Check out some similar questions!

dc0415 · Apr 20, 2006, 07:19 PM

Is execution of murderers a deterrent to crime

Fr_Chuck · Apr 20, 2006, 07:33 PM

Well it most certainly stops that criminal from committing another crime.

And if the punishment was more swift, if they were exucuted within 6 months of sentence I believe it could be more of one. But with it taking 10 to 15 years to get to execution, it has little bite in it.

And really if you want to punish someone, make them spend their life in prison.

cajalat · Apr 20, 2006, 08:46 PM

Execution maybe a deterrent to crime and you'll get strong feelings on both sides depending on one's central belief system.

I personally don't believe it is a good deterrent since those criminals had they an ounce of conscience or moral values wouldn't be committing murders in the first place.

I think an extremely far more effective deterrent is a solid upbringing, a strong foundation for good moral values, being taught the difference between what's right and what's wrong, and an active family life.

I also, fundamentally, do not believe in capital punishment as a legitimate, civilized, well thought out form of punishment. I think it is the epitome of hypocrisy to punish someone with the very act we feel is so reprehensible. But I digress :)

Casey

Hypatia · Apr 20, 2006, 09:56 PM

I think killing criminals breeds more. Call me crazy but here is my thinking. When criminals are alive their experience is alive. By connectivity we can know their crimes and see them because the person is alive and visible. When they are dead, usually their crimes just go away, they cease to exist in peoples minds. A prison full of criminals is visible as well. We can count the numbers, view the statistics.
When we kill we eliminate that experience. We take the experience from the eyes of the people. They forget and have no real visual cue why not to do these crimes.
When a person you know is incarcerated, you experience to a degree their punishment. You hear the tales of dispair, disgrace, and the loss of dignity experienced by prisoners. You have a living example of what you do not want to experience. So when you look at that object you want to steal you dont. You do not want to live like those people in prison.
So say you kill off the criminals. There is no living example or visual experience for anyone to see to dissuade people from commiting crimes. So people forget the punishment, they do not hear of the punishment or see it. They forget the harshness of the penalty and commit the crime. It is an easy sentence, death. There is truly no punishment only abandonment.

I think the criminals should be subject to a period/life of service to others. People say it costs so much to house them. Make them work for a living at regular wages, only in a controled environment. Make them have mandatory mental care, health care, work, everything vital for rehabilitation. Change the security system in place now that is so dark ages and replace it with people more compassionate and unjudgemental. People commit crimes, should they be forever labeled a criminal and have this fact be the major focal point of their existance?? Or should they be in a place where they can make restoration, urged rehabilitation and a life in service to others? Maybe they will never make it out because their crime was major.At least they will be given the dignity of being recognized as a human that still holds value. -And not seen as a living embodiment of their crime.

The death penalty is as stupid and misguided as the "WAR on DRUGS".

Why is it that people do not hear the words of the great philosophers any more and only hear the voices of politicions, religious controllers and extreme radicals?

Try reading here.

Hypatia

talaniman · Apr 21, 2006, 04:57 AM

HMMMM... Capital punishment has beeen around forever and there are still people killing people,you do the math, one thing though a killer can't kill again if he ain't here.:cool: :eek:

fredg · Apr 21, 2006, 05:17 AM

Hi, dc,
Very good question.
No, in my opinion, don't think it is. The reason, as given in another answer, is that one spends from 10 to 20 yrs on death row!
I do believe in capital punishment; simply because they can't do it again!
Something, though, needs to be done. There are more new prisons being built in America than public schools!

ScottGem · Apr 21, 2006, 05:37 AM

First, every study I have ever heard about on the subject says no, it doesn't. Since capital crimes are generally narrowly defined (multiple murders, law enforcment murder etc.) those would be the only crimes they would deter. As someone else pointed out, anyone who would commit such crimes in the first place is not going to care. In fact, I feel it promotes more killing. If a criminal is subject to the death penalty, what has he got to lose by more killing? How many times can he be killed?

I am generally against capital punishment for a variety of reasons. The only argument I have ever heard for capital punishment that makes any sense to me is that I don't want my taxes paying for a killer's room and board. However, other studies I Have seen show that executing someone, given all the appeals and court costs, tends to cost more then keeping them in a prison for 20+ years.

The argument that executing them prevents a repeat crime doesn't make too much sense. First, because the same argument can made for life imprisonment. Second, because it seems most inmates would prefer being killed to a life in jail. Third, because it leaves no room for judicial error. We have seen a number of cases reversed as new evidence, especially DNA evidence, have proven innocence. Can't bring someone back to life in such a case.

Fr_Chuck · Apr 21, 2006, 05:40 AM

I will use Iraq for an example, under Sadam, if anyone even seemed to think about something against the Government, they were executed.
So you did not see very much crime in their country. Now with rights, courts and justice we have extreme unrest.

So perhaps is it equality and justice and freedom that allows crime ?

ScottGem · Apr 21, 2006, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

I will use Iraq for an example, under Sadam, if anyone even seemed to think about something against the Government, they were executed.
So you did not see very much crime in thier country. Now with rights, courts and justice we have extreme unrest.

So perhaps is it equality and justice and freedom that allows crime ?

Just curious, on what do you base that? I don't think enough is known about crime rates under Sadaam to make such a statement. I'm not saying its not so, its true that totalitarian regimes have lower crime rates. This is at the price of freedom and the cost of maintaining a large police force.

But another factor in this what would people steal. Not too many people in Iraq had much worth stealing.

dc0415 · Apr 21, 2006, 09:05 AM

I feel the death penalty is wrong because certain individuals can be wrongfully accused and be put to death, only later to be found innocent. The death penalty is still enforced today in numerous countries. Nevertheless, its effectiveness as a deterrent has become quite a controversial issue. By examining societies views of the death penalty, the physiological aspects of the mind, and criminologists views of deterrence, it will be demonstrated that pro-capital punishment arguments are fundamentally flawed. In examining the deterrent effect of the death penalty from a sociological perspective, studies have shown that in certain countries the brutal tactics presented by the death penalty contribute quite successfully to deterring criminals.

mr.yet · Apr 21, 2006, 09:49 AM

How can it be a deterrent, when hardly no one ever see it being done. If it was public where eveyone can see what happens it my be a deterrent.

Starman · Jun 3, 2006, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by dc0415

Is execution of murderers a deterrent to crime

Society is kept in order via the implementation of negative sanctions against disruptive behavior. One of the sanctions employed is capital punishment. As Scott Gem pointed out, most studies seem to indicate that the crime rate does not significantly decrease in areas where capital punishment is legal in comparison to those areas where it isn't. So there seems to be no justification on those grounds. But it does, however, permanently remove the perpetrator from access to more victims and in that way saves lives.

Of course there are those who disagree. However, if we are prepared to say it's wrong to execute someone who has unjustly taken the life of another human being, then we have to be prepared to say that God was wrong in giving man the authority to punish such a crime via execution or else deny the OT as inspired. I for one am not prepared to do that.

Stand to Reason: The Bible and Capital Punishment
The Bible and Capital Punishment. By Gregory Koukl. I. The Bible and Capital Punishment. A. Capital punishment was commanded by God in the Old Testament. 1. It preceded the Mosaic Law.
www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5164

BTW

The following command was given prior to the Mosaic Law.

Genesis 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Jonegy · Jun 4, 2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Starman

Stand to Reason: The Bible and Capital Punishment
The Bible and Capital Punishment. By Gregory Koukl. I. The Bible and Capital Punishment. A. Capital punishment was commanded by God in the Old Testament. 1. It preceded the Mosaic Law.
www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5164

BTW

The following command was given prior to the Mosaic Law.

Genesis 9:6
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

As a devout Atheist can you explain to me where "Thou shalt not KILL" comes in this scenario? And that apparently was written in stone!! ;)

Starman · Jun 6, 2006, 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by Jonegy

As a devout Atheist can you explain to me where "Thou shalt not KILL" comes in this scenario ?? And that apparently was written in stone !!!;)

The proper translation is "murder" not "kill"
God told his people to punish certain crimes via capital punishment and God doesn't contradict himself. Those who transmitted the information understood it as referring to murder and not to all killing. If it had referred to all killing then they would not have been able to offer animal sacrifices. Also, God specifically ordered his people to declare war on certain inhabitants of Caanan. So that too shows clearly that what he meant was not just killing but murder.

Excerpt:

By Rich Deem

The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

Jonegy · Jun 6, 2006, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by Starman

The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

Don't you just love the way that book keeps changing to suit the needs. :D

Starman · Jun 6, 2006, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Jonegy

Don't you just love the way that book keeps changing to suit the needs. :D

It just seems that way to you because you believed it said what it didn't say.
Look up the word used in the original language and see for yourself that you are mistaken. But you won't look it up for reasons known only to yourself.

BTW

If you have nothing useful to add but heckles and jeckles why not seek out another site where mindless heckling and jeckling is the norm? My original answer was meant for dc0415.

Jonegy · Jun 7, 2006, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Starman

It just seems that way to you because you believed it said what it didn't say.
Look up the word used in the original language and see for yourself that you are mistaken. But you won't look it up for reasons known only to yourself.

BTW

If you have nothing useful to add but heckles and jeckles why not seek out another site where mindless heckling and jeckling is the norm? My original answer was meant for dc0415.

Hi there Starman. It was actually you that brought religion into the debate in post 12. Am I not entitled an opinion on that?

You state that I would not look up your line of proofs which hints that you have already done so - therefore would you tell me the linguistic qualifications of Rich Deem? Does he specify what the 2 modern translations were and finally the linguistic qualifications of the translators? I would then be pleased to check it out.

NeedKarma · Jun 7, 2006, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Starman

If you have nothing useful to add but heckles and jeckles why not seek out another site where mindless heckling and jeckling is the norm? My original answer was meant for dc0415.

This is called a discussion board, all posts are sem by everyone and everyone can comment on any post - that's the way it works. It you are uncomfortable with any criticism then I suggest that this is not the forum for you.

If you are going to quote scripture in every one of your posts then you can expect some comments from people who are not religious. It's a big beautiful world full of different types of people - it's key to remember that.

Have a great day. :)

Starman · Jun 7, 2006, 07:34 PM

Criticism of other poster's answers to questions are against the rules. Opinions are OK. It's mockery that doesn't add anything to the thread. Of course it is a varied world with many, many divergent viewpoints. I never said it isn't. No, I will not leave this forum unless it changes policies. Present policies are fine by me. Sorry but this board is not a debating board. The member discussion board was set up for that purpose. This is a question- answering board and debates and discussions will take the thread off topic.

BTW

Topic-deviating-discussions or debates are being considered at the member discussion board.

: )

Starman · Jun 7, 2006, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Jonegy

Hi there Starman. It was actually you that brought religion into the debate in post 12. Am I not entitled an opinion on that ??

You state that I would not look up your line of proofs which hints that you have already done so - therefore would you tell me the linguistic qualifications of Rich Deem ?? Does he specify what the 2 modern translations were and finally the linguistic qualifications of the translators?? I would then be pleased to check it out.

You are to be commended for requiring proof.
Thanks for the serious interest.

I am not denying that I cited scripture. Yes, you are entitled to an opinion. No, we can't continue discussing the subject here because we would be breaking forum rules by deviating the thread from its topic and it would be closed by administration for that reason. So what I will do is this. I will send you a private message with the answer.
Or you could post the question at the religious forum.

BTW
The topic-deviation issue is currently being discussed at the member discussion forum. It was posted by Valinor's Sorrow.