Please,can you help settle a family dispute.?

No - capital punishment has never been shown to be a deterrent. Take a look at the chart below – death penalty states have consistently HIGHER murder rates (per 100,000 population) than non-DP states.

Nobody knows exactly why this is, but there are many theories. Some studies have proposed a "brutalizing effect," wherein people (consciously or not) follow the government's lead in assuming that killing someone is indeed a valid solution to a problem.

In one high-profile case, we know that Ted Bundy craved the publicity of a capital trial, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree.

It is probably due, at least in part, to the high cost (because of the legal apparatus designed to minimize wrongful executions, it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute someone than to imprison them for life) - every extra dollar spent (wasted) on capital punishment is one that's NOT going to police departments, drug treatment programs, education, and other government services that help prevent crime.

Personally, I think it also has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government fosters a culture of violence by saying, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

I wouldn't think it was a deterrent to murder but maybe if it was in place for other crimes. Plus having the compulsion to kill is a bit different to thinking should i steal this thing from a shop/person etc, and then thinking maybe not,i might get caught and put to death. Then it might be a deterrent. Murderers are a different breed,but it would be interesting to conduct a study to ask for people to come forward who may have wanted to kill someone and stopped themselves and then we can find out what held them back.

No otherwise there would not be so many murders and crimes in the US..

But ..but..but in other countries where punishment is harsh and swift ....it is a deterrent !

American criminals might not even think about it..those who are on death row can appeal many times, they are very few, it takes years for someone to be actually executed, much time in tribunal courts etc etc..and many walk free anyway with a good lawyer !

But IF..you imagined a "chop chop" place in every town (term taken from Saudi) and make the family pay for the execution, bullet ( China)etc and ..deed done within days of being caught : I would say it would be indeed !

I am not arguing the morality of it ( am against it) but just making hypotheses !

If some people/nations were more community conscious and less individualistic ...me me me mentality..maybe we would not be confronted to so many crimes in the media ?

Or bring back the fear of eternal fire and..well that is another section lol..not touching it :-)

An analogy would be : if you drive and know there are no speed detectors ( cameras etc), people do not care that much...but when you know you are going to come across one, everybody slows down and if you know that you risk paying a $5,000 fine FOR SURE..well !). Fictional example about the fine amount btw :-)

Or compare it to countries who have very strict drug laws like Thailand (death penalty..foreigners : their government usually intervenes but not always) you will think twice ! Of course there will always be criminals who will dare but compare it to what the drug cartels do in the US !..not much is done to fight drugs.

Yes.

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.

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

http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

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

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence...

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

http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalt...

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"

http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-...

Many wrongly believe that gross murder rates are the manner in which we detect deterrence. It isn't, nor can it be, even though many use that barometer.

For example, there are high, low and medium crime rates in different jurisdictions, throughout the world. Crime rates are constantly fluctuating through decades and centuries, throughout the world.

In all of those jurisdictions, and through all times, there will always be some who are deterred from entering criminal activity, based upon the fear of getting caught and the sanction to follow.

It is the same with the death penalty, as it is with all sanctions.

With the recent 25 USA studies finding for deterrence, they range in the deterrent effect preventing from about 90-900 murders per year, nationwide, or about 0.5%-5% of the total of all murders. For me, that is a huge number of lives saved, yet, it represents a very small fraction of the murder rate.

While no one can rationally or honestly say that the death penalty does not deter some, there will also never be any agreement on the measurement of the degree of that deterrence.

Some say that the burden of proof is with those supporting the deterrence hypothesis. Clearly, it is not. All prospects of a negative outcome deter some.

The burden of proof is with those who say that the most sever sanction - execution - is the only negative outcome that deters none. Rationally, as with history's measure, it is a claim that cannot be defended.

Of course the death penalty deters.

The only questions, which will never be answered to anyone's satisfaction, is "How much does it deter?"

Based upon the recent studies, deterrence has very little effect on net or gross murder rates, but that "little effect" represents saving 90-900 lives per year in the USA. Huge.

As Prof. Robert Belecker states:

"We support execution as a just and appropriate forfeiture of lives which deserve to be taken. We also support execution as a just and appropriate method to save lives which deserve to be saved. "

It is only a deterrent to murder in that it prevents any risk of the one who is executed from murdering again - but then high security imprisonment for life would amount to the same thing.

The best deterrent is having a conscience. Second best: fear of being caught. Homicide rates for states that use the death penalty are consistently higher than for those that don’t. The most recent FBI data confirms this.

thoughtless ... sure! yet think of roughly it of their attitude, per possibility your loved ones's negativity is what's using him/her to try this, to get you into the christmas spirit. undergo in suggestions that if somebody is in a extra suited christmas temper then they're lots extra probably to spend extra on promises! wish that help your dispute!

Yes. Most kids just need a good @ss whipping to straighten them out.

No...people will continue to kill regardless of the consequences...it's been this way forever...do you think that people stopped killing each other when the guillotine was in fashion? i think not.

apparently not, people are still killing other people