We can site other countries crime rates that have no death penalty and come to the conclusion that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent for violent crimes...but we would be wrong. I think it is false to compare a generally homogenous society like Holland or Sweden to the culturally and racially diverse society in the US. Combine our availability of guns, income inequality as a result of near total laissez-faire capitalism, an established culture of violence and finally just plane old fashioned redneck xenophobia and you reach a sad conclusion: We NEED the death penalty. Does anyone realistically believe that the "threat" of three hot meals, a bed, some TV time, and a chance to catch up on some reading for the rest of your life is enough of a deterrent to lower crime? Is the goal of abolishing the death penalty, in fact, to reduce crime? Or is it to adhere to some higher moral principle while the foundation of our society itself produces crime? I think changing our entire social contract to achieve social and economic justice first is necessary before eliminating the death penalty. Otherwise I see abolishing it putting the cart before the horse!
= new reply since forum marked as read
