Would that be ok with you? Imagine yourself convicted of a capital crime you did not commit--or a loved one. Lois

The death penalty is not implemented as a deterrent to crime. It is implemented by a society that feels it is the appropriate response to certain violent crimes. They see it as a just policy.

It’s a false correlation. The states with lower murder rates aren’t that way because they’ve banned the death penalty, it’s because those states have less violent populations.

The death penalty is not implemented as a deterrent to crime. It is implemented by a society that feels it is the appropriate response to certain violent crimes. They see it as a just policy.
This is correct.
The death penalty is not implemented as a deterrent to crime. It is implemented by a society that feels it is the appropriate response to certain violent crimes. They see it as a just policy.
I disagree. They are filled with vengeance. They're out for blood. Not nuch different than murderers themselves. Lois
It's a false correlation. The states with lower murder rates aren't that way because they've banned the death penalty, it's because those states have less violent populations.
Gee, what a neat coincidence! Lois
The death penalty is not implemented as a deterrent to crime. It is implemented by a society that feels it is the appropriate response to certain violent crimes. They see it as a just policy.
This is correct. Of course they do, just as some Muslim countries see beheadings and stoning as just policies. I guess that justofies it. Lois
The death penalty is not implemented as a deterrent to crime. It is implemented by a society that feels it is the appropriate response to certain violent crimes. They see it as a just policy.
This is correct. Of course they do, just as some Muslim countries see beheadings and stoning as just policies. I guess that justofies it. LoisIt does. Unsurprisingly, vengeance is the only universal aspect of justice.
The main problem is that the death penalty as it's implemented currently is not a deterrent and that's why crime doesn't go down. If the judicial process was quick, and the tests for culpability near 100% accurate, the stats would be much different. In other words, if some guy is considering murdering someone, and he knows that there's an extremely high chance he'll get caught, prosecuted, and put to death within a month, without ten years of 3 square meals a day, a workout gym, etc. I think he'd think twice about pulling the trigger. As it stands, my guess is, he'd think it's extremely likely he'll be able to game the system to his advantage.
It doesn't work that way. When people were guillotined in France in the 1700s for such things as picking pockets,t he crowds watching the beheadings were filled with pickpockets. It was the same in England when they were hanging people for similar crimes. "Justice" was swift, too. When they're committing a murder, most murderers are notthinking of getting caught. Do you really think they calculate how long it will take to actually be put to death? You are letting your desire for revenge run away with you and you apparently have no respect for due process and making surre the convicted person is actually guilty. Plenty of people on death row have been found not guilty through DNA. If they'd been executed as you suggest, there would be many innocent people executed. Would that be ok with you? Imagine yourself convicted of a capital crime you did not commit--or a loved one. LoisI'll give you that those historical facts (assuming they are) are interesting. And yes, I do think murderers of a certain type, namely ones who kill not in a moment of rage but in a premeditated fashion DO do a calculation of sorts of their odds of getting off scot free. We all make these mental calculations albeit not about murder. And no, I do not have much respect for due process. The same morons who deny climate change, believe in ghosts, pray to gods, think wrestling is real, also participate in juries. And sharp lawyers try to stack the deck in their favor by relying on all kinds of tricks and gimmicks to sway the jury. And honestly, even well-meaning educated people can be tricked or be just not smart enough to accurately judge a case. As for revenge, you betcha there's revenge in mind. A few years ago there was a case in my area where husband and wife had his teenage daughter raped then murdered then the killer taunted the family with the murdered daughters cell phone. And the evidence against him was completely solid since he was stupid enough to leave clothes of his behind. Does that guy deserve to live? Nope. And if you respond with "well rotting in a cage for the rest of his life" is punishment, I'm sure there's revenge behind that belief too. So just be honest.
The main problem is that the death penalty as it's implemented currently is not a deterrent and that's why crime doesn't go down. If the judicial process was quick, and the tests for culpability near 100% accurate, the stats would be much different. In other words, if some guy is considering murdering someone, and he knows that there's an extremely high chance he'll get caught, prosecuted, and put to death within a month, without ten years of 3 square meals a day, a workout gym, etc. I think he'd think twice about pulling the trigger. As it stands, my guess is, he'd think it's extremely likely he'll be able to game the system to his advantage.
It doesn't work that way. When people were guillotined in France in the 1700s for such things as picking pockets,t he crowds watching the beheadings were filled with pickpockets. It was the same in England when they were hanging people for similar crimes. "Justice" was swift, too. When they're committing a murder, most murderers are notthinking of getting caught. Do you really think they calculate how long it will take to actually be put to death? You are letting your desire for revenge run away with you and you apparently have no respect for due process and making surre the convicted person is actually guilty. Plenty of people on death row have been found not guilty through DNA. If they'd been executed as you suggest, there would be many innocent people executed. Would that be ok with you? Imagine yourself convicted of a capital crime you did not commit--or a loved one. LoisI'll give you that those historical facts (assuming they are) are interesting. And yes, I do think murderers of a certain type, namely ones who kill not in a moment of rage but in a premeditated fashion DO do a calculation of sorts of their odds of getting off scot free. We all make these mental calculations albeit not about murder. And no, I do not have much respect for due process. The same morons who deny climate change, believe in ghosts, pray to gods, think wrestling is real, also participate in juries. And sharp lawyers try to stack the deck in their favor by relying on all kinds of tricks and gimmicks to sway the jury. And honestly, even well-meaning educated people can be tricked or be just not smart enough to accurately judge a case. As for revenge, you betcha there's revenge in mind. A few years ago there was a case in my area where husband and wife had his teenage daughter raped then murdered then the killer taunted the family with the murdered daughters cell phone. And the evidence against him was completely solid since he was stupid enough to leave clothes of his behind. Does that guy deserve to live? Nope. And if you respond with "well rotting in a cage for the rest of his life" is punishment, I'm sure there's revenge behind that belief too. So just be honest. The due process that Lois was referring to, was that which takes place after conviction, and is, in part, intended to address the very shortcomings of the jury system, that you complained about. As to the crime you described in your final paragraph, I would say that such a person has demonstrated that they are a danger to society, and needs to be confined. They can be confined humanely (as opposed to "rotting in a cage") without revenge being, in any way, a motive. The motive for such confinement would, simply be, concern for the safety of others.
"The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990." http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates So much for The death penalty being a deterrent. LL
Humanity and what we evolved from before we became human has been killing each other forever and no law has ever slowed it down. I rest my case.

Since the 1970’s, more than 8,500 people have been sentenced to death in the United States (DPIC). Capital punishment being legal in 27 states across the United States, the death penalty is used to execute an offender sentenced to death after they have been convicted of a criminal offense (NCSL). As reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “specific offenses and circumstances that determine if a crime is eligible for a death sentence are defined by statutes and are prescribed by Congress or any state legislature”. The main purpose for the death penalty aims to retribute, incapacitate, rehabilitate, and act as a deterrent.

There are many problems that surround capital punishment laws, one of the most prominent being the conditions that define what constitute the means of death penalty. Many crimes and unlawful acts listed under the U.S. Code are particularly broad and extensive. I propose accurately defining and narrowing down the offenses listed under the U.S. Constitution, Title 18, which legislate the means of death, along with eliminating a few wrong doings that should not require the death penalty, but rather other traditional and established sentencings - such as a life sentence. Examples of offenses listed under the United States Code that require reform are: (1) Carjacking resulting in death; (2) Causing death by using an illegal firearm; (3) First-degree murder within the special territorial and maritime jurisdiction of the United States; (4) Large-scale drug trafficking; and (5) Causing death during a drug-related drive-by shooting (U.S CODE).

This is not an extensive and exhaustive list of wrong doings that require refining and reforming, but serves an example of offenses that are far-reaching and non specific, and should not be depended upon capital punishment. In the examples of offenses listed, drawbacks of these laws result from the fact that it does not distinguish whether the death itself was willful or planned, because it is not stated so by the U.S Code. Another shortcoming to these regulations derive from the board wording, such as “attempt” - which does not require the act of doing, and therefore should not fall under capital punishment. Another disadvantage to these offenses pertains to the issue surrounding illegal firearms. Given how easy it is to obtain these firearms, there needs to be more restrictions and regulations put in place to prevent individuals from acquiring said firearms. Finally, flaws culminate from the connotations behind drug use and addiction. Drug addiction is a mental health issue and needs to be viewed and addressed as one.

Another effect surrounding the problem of the board laws constituting capital punishment is that it risks executing the innocent. While there is no way of knowing for certain how many convicts sentenced to death since the 1970s were innocent, we do know that more than 180 people, with evidence of their innocence, have been released from death row since 1973. (HJS, 1993). This demonstrates the fundamental risk the death penalty maintains in executing the innocent. Geography, poverty, and race all contribute to the decision of who lives or dies. These disparities in the death penalty compromise the righteousness of the criminal justice system as a whole (Equal Justice USA). By refining and reforming the offenses that bring about the death penalty, it restricts the amount of capital punishment sentences and in turn results in additional life sentences, which proves to be more beneficial to all parties involved.

I believe that accurately defining and narrowing down the laws that define what constitute the means of the death penalty, along with eliminating a few penalties that should not require a death sentence, but rather life without parole, is a legitimate solution to the broad laws surrounding the death penalty. Many studies have determined that the death penalty results in no effect on murder rates in the United States, is more expensive than life without parole, and can potentially make dreadful and extreme mistakes by putting innocent lives at risk. This is an argument that makes sense to all sides of the debate - reformation aids in narrowing down those who warrant this justification. There is a lot of work to be done in order to assure that moral certainty of capital punishment is only reserved for the most heinous criminals. By refining and reforming death penalty laws, convictions would become increasingly fair, there would be an evolution of accelerating reliability, and would be cost effective on states parts.