I am not agreeing with you at all - I feel like you haven't read my previous reply fully. I don't agree with your logic of stronger punishment = stronger deterrent. I explained that above with regard to your absurd example of speeding. We are clearly discussing murder - and life imprisonment vs the death penalty. Your basing your entire argument on an assumption, and at the same time dismissing decades of study. You make an interesting point in the possible paucity of studies, though if executions are so rare that only 1 in 1000 murderers are executed, why should we assume that reintroducing the death penalty to Great Britain would have any meaningful effect on murder rates? Also, regarding death row, what people do after being caught and convicted is not a reflection of what they did before committing the crime. I mean, all of those people on death row committed their crimes under threat of the death penalty. It did not deter a single one of them. Aside from that, there are actually no shortage of studies. They don't just cover executions but states with and without the death penalty, countries before and after abolition, changes in murder rates over decades. The problem isn't a lack of studies, it's the lack of any meaningful evidence that the death penalty is a stronger deterrent than life imprisonment. You can disagree with them. To dismiss them as ridiculous is in itself ridiculous.
Create an account or sign in to comment