And to continue teh argument with Belial. And before the issue is confused, this is "argument" in the intellectual sense. I feel no disrespect for Belial personally, and have no wish to convey any such by my wrods here.

To quote Belial:
What do we hope to achieve by executing convicted murderers? (snip) Provide a deterrent? Studies consistently show the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, and why would it?


A half-truth which conceals the fallacy of this argument. While studies do indeed show that the death penalty AS APPLIED in this country is no deterrant, that's not all of the issue. The death penalty provides no deterrent because it takes an average of 7 to 12 YEARS between a conviction and an execution. These same studies consistently show that what does act as a deterrent to crimes in general, including murder, is the swift arrest of the perpetrator.

And to continue quoting:
Eliminate the possibility of recidivism? Murderers are the least likely of criminals to become recidivists

This is wildly inaccurate. Murders are the most likely of criminals to become recidivists; the general rate of recidivism for criminals who have been convicted and served out their sentences in general is around 45-55% (depends on which study you listen too). Murders generally come in at around 70-75%.

It is interesting to note here that a California study found that the group of criminals with the lowest recidivism rate was the ever-so-much hated child molester, at about 26%...exactly half that of the criminal population in general this study found.

Now, a counter question for you: if society is not allowed, under ANY circumstances to apply the death penalty, then how is society advanced in the case of John Allen Muhammed? I will reject, out of hand, the "jurors are untrustworthy" argument.

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.