Unrein
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 448
- Reaction score
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
This one grants the state a particularly awe inspiring power, that of life and death.
Well let me ask you this: shouldn't citizens be even more afraid of a government that doesn't enforce murder with severe punishment, as this makes them (at least feel, if not actually) more vulnerable to criminals?
And why should they be afraid of a government that enforces capital punishment on murders only? If this is the only instance the government can judge life or death how would this power translate into 'fear in general'?
Executions are not required, why grant the state more power than it needs?
Changing the punishment to life in prison is not giving the government less power it's giving them different power. You aren't changing who they can charge, you aren't changing the grounds they can make a conviction on, etc.
Why would the civilians be in fear of being killed by thier government but NOT be afraid of being imprisoned for the rest of their life by the government?
The nature of the punishment is likely to have an effect on the citizen and also it is easier to move from isolated punishment for murderers to broader usage
Even the fringiest of fringe people want to maybe include rapists in with capital punishment. I don't see a single viable politician who supports capital punishment beyond murder and rape, let alone a majority in a senate.
That deterrence is a poor argument to me unless it was extremely effective. I also consider it morally dubious.
What does Deterrence have to do with "to punish someone for what someone else may do"? At the point in which punishment is being issues we are no longer talking about deterrence.