The death penalty was never intended to be a
deterrent. It is punishment for what you did. If you want to have a discussion on the morality of the death penalty we can do that. But I do not believe that anyone intent on murdering someone was ever stopped because they might face the death penalty vs life in prison. Car thieves have been locked up for years and yet we have cars being stolen on an hourly basis. Thus locking up these thieves has not "deterred" car theft. It was never intended to.

Although there are not a lot of cases out there, murderers have been known to murder again after release. The death penalty may not deter the first murder but it sure as heck deters the second.

Butt out, Jimmuh. You've done enough damage in your lifetime.

Stay out of California!!!!!

A proper public hanging is not intended to deter future criminals nor is it to prevent future crimes by the hangee. The purpose of a proper public hanging is catharsis. "Catharsis;" so rarely used that few even comprehend the concept. (For an explanation that even a psychiatrist can understand, see "The Penalty of Death" by H.L. Mencken). If you still don't understand "catharsis,' read it again.

Jimmy Carter is now only the 2nd worst President.

You can count on being on the correct side if you always do the opposite of what Jimmy Carter recommends.

This blood-thirsty, murderous beast who would slaughter every innocent Jew on the planet without trial right down to the last man, woman and child is upset about the death penalty?

Already voted NO, you clown. Butt out of Ca., we've already got enough nut jobs out here!

Carter gets it right in the second paragraph and then spouts idiocy. It's a detterent if the "penalty" is carried out shortly after the sentence. The legal system is what's broken.

Why would he think it's more effective to entitle a criminal to free room, board, education, health care, gym memberships and legal aid at my expense for the rest of his or her life?

Let's reduce the prison populations with a proposition that criminals go straight from the courtroom to the afterlife. Then it'd be a detterent.

If Jimmy Carter said to vote "Yes" on ANY proposition in my state, I could vote "No" without even needing to read it.

I don't think we see eye-to-eye on any issue.

I once worked as a contractor for the state prison system in Oklahoma. I've been to death row and have seen how the inmates live. 23 hour lockdown in a tiny cell. IMO, living like that for many years is worse than a quick, painless death. I think death is too easy for these scum but that's just me.

When it comes to justice, I am a great believer in symmetry. You kill somebody, we kill you back. Hammurabi didn't have it far wrong. But then, I'm from Texas.

This nitwit believes the bible commends society to let rapists murderers and thieves run free, while his own pasty white arse enjoys secret service protection.

When you're dead you don't get to read books, work out with weights, watch TV, read porn, get a free college education or file endless frivolous lawsuits and appeals. All your stuff is gone, including you. There is no bigger penalty or deterrent than death. Otherwise why would it make national news when someone decides not to fight the death penalty? The only way to make the penalty and deterrent greater is to make it more swift (we are prohibited from making it more cruel). Jimmy Carter could not launch a decisive strike against a people that treated our embassy personnel as prisoners for 445 days. He threw our economy into shambles. Obviously, swift decisive action is not his forte.

Studies show that among those criminals upon whom capital punishment is visited the recidivism rate drops to zero...

Doesn't Jimmah belong to the party of abortion?

The people of each state will choose what they want to do with the death penalty, Mr. Carter. Many states have spoken on the issue several times. I myself think the perpetrator makes their own choice in the matter. If a person can't get up in the morning and clear the small hurdle of not killing someone, then they have chosen to die.

If Jimmy Carter said it that will be enough for people that still have any doubts about which way to go to vote NO!
Us voters here in California want punishment that eliminate the criminal not deterent.

A swift and certain execution would definitely be a deterrent, at least for the executed. Unfortunately, in most states, the time between conviction and execution is well over a decade or two, if it's carried out at all.

Another perspective is that criminals need to be removed from society.
Criminals that commit 1st degree murder need to be removed permanently, post haste.

Jimmy Carter, the nightmare that refuses to go away. Even a vampire leaves at daybreak.

I already voted NO. What we need is a shorter and faster appeal process. Of course, when a murderer comes up for execution the Hollyweirdo's come out and cry for a reprieve. The same ones who think nothing of killing the unborn by the millions.

This evil old fool is going to have to spend special time in heaven under the tutelage of Moses over the Mosaic Law as to what constitutes, "MORAL."

Here's the rules of the game, Jimmy. Murder someone and you must be taken out of the "game of life." There can be no, "time out," or "face the corner," like in grade school. The perp must be given the Gospel and executed, quickly. Oh yes, and only one appeal trial maximum, period, over, and out.

I know this sounds horrible but the day he croaks I'm flying my flag at FULL staff.

What is everyone talking about? The death penalty is a great deterrent. Not one person who has received the death penalty has gone on to commit another crime.

The problem I have with eliminating the death penalty is that the long, drawn out, expensive appeals that now apply to death penalty cases will then apply to life imprisonment without parole cases, resulting in the release of prisoners convicted of homicide and no cost savings.

You'll notice Jimmy doesn't support the other alternatives for reducing crime:curbing drug abuse, more police officers on the streets, lowering the technical barriers to prosecution, longer sentences...

OK, that settles it. I'm voting No.

What is it, anyway?

Dem Party: The death penalty for convicted criminals does not prevent or deter crime.

Dem Party: The death penalty for innocent preborn children prevents crime by not allowing potential criminals to be born (alive).

Methinks there be a wee bit of self-contradiction going on here.