[quote author=anna board=death thread=1035 post=14391 time=1262802521
First off deterrence is not prevention...If it isn't, what is it?
If someone is 'deterred' from committing a crime but commits it anyway, in what sense have they been deterred?
Or do you mean that
some people may be deterred from committing a crime by fear of the DP, but not all?[/quote]
Both Jean and Anna have made excellent posts on this subject and I think that the issue of deterrence is obviously relevant to the question.
Let's look at a few examples.
1 Anna's example of a price-hike will certainly deter people from spending their money on items that maybe they would otherwise have bought but doesn't mean that they WON'T still go ahead in spite of that.
2 Raising bank rates will tend to discourage business expansion but doesn't prevent an employer from going ahead anyway.
In both those examples, the deterrence factor is there but it isn't enough to actually STOP people going ahead anyway.
Now for some counter-examples.
1 When (between 1680 and 1822) Britain had MORE capital offences on the books than any other country in the world, what exactly happened to the crime and murder rate?
You could be executed for forgery, for theft, for arson, and even for your sexual behaviour.
Did these harsh penalties REDUCE the crime rate? Not at all. The underclass, struggling in dire poverty, CONTINUED to commit crime to survive and thought the risk of a hanging was worth it.
Juries, knowing that the offence for stealing items ABOVE a certain sum was death, DELIBERATELY undervalued them so that the criminal would NOT be executed.
Juries also often chose to acquit a clearly guilty defendant just because they did NOT want to execute a person who had NOT taken anyone else's life.
Pickpockets thronged the crowded areas like Tyburn where the public executions were conducted IN ORDER to commit further crimes.
The harshness of the sentences made NO difference to the level of crime being committed.
FAR more effective was the work of Robert Peel as Home Secretary who not only eliminated most of the capital offences but also introduced the Metropolitan Police Force.
Because the new 'bobbies' were far more efficient than their predecessors, the level of crime DID go down.
Every survey shows that CERTAINTY OF CAPTURE is FAR more of a deterrent than anything else!
2 On the specific issue of capital punishment, many jurors are opposed to it and (even two hundred years ago) were against it even in the old days.
The result is that (if a juror KNOWS that a capital sentence will be given if the defendant is convicted) he or she will just find the prisoner not guilty regardless of the evidence.
I think that pretty well sums up all I want to say (right now at least) on the deterrence claim.
I also think that it's just plain WRONG to execute people who haven't actually KILLED anyone.
I don't have a problem about executing the ones who DO.