Quote:
Originally posted by hoosier
Joel's argument is not exactly true.
I am 100% sure that nobody given the death penalty, via injection or electrocution, in GA has ever committed another crime. IT TOTALLY DETERS FUTURE CRIMES by that perp.
I'm pretty confident that it is also true in the other 49 states.
|
Fallacious logic - it doesn't "deter" in this scenario, it "prevents" . . . in the sense of "eliminates the possibility" instead of "takes an active role to combat beforehand"
I invite you to present any evidence that the death penalty plays an active role in repressing crime. It simply does not.
Life in prison without parole also has a 99.9% success rate in preventing future crimes by the same person, and it's significantly cheaper than administering the death penalty.
Quote:
Originally posted by hoosier
Right now we have the most people ever in prison.
Right now we have a very low crime rate, compared to post-WWII years.
Incarceration = lower crime rates.
|
Good point, although there are far more reasons for the crime rate dropping for the last decade than simple incarceration.
Quote:
Originally posted by hoosier
The death penalty would be a more effective deterent IF it was timely. A perp was injected in GA Tuesday for a murder 14 years ago, and often perps are on 'death row' for 15 - 20 years, thru multiple appeals. If the perp and his lawyer got one appeal, and a 90-day deadline to submit the appeal, the death penalty's deterent effect would mean something more.
The death penalty would be a more effective deterent IF it was timely.
|
I don't see any support for this anywhere - I think it would be a more efficient system, and it would alleviate the cost arguments (right now it's insanely expensive to the state to kill a prisoner). However, psychology and criminology studies have unilaterally proven, for decades, that the end results or consequences of criminal actions do not serve a strong role in determining whether that action takes place, so I really can't agree with you at all.