AJP,

It's simplistic I know, but if I ask people if they would be deterred by the death penalty and they say "Yes" then I would consider that some people are deterred.
Therefore the death penalty is a deterrent and I repeat there is no way of determining that it is not a deterrent, all the studies are but scientific guesswork.
I know that it would deter me therefore it is a deterrent; would it not deter you?

No system of law is perfect. A person on trial is convicted when the evidence shows that he or she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there still may be evidence establishing innocence which comes to light later. If the person has been executed in the interval there is no way to make up for it.

One may continue the death penalty and try to limit it to cases where guilt is evident. However, sooner or later, whether or execution is a deterrent, there will be cases of injustice with no remedies available.

Is Mise,

Really, this is just becoming embarrassing to watch.

<<…if I ask people if they would be deterred by the death penalty and they say "Yes" then I would consider that some people are deterred.>>

If you have to ask this, then you haven’t been reading or absorbing what I’ve been saying.

<<Therefore the death penalty is a deterrent…>>

Again, how does this contradict anything I’ve said?

<<…I repeat there is no way of determining that it is not a deterrent, all the studies are but scientific guesswork.>>

Repeating a falsehood won’t make it come true.

What exactly do you mean by “scientific guesswork”? How can guesswork be scientific? Could you provide examples of what you’re referring to?

I don’t think you can. You're just making this up as you go now.

<<I know that it would deter me therefore it is a deterrent; would it not deter you?>>

Yes, but the fact that you have to ask me this, or think that my answer would have any relevance to the discussion at this point, suggests that you haven’t been reading or absorbing what I’ve been saying.

AJP,

The discussion was what capital punishment achieves, what it does achieve is a deterrent effect, no chance of repeat offending, revenge and punishment.

Is Mise,

<<The discussion was what capital punishment achieves...>>

Well, it's strayed a bit from just that now.

Are you actually suggesting, though, that all this time, the distinction between, ‘no deterrence at all’, and, ‘no more of a deterrence than LWOP’ had been completely missed or ignored by you - despite myself and others talking about it - simply because you were focussed on the question this thread started with?

<<…what [capital punishment] does achieve is a deterrent effect...>>

Some of the time, yes. Particularly for those whose lives have lead them to a point where the chances that they'll need to consider the death penalty as a possible consequence of their actions is next to zero (hence the problem with your study's sample). The next question is whether it is more of a deterrent than LWOP. And the answer to that is, "It's extremely unlikely that it is."

Can I assume that you're taking your "guesswork" claim back?

<<...no chance of repeat offending, revenge and punishment.>>

Agreed. The next question is whether it's worth it given the social costs of it. You'll want to have done your home work for that one. That get's messy.

AJP: <<"Justice problems" are just a way of the Law fraternity to keep sucking money out of people.>>
Do you have an example of that?

Yes I do. When my 2nd wife & I separated we sat down & divided everything we owned between us. What was hers previously & what was mine were put aside & we divided our joint properly equally & listed it all. We went to our solicitor to draw us the divorce papers & were told we had to have separate solicitors. She went down the road to another solicitor. With-in days I received a letter of demand for a number of things. I went to see my wife & she didn’t know anything about it. I rang her solicitor & he said I had to write a letter to my solicitor to send to him & he would reply to my solicitor who would write to me. Now that’s how solicitors make money. We ditched the solicitors & did it all ourselves. I have heard of many, many similar cases. It cost sweet buggar all. We are still friends
My solicitors were three brothers who had three sisters, who were married to the other three solicitors, that three sisters who were married to my three solicitors.

Can you think of ANY 16th century legal precedent, for that matter? I can, and it prevents people committing fraud.

Yes & they should use it on the Law Fraternity often but they won’t because they protect their own unless they get caught Red Handed, even then...

AJP: No, you asked if you asked if the parole board could be sued, but anyway...

Let’s not get pedantic. But that’s a Lawyers Stock & trade isn’t it. Pretending that you don't know what people mean.