Brian D Williams wrote:
> Mike Cheponis <mac@Wireless.Com> and I have been having a
> discussion off-list that I thought would make a good thread for
> "Is the Death Penalty Extropian?"
> We welcome all comments on this, please state your reasons as
> thoroughly as you can.
> First of all, by definition, the death penalty is not murder.
Nor is it sinful to kill, for those of you still religious in the judeo-christian-muslim area. The original hebrew for the ten commandments said, "thou shalt not murder." Killing is quite alright when done is a right and proper manner.
> Murder: 1) to kill a person unlawfully and with malice. (Websters
> new world dictionary)
> Second,I feel that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment
> for the unlawful and malicious killing of a fellow human being.
> I feel that the death penalty has it's problems however, it is
> often applied with a racial bias, and when it is decided upon, it
> takes too long to administer.
> I do not feel deterrence is a prerequisite for it's existence, but
> I feel that if it was applied fairly, equitably, and quickly, it
> could have a deterrent effect.
Nor is it an effective deterrent. Prof. John Lott in his book _More Guns, Less Crime_ found that the death penalty, as it exists today, provides little to no deterrent effect on violent crime. Contrasting this with the huge deterrent effect that allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons has on violent crimes, we can surmise that the only effective form of death penalty is one which is exacted at the crime scene. No technicalities, no appeals.
> Supporting arguments for/against?
> Member, Extropy Institute