Do you believe in death penalty being a deterrent?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Do you believe in death penalty being a deterrent?

This is NOT a "do you support death penalty?" poll, rather whether you believe it's application deters crime, as frequently claimed by supporters.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No (I/O).

I never seen any coherent argument supporting this claim (and I've researched the death penalty issue a lot). Ironically it can sometime have an opposite effect, with some people (like this guy and this guy) killing purposely in order to get executed.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

No, because there really isn't any factual evidence to back up the claim that the death penalty is a deterrent from grievous crimes in fact, murder rates are HIGHER in death penalty states than non-death penalty states

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

[ElectionsGuy]

Not only do I not believe it, evidence has shown it doesn't.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not only do I not believe it, evidence has shown it doesn't.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In it's current form, in which it can ultimately devolve into life in Prison due to a long appeal process, slow pace of carrying out executions, and limited availability of lethal drugs, likely no. However, if I was in charge, I would do what I could to fairly speed up the appeal process and pick up the pace in general, plus bring back the guillotine (Failproof, fast, and painless), which I believe would make it a deterrent.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

No but I support it for other reasons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No but I support it for other reasons.

Because killing people feels so good?

[Asian Nazi]

No but I support it for other reasons.

[Vosem]

No but I support it for other reasons.

This. Feels sickening to quote you two.

Because killing people feels so good?

No. Because prisons should be a place for rehabilitation, not for terrible criminals to live meaningless, terrible lives paid for by the government (or even worse companies, in some places); and because I believe the just penalty for certain premeditated murders, and crimes when the lives of a large number of people are intentionally ruined, is death.

[Goldwater]

No but I support it for other reasons.

[OSR stands with Israel]

No but I support it for other reasons.

This. Feels sickening to quote you two.

Because killing people feels so good?

No. Because prisons should be a place for rehabilitation, not for terrible criminals to live meaningless, terrible lives paid for by the government (or even worse companies, in some places); and because I believe the just penalty for certain premeditated murders, and crimes when the lives of a large number of people are intentionally ruined, is death.

[NeverAgain]

No but I support it for other reasons.

This. Feels sickening to quote you two.

Because killing people feels so good?

No. Because prisons should be a place for rehabilitation, not for terrible criminals to live meaningless, terrible lives paid for by the government (or even worse companies, in some places); and because I believe the just penalty for certain premeditated murders, and crimes when the lives of a large number of people are intentionally ruined, is death.

Of course, that's why parole should (almost) always be on the table.

[Intell]

No but I support it for other reasons.

This. Feels sickening to quote you two.

Because killing people feels so good?

No. Because prisons should be a place for rehabilitation, not for terrible criminals to live meaningless, terrible lives paid for by the government (or even worse companies, in some places); and because I believe the just penalty for certain premeditated murders, and crimes when the lives of a large number of people are intentionally ruined, is death.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No, because there really isn't any factual evidence to back up the claim that the death penalty is a deterrent from grievous crimes in fact, murder rates are HIGHER in death penalty states than non-death penalty states

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

Obviously there are exceptions from an overall trend, like Michigan having a high murder rate while being the very first state to abolish death penalty, or New Hampshire having a low murder rate despite maintaining it (though nobody was executed there since 1939), but it still shows there's no corelation between death penalty laws and murder rate.

In it's current form, in which it can ultimately devolve into life in Prison due to a long appeal process, slow pace of carrying out executions, and limited availability of lethal drugs, likely no. However, if I was in charge, I would do what I could to fairly speed up the appeal process and pick up the pace in general, plus bring back the guillotine (Failproof, fast, and painless), which I believe would make it a deterrent.

Do you really believe that death penalty, as was applied before 1967 (including much speedier executions), had a deterrent effect? Please DO elaborate.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The only way it could act as a deterrent is if you applied it often enough that you would amost certainly execute the innocent ir if you targeted small-order crimes.

[Clark Kent]

No, and even if it was, it should never be used.

[DavidB.]

Compared to the current sentences in the Netherlands, yes. Hypothetical disgusting example: if everyone who drives 135 km/h where one should drive 130 km/h would get shot, I doubt anyone would be driving too fast. But compared to real life-long jail sentences the death penalty probably does not work as a deterrent, and it might even have the opposite effect: people know they've committed crimes for which they can get the death penalty and will therefore be more reckless, because they don't have much to lose anymore.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No but I support it for other reasons.

Because killing people feels so good?

I'd rather have people admitting openly they support the death penalty for other reasons (while I disagree retribution, for example, has any merit) than repeat that nonsense about deterrence.

[RightBehind]

The death penalty does not stop crimes which warrant the death penalty. So no.

[SWE]

If we brought back crucifixion that might work.

[Green Line]

No, but I don't support it as a deterrent, and I doubt life in prison serves as any more of a deterrent. I support it as justice.

[James Bond 007]

No I'm against it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

In it's current form, in which it can ultimately devolve into life in Prison due to a long appeal process, slow pace of carrying out executions, and limited availability of lethal drugs, likely no. However, if I was in charge, I would do what I could to fairly speed up the appeal process and pick up the pace in general, plus bring back the guillotine (Failproof, fast, and painless), which I believe would make it a deterrent.

I'm an utter amateur when it comes to chemistry and medicine, but I wonder why not to carry lethal in injection simply by giving a prisoner a morphine overdose?

Problems with lethal injection did not start when the EU stopped exporting drugs. There were numerous examples of botched executions by injection before.

[MK]

YES.  If it was used more often and more quickly.  You'd think twice about hiddious crimes such as  armed robbery( thats results in death) or rape if you knew that within 3 years your were going to be eating your last meal.