> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Lorrey <email@example.com>
> >Samael wrote:
> >> I thought most studies had shown that brutal public executions don't
> >> actually deter people from crime. They just don't believe they are going
> >> get caught and when they are, the thought of the punishment means they
> >> to be more violent in their attempts to evade capture.
> >Hardly. How many murders are there in muslim states vs. non muslim states?
> Not sure. Do you have figures? Or even a pointer to where I could do some
No clue at this point and no time to do so. Try some internet searching....
> >> If we are going to dispose of criminals (and I think this is reasonable
> >> certain circumstances) something swift and painless would be my preferred
> >> method. And in private. We shouldn't be doing it for revenge, we should
> >> doing it because the world will be a better place afterwards.
> >One less bad genetic sequence at a time, the world gets better with each
> You apear to be taking genetic determinism a bit far- there are cultural and
> social factors involved too.
> > It gets even better if that sequence elemination can be used in
> >effective propaganda to deter others from making the same mistake.
> Unfortunaltely I can't remember where I read the study on the effectiveness
> of this sort of propaganda but it did seem to show it wasn't effective.
I've commented that Prof. John Lotts study of FBI crime stats indicates that the death penalty, as it is practiced today in the US, has little to no effect on deterring violent crime. I've also commented that since increases in private citizens being able to carry concealed weapons has a large influence on violent crime (it drops as gun control laws are eased or repealed), then the best form of death penalty is that which occurs as close to the crime scene in time and space as possible. So the death penalty is useful, but its utility is dependent on its, er, execution, no pun intended.... ;)