There is also an argument that the introduction of a Death Sentence does not deter murder, but actually increases its likelihood as those committing it with either kill witnesses or indeed the police attempting to capture them.
Which of course also applies if life means life.
Is spending your entire life behind bars in a Victorian Prison "nicer?" What's the suicide rate inside?
Note, we aren't going to see a death sentence back or see life meaning life that often.
Wrong. I'd regard it as a step in the right direction.
which by definition is not 'job jobbed'.
Having the death sentence available and an option is "job jobbed."
The above was an example of a clear cut attacker. There are others. Specifically for that, I believe there was mental illness involved which complicates things.
I think the death penalty should be there as an option and deterrent, like nuclear weapons are an option and deterrent. I leave the use to those who have heard all the evidence and then decide it's the best option. A detterent as a force in being.
Same with life imprisonment and actually meaning life. Every case is different. There's a lot of whataboutery regarding "what if an innocent person is killed," fine, then if there is any doubt there is prison, "it doesn't deter," neither does what we have, crime still happens.
I am not one for the Death Sentence,but i do feel if you look at the crimes theses two first committed and and the light sentences both of theses served in the first place,they should of been serving whole life sentences in the first place.
“The view that the death penalty deters is still the product of belief, not evidence ... On balance, the evidence suggests that the death penalty may increase the murder rate.” - John Donohue & Justin Wolfers
Of all the studies and data on deterrence and the death penalty to date, when thoroughly peer reviewed, virtually all conclude that the death penalty has no discernible effect on deterrence.
I neither believe the death penalty is a deterrence, nor is it conducive to a modern, healthy society.
That it costs more not just fiscally to operate the death penalty than whole life sentences, but may well have costs to social wellbeing.
I do not 'believe' that state sanctioned executions should be established on the basis of belief, without sound and substantial amounts of imperical data to support it.
So we will have to agree to disagree.
Again it suits some situations. If you were in a situation of home invasions, rape, murder, and crime out of control, as some places are, then a death sentence tends to be the answer as nothing else is a deterrent.
Even if it isn't, it will still be demanded.
Every? 100%? No way you can back that up. No. Way.
Which works for both sides.
It is often the case those who don't support a death sentence will also provide evidence to support that.
And also flawed thinking. It might be 99 cases against something and one in favour. That one can be right and the other 99 wrong.
It's an example that there are arguments on both sides.
Posting never ending links to what supports your case proves nothing other than you can sit googling.
Guess what? So can anyone else.
Would you prefer I posted a hundred links to those that argued in favour? Would it prove anything to you?
Would someone who's living in terror every day be convinced? Or still want it regardless?
Illustrates the point perfectly. The point is not numbers but what's right. Both sides will come up with evidence, both sides to suit an agenda, both sides can be criticised.
As you admit here, it does work in some cases.
Just a note on this, Ian Huntley. There is no death sentence. He might even be released one day. He abused and killed. He had a history of crime, abuse and rape.
Perhaps if there was capital punishment he might have been dissuaded. Perhaps Holly and Jessica might be alive now. We've seen without such a punishment they aren't.
Peter Sutcliffe, so far, I believe his trial and incarceration has cost £10 million.
What exact benefits to our society are these people achieving?
The difference being is that the onus is on the person making the claim. In this case, the claim is that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.
Whether the claim is that the death penalty is not a deterrent, that the death penalty has no evidence to support it or that there is contradictory evidence that means no conclusive evidence to support it - they are not providing evidence to support an action to be taken and especially not one that is fundamental to the ethics of a societies justice system.
Just as in a murder case - the onus is on the prosecution to prove the defendant did it, not the defence to prove his innocence.
All the defence must do is show that the prosecutions claim (that the death penalty is a deterrent) is not beyond reasonable doubt.
Flawed thinking ? No, it is flawed thinking to not accept that 99 to 1 odds is not a significant indication.