Amazon.com Widgets

Would drug trafficking in the U.S. decrease substantially if it were punishable by the death?

  • Instant Death Penalty To drug Manufactures And Wholesalers and a minimum of 10 years jail with no parole for any other traffickers.

    Have to bypass the legal system and get the scum out of society immediately. The system of putting them in jail just a waste of time and money. They are no better than a rabid dog and can't be rehabilitated in the short term if ever. Just users, as long as not committed any other crimes, should be rehabilitated.

  • YES. Most dealers are gutless spineless people that would be homeless if they didn't sell drugs

    I took a drug addict off the streets a few years ago and he hasn't stopped doing drugs. He finds them anywhere he goes. I have met most of his dealers and they all say that is the only way they have to feed their families. If they were faced with death they would go to a fast food restaurant and get a job instead of being able to pull out a wad of cash that is in the thousands. I say kill all the scum and legalize all drugs so the ones that will kill themselves on the $h1t will be out of our lives. It would solve a lot of crime that is done because people have been raised to think drugs are a way of life.

  • Of course yes

    Drug trafickers should be sentenced to death beacause if they are not the sickness level will go up as also the percentage of cancer. Sickness will spread and ,how will we survive ? We will all die and that is not fair! We can not die because of the actions other people make.

  • Protecting the future

    There are some people whose actions have strayed so far from morality that they have smeared all that we work towards in order to be all we can. They stomp out the potential in children by introducing a destructive addiction. If the children are our future then we need to protect it. How can we expect to survive if we are alone amongst an unstoppable flow of drugs and grief.

  • Yes. Yes. Yes

    Kill them. Without conscience. A bullet between their eyes. Death by firing squad. Prefably by the mother who buries her heroin addict son. Or the father that walks his dead daughter to the afterlife. Where she reigns in heaven. Perhaps heath ledgers dealer can explain to his child why he died. An addict myself. Someone should have shot me between my eyes when I gave my sister amphetamine whilst sitting her history SAT. A potential oxford graduate, would be poet and writer., now a two bit drunk, addict. I would welcome it

  • The death penalty works in Singapore for drug trafficking

    Both the level of drug abuse and drug trafficking are tiny in Singapore, where the death penalty is applied rigorously. Singapore does not allow this social problem fester into the violence and abuse seen in other countries. Nor does it pretend the problem of abuse will go away simply by legalising it.

  • Sending A Message

    It would send a message to all would-be drug dealers that the U.S. just isn't going to put up with this anymore. Drug traffickers cause the deaths of countless individuals everyday and are to blame for assisting a lot of other violent crimes as well. If the drug dealers were put to death, then there would eventually be so few drug dealers that mainstream society would be unable to acquire drugs and it would improve society in general.

  • Kamal

    Drugs Traffickers must go to HELL they are doing Genocide and treason to humanity ,Isn't it?

  • Tony

    They must die because they cause other people die

  • Singapore is a good example, speaks for itself.

    1. Why are you aligning yourselves with drug traffickers and murderers instead of being on the side of law abiding citizens? 2. Setting an example for like-minded perpetrators. 3. Human rights are only for humans. Drug traffickers and murderers do not fall into this category because they are essentially evil manifested in the fresh.

  • Of course it would, if for no other reason, it would get rid of people that are prone to do it.

    While I think that it would substantially decrease the incidence of trafficking, I think that it would be a bad idea. It is my view that we should legalize most illegal drugs, and let the markets sort it out. I also think that it would be a bad idea, because it would increase the price of drugs and the violence associated with them. That said, I still think that trafficking would go down in that situation.

    Posted by: wahsfone
  • No. The approach to drugs today is the same as that to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and is equally ineffective, with or without the death penalty applied.

    Prisons are already overcrowded with drug offenders, and increasingly severe penalties have done nothing to stem drug trafficking and use. People will continue to use drugs, just as they did alcohol during prohibition, because they perceive the activity as pleasurable, and because they are addictive. As a consequence, the demand for drugs remains high, and they attract an inordinately high price because they are prohibited. With such strong incentives, drug trafficking is bound to continue. Instituting the death penalty for drug trafficking will simply result in more state-sanctioned murder (essentially for a victimless crime) and do nothing to solve the problem. Legalizing drugs is the only effective solution to this problem, just as it was for alcohol (another drug) in the 1920s.

    Posted by: takeitreal
  • Drug trafficking would substantially decrease in the United States if it carried the death penalty, but that punishment does not meet the crime.

    There is no denying that a potential death sentence would curtail drug trafficking, but the punishment does not meet the crime. However, if this crime carries the potential for capitol punishment, much less people will undertake the "profession." If even jaywalking carried the death penalty, much less people would cross without using a crosswalk. There would, of course, be more people in the beginning who may start trafficking drugs due to supply and demand, but in a generation, the United States would see a lot less drug use.

    Posted by: MaxweEIite
  • I believe that all crime decreases when the punishment increases.

    Yes, drug trafficking would decrease if we were just throwing people in the electric chair for being caught with drugs. It is a proven fact that in countries where penalties are greater crime is lower, for instance, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. But there is no worry of this occurring because we seem to have a hard time executing baby killers and serial murderers in this country.

    Posted by: TaraThi
  • Yes, I think that would be a strong deterrent. Drug dealing isn't a random act; it's always premeditated.

    Having the possibility of a death sentence for drug dealers would change things dramatically. Crimes that are now punishable by death, like robbing a gas station and killing the attendant are random, split second decision crimes with the most severe punishment. Dealing drugs is a planned, long term career for some people. If the consequences for getting busted include the death penalty, I think these individuals would look for another line of work.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • I choose to agree because nothing is more important to anyone than his or her own life.

    Even though drug trafficking might be financially very lucrative, it does not offer one the liberty to conduct business openly. It is illegal and does more damage to human minds than possibly any other business. If one were to fear for one's life while earning their bread and butter, this business would not be one of the options.

    Posted by: SumoRoge
  • Back to Singapore,

    People believe Singapore is completely drug free, however, as a Singaporean myself, I would say that many more drug traffickers go free than those caught. We can see this from the hugely disproportionate number of addicts to traffickers. I also personally know of a Singaporean who took drugs and got away with it. Now, a drug trafficker would not be doing what he does without it being necessary. They are usually in dept or have needy family members, thus, they would put others before their own lives. Lastly, the drug lord behind the operations will not be affected badly, and there will always be those willing to be their runners. Overall, I would like to say that the death penalty is not the solution, but rehabilitation to help them or life imprisonment to prevent further offences will be much more effective.

  • You are an idiot.

    You cannot just kill hundreds of people. Do you not know how many drug dealers there are in this world? That would be ridiculous. Probation and drug treatment are good enough, plus they get put in prison for five to ten years for slinging some pot, when pot is completely harmless.

  • Decrease? Haha thats funny!

    Would drug trafficking decrease if punishable by death? Yes. Substantially? No. Did people back in the day stop stealing or commit crimes that ARE punishable by death? No. Matter in fact it didn't even budge the crime world, it just challenged it. Thats what a criminal committing any kind of crime wants. A challenge. Plus if its being grown then its being sold and distributed. There are always going to be people that want or need it and when theres a demand there is always a supplier right in your neighborhood. Is there any way of stopping drug trafficking? Once again no, we can have hope, faith or just believe we can eliminate it but it will always be there.

  • Drug trafficking would decrease, but not substantially, if it were punishable by death.

    Because there would always be a demand and there would always be people willing to supply, that flow would not take a large enough impact to be considered substantial, even if trafficking was punishable by death. Though it would most likely decrease somewhat, the degree would not justify the means. Most supply does not come from the U.S.; it's from South America, so the actual suppliers would not be affected.

    Posted by: RavidbardeI
  • I do not believe drug trafficking in the U.S. would decrease substantially if it were punishable by death, because there is no evidence of this in countries where it is punishable by death.

    In countries where drug traffickers are punished by death, there is still drug trafficking. Economic desperation produces desperation among people who have to feed their families, no matter what the possible punishment.

    Posted by: badfiish
  • Drug traffickers already have a high chance of dying for what they are doing.

    They have lots of other things that can kill them. Drugs are a dangerous business. People are murdered every day over drugs, and the death penalty would just add to the bodies. If we're lucky, they will all kill themselves without interference.

  • Though a death penalty punishment might deter some dealers, it is reductionism to think this will stop addicts from buying drugs.

    Drug trafficking happens because people want drugs. Addiction is horrible and hard to treat, varying greatly based on the drug in question. The death penalty for dealers would be unlikely to stop the supply of drugs because the demand for drugs would remain, and profit margins are simply too huge for most dealers to think about no longer dealing. Further, such punishment would mean thousands of people that the government would have to pay to have executed.

    Posted by: NimbleGreg
  • The enforcement of the death penalty is too lengthy a process to make it an effective crime deterrent, therefore, it would be unlikely to decrease drug trafficking in the U.S.

    It can take many years to actually carry out a capital sentence. This delay would make it very difficult to find a clear link for these more fluid sorts of crime, like drug trafficking. While there might be some decrease in the incidence of trafficking, it would be very difficult to make a reasonable link to the death penalty. Drug trafficking exists in the context of widespread, networked, and organized activities that can take place daily, without a great deal of open objection by citizens. That is not the case for crimes like first-degree murder. Using the death penalty to decrease these sorts of crimes simply does not make sense. It may not make much sense for murder either. It is very difficult to draw conclusions when the data sets are so far apart.

    Posted by: CompleteFreddie42
  • No

    people already take a massive risk by drug trafficking some people are forced to do it or conned into it so who are we to pass judgement. It's be known that innocent people have been wrongly convicted more innocent people will be placed at risk to take the wrap. Penalties don't make any difference and have been known to make things worse unless (1920's prohibition prime failure) and who are we to decide to take someones life? we should look more at the system and find an understanding why people are willing to risk their lives.

  • It is known that the death penalty serves as a minor deterrent from crime, and therefore would do little to end drug trafficking.

    Where ever money can be made people will do what they need to to make more of it. Murder has been punishable by death in many states in the U.S., but that doesn't deter organized crime from killing those that are in their way, nor does it prevent a man from killing his wife. The same is true for drug traffickers, who are already desperate individuals doing what they see as necessary to survive.

    Posted by: daveyxh
  • The death penalty has never stopped crime - instituting it for drug trafficking wouldn't stop drug traffickers.

    One thing people don't seem to know about the death penalty is that it has NEVER been an effective deterrent. There are very few crimes that people commit expecting to get caught - if they don't expect to get caught, the penalty doesn't really matter. People were murdering each-other when the punishment was a swift hanging and not much of a trial. Crime hasn't changed in nature since then, and instituting something similar to stop the trafficking of drugs changes nothing. It's too profitable.

    Posted by: DuaneAir
  • Drug trafficking will not decrease substantially if it was punishable by death because the people who do it aren't afraid to die.

    The benefits of drug trafficking vastly outweigh the costs. The benefits of drug trafficking large amounts of tax-free money, power, and respect. The costs are death or imprisonment. Death is already a cost to drug traffickers because there are always competing gangs armed with weapons. This results in lots of deaths. So threatening to execute drug traffickers would be nothing new to them, hence it would not decrease the crime.

    Posted by: Dodo
  • I do not think that making drug trafficking punishable by death would decrease the crime substantially because it is already a highly risky line of business and that has not been a deterrent.

    Drug trafficking is already a highly dangerous activity that is basically punishable by death but by other drug lords and cartels. What they can do to you and your family compared to what the state will do does not even compare. Although so lower level traffickers may stop if it was a capital crime the reward is worth the risk especially when you have your enemies to worry about much more than the police.

    Posted by: SascM0n
  • Capital punishment as a sentence for drug trafficking won't decrease the crime; people don't think about the risks.

    People live their lives with something called a personal fable - it's a person's private story of their lives. In it, there's always a happy ending. People don't like at the risks of doing something as much as they look at the rewards, because of the tendency to think that bad things will never happen to them. The death penalty might prevent some people from doing it, but not a significant number.

    Posted by: 54ndDavi

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.