OK, I've already given my stance on the issue, but I feel like there's a couple points being argued that I don't understand - Not to pick on
skip101 at all - yours was just the first post I saw, many others have said similar things, I'm not trying to bash you or anything!
Quote:
Originally posted by skip101
If they would actually use the death penalty it would deter.
|
This isn't actually true - in fact, there's no proof of this at all, and most studies state exactly the opposite - that there is no deterrent effect associated with capital punishment.
Also, here's a somewhat poorly worded but fairly well-done
cite
Quote:
Originally posted by skip101
Once a criminal is put to death they wont be committing any more crimes. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
|
OK - I don't have that data here at hand, but I think this is sort of the fallacy of the complex question. "Most Crimes" aren't the ones that will fall under the death penalty anyway, right? Well
here's an interesting case study, culled from the Portland Oregonian, of actual cases of the repeat offenders. A quick scan shows that some had committed 'capital' offences before, but most had not - they had committed much lower offences, and later worked up to murder or rape.
So does the problem then really lie in the lack of use of the death penalty? I'll argue that it's more of an institutional problem than this - the entire system has faults, and the death penalty is in no way a cure-all for the woes of murder, rape, etc in our society. Rather, I'll openly state that if we wish to institute the death penalty, it must only be openly due to the fact that death is felt to be an appropriate punishment for the crimes committed.
Other reasons - whether they be deterrence,
revenge, religion, or monetary reasons - don't hold water, in my opinion.
Threaded Mode