XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa
XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican
XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.law-enforcement
From: drp@drproctor.com
On 19 Dec 2003 15:47:40 -0800, guidosjunkmail@yahoo.com (Guido Marx)
wrote:
>Peter H. Proctor wrote in message news:...
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:54:06 GMT, "Ken [NY)" wro
>> True, the execution of innocent parties has at least as
>> much deterrent effect as the execution of guilty ones. More
>> deterrence, in fact, because it lowers the bar significantly for
>> society to execute probably -innocent parties "just in case". ....
>
>That simply isn't true. We have in front of us today the Green River
>Killer being sentenced to life in prison. The lesson to be taken from
>this if you are a killer is - be sure you kill a LOT of people and
>hide their bodies - that way, you'll have something to bargain with if
>you get caught.
Actually, my statement about executing innocent parties
having more deterrent effect than executing the guilty is a sarcastic
"modest suggestion" to make a point..
OTOH, The Green River Killer is the classic example of
somebody who does "need killin' ", whether his death will have any
deterrent effect or not..... Likely, the prosecutor had "higher
order" considerations. Such people generally do not last long in
prison.
>The death penalty is sought in less than 1% of murder cases. This
>fact alone means it provides little if anything in the way of
>deterrence.
The low percentage is because the death penalty can only be
imposed in certain well-defined specific circumstances. Arguably,
while the death penalty might not lower the murder rate in general (
yes, the evidence here is poor ), it may lower it for those
circumstances.
Dr P
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
