Evidently I need to reread my posts before publishing them. I didn't mean to imply the debate about the deterrent effects of the death penalty are no longer contested. The debate definitely continues. My point was that in the past several years more conclusive studies have emerged suggesting that the death penalty does in fact deter murder. And I don't think anybody reading those studies should be surprised that people criticize the studies' methodologies, as you pointed out. After all, there's a lot at stake here. But remember, for every person who criticizes the study, there's also somebody who supports it--often an academic just like the critics you pointed to.
But since we're on the subject of flawed studies, let me put forth one of my own. Let's say John Doe is premeditating the murder of his wife. According to Doe, she's a mean, nasty ol' lady and he's tired of her constant nagging. John Doe is a lawyer and he plans to commit the perfect crime (yes, we've heard this story before). He obviously understands the law, and he knows the repercussions of his pre-meditated actions. After all, they are PRE-MEDITATED; he has lots and lots of time to think about it. Can you tell me than under no circumstance will the thought of the death penalty deter Mr. Doe from preceding with his plan? Because if you can't, then there's a CHANCE that the death penalty may deter a murder. And in my mind, if there's a chance we can save one innocent child, one innocent mother, one innocent bystander, then that chance, combined with several other reasons (some of which we have already discussed), is enough for me to support the death penalty.
And quite frankly, I think there's much more than a chance that the death penalty deters murder; in fact, I think the death penalty does deter murder, just like a ticket deters speeding and the threat of jail time deters drug dealing, perhaps not in all instances but in many and that's all that matters.
--Sir Elephant, Master of the Scientific Method
No comments:
Post a Comment