Most researchers have used post-Gregg data from the United States to examine the statistical association between homicide rates and the legal status, the actual implementation of the death penalty, or both. The studies have reached widely varying, even contradictory, conclusions. Some studies conclude that executions save large numbers of lives; others conclude that executions actually increase homicides; and still others conclude that executions have no effect on homicide rates
There are posts in this thread regarding the risk of innocent life being taken through the death penalty. Of course, the idea that any innocent life could be taken away through false convictions is concerning (as rare as it is), but as a society we have gone into numerous events where we knew that the deaths of innocents were a possibility, yet pursued them through noble goals. For example, I doubt many of us here would have opposed the UK, or the US's involvement in the Second World War, despite the risk of innocent lives being taken.
With regards to the deterrence effect of the death penalty - There's no real evidence it does anything.
Taken from here.
Additionally, just run through your head why people kill/rape. It's not often a cold/calculating weighing up of the pros and cons, of incentives and deterrences (and for those who do, they tend to think they're smart enough to not get caught). Usually, there's intense emotions involved. Consequences get pushed aside until after the act.
All that aside, wouldn't you agree that the tradition of retributive punishment is a little bit outdated? Eye for an eye? Bit biblical for my liking.
Do you believe in free will? How much of what you do is really under your control? How much of it is a result of your upbringing and your brain chemistry? Have you heard of determinism? You have no choice but to act as you do. Rapists rape and Ele preaches. Lion's gonna lion. Do we kill all lions? If we have no choice in things, as I believe, then capital punishment seems barbaric as fuck. Certainly doesn't seem moral.
I really don't think these are analogous. The death penalty is a punishment, conscription was necessary to defeat a dangerous ideology that wanted to dominate the entire world and eradicate any who opposed them.
Evidence varies; some studies/statistics arguably say it has some effect based on your interpretation of the data, others say it has no effect. Obviously the US and the UK have different cultures, so the effects may differ slightly. That's why I'm for the temporary reintroduction of it to see if its effects mirror the effects it had in the 1950s. Just for context, the death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1965.
I think it's fairly reasonable to think that a person might feel less-inclined to commit a crime if they'll be executed for it.
I see the death penalty as a deterrent - not for vengeful purposes.
So the key word here is "necessary", and what we deem is necessary is subjective in this instance. It's a stalemate argument.
Evidence varies; some studies/statistics arguably say it has some effect based on your interpretation of the data, others say it has no effect. Obviously the US and the UK have different cultures, so the effects may differ slightly. That's why I'm for the temporary reintroduction of it to see if its effects mirror the effects it had in the 1950s. Just for context, the death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1965.
I think it's fairly reasonable to think that a person might feel less-inclined to commit a crime if they'll be executed for it.
I don't believe in the concept of predeterminism, so I don't agree with you.