This is heavily disputed, but I tend to agree with you. However, I do not feel that the DP's primary goal is to be a deterrent.1. Is it not an effective deterrent against crime. While there is no empirical data to justify the claim, I think the comparative rates of crimes in capital punishment vs. non-capital punishment states is negligible. If we look further at countries, then this is even more negligible.
Not only is this incredibly rare, but flawed. If we are afraid of innocent people being convicted and punished, why not abolish the entire criminal justice system?2. There is always a degree of doubt in the verdict of a jury. If one human being is innocently executed in my name then I'm not comfortable having any human being be killed. Remember that states draw their legitimacy from the monopoly of force (in other words, they can kill and not get punished) and any coercion is done in the name of the citizens.
A flaw with the legal system, not the DP.3. It is not cost-effective. Studies have shown that it costs the taxpayer more to kill someone than to incarcerate them for life.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
"outdated"? Did the Golden Rule ever become outdated? The wisdom of ancient proverbs? The notion that an idea becomes outdated is purely subjective.4. The idea of an eye for an eye is a little outdated. The cliche Ghandi quote still applies, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
At any rate, it's not about an eye for an eye... it's about removing detriments of society rather than giving them free shelter, health care, and food.
Last edited: