Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Re: Bastille mentality alive and well in USA
Message-ID: <1235@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Nov-84 18:38:17 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1235
Posted: Thu Nov 29 18:38:17 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Nov-84 19:23:36 EST
References: <259@spp2.UUCP> <1220@dciem.UUCP> 
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 44
Summary: 

In article  geb@cadre.UUCP writes:


Postulate: The death penalty reduces the chance that the
killer will kill again.

If: There is a finite chance that a killer let off without
the death penalty will kill you.

Then: The death penalty reduces the probability that you
will be murdered.

Q.E.D.
=============
Unfortunately, Q.E.D. translates to "Which was to be demonstrated",
and usually follows a mathematical proof.  In this case, necessary
assumptions have not been stated.  The "If:" part should have added:

"and the execution does not increase the probability that someone
else will kill you."

It is this postulate that is in question.  A note has been posted to
me and to the net to the effect that for a week after the announcement
that someone was condemned to death the murder rate declined slightly.
This is evidence to support the subsidiary assumption.  On the other
hand, there is also evidence to suggest that places that remove the
death penalty experience a reduction in the murder rate.  That suggests
the opposite.  If someone could post evidence about the long-term effects
of the death penalty on the murder rate, it would help this discussion.
A-priori arguments are nice, but don't often work in social behaviour.

A stronger a-priori argument says that people proved to have killed
more than once will be more likely than most to kill again.  Such
people might well be executed with an overall reduction in the murder
rate.  Often, however, the argument for restricted capital punishment
favours the death penalty for killing law officers but not for killing
ordinary citizens.  Since some people who kill law officers are in some
way looking for a psychologically acceptable way to commit suicide, that
argument seems wrong.  It could lead to more murders of law officers.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt