Yea. Because it's the weakest argument against capital punishment and can be easily argued that you put horse before the cart- that more death penalties were issued because of increasing crime rate and not vice versa. In India there were only 3 execution in last 17 years. It didn't lower the crime rate.
How is it a weak argument? It fails to do one of things it claims, that is deter crime. If it's doing the opposite something is wrong or clearly the point is moot.
Besides I was not referring to criminals but the anarchy that results from the idea that criminals aren't being punished severely enough and people taking law in their own hand. We get criminals who murder/rape people knowing they will be practically get away with it and then mob justice takes over.
Define severely enough. If the fear of death has not swayed these criminals what will? Furthermore how many people are vigilantes? Even more so if these people really wanted to do something they would seek systematic change not singular acts of violence.
Punishment itself does not deter too many crimes involving the killing of people.
Then whats the point of saying it deters crime, especially murder- a crime usually ideal for the death penalty?
If someone intends to kill, not out of some degree of temporary insanity or extreme emotion, but plotting diligently and carefully for it, s/he is prepared for any consequences and capital punishment or jail both means little.
How often does this happen? More likely someone will get angry and shoot someone over something. A plan killing is usually going to be over an outrage or something that takes time to build. Hopefully you're not implying all murderers are diligently planing who they kill? Certainly not given how little education most felons have.
but it is still needed to send out a message to society on what is acceptable or unacceptable to a society. This is the prime purpose of any punishment, death or jail, regardless of whether it deters or not. In the least we have taken some mentally sick people who pose threat for the rest of the eople off the street.
So if it's not deterring why mention it as deterring? What exactly is capital punishment/death penalty doing for you, in your mind? It's not deterring criminals, and it's not cheap. Moreover there is a punishment for these crimes, it just not the death penalty. So a message is clearly being made that said action is not allowed. However you believe the death penalty is the better message, yet I do not see how given it gives no other benefit in regards to cost, deterrence, or message.
I perfectly understand all the humanitarian and reformative laws. It may work for Europe with much improved living standards and education and limited population that results in more law abiding citizens. You have enough resources to run corrective programs and what not. We have a low income country and simply little means for such extensive programs.
I'm not from Europe....this is the corrupt murrica and these types of laws have had positive effects, unlike the death penalty....Furthermore murrica puts nearly nothing into these types of laws and it still has positive effects...
Oddly enough these types of programs are cheaper as well, so low income countries should think wisely on their options, instead of settling with the death penalty.
But when you include terrorists too you are simply cut off with harsh realities and level of threat posed by them. We have terrorists groups right and left ( pun intended) and some really evil people that we can do without. Keeping them in jail is actually risking other jailbirds too or letting them be influenced by such radical ideologies that think little before killing other harshly. The terrorists in Bangladesh didn't just kill people- they tortured and then slit their throats- slowly one by one - they spent hours in killing those 20 people.
Terrorist are literally an extreme case and will most likely be killed regardless. Majority of this death penalty will fall on citizens, not your drive a plane into skyscraper, blow up a train station, etc. terrorist. Even more so, terrorist have more of a grudge and driven by other motives, so death penalty is not going to deter them. These are the very people who you said won't be deterred; these people plot diligently to achieve their goals.
As some put it:
"There is evil in this world. It is not to be mistaken with lack of opportunity, a poor education, or racism. If none of those things existed, there would still be evil. It stands its vigil at the border of civilized life, ready to make its foray if given the chance. Often it is concealed or disguised, which makes the fight against it so hard. But there are times when it shows its face. These are the child murders, the torture and sadism murders, the drawn out killing of helpless people for the fun of it. A society that has lost -- or, more correctly, has forfeited -- its right to set its face against horrors like that, to recognize some acts as beyond the pale of civilization, and to say no and mean it -- that society has fumbled away something of ineffable value, something hard won but easily lost. It has fumbled away that is, the moral strength without which evil will win.
A democracy can afford, and will make, many errors. It cannot afford that one. "
Please explain how not supporting the death penalty equals loss of moral strength.
.....
......
"Ultimately, the courts must be trusted to enact justice. This means no artificial restrictions, such as the prevention of the death penalty. If the restrictions are too high, confidence in the courts will be lost, undermining their purpose."
Confidence will be lost when people disagree, and in america a lot of the loss of confidence is due to inaction of the courts, not a death penalty conviction, but no conviction at all. I can't speak for any other country regarding their loss of confidence if there was a loss in confidence at all.
In cases of the death penalty, the burden of proof must be higher than normal. The risk of killing an innocent man must be weighed heavily. But it must be objective and possible.
And this is why death penalty is more expensive, and even then there is the risk of human error.
