You guys remember that guy from Portland who was snatching little boys back in the 90s? Didn't he request to be executed by hanging or something strange?
Read the sentence after that, where further studies showed from every 1 person that had the death penalty, 7 lives were saved? When you say it's wrong, then why would that model be accurate?
Long list of distinguished jurists and others intimately involved in the application of the death penalty. Read the left column. http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=1324 Typical:
Side effect. Not the purpose. If it were the purpose, they'd have done the studies and if the studies say it's a deterrent then they'd allow the death penalty. The opposite is the order things happen.
People "knowing the law has teeth" matters so that they respect the law. If people commit crimes, they're not respecting the law. So a law "having teeth" has to mean it's deterring crime.
Yes respect the law. That doesn't have anything to do with deterrent. See the edit I made in my previous post. You're trying to play semantic games. That's a game you won't win
No, re-phrasing the same sentiment to avoid using a word you don't like is the definition of semantic games. I simply pointed out that you made the deterrence argument under new wording.
I did no such thing. Deterrence means, "oh look, they kill people who commit heinous crimes so I won't commit one." (though people continue to do so) Respect for the law means, "we are a nation of laws, the laws are something we value highly."
And anyone with "common sense" would understand that. When I was speeding, and yes I still speed, I would always worry about a cop pulling me over. Why? Why would I slow down if I suspect a cop is nearby? It's because I didn't want to get a ticket. I was deterred to speed in fear of the punishment. Does it stop everyone from speeding? Absolutely not! But imagine if there was a cop every mile on a freeway? How many people would be speeding?
If you really don't think they're the same, your view is incoherent. If it has no deterrence effect, then the law isn't respected, because the law doesn't change behavior.
They're not the same thing. It's not Saddam killing his political enemies under the guise of the law here. It's our legal system that we trust and respect that is doing it and we can be assured that the laws are (or should be) carried out without prejudice and otherwise fairly. If there were widely no respect for the law, nobody would follow any of the laws.
Denny, the two reasons, punishment and deterrence aren't mutually exclusive. One can argue the punishment is needed to punish these beasts, while also making the point that the ultimate punishment nay deter other criminals from doing these heinous crimes.
How about we rephrase it will something less punitive? "Oh look, they give people tickets for speeding so I won't speed" But we do speed right? In your explanation, you make it seem like people don't commit murder not because of the punishment, but because it's the law. You think of them as saying. "The law says not to speed, so I will not speed". How many do you think don't speed because they want to follow the law or not pay the fine for getting caught speeding?
Nobody ever made any deterrence argument until the political left made it an issue while trying to do away with the death penalty.
