I understand that, what I was trying to get at was that you seemed to be saying that the USA's particular implementation of the death penalty, and not the death penalty per se was the reason that it is not an effective deterrent. I'm asking, which particular implementations do provide a deterrent?




Leniency? No, not leniency. Just not death. To say that imprisonment is necessarily more lenient than death on the inmate is an oversimplification, particularly in the abscence of any legislated views on an afterlife.

You mention child molestation as an example of a class of crimes having a low recidivism rate along with "harsh" sentences, but do not provide a causal link. In my opinion, many of the judicial measures taken against offenders of this kind have overtly political rather than ideological aims - but that's an entirely different argument/discussion/friendly chat



Ahh, but what then of "natural justice"? Again, another argument.




Based on what we have today, yes, one would have to conclude that Mr. Muhammad is a slimy dude. In ten years time we may conclude that he has in fact been the "fall guy" for someone else, or discover other extenuating circumstances that would justify a more lenient sentence than the one meted out to him (regardless of what that actually was). By allowing him to live, we give our justice system the opportunity to correct any mistakes that may emerge. We do not at any point become directly responsible for removing him forever from a situation whereby his family and friends who were not responsible for the deaths he caused are denied the opportunity to communicate with him on those levels, we do not encourage any like-minded people to act as he did in search of martyrdom, we give him the opportunity to rehabilitate to a point where he may be something of worth to society - and even if not, we have his labour, and we do not perpetuate the grisly hypocrisy that states that killing a human is permitted and officially facilitated and overseen if that human is judged "bad" by a jury. A fallible, swayable group of people with natural emotional responses that can and are manipulated in the name of politics.

__________________
I want to know everything
I want to be everywhere
I want to fuck everyone in the world
I want to do something that matters

Belial,



True, true, the contemporary assessment of the Peloponnesian War is quite different than that held by the combatants, but does that invalidate the opinions of the people who had to live through the experience. There once was a saying "Justice delayed is justice denied."



What about if the justice system was correct?



Some people have different opinions about personal responsibility. This returns to my earlier suggestion that different peoples have different solutions to what appear to be the same problems.



Assume, for the sake of argument that an infallible, inflexible group of people handed down the verdict. Would that be a better verdict? What about a verdict handed down by unemotional people? I am uncertain that removing the humanity from these issues would improve the results.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Just to let everyone know!I heard a jurymember,interviewed on the radio news.He said that he was always against the death
penalty.He was going to vote for life imprisonment.He thought
about it.He said that with the "McGiver"(sp?)attitude of the person,
that, with life,he would do damage to another inmate or guard!
Plus,a new governor,might commute his sentence.He voted for
the death penalty.Myself,I would rather have the death penalty!
With my luck,I'd live to be 135! Irish

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)