0
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What are the myths concerning capital punishment?
Myth: The death penalty acts as a deterrent to future capital punishment. This is wrong because, simply, there is no empirical basis for the claim. Ironically, studies have shown that murder rates in non-death penalty states are lower than they are in states that actually enforce the death penalty.
What is the difference in violent crime rate between states that have death penalty and states that do not have death penalty?
Well the death penalty countries are lower as the people don't want to dye for a crime so.
The death penalty is working in stopping crime?
Not in my view. States that carry out the death penalty do not necessarily have lower crime rates. Beyond that, recent DNA technology has shown that numerous persons who were sentenced to death didn't do the crime. Finally, there's the moral issue - "you shall not murder." (The fact that the criminal murdered someone doesn't make it okay for the State to do the same.)
Can the mentally challenged be charged with the death penalty?
Typically anyone with an IQ under 75 will not receive the death penalty in the United States. It varies by country, though (for some countries there are higher or lower levels and some countries don't care if you're mentally challenged).
Does murder increase with death penalty abolition?
the threat of the death penalty is no deterent...people are arogant and they premeditate the act thinking they will be like OJ and get away with it because they are smarter than everyone else or they commit the crime in the heat of passion and punishment never even enters their mind until after...then the "I can beat this" attitude kicks in and they try to cover it up. These attitudes persist as do murder rates, the latter of which is not affected by the existence of capital punishment. The death penalty should not be argued for from the standpoint of being a deterent, because it is not. Rather it should be argued that the punishment must fit the crime. Those who kill should be killed. The unfortunate thing is that if you wish to mete out true justice doing so will eventually bankrupt your society. It is good that we want to take every precaution not to convict an innocent person, but a real shame that we have so many bad people that we cannot afford the required justuce for all of them and therefore we end up with a bad compromise. == == Spiritual decline is evidenced throughout the western world, with the rejection of the Christian faith and its replacement with secular evolutionary humanism. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or chairman Mao committed the murder of millions Stalin likening it to being no different to mowing a lawn. The prisons are not suddenly (or even slowly) emptying with the decline in spiritual values. The removal of the death penalty is a symptom of the rejection of absolutes as well as the downgrading of the value of human life and so it probably is not solely responsible for any increase in murder alone but is part of the wider picture. Nor would it necessarily prove anything if places which had a lower rate of murder also had the death penalty -there may be other factors, although I believe it does send a powerful message if administered correctly. No, States that have abolished the death penalty have shown a marked decrease in murder rates since putting such decisions into effect. Additionally, such states average significantly fewer murders per thousand than states with the death penalty.
What is the issue with death penalties in the US?
Enforcing the death penalty isn't cheap. According to deathpenaltyinfo.org, "the average cost of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought."
What is the cause and effect of death penalty?
The cause of the death penalty more often then not is politicaly inspired. Fear has long been a favoured method for controling the population. In the case of the execution of those found guilty of murder in developed countrys such as The USA the motivation is simply political, More votes are gained by apealing to the sense of justise exhibited in the lower educated classes then are to be gained by apealing to those that are more educated and trained in the exersise of reasoning. It is one of the failings of democracy. The effect of the death penalty is that if a person is a murderer he or she has nothing to lose by killing to cover their crime. No murderer comits a crime and intends to do the time.
Can capital punishment reduce crime how?
It actually does, but the problem is twofold at the present time. First, it is not done very much and when it is, people usually don't hear about it. Criminals know it's really unlikely to be executed and the worst they will likely ever face is life in prison. An air conditioned, comfortable cell with cable TV, a weight room, and 3 square meals a day. Second, the death penalty deters crime by instilling a fear of the judicial system and therefore a fear of doing things bad enough to warrant such a punishment. Fear is a psychological weapon, and therefore it is almost impossible to accurately test it's effectiveness.
What is the difference between first-degree murder second-degree and third-degree murder?
The degrees of murder are defined in each states' laws and are not necessarily the same everywhere. As a General Rule: 1st Degree is pre-meditated, planned out or particularly cruel. 2nd Degree is not planned out. 3rd Degree may be called manslaughter in some places.
What US Supreme Court cases supported the death penalty?
The Supreme Court has never declared that the death penalty is unconstitutional. In the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia, the Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional as applied in three specific cases. This effectively put a moratorium on the death penalty as lower courts struggled to determine when (or if) the death penalty could be applied. The Furman opinion was per curium, with each of the nine justices writing their own opinions (5 concurring and 4 dissenting).Four years later, in 1976, the Supreme Court made clear in the case of Gregg v. Georgia that the death penalty wasconstitutional. Georgia had amended their death penalty statute in the interceding four years and now had additional protections for the defendant in capital cases, including a two-phased trial: one for guilt and one for sentencing.The Court in Gregg summarized Furman thusly:"While Furman did not hold that the infliction of the death penalty per se violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, it did recognize that the penalty of death is different in kind from any other punishment imposed under our system of criminal justice. Because of the uniqueness of the death penalty, Furman held that it could not be imposed under sentencing procedures that created a substantial risk that it would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner."
What are the benefits of the death penalty?
The only proven benefit is the lack of cost compared to a life sentence. All studies have shown it does not lower crime rates or have any other impact.
Should someone who is guilty of murder and was proven to be mentally ill at the time of the murder be executed?
If the perpetrator was found guilty -but- at the same time was also found mentally incompetent to understand the consequences of their action, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that they would have received the death penalty. DISCUSSION: The KEY to the matter is; "Was the 'mental illness' severe enough to impair their reasoining to the point that they did not understand the consequences of their actions?" If the perpetrator was suffering from only a 'lower level' mental problem but still was found competent to understand his actions, then, yes, under those circumstances they could receive a sentence of death.
