RE: THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CONTROVERSY - PART 1: THE EFFECT OF DETERRENCE
Very well written and researched. At some level I think it would be a deterrent, but it would have to depend on the person.
For example if stealing was punishable by death, I think 100% there would be less stealing. Not none, because there are those who have no real means to get things they need, and also those who enjoy trying to break the rules and not get caught.
You are right that most of the violent crime that is committed would not be deterred because people already know that death is a possibility and continue to do so for a number of reasons, whether caught up in the moment, desperate or otherwise.
What would you feel about a jail for life prisoner being able to choose the death penalty, or the family of one who was killed being allowed to decide the outcome for a convicted murderer (probably not going to ever happen, but an interesting case study).
thank you @bendjmiller222! Frank Van Den Bleeken, a life prisoner from Belgium, was actually given the right to have an assisted suicide due to psychological suffering he went through in prison (he is still alive though I think). In a way, life in prison without parole could be seen as a 'terminal disease'. If such a prisoner can take a rational decision that his suffering is so intense that he does not wish to live anymore, he should have the right to die.
About the family being involved in the punishing of the criminal, I don't agree with it. Humans have different moral values and emotional reactions to situations. If you give them the right to decide on the fate of a criminal this would create unequal punishments. For any legal system to be considered as successful, it has to be as fair and uniform in its decisions as possible. So different punishments for the same crimes, would create an unfair legal system and would lead to all the problems that come with such a system.
You are right about the family causing unfair punishments if left to individuals to decide.
I'd argue that life itself is a death sentence (in a way). That would also open the discussion up to assisted suicide without any life sentence or jail time. I don't like this idea, but I do believe it will be a more common discussion in the future.
Would depression or ptsd be something that causes suffering so intense that it would warrant assisted suicide discussions?
I hope not, but I can't imagine it not being part of the future.
That's actually a good argument which can be used to argue against the deterrence effect of capital punishment. For most people a life behind bars (and maybe a large part in solitary confinement) is worse than a death penalty. So in a way, a mandatory life imprisonment without parole for all 1st degree murders can prevent crimes as much as the death penalty.
I think that prisons of the future will be places where real rehabilitation will be taking place. Most prisons of today are just places of punishment which end up making things worse for those who have a chance to be released one day (most of them return with worse crimes). I don't know if the statement ''once a killer, always a killer'' is 100% valid, I haven't read much research on the subject. But even if it is and someone needs to spend a lifetime behind bars, he should have the right to end his life if he wishes and his imprisonment conditions shouldn't add to his suffering.
Prison also tends to be a gathering of criminal minds. What better way to collaborate with others than to network while in prison. For those who have not learned life skills or changed their ways on the inside, it's unlikely they will not commit the same or similar crimes, but with the tips from other inmates.
It's no secret our prison system needs a complete overhaul, but it tends to be on the backburner to other topics in the spotlight right now.