:google: found:
Before anything we need to state what our goal is. Is it to punish criminals? Religions say that people deserve punishment for various reasons and since they controlled society and human minds for a long time, it has been ingrained in us too, whether right or wrong, that punishing the wrong-doer is the goal of a legal system. That is wrong. Punishment is part of it but not the goal. The goal is to create a better society.
Not all members of our society are loving and caring and concerned for the welfare of society and its members. Some of these members carry out actions that are detrimental to society and other individual members of society(reasons vary). These actions are what we call crime and these members are criminals. (The criminal can be a petty criminal or big corporate boss or even a president.) For protecting society and the other members of society we need to prevent these members from doing detrimental things. What do we do to stop them...?
1) We appeal to morality
Unfortunately, not all are persuaded ...
So...
2) We make laws stating certain actions, deemed detrimental (by some legislative body), will be rewarded with punishment. The punishment will vary and will be decided by the legislative body depending on the crime.
There are two kinds of punishment:
1) Non-isolation Punishments
2) Isolation Punishment
Non-Isolation punishments are for not so serious offences. These include monetary fines etc. For serious crimes we use the isolation punishment. Isolation Punishment removes individuals deemed threat to others from society.
Isolation punishment is also of two forms:
1) Temporary Isolation: Limited jail terms.
2) Permanent Isolation: Life Imprisonment and the Death Penalty.
Putting a dangerous member in jail isolates the individual from society. Temporary isolation is reserved for most offences. The temporary jail term might reform a criminal or might teach him not to do the same thing again if he does not wish to be jailed. Temporary isolation works well but if the negative effect on society is really bad we need to use longer isolation times... and maybe the permanent isolation will also be desired on instances if the individual poses too great a threat to others.
Now jailing one for life effectively isolates an individual from society. Then do we still need the death penalty? And should we house them in a jail spending taxpayers money? Now comes the main discussion.
We must remember our goal. It is not to punish but to prevent detrimental things happening in society. How do we deter certain individuals from harming others intentionally, if moral persuasion fails? One effective and time tested way is the threat of the punishment. The threat of punishment works as a good deterrent because we (most of us) act based upon an assessment of profit and loss. Depending on whether the profit or loss is greater, we decide on whether to do something or not. If the "getting caught" and the punishment seems to be a less loss than the benefit one might gain... then certain members of our society will do what we dread. Sometimes going to jail might for temporary or permanents isolation status might often be less of a deterrent. One good example is the Polly Klaas murder case. The killer of Polly Klaas (12) was in jail for kidnapping and rape and had a history of similar crimes. His jailing did not work as a deterrent and when he was let out on parole, he entered Polly Klaas' house and kidnapped and murdered her. For cases like this jail is a farce.
Even life term (life term is not whole life) is not a good deterent for these people. Temporary jail or even the threat of being jailed for life is not a big deterrent. For such members of the society, it is undesirable to have them lose to endanger the rest of the community. Removing them permanently from society is the most effective way of protecting the society. One might suppose that permanent jail is the best solution but there are two problems.
1) The expenses of feeding and housing becomes a burden to the people the criminal threatens. Tax payers should not have to pay to house criminals who are a terror to the community.
2) It has no contribution to deter other potential criminals.
This is where the death penalty works best. It is not only a good method of isolating the criminal at the extreme edge from the rest of society but is also a big deterrent. Avoiding death seems to be a pretty good argument for most humans to choose a "different" course of action. Death Penalty is thus a very strong deterrent. Through the fear of death many things have been established including many main stream religions. Why not use it for a good cause?
Some feel that the threat of death is not really a deterrent... well I would hope they say that the next time they are taken on a long ride and stuck in a cement barrel to be buried at sea alive. Some also cite that in nations like the USA where death penalty is enforced, the crimes punishable by death has not decreased. True, but there are reasons for this. What we see in the US and many other nations is an effect of lag. There is a big time gap between the time when a crime is committed, a criminal is arrested and tried and sentenced to death AND when the sentence is carried out. This lag and the fact that the death penalty is carried out in an almost secretive manner, away from the public with only a press release to let the world know, causes a weak correlation in minds between the crime and the punishment of death. Also added to that, the death penalty is often skipped except in cases like Abu Jamal Mumia or Shaka in the USA, who some say are victims of a political witch burning campaign. Polly Klaas' murderer is still on deathrow and still kept alive.
I will not say that the delay is all bad because we do not want our system to murder an innocent person. However, I must note that the lag does defeat the purpose of detering. Detering is highly desired; as the saying goes, prevention is the best cure. If we can cause the members who seek to harm to understand that the risk of punishment is greater than whatever benefit they may derive by powerful examples of enforcing the death penalty, we might achieve our goal. We shall need to punish less (not the goal) and we shall also have less crime (the goal).
However, there will be those exceptions who will not operate with the same mindset as most and might not give the death penalty any thought. These individuals, in my opinion, will make good candidates for the examples which will both isolate the individual permanently and will also prevent many from doing the same undesirable things. The murderer of 12 year old Polly Klaas is one such individual.
I see individuals, who are caught up in a new fad to be politically correct or to show how humane they are, calling for abolition. I see individuals who are caught up with religion seeking abolition without realizing their religion was founded upon killing. I think they are wrong. I would not support the abolition of the death penalty. It should be preserved to serve as a tool to protect the society and its members (not just a punishment). The death penalty is good for permanent isolation and for deterring other potential criminals.
We should not forget our goal, to protect society and its members from other members, making a better society. I question the ethics of those who cry havoc in the name of the rights of criminals. What about the rights of the rest of us? We have the right to walk alone in the park or be in the subway at a late hour without having to worry of being robbed, killed or raped. We have the right to lay in bed safely without worrying whether the doors were locked properly or the alarms were set correctly.
Buy on AliExpress.com
