It’s a three sentence summation of my position on the death penalty not a legal brief. If you can’t infer from my statement that I don’t value the specific deterrence of the death penalty then that’s not my fault.
Then you shouldn’t say “the death penalty isn’t a good deterrent or an effective deterrent,” or any words to that effect.
You should have said it isn’t a good or effective “general” deterrent, but is the most effective “specific” deterrent that exists in the law.
Yes, not saying that is your fault.
Public hangings used to be a pretty good deterrence.
1 Like
General AND Specific!!
I am for the death penalty but DNA technology brings up another “tool” for law enforcement, justice.
Bringing a DNA confirmation for a death sentence as a pre requisite might be the answer to this.
At the end if the day the district attorneys have to do their job. Letting free cold blooded killers after a few years in jail is society’s most damaging problem.
1 Like
DNA evidence isn’t always needed.
Take the case we indicted for capital murder recently.
The cops were already chasing the guy in a stolen 18 wheeler.
The guy is captured on the cop’s dash camera deliberately turning into a parking lot and then crashing that vehicle into a DPS building (killing two people and dismembering an elderly woman who survived).
With the camera still running, the cops, on video, literally pull the driver out of the cab of the truck and place him under arrest.
Later…after being Mirandized, he confessed to the action on video, and when told that people had died, his only response was “well that’s unfortunate,” or something to that effect.
My statement was fine. If you had a question because you’re confused or wanted me to clarify then you can simply ask. Again, I don’t need my own opinion Law-splained to me.
Of course if you have clear video evidence that won’t be necessary. If these are not present or available a pre requisite dna evidence makes perfect sense.
Dude, you didn’t go to law school, you don’t know what the word “deterrence” means. Please leave this matter to our resident super genius.
2 Likes
I also don’t believe in the death penalty, for religious reasons.
Yeah, there is that.
As a Catholic I too struggle with the death penalty in that regard.
Thank you!
I’m not catholic but feel the same.
I agree that the death penalty is a deterrent, the executed felon won’t ever do it again. Otherwise, it hasn’t seemed to stop all, or any, of the thousands of murders annually.
1 Like
What we have here is failure to indoctrinate. 
1 Like
Studies show that outside of that one person, the death penalty is indeed not a deterrent.
Here’s a boring academic paper on it, but there are plenty of other sources out there.
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7323&context=jclc
Like most of us, if someone close to me was brutally victimized, I’m sure a part of me would want to enact justice myself and want that person dead.
But that’s not what a society is for. If it’s not a deterrent, then it should be abolished as a brutal practice. Because taking a life, in the name of society, has a societal cost.
When people talk about the good old days and executions, they neglect to remember that they were held in public. Men, women and children were able to view the end result of their stance on the death penalty. Seeing a life extinguished in person likely changes a person permanently. Maybe it awakens sadness, bloodlust, remorse, whatever.
So if we are to continue this practice which sole purpose seems to be revenge, not justice, then they should be public.
Society should know the consequences of their decisions.
1 Like
Since executions are done semi-privately, there isn’t going to be much of an effect.
Hold executions in the public square, it may have an effect.
In Saudi Arabia they still have thievery but, I think, seeing people missing a hand will offer some deterrence.
2 Likes
That darn 8th
Yeah, that’s what I was saying. It has to be public to have any use to society at al.
