why the death penalty promote violence in a community?
456433
I don't think it does, the death penalty shows offenders what may happen to them if they kill.  I don't see why that would cause an increase in crime.
807581
The reason is not to show that killing is wrong.the purpose is to show there is a debt to pay for your actions. you pay with your life. all murder is wrong,[ murder ]and the courts will kill you for it.[hence the death penalty]
240893
Yes.\n\nThe death penalty is not about getting even.  It's about controlling criminal intent.  Once criminals see that you are easy on violent crime, crimes will multiply.\n\nStates that have and enforce the death penalty have far fewer violent crimes.  Criminals there are afraid of the consequences of murder.  That's good for all of us.
10289
The death penalty is not for revenge, its justice. Because those people on death row, took someone else's life, if they were given lifelong imprisonment they would never understand to the full extent of what they had done
998689
An offence is punishable for two reasons. First to render justice to the victim and secondly, to prevent the criminal  and other potential criminals from such offences against society in future Some offences like murder can not be controlled unless the killer faces the fear of capital punishment. Capital punishment does give justice when the utmost care has been taken by the jJdge and is awarded in the rarest of the rare cases.\nConfusion Master
581262
Yes, some people are just not fit to be in society. So, they need to be put down, sadly. We can't just keep cold blooded murders locked up, there is no room in our prisons and they deserve to pay for what they did, justice for the familys.
244465
This is long, so bear with it...\n\nA few weeks ago, the US reached a bit of a milestone, with an execution in North Carolina 1,000 people have been executed in the US since the re-instatement of the death penalty.  Think about that number, 1,000 people.  It’s a lot, with more to come in the near future.   It is one of the most divisive issues in the US today.  This is not an issue where there is any middle ground, it’s either you are for it or against it. \n\nIn the state of Texas, we execute more people than any other state of the union but even in Texas, the death penalty is hotly debated.  Not all states in the US have the death penalty but those that do have the same issues with it as here in Texas.\n\nLet’s start with a few of them… Firstly, the original reason for the death penalty was it was suppose to be a deterrent for crime.  It’s still touted as such in the states that do have the death penalty.  But, if you look at the statistics in the states that do have it you will see that it is not a deterrent at all.  Crime rates have not drastically dropped since its implementation.  If it were the state of Texas would be the state in the union that has the lowest violent crime rate, it doesn’t.  The only deterrent effect it has is that the person that is put to death will never again break the law.  That doesn’t drop the crime rate or make us any safer.  The realism is most criminals think they will never get caught, that they are too smart.  When criminals are doing whatever they are doing that is going to send them to death row they are not even considering the death penalty while they are performing the crime.  So that throws out the argument of being a deterrent and lowering crime rates.   \n\nSecondly, it was also suppose to lower costs of prisons.  If you execute the criminals they aren’t going to cost as much to feed, house or be taken care of.  Like the crime rate argument, this one is false as well.  In all actuality it takes more money to execute someone then to house them for life.  That has to do with the legal system and the appeals process.  Most of those on death row have court appointed lawyers because they can’t afford to hire one.  So the tax payers of the state end up footing the bill for not only the prosecution and housing the prisoner they end up paying for his legal defense as well.  In Texas, it costs almost three times more to execute someone then it does to house them in the highest security level for life (stats come from www.deathpenaltyinfo.org).  So how is that fulfilling the promise of lower costs?\n\nThirdly, it is considered retribution.  Unlike life imprisonment, where someone can lead a fairly normal life and have some luxuries, the death penalty does not allow that.  For some that are pro-death penalty that is acceptable because it is a true punishment for a crime, not a chance to rehabilitate the criminal.  With varying degrees people do agree with this, citing the ‘eye for an eye’ quote as back up for it.  But others feel that the states don’t have to right to impose retribution on an individual, that as ‘man’ we don’t have that right to take another life.  A lot of the belief systems that argue both for and against this have to do with religious principles.  But should states have that ability and be able to enforce death when they bluntly always say the state is not there to give retribution?  Isn’t death the utmost in retribution rather than punishment?\n\nFourthly, there is recidivism.  That is that some criminals repeat, repeat and repeat crimes no matter how many time they are sent to jail.  This is true.  There is a certain class of criminals that do repeat their crimes over and over, each time getting worse.  There seems to be nothing that can be done with these people that will work to rehabilitate and reform them.  Repeat offenders do seem to dominate the criminal justice system and are a big chunk of those that are incarcerated.  From the peop
735479
It amuses and entrtains the public -- as it has from the beginning of time -- and helps cynical politicians to get elected. Other than that it doesn't accomplish much in this age of "life means life" and "life in prison without possibility of parole".\n\nAnd it costs the state far more than life imprisonment to accomplish. Appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, etc. are expensive. Capital trials have come near to bankrupting some small counties, which pay for trials but not for prisons.\n\nIf you are from the UK, forget it. Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, part of UK law under the Human Rights Act 1989, forbids the death penalty "under all circumstances".
220641
no i don't think executing anyone is a good way to go about it.  we are supposed to be a more open and tolerant society and it makes no sense to proport such violence among people who are serving their country, even if they do it less than perfect.
1153477
No, I don't agree with that...children often mimic what adults do, and they may think it's right, or they might be afraid and they think there's no one to help them.  Sometimes that IS the case, we often overlook those who are being abused, because the kid is too afraid to talk and sometimes we just say they just want attention.  It also depends on the situation, like if a 17-year-old was driving drunk and killed someone, then he should get some sort of punishment.  I do not believe in the death penalty, though-not even for adult prisoners.
393701
the death penalty is only a deterrent if it is done in the public eye very swiftly. BRING BACK PUBLIC HANGINGS in market square where all can see.
946781
Because they have committed horrific crimes. They have demonstrated that they are not fit to live. There will always be issues as to who does & doesn't deserve this ultimate penalty. I think anyone who rapes and murders deserves death. Those who do this to children, I'll volunteer to throw the switch myself.
1036764
I have wondered about that more than you will ever know. \n\nI think that they are thinking it is a deterrent to murder, even though studies have shown this is definitely not the case. My personal opinion is that it is hard to sell the idea of the sanctity of life when you are engaged in taking life yourself; it just cheapens life in general and makes it seem less important. I also hear people say that it is the ultimate punishment, the absolute worst punishment the government can dish out. But if you read about being in prison, or listen to what people in prison for life have to say, it seems to me that a true life sentence, without any possibility of parole, is a much worse punishment.
78682
The principle here is not that they are able to kill people but for what reason. The execution of a known felon who has him/herself murdered countless lives has forfeited his/her right to live under the eyes of the law. If he/she were to be set free and thus cause more deaths on the population it is justified to take his life for the general good. They are against violence, random and senseless violence that is. Sanctioned killings whereby a person has commited crimes deemed irreconcievable in the eyes of the community is not a crime nor hyprocracy but justified and necessary. As for war it depends on the reason, to the defence of life and country it is a noble cause, for an outster of a regime not friendly to a country that is selfcentered hyprocracy for a nation that cherishes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
34205
becasue there are people out there the deserve it. I believe in the death penalty very much. If they are found guilty of what they did and its a bad thing then they deserve to die for it. They have no mercy on what they did so why should we show mercy.
41734
I have gone both ways on different occasions, but I think I am ultimately against it.  I don't think it is a deterrent, like if a person has the mindset necessary for committing murder, they aren't thinking of the consequences and will commit murder anyway.  Also, many people get wrongly convicted and I shudder to think how many of them were sentenced to death.
508229
It's the death penalty.