Whether something is a suitable detterent or not depends on a) what the punishment is and b) how it affects certain people. For the dealth penalty, death is a final punishment for some, but for others such as the unhinged and those with nothing left to lose, its power as a deterrent becomes less imposing.
I do not think that the death penalty is much of a deterrent, but is a fact that murderers who are put to death will kill no one else, and will not have his miserable life supported at taxpayers' expense.
Yes it is
The price of the car was the only deterrent in the decision not to buy it. The main deterrent in committing a crime is going to jail.
Yes, the death penalty should be abolished. It is not a deterrent of capitol offenses. There is too great of a risk that an innocent person will be murdered.
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.
The relationship between the death penalty and crime rates in the Philippines is complex and debated among scholars and policymakers. While some proponents argue that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to serious crimes, studies indicate that its reinstatement has not significantly reduced crime rates. Factors such as socio-economic conditions, law enforcement effectiveness, and judicial processes play a more substantial role in influencing crime rates. Overall, evidence supporting the death penalty as an effective deterrent remains inconclusive.
That's up to personal opinion. The death penalty is not meant to be a deterrent to the general population, but rather a specific deterrent (i.e. the person who is executed will never kill someone again). What many people don't realize is how many prisoners and prison employees are killed by convicted criminals, which is why I personally believe the death penalty serves an important purpose (saves lives).
The American Civil Liberties Union has an extensive article explaining why the death penalty is wrong. The article lists eight reasons and suggests that it is not fair and not a deterrent. Internationally, capital punishment generally seen as inappropriate and many countries no longer use it.
Proponents of the Death Penalty will argue that it is beneficial for at least two reasons. The first is that it prevents any further crimes from being committed by the alleged perpetrator. The second is that it serves as a strong deterrent to those considering indulging in violent (or other serious) crimes: the potential penalty of death will lead many such persons to choose not to commit offenses.
Some people believe that the death penalty is a serious deterrent to committing heinous crimes. A simple time out is no deterrent for my child as he usually repeats the bad behavior as soon as the time out is finished. For a teenager, the threat of losing cell phone privileges is a strong deterrent for ignoring the rules we've set up. Shouldn't an ever expanding waistline be an effective deterrent for overeating?
There are many arguments on both sides of the question, and I suspect that the side you come down on will depend as much on emotion and cultural background as on rationally weighing the facts. Given the incidence of murder in societies that have the death penalty, it is obviously not always a deterrent.
Wisconsin abolished the death penalty in 1853 due to a combination of moral, ethical, and practical considerations. The state recognized the potential for wrongful convictions and the belief that capital punishment was not an effective deterrent to crime. Additionally, changing societal values favored rehabilitation over retribution. As a result, Wisconsin became one of the first states in the U.S. to officially eliminate the death penalty.