(urth) This Week in Google Alerts: Home Fires

[António Pedro Marques]

Marc Aramini wrote (12-04-2012 01:38):
> I am not going to get too involved here, as it will no doubt veer further
> and further from its Wolfe origins, but the claim that the death penalty
> is not a deterrent from further crime ... does that imply that other
> systems just pay for people for life,

I'll say only this: last time I heard, the money spent with a death penalty 
in the US is way more than with a life sentence, due to the processual 
guarantees involved.

My view is that the State should not be able to take away something it can't 
restore. Sure, it can't restore time spent in jail either, but I'll be glad 
to leave the inconsistency stand. I'm also not bothered by the fact that 
paying for a life sentence for a criminal is an insult to taxpayers whereas 
paying way more to be able to carry out a death sentence may not be.

I have nothing against a death penalty for individuals who everybody knows 
they committed some types of crime - say, the norwegian individual. However, 
I know of no good legal system that has a standard by which to distinguish 
such individuals.