In jurisdictions that maintain capital punishment are the rates of aggravated murder and felony murder lower than in jurisdictions where capital punishment has been banned?
Probably not. Criminals always believe they can escape prosecution otherwise there wouldn't be any crime. One thing the death penalty does prevent is, a repeat offense.
Does a life sentence with no possibility of parole not achieve the same?
Not really considering the could escape and do more damage. The possibility is there and cannot be denied.
I agree, it is a possibility. So does the risk of escape and repeat offence outweigh the risk of wrongful conviction and execution? Which is easier to achieve, ensuring convicts in maximum security prisons don't escape, or ensuring 100% accuracy in the court system?
Neither are reasonably achievable. So, that would tell you that the application of the death penalty should change.
I can't find any evidence of a category A prisoner escaping in the UK. Those especially murderers tend to be rather well guarded.
Technically, in the UK at least, or at least when I was a Probation officer many moons ago....I'm getting there, a category A prisoner was one convicted of serious offences and there was a reasonably high risk of them re-offending. However, many prisoners who have not committed serious offences, such as prolific shoplifters for example, will often find themselves in category A high security institutions, thereby caretorized as a cat A prisoner. On the other hand, prisoners who have committed very serious offences can, after a period of time earn category D status and find themselves in an open prison. So, it's all just BS really. IMO
Thank you Hollie. Much appreciated and works in my advantage with regards to the application of the death penalty. I realize that it's not used in many countries, but in this particular situation, I'm referencing America's inability to deal with criminals in a positive manner and protect the public from the most serious ones.
If you're interested, I wrote two different hubs on the topic. Both have been labeled funny, because of the solution and application, for which, I'm to understand it should be used.
The Death Penalty has never been used as a deterrent for committing murders and it shouldn't be used in that manner. Just because one person kills one person isn't a good enough excuse for using the death penalty and it's obvious that it's never stopped anyone from committing a murder. And, on that note, I'll leave it there, otherwise, what's in the hub will be written here and I didn't publish the hubs for nothing. Not to be rude or anything, but it seems meaningless to get into further explanation, when I've already written the hubs.
But one could say in the case of a serious offender reclassified as Cat D that prison has worked for them?
Prison can eventually break a man John, not necessarily help them reform (They don't really invest in offenders so little is done with regards to changing behavior.) I agree though that an open prison can help a prisoner better able to cope with life on the outside and makes reintegration much easier.
Aye, I don't really know were that bit of silliness came from. I'm probably having another fantasy fit!
Still,my basic point was that I can't off hand think of any high profile murderers who've managed to escape and kill again. Being accidentally released by Group 4 doesn't count as an escape.
Not a fantasy fit, a legitimate question. And, having worked in a double cat A, high security estate, you know the infamous one on Southall street. An escapee would have to be able to get over a wall of approximately 200 feet and full of barbed wire, outrun a pack of blood hungry alsations, and grapple with dozens of gym going, macho prison officers who are not adverse to a spot of violence. In addition to having a getaway car outside and all of which would be on CCTV. Has it ever happened? Not to my knowledge.
The death penalty also prevents the restoration of justice when someone is wrongly executed
Is that a reasonable question to ask? I assume you are trying to establish a causal relationship, but are there other attributes of those jurisdictions that might cause the same result?
Or should you be asking is there anywhere that the death penalty has been applied that has seen a repeat offense?
Yes I think there are other variables that would affect murder rates, and of course correlation is not causation. So it's likely that statistics alone are not a reliable indicator of the effectiveness of capital punishment as a crime reduction method. What other factors could be looked at?
Regarding repeat offences, does a life sentence without parole not achieve the same thing?
It could. If the inmate does not escape, is actually never paroled or forgiven his crimes and does not manage to hire someone outside the prison to do the wet work for him.
The death penalty, on the other hand, produces none of these (slim) possibilities.
So it's a choice between reducing and eliminating those slim possibilities, or ensuring the justice system is 100% correct 100% of the time. Which might be easier to achieve?
It being that perfection is not possible for humanity, it would seem that the only choice is eliminating those slim possibilities.
I may be weird and different, but my own personal choice of dying or living a life behind bars without any chance of freedom would be death. A few years is one thing, the rest of my life is quite another.
I agree, the justice system can't be 100% correct 100% of the time, which leaves the possibility that wrongful executions will happen in the future. Is this an acceptable price to pay for eliminating the slim possibility of a prisoner escaping? Could the possibility of escape be reduced to something negligible without relying on execution?
There are certainly others like yourself who'd prefer death to life imprisonment. In that case isn't a life sentence more of a punishment than a death sentence? And doesn't it also eliminate the possibility of future wrongful executions?
Again, that depends on the application of said sentence, doesn't it?
At the risk of becoming boring, I repeat that several British mass murderers have chosen to end their own lives rather than serve a lifetime in prison.
It would seem that a life sentence is considered more of a punishment than death.
John- You are probably quite right as it means that the prisoners life is controlled by others, which is hated by serious criminals I am sure
Does anyone consider death more of a punishment than a life sentence, and if so why?
Not to me, but I've never been in prison.
If I did something so horrendous it was worthy of either punishment, I'd probably rather die.
If I was wrongly sentenced I would always hold out hope of a pardon.
I do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent.
I KNOW that prison itself is not a deterrent for many crimes and repeat offenders!
If you’re a Tea Partier, then by definition, you pretty much hate government. But if you are a Tea Partier who supports the death penalty, then you support giving the government you hate, the right to kill you.
Actually, that would be untrue, based on my hubs written on this topic.
Government has the right to domestic and foreign threat protection. The death penalty is only a tool, designed for a specific use, in order to create a more civilized society.
Ugh, what is civilised about strapping somebody to a bench and then taking several hours to kill them!
Hey John, go read the hub. Did you really think I would explain it in the forums when I have two separate hubs that address the issue.
Cags, I saw nothing in your hubs that specifically addressed the civilised effect of strapping somebody to a bench and then have untrained people kill them over the space of as much as a couple of hours or more.
I don't think the human rights of the criminal come into the equation but I do think the humanity of those sanctioning the death penalty does.
BTW, though we don't seem to be as plagued with mass murders as you, two of the most significant recent ones have managed to end their own lives before trial. Not much perhaps but an indication that the death penalty is no deterrent for that type of killer.
John, it's about eliminating the MORE dangerous people from society. Duh! It has a civilized effect on the rest. And as for killing people over a span of hours....that was most certainly addressed. Do try to read with more comprehension.
This makes no sense. And shows you've no understanding of the greater good.
And, it depends on the application process of using it. Those types of killers, mass murderers and serial killers, need to be eliminated from society and shouldn't be put on the shoulders of the taxpayers backs to house them. It's unfair to the taxpayers and waste necessary resources. These type of people have no hope of being fixed and cannot be released, so them taking up a cell, eating food, getting clothes and medical care is absurd.
You say it's about eliminating the more dangerous people from society, seems a bit strange coming from a man from the country with some of the most dangerous leaders in the western world.
And why does the dehumanising effect of killing not make sense, if we as a society sanction murder, for whatever reason, does that not reduce us all to the lowest level? Surely rather than a lack of understanding of the greater good, a complete understanding.
There should be no price or value on justice, go down that road and you reach the point where some are more worthy of justice than others and who is to be the judge of that? If it is to be cheaper to execute somebody than to imprison them we get back to the days when men were executed for petty theft or for speaking out against the government.
The most dangerous leaders in the western world is an interesting statement, however, that is something else I am working on. It's best left up to the citizens to handle them.
No. Because there are some that simply cannot handle themselves, and like rabid dogs, must be put down in the interest of society. What part are you not understanding?
Why must others be forced into a situation not of their making?
That's just distortion. Equality and preservation of society is the greater good. Those who are unable to handle themselves, such as serial killers and mass murderers is the exclusive lot it should apply to. Quit trying to make more out of it than there is.
BS. More distortion.
Cags, slightly off topic, but why do you feel forced, when I don't agree, to ascribe that to a lack of understanding on my part? I don't feel the need to constantly point out your lack of understanding of my points.
Could it be that you think your point of view is more valid than mine?
Anyway, back to topic, why must anybody be put down like a rabid dog in the interest of society?
You say that people should not be forced into a situation not of their making but people, in the form of society, make that situation. They make the laws and they make the punishments. They can't say we made these laws but we wash our hands of any results.
You say equality and preservation of society is the greater good and then argue for the breakdown of that society! You have in no way convinced me that society, acting like a barbarian, is a better society.
Because, you're not looking a bigger picture and it's obvious. That's what I am pointing out, not because you disagree.
Those who are the most dangerous, such as serial killers and mass murders are the ones I am talking about. And, why do you think it is fair to force other people to burden the cost of housing, feeding and clothing them who do the most damage?
Yes, the rational and sane ones put laws and punishments into place. And, the death penalty is a punishment.
No one is washing their hands at the results. Where do you get this junk from?
Only of those who do the most damage, such as serial killers and mass murderers. Are you NOT paying attention or what?
I don't care to convince you of anything. You're not a U.S. citizen or American. Until which time you do become one, then I guess you'll actually have a say, considering then you would be a part of America's society.
Is your UK society actually civilized? Nope.
Well, we don't murder in the name of justice and we have far fewer mass murderers than you do. Whether or not that makes us less civilised than you, I leave open.
I'm not quite sure what my nationality has to do with my opinion as to whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not.
Perhaps you'd care to expand on that.
I said it has nothing on my view of it's usage in America. Therefore, any conversation with you with regards to it, is just futile.
You know, it funny how many other on these forums entertain themselves by your posting. And, now I completely understand why they are entertained.
No, you didn't say anything of the sort.
If I entertain people with my postings, that's surely better than p!ssing them off?
Good, I can only read what you write, I never second guess another writer.
Oh sorry, I should have remembered that only Americans count in the whole world!
May I remind you again that there is nothing either nationalistic or otherwise US specific in the question "Is the Death Penalty a Deterrent"
No. Only Americans count with regards to topics I cover. Try reading my profile to get the gist of it.
Correct, but when dealing with any conversation with me on a topic I cover, your input is meaningless and useless.
You even refuse to answer questions posed to you. So what is the since in talking to you, if it's just your view and opposition to your view isn't given openness to conversation.
Unfortunately, topics that I cover are not restricted to any nationality. If somebody has a relevant point that is good.
Might I suggest that if you are so closed in with your opinions you do not respond to those of us who do not qualify for your consideration.
I'm a bit puzzled by your claim that I do not respond to questions posed to me, I could even ask what is the "since" in talking to you if it's just your view and opposition to your view isn't given openness to conversation.
But you haven't made any relevant points that were good. You just keep running the topic in circles. Secondly, it's outsider views which continue to make things worse here in America. Constantly saying that America needs to do this and America needs to do that. When 99% of outsider views are off target to begin with.
I'll take that under consideration.
I'm sure you're puzzled by it. I've asked you the same question twice and you haven't answered it. I've answered your question, so you attempting to use my words against me, is just a pathetic attempt to twist the fact already in hand.
But it is only your opinion that I haven't made any relevant points that are good! I haven't noticed you moving the topic on either.
You'll have to remind me of which question you've asked twice and I haven't answered. I could trawl back and look but it's close to my bedtime and I don't really have the power any more.
The topic is settle already in America. Capital Punishment/Death Penalty is LEGAL. So what's your point.
How is fair that the citizens are forced to burden housing, feeding and clothing serial killers and mass murderers? Okay. There it is.
But the question was "Is the Death Penalty a Deterrent?"
I answered that question many posts back, you rubbished my answer.
The question for the thread is about that. But, my question to you is still open. Which you've not answered.
I answered the question of thread. And, I stated that in it's present application it is not a deterrent. However, that doesn't mean it cannot be one.
OK, here is my answer yet again -
"There should be no price or value on justice, go down that road and you reach the point where some are more worthy of justice than others and who is to be the judge of that? If it is to be cheaper to execute somebody than to imprison them we get back to the days when men were executed for petty theft or for speaking out against the government."
In my opinion, the death penalty could be applied when at least:
1. Security level of an area is already very high. So that crime can be prevented until close to zero.
2. 99.999% of people already have high awareness of the law.
3. Legal officer is completely trustworthy and have high ability in finding the truth / evidence. Thus less likely to make mistakes in deciding a death penalty.
4. Welfare of society must reached the level of prosperity.
5. There are institutions that take care / fostering to the families of the condemned.
Death Penalty isn't used a deterrent. It's used as a tool for pleading out more often than not.
It's more a political tool also, so as to divide people and confuse what is in the best interests of society.
The US has the death penalty, yet has a very high murder rate, whilst the UK has not had the death penalty for 50 years, yet murder is relatively low.
And let's not forget WHY the UK abolished capital punishment in the first place. Of course, surveys now say the majority of the British people want it brought back again for certain crimes....at least until the courts screw up and we hang some more potentially innocent people again.
It's not the majority of British people. They are a section of society, not a majority.
A large section. The number I read was 51% in a Gallup poll, admittedly a couple of years ago. That's a majority, no? Some other polls have it 70% or higher or 99% amongst Sun readers apparently...although, no one cares what they 'think'
Yes, yes I know surveys and statistics are taylor made to suit the answer the pollster wants to hear but at best it seems to be somewhere around a 50/50 split right now at least among people who can be bothered to answer surveys.
However the vast majority of MPs, of all parties, are opposed to it.
Yes, however, that's hardly a scientific study but I get your point.
Research has shown that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is minimal and it's a waste of time an money as well. Not to mention that the error rate is not insignificant.
You're not talking about error rate of death penalty. You are in fact talking about the error rate of the courts. Which should tell you that if applied properly, then the error rate of the courts wouldn't become a worry.
??True, the courts sometimes err in convicting and sentencing innocent people accused of capital crimes. Once they are executed the courts' errors aren't susceptible to correction. Davis's execution was a court approved lynching. There is no "proper" way to apply the death penalty. The concept is morally and practically flawed.
That's my main problem with the death penalty. People are convicted for crimes they don't commit. I doubt it happens often, but it does occasionally make the news that new evidence shows someone convicted is innocent.
I suspect few people have gone to commit a crime and stopped for fear of the death penalty. Plus, many of these crimes are in the heat of moment, when consequences aren't considered at all.
If the death penalty was a deterrent, there wouldn't be any murders in this country.
Yes I know you're right. Kinda of a lame comment on my part. At one time, In this country and probably still in others to this day, it was a captial crime for horse theft and robbery and a laundry list of others. But those offenses still flurished. There are monsters who can be put to death and no one would blink an eye. But on the other hand it's much more costly to put a convict to death than it is to give them life without.
Incorrect. Have solution for the costs. Check out my two hubs on the topic. I'm sure it's never been thought of or even considered.
Since it is unlikely anyone who commits a crime expects to get caught, I severely doubt the death penalty has any effect at all on actual crime rates.
Quite honestly, given the choice of being caged for the rest of my life or being put to death, I'd take the latter. Not much of a deterrent.
John, correct. Not one, they could cause mayhem within but they could not get out, no way. From my perspective that would be impossible, unless of course you come across a friendly prison officer that would gladly give you his uniform and keys.
Isn't "friendly prison officer" an oxymoron?
I myself am against the death penalty. However, I do not begrudge others of their belief. I would only suggest that the judge who gives the sentence should be the person to carry it out. If the ones who give a sentence of death had to do the killing, maybe they would be more inclined to be sure of guilt themselves.
In its current state i think no. It takes 20 years to kill these people. And when it finally happens its painless.And great pains are taken to insure they don't suffer. Coddled and tucked in . Not the way id prefer we deter.
Agreed. But, my thoughts in my hubs, eliminates the civil rights issue that they must go humanely. Cause, they would go humanely.
Do you really think it is painless? There is a lot of evidence to suggest the opposite.
John i hope its not. painless that is.
Im cant say im proud to say that.
Its ugly .
As conceived, no!
As stated well by another poster, the criminal mindset believes it is above the law and can/will get away with it. Seeing some other dude get put to death will not deter me, if I am so inclined, from going out and doing what I'm gonna do. Because I think I can pull it off.
As administered, absolutely not.
The system is fraught with prejudice and inequities and inaccuracy.
Way too many innocent people (proportionately) get put to death.
My opinion: Life in prison without possibility of parole -- meaning don't even bother with your annual appeal for 20 years while sitting on death row -- seems to me a much saner, not to mention humane, sentence.
Agreed, and empirical evidence seems to support this: the death penalty does not seem to deter murder or other capital offenses.
It's more expensive, and strikes at most people's sensibility to not kill unless it's necessary to save a life.
The only "leg" to stand on - to give victims' families some justice - seems odd when most are executed decades after they were sentenced.
Hey Mighty Mom,
Have you read my hub on the subject?
Btw- nice to see you.
Haven't but will go do so!
Good to see you as well.
Can someone here explain to me why it is that the pro-lifers are the ones who support the death penalty?
Pro-liters are mostly confused individuals who blindly follow someone else's advocating.
The death penalty advocates are usually Protestant, specifically evangelical, Christians. Catholics are generally against the death penalty, in line with Vatican doctrine.
About thirty years ago, most evangelicals were also pro-choice; most churches, even the SBC, were pro-choice. From what I understand, the change in doctrine was at the hands of a number of Catholic intellectuals, who apparently have been instrumental in shaping evangelical social issue doctrine from the 80s onward. (Funny, when you consider how much evangelicals tend to hate Catholics)
Catholics are not real vocal on this issue currently.
We have our own demons we are wrestling with in the Church.
I read recently that Pope B was going home to a less than welcoming reception.
There is a lot of push/pull to make BIG CHANGES in the doctrine (celibacy of priests, role of women) and clean up the horrible wreckage of priestly indiscretions with underaged (and even adult) parishioners.
It stops re-offenders . Its not right . its not justice . or revenge.
thats a movie line
Even killers hate child killers .The answer is in there somewhere i think.
I think its important to support and encourage contrary thinking and ideas. That way we cover all bases.Especially on such a finite matter as this. Everyone should be weighed in , and their feelings respected . Complicity no matter how minute Is cumbersome . State issued killing is killing. Its................
Sometimes necessary .
Cagsil and John, whoa, cool it! Sleep, depending on your time zone and start again tomorrow. There's enough s*** and disagreement in this world, between the sane and the less so. I, personally, would put both of you in the former category.
by Cat R5 years ago
Supporters say that some crimes deserve the Death Penalty and that we are spending too much money to keep prisoners comfortable in prisons. That there are too many people that don't have cable, a home, free education...
by garrettdixon5 years ago
Can anyone tell me a reason not to believe in capital punishment?
by cathylynn996 years ago
i disagree with the death penalty for several reasons.it's not a deterrant. in one study, murder rates actually rose after an execution. it was as if the stae were saying, "it's okay to kill. we do."there but...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 years ago
It behooves me that those who claim to be pro-life are oftentimes pro-war and pro-death penalty. Also, these people who believe that any woman who becomes pregnant, should have the baby no matter what...
by KyleBear6 years ago
I've been advocating against death penalty since the beginning of time. Here are reasons why I believe it should be abolished.Please do feel free to share your views here too. This thread is about communicating and...
by ledefensetech7 years ago
What the hell is going on these days?http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_ … BsZWFkc2c-
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.