Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 9^th, 2010 at 6:06pm:


All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

Again, this site would not allow links.

Please review, via a search:

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,

"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"

Vanessa wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 8:24pm:


If justice is necessary or needed, then the death penalty should be used.

What is the just and appropriate sanction for some crimes?

The answer: The death penalty.

[quote author=Deborahmac09 link=1281336865/45#48 date=1281915852]Dudley, the death penalty is nothing to do with justice. It is revenge, pure and simple. [/quote]

It is common for death penalty opponents to say that the death penalty has a foundation in hatred and revenge.

Such is a false claim.

A death sentence requires pre existing statutes, trial and appeals, considerations of guilt and due process, extreme protections for defendants and those convicted. Revenge requires none of these and, in fact, does not even require guilt or a crime.

Unlike revenge, those directly affected by the murder are not allowed to be fact finders in a legal case.

The pre trial, trial. appellate and executive clemency/commutation processes offer much  greater time and human resources to capital cases than they do to any other cases, meaning that the facts tell us that defendants and convicted murderers, subject to the death penalty, receive much greater care and concern than those not facing the death penalty - the opposite of a system identified with either hatred or vengeance.

Calling executions a product of hatred and revenge is simply a way in which some death penalty opponents attempt to establish a sense of moral superiority. It can also be a transparent insult which results in additional hurt to those victim survivors who have already suffered so much and who believe that execution is the appropriate punishment for those who murdered their loved one(s).

Far from moral superiority, those who call capital punishment an expression of hatred and revenge are often exhibiting their contempt for those who believe differently than they do.  Instead, they might reflect on why others believe it is a just and deserved sanction for the crimes committed.

The pro death penalty position is based upon those who find that punishment just and appropriate under specific circumstances. Retributive justice as opposed to revenge.

Those opposed to execution cannot prove a foundation of hatred and revenge for the death penalty any more than they can for any other punishment sought within a system such as that observed within the US - unless such opponents find all punishments a product of hatred and revenge - an unreasonable, unfounded position

Far from hatred and revenge, the death penalty represents our greatest condemnation for a crime of unequaled horror and consequence. Lesser punishments may suffice under some circumstances. A death sentence for certain heinous crimes is given in those special circumstances when a jury finds such is more just than a lesser sentence.

Less justice is not what we need.

A thorough review of the criminal justice system will often beg this question: Why have we chosen to be so generous to murderers and so contemptuous of the human rights and suffering of the victims and future victims?

The punishment of death is, in no way, a balancing between harm and punishment, because the innocent murder victim did not deserve or earn their fate, whereas the murderer has earned their own, deserved punishment by the free will action of violating societies laws and an individual's life and, thereby, voluntarily subjecting themselves to that jurisdiction's judgment.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 9:44am:


Yes and what's happening when revenge is done on an innocent person, well that's another crime but this time by the government supported by compassion less blood thirsty moralists.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 11:53am:



In most instances where the death penalty is enforced, the death penalty is too humane to be a just punishment for horific crime.  If the legal system is flawed, that is another issue.  Imagine the mental anguish, and slow death brought about by being wrongly found guilty of a horific crime. There is no crueler way to die

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 12:45pm:


That's why the use of DNA technology would need to be used.

dudleysharp wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 8:36pm:


Your understanding of what motivates people is truly naive. punishment does NOT always deter people - which I thought was blindingly obvious. it is also true that some punishments actually INCREASE the rate of offending. I dont understand why, but that lakc of understanding doesnt make it any less true. Multiple detailed and exhaustive studies have concluded that in not a single instance did the introduction of the death penalty reduce the rate of offending and in a number of jurisdictions actually increased it. So the use of 'deterrance' as a support for the death penalty is falacious.

I think part of the reason may be that once you have done something that brings the death penalty, there is a much stronger motive to kill to avoid capture. Or you just stop caring.