AJP,

You said <....that it's not so much that the death penalty isn't a deterrent at all; more that it appears to be no more of a deterrent than LWOP.>

Therefore I take it that you mean that the death penalty is a deterrent as is LWOP or that LWOP is not a deterrent either?>

Dear Jayb,

I am sorry I misunderstood. My mother was an addict. Your wife was not.

Drug related crime can be to get money for drugs. With legalisation of drugs and their availability that motive would be gone.

Legalisation of drugs need not be across the board. It depends on the drug. Addiction is bad, but in some cases it can be treated. If drugs are illegal the addict will often be treated as a criminal. An addict will often wind up in prison as the addict will turn to selling drugs or other crimes to support a habit. From the example of Prohibition and alcohol I think it makes more sense to legalise most drugs.

I would prefer that no one drank alcohol, smoked tobacco or used addictive drugs. However, people drink alcohol, smoke tobacco and use addictive drugs. Whatever one does there is a problem. I think the problem would not be as bad with legalisation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/06/1382913/-Massachusetts-police-chief-We-re-going-to-offer-addicts-treatment-not-incarceration

Gloucester, Massachusetts police chief offers treatment rather than jail for drug addicts

Dear SteeleRedux,

I’m not sure how I’ve given you the impression that I believe that the death penalty doesn’t deter at all. In fact, one thing I’ve been trying to allude to is that, “The death penalty is not a deterrent”, is usually just shorthand for, “The death penalty probably isn’t any more of a deterrent than LWOP.” Most punishments are going to deter some people at some point. That aside, I agree with everything you’ve said. I have also alluded to some of it in my posts, but trying to explain deterrence theory adequately in less than 10,000 words is pretty hard.

Jayb,

<<Didn’t they try that in the States & the High Court “?” squashed the idea.>>

Try what in the High Court? All I mentioned was that there were other sentencing aims beyond deterrence such as retribution, incapacitation, restoration and rehabilitation. These sentencing aims have been around for centuries.

<<...would the Parole Board be able to be sued for their decision to release such a person? If not, Why not?>>

LWOP could have also sorted what Is Mise said, and at a lower cost too. But of course a parole board couldn’t be sued in such a case and it would be absurd if they could because psychiatry and psychology are inexact sciences. I touched on all this briefly here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6734#205078

But what about all the people who were deemed to have been too much of a risk to be release and yet would never have re-offended if they were? Do you think the parole board should be sued if it were possible to know this? Do you ever spare a thought for those poeople? Of course not, because we all like to sit back and form hasty and ill-informed opinions based on what we see in the media.

<<I think the Chinese have the right idea. "I find you Guilty, Bang!">>

Clearly you’re not perturbed by the thought of people being executed when they’re innocent or not legally deserving of it. Yourself included, if that’s what you want for Australia.

Is Mise,

That’s close enough. Depending on an infinite combination of factors, the death penalty is not a deterrent for some and is a deterrent for others to varying degrees. What criminologists stress, however, is that to any extent that the death penalty is a deterrent, it is no more of a deterrent than LWOP.

So there's the problems with the death penalty...

- a potential brutalising effect on society;
- injustice in the arbitrariness of its application (even in a civilised country like the US);
- the creep in its application despite it originally being reserved for the most heinous crimes only (e.g. mentally retarded people now being executed in Texas);
- potentially executing innocent people (3% in the US, and that’s just what we know of);
- the additional costs of pursuing the death penalty that make it more expensive than LWOP;
- many more that you, as a conservative, probably wouldn’t see as a bad thing, such as Death Row Phenomenon;

...and what would have been its only redeeming feature (i.e. a greater deterrent effect) isn’t even there.

To add to all this - as if its problems weren’t already bad enough - debates surrounding the death penalty only serve to distract from finding real solutions.

AJP,

"....and what would have been its only redeeming feature (i.e. a greater deterrent effect) isn’t even there."

how do we know?

point me to a few relevant sites.