Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm thinking people don't really grasp the term "deterrant". To deter means to prevent. The death penalty has not been shown to "Prevent" murders.
In the case of repeat offenses, there has been a 100% cessation of recidivism due to capital punishment.
Having said that. I have to agree that there are cases that the death penalty is not the best sentense after a conviction for murder. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" classification sounds nice but it is semanticaly imprecise. In those cases where there is no doubt, I fully agree on the death penalty. Yes there are cases like that. There are more than one serial murderer who has assisted in the solving of their own actions.
In the cases where there is less than absolute positive conclusive proof yet there is a conviction, then life without parole sounds reasonable.
As to the claim that the death penalty is not a deterant, yep absloutely true. Murder is often a "crime of passion". A non reasoning reaction to stimuli, either real or imagined, that causes a lack of rational thought. Given that lack of rational thought one could argue that there is no deterant for any act. Passion should also NOT be an excuse for taking a life. Any more than intoxication should be.
There are also those murders that are the result of cold calculation and planning. Even though there has been considerable thought by the perpetrator as to the act, they still decided to go forward with it. Should that be allowed to go unpunished and let the person maintain possession of their "mortal coil" so that they might decide again to terminate another life?
It is also true that every one that has been executed has failed to kill again. Can you prove that they would have killed again if they hadn't been executed? Of course not, so the comparison is somewhat flawed as you can't see both sides of that particular decision effect.
Is there real remorse and life change on the part of some murderers? Yes but that does not mitigate the fact that they took a life (or lives) without benefit of a trial or "bad act" on the part of their victim. Should the murderer be set free just because they claim they are now a "good guy" and renounce violence?
When does society decide that the continued existance of a member of that society is too much of a threat? What action should society take to protect it's citizens from predatory action by those who decide thay have the right to terminate another on their own? Are prisons so "perfect" they are escape proof so that there is no risk to the general population of society?
Interesting questions. I look forward to seeing what you may post in response to them.
