Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tw
If the death penalty were such a deterrent, then 42% of those with a high school education or less would not be cigarette addicts. It’s not the penalty that is a deterrent. Deterrence is the probability of getting caught.
|
Again, where does severity of the punishment stop crime? There is no more severe penalty than death. And still 42% of the least educated people take up cigarettes. Why? There is no more severe punishment. Still, they do so only because they don't expect to get caught. They don't expect to die. They assume emotionally rather than logically. Emotionally as in many of the above reasons to justify the death penalty.
Like it or not, the nuclear option on criminals only makes things worse - ie Stalinism. Ultimate punishment solves nothing. Deterrence is found in the probability of getting caught. If he murders again, why? Because he does not expect to get caught. 20 years or capital punishment means nothing. He does not expect to get caught.
As well proven in NYC, people who get away with petty theft and traffic violations only learn with each more severe crime that crime does pay. How did NYC reduce murders? They enforced the little crimes such as pick pocketing and those 'squeegee men'. And how did NYC do this? Every two weeks, precinct commanders were subject to review - and possible loss of command. Why? Deterrence is in getting caught doing the little crimes. All without using the ultimate punishment.
Using an emotional response to crime does zero to eliminate crime. The solution is only in logical actions. Logical actions are not perfect. And frying all murders only because some might murder again is nonsense - the classic emotional response.