The death penalty is not a deterrent because we don't use it right. The death penalty, whenever it is imposed, takes forever to be carried out. It shouldn't take twenty years to kill a murderer.

If there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever, and by this I mean you actually catch the guy in the act, then the death penalty should be carried out within thirty minutes of being found guilty.

I have no problem with the guy having an appeal but it must be on more than just procedural issues, it has to also include any possibility of new evidence that shows the persons innocence.

With DNA now it should be required, in all cases where DNA was recovered, that the state make a DNA comparison with the accused whether or not the accused agrees. This should be the one exception to the self incrimination clause. I think the interest of society as a whole must take precedence over the individual in these instances. We as a society must know that we put to death the right person for the right crime or we as a society will be reluctant to do it.

The death penalty, assuming the one we kill is guilty, is an absolute deterrent. That individual will never kill again. It may not discourage others but then again it may if they knew that society is serious about it. If they knew their death was guaranteed it just might make them think.

I'll agree to do away with the death penalty when life imprisonment actually means life imprisonment again.

How many suicide bombers have killed again. Not one. Worked with them.

Learn more about this author, Foxbaron.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about Why is the death penalty not a deterrent?
We want to hear your view. Write now!