Opponents equate execution and murder, believing that if two acts have the same ending or result, then those two acts are morally equivalent. This is a morally untenable position. Is the legal taking of property to satisfy a debt the same as auto theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnaping and legal incarceration the same? Both involve imprisonment against one's will. Is killing in self defense the same as capital murder? Both end in taking human life. Are rape and making love the same? Both may result in sexual intercourse.
Well theres a rather forced argument. I'd argue that of the set of executions, there is a subset where the person has been incorrectly found guilty. In those cases then execution and murder are equivalent. I'd argue that unless you could prove 100% that every death penalty case the correct person had been executed for the crime, then execution was immoral. One murder by the state is one murder too many.
An ineteresting book that discusses the second part iks the autobiography of Albert Pierrepoint, the UK's last official hangman. at the end of the book he states that of all the people he hanged, he can't think of a single case where the death penalty had even the slightest deterrant effect Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
If the death penalty has no deterrent effect then it is merely a barbaric ritual of revenge. Only if it has deterrent effect is it useful, in the sense of reducing the sum of violence in the society.
I have never seen any data that seemed to me conclusive, that showed a measurable deterrent effect.
Reducing neurotoxin levels in people's houses, air, and diets (lead abatement) probably has done more to reduce violent crime than any number of hangings. If the death penalty were highly deterrent then countries which practise it should have far lower violent crime rates per mio pop than the rest of the world. Last time I checked that did not seem to be the case. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
Number of prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants in 2002: Finland: 52 US: 702 Russia: 664
http://www.boosman.com/blog/2003/01/the_finnish_prison_system.html
These figures happen to be closely tracked by the inequality of income. You can't be me, I'm taken
I wonder what the stats are on repeat-offenders, but surely it must be lower in Finland (for one thing, less people per capita who could potentially be a repeat-offender). I've had arguments with people who seem to think Finnish prisoners have it too good (which usually ends with me invoking Goodwin's law in one form or another). As I said above, what's the point of having prisons to begin with it if you come out in worse shape than when you went in? "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
Other than that the Finns have been quietly suffering their neighbours. You can't be me, I'm taken
Quite a few executed whites too.
Sure, of course, but the aftermath saw only executed reds, since they were the losers.
Some exact numbers from the War Victims Project:
Killed in action: 5324 Reds, 3279 Whites Executed or murdered: 7207 Reds, 1321 Whites Died in prison camps: 11785 Reds, 6 Whites Died after being released: 597 Reds, 0 Whites Missing: 1818 Reds, 42 Whites Other causes: 695 Reds, 173 Whites Total: 27426 Reds, 4821 Whites, 2030 Others
(Sorry for the digression) You have a normal feeling for a moment, then it passes. --More--
