Which crimes do you believe the death penalty should be expanded to?

[worldscolide]

I will give a few..

Sexual abuse, child molestation, rape and sexual assault.

Child abuse in general.

Drunk driving that results in fatality.

[Danzigdawson]

Death penalty is not an effective deterrent for any kind of crime.

It's a tool of state-sanctionned murderous revenge. It doesn't intimidate criminals into obeying the law.

According to deathpenaltyinfo. org :

" The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U. S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U. S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty".

[alice55]

Doesn't change that it clean the street from the trash, they won't ever be able to do it again if they're dead. Last years a homeless foreign woman killed, raped and dismembered a 12 years girl, she would stay alive because France doesn't have death penalty anymore but every French person agreed that in those case death penalty would be a great things, we have no need for such trash.

Do you think this woman should be kept alive seriously?

[Danzigdawson]

@alice55 Est-ce que la menace d'une potentielle exécution par guillotine avait fait hésité Hamida Djandoubi (dernier criminel exécuté en France en 1977) avant de violer, torturer et tuer son ex-conjointe... puis de violer et séquestrer une jeune adolescente de 15 ans quelques jours seulement après ce meurtre odieux?

De plus, aux États-Unis, les condamnés à mort sont généralement emprisonnés pendant des années, voire des décennies avant d'être finalement exécutés. Quelle réelle différence y a-t-il alors entre la prison à vie et la peine de mort?

Est-ce que cette femme devrait être maintenue en vie? Bof, pas vraiment, non... mais la question inverse se pose tout aussi bien: est-ce qu'elle devrait forcément être tuée? Est-ce que cela ramènera sa jeune victime à ses parents? Est-ce que le fait de la voir mourir aux mains de l'état est plus cathartique pour les parents de la victime que de la voir pourrir en prison pour le reste de ses jours?

Et lorsque c'est seulement pour assouvir la soif de vengeance d'un public qui est bien sûr outré et dégoûté, mais qui n'est pas directement affecté par le meurtre et/ou le viol... Ne parle-t-on pas davantage d'une question de spectacle judiciaire et de démagogie, ici?

[blueonblack22]

@Danzigdawson China does have fewer drug problems. You know what they do to major drug traffickers.

[DextroShade]

Even if there's no deterrence, better to just kill them then give them food and shelter for the rest of their miserable lives at taxpayer expense.

[DextroShade]

I have a list in addition to yours:

• Political corruption, including taking bribes from foreign countries (Biden) or using the legal system to persecute your political opponents (Fani Willis, Leticia James, Alvin Bragg)
• Performing transgender surgeries on minors
• False rape accusation (2nd offense)
• Crossing the border illegally (2nd offense)
• Any sort of corporate or government malfeasance that results in mass casualties or major environmental damage like the East Palestine train derailment
• Teachers who provide children with pornographic material
• Finally, there should be zero criminal or civil liability for motorists who run over protestors who block a road or highway

[StarWarGirl]

If this question came before be few days ago I might have said - "all kinds of sexual crime".

But few days ago I have saw a video on this topic with all the analysis and past research papers. The conclusion was that, we can't control any crime by increasing the level of punishment but anyone does crime having two things in mind, the level of punishment and the probability of getting caught.

If we increase the punishment then there is more chances that the person doing crime will tend to kill the person so could not leave any evidence behind. And so then it would be more tougher to catch the criminals.

So if we want to stop any crime we must focus on other factors on why that crime happens and and we should increase the probability of getting caught. Only that can stop the crime, not much by the amendments in punishment.

[BadApple69]

Let’s start with you never need a witness to catch a criminal. Witnesses are unreliable. Cell data, DNA, basic forensics does the job 9 out of 10 times. So any sexual attacker who doesn’t think he is leaving a ton of DNA is just plain stupid. Second of all it takes a special kind of evil to actually take a life. Most people can’t do it. So to think because he would be put to death now the rapist will kill his victims to hide his crimes… well, is silly, and Murder is much more investigated than sex crimes. So by murdering his victims the rapist will be making sure that there will be more cops out looking for him than before. I think the video you watch was anti-death penalty so they tried to convince you that it doesn’t deter crime.
For those that say it’s not a deterrent I would simply say this…. Once executed that criminal won’t be let out to do it again as they are now.

[StarWarGirl]

There were other aspects too what I have not mentioned to keep it short. For example most of rapes are done by the known person or close relatives. Also any crime would be investigated if it would be reported. If the punishment would be more stricter there would be more chances of it to not get reported because of being close relatives there would be pressure from own people to not to. Other possibilities is to increase corruption because then people would be more willing to buy the system than getting punished at any cost. Also then judiciary also would be in more pressure to not to take any wrong decision and do injustice to innocent people so either criminal would never be get punished because of unclear evidence or doubts. Or justice would be very much delayed.

Best example is the Saudi Arab. There it is said that there is zero rape. But is this really true or there is rapes that are being unreported because of not having clear evidence and because of cruel punishment?

[BadApple69]

In Saudi they also have less theft. Why? You’ll lose your hand if you get caught stealing.
As for crime investigated you are correct. But a murder here where I live you will have local police detectives, county detectives and possibly state police. A rape will have local detectives only.
I’m not sure where you are but look at California and NYC. They past laws that any thing under $1000 in theft the DA won’t prosecute. So what happened? Everyone is stealing $1000 or less. Without a doubt criminals look at the punishment before they do the crime.

[Agape93]

Sex offenses.

[BadApple69]

Child molestation. But as everything else in this world we need to clean up the judiciary. We see judges doing things in court that shouldn’t be allowed.
I think before we put people to death based on a courts findings we need some laws that govern the judge and the lawyers. Such as if a layer with holds evidence and it’s discovered mandatory 10 years in jail. If a judge violated the defendants right he too can end up in jail. We would hope judges would be honest but politics has made some judges corrupt.

[Avicenna]

Even when the crime (s) a defendant commits are eligible for capital punishment, they are usually not applied at sentencing, often due to plea bargains. That said, here are some that come to mind:

- Homicide in general (but not manslaughter)

- Serial/multiple cases of rape and sexual abuse

- Rape/sexual abuse of minors

- Violent attacks that leave the victim (s) brain damaged

- Serious cases of elder abuse

- Espionage and other traitorous activities

- The most serious financial crimes (Bernie Madoff-type stuff)

[BCA6010]

Only crimes that result in the intentional deaths of others, and probably for serial rapists.

I used to think rape should earn the death penalty, but if the punishment is the same as it is for murder, then it incentivizes a rapist to kill their victims. This is also why even though I think the people who similarly victimize children deserve the death penalty, I'd be hesitant to actually push for it outside of serial offenders.

[strateguy632]

your suggestions are not real justice because those crimes didn't kill the physical body so criminal "can't lose physical body."

the deter is by jail time, which courts are NOT giving big enough punishment.

only a murder, if proven he killed a physical body, then punish SAME but by painless Lethal injection or fast electric. and not the drivers accomplices etc. who didn't do the action.

[TheSpaceGnome]

The problem with the death penalty, is that under the current system, where proof is not required to convict, people convicted of murder get proven innocent years later. How are you going to release a corpse and give it monetary compensation for false imprisonment?

[sage2021]

The doctor that kills babies that come out alive during an abortion and to full term or almost full term and then they kill it.

[DryGermanGuy]

None. A modern society has to be able to deal humanely with the lowest of the low. Not to mention the known hundreds of innocently convicted people.

[blueonblack22]

Fentanyl trafficking. Especially in mass quantities.

That drug is HORRIBLE. People get hooked after trying to just once. It’s killed over 100k Americans last year alone.

[alice55]

Anything involving a crime against children and murder.

[strateguy632]

so if i cruelly beat my kid, he should be orphan?

[dustybiker2]

I believe prison already handles the child abusers. It sounds like if they live they end up in solitary.

[DrPepper12]

None. The state has no authority to deprive you of your life. It's a barbaric, vengeful anachronism that serves retribution but not justice.

[LaurenM1997]

I agree with everything you’ve said so I’ll go with what you said

[bobby_bush_eater]

I agree with your points minus drunk driving and sexual assault. Context is pretty important in those

[gorydetails]

None. The state should not have the authority to murder someone given the percentage of false convictions.

[strateguy632]

but even the cases when they found the real criminal those still based on evidence and justified.

[jamesgoldman]

Murder, terrorism, sex offences and serious drug supply

[exitseven]

Drug Trafficking.

[Anonymous]

Sodomy.

[Slim57]

I agree with you