News Should we bring back Capital punishment for premeditated murder?

[ThomasT]

Its my first time posting in this part of the PF, so just thought I’d say hello!

Hello and welcome to these parts.

I don't know if it is just me, but it seems that I am reading more and more about brutal and premeditated murders in today’s society.

The latest one, about a boy who murdered his girlfriend of a ‘free breakfast’ was probably one of the most brutal and upsetting I’d read in a while, particularly as I have a daughter her age.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...-joshua-davies-is-pure-evil-115875-23391730/"

Wow, he got a whole 14 years.

Where there is clear evidence of such a premeditated act, I can’t see any reason why this person should not be put to death.

Nor can I.

I don’t really believe the death penalty is a deterrent ...

How would we know if it was a deterrent? It's certainly true that it can't be a deterrent if it isn't used. It's also certain that it's a deterrent to those upon whom it's inflicted.

... but I do think the punishment should fit the crime ...

It's hard to say what that means. Better, I think, to realize that we're not capable of rehabilitating people, of predictably changing a convicted felon's attitude(s). They might change for the better, but we have no way of engineering that change and no way to ascertain if it has happened.

... and that death penalty would also save a lot of tax payer’s money in keeping someone ‘comfortably’ in some prison for life.

Logically, from the standpoint of societal order, control, and efficiency, if we're going to keep someone in prison for life, then we might as well kill them once their valid appeals have been exhausted.

I know some may argue that we have a duty to rehabilitate ...

That's an empty argument as long as we're unable to determine if someone has been rehabilitated.

The status quo now is that prisons go through some motions under the auspices of 'rehabilitation' without the slightest idea of whether or not those programs are actually rehabilitating anyone. Hence, a rather high rate of return wrt many sorts of felonies.

Prisons are full of people doing life sentences on the installment plan.

... but to me that ‘right’ is lost when one commits such a heinous crime.

Some crimes, like the one you cited, will generate a more emotional response than others. But any crime against humanity (such as armed robbery, human trafficking and slavery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault, etc.) might be considered heinous.

Wrt what criteria should a convicted felon be stripped of any 'right' to be a part of free society?

Part of the problem is the way we've collectively evolved to think about things in terms of rights, as opposed to the most efficient ways to achieve societal goals. But this is an integral and necessary caveat wrt any society which values individual freedom.

And then there's the corruption of the criminal justice system, from top to bottom.

Freedom carries with it a certain amount of crime and corruption. It's unlikely that we'll ever kill all the felons who, logically, should be killed. We lack the capability to clearly decide such questions.

 

[Evo]

Hello and welcome to these parts.

Wow, he got a whole 14 years.

Nor can I.


How would we know if it was a deterrent? It's certainly true that it can't be a deterrent if it isn't used. It's also certain that it's a deterrent to those upon whom it's inflicted.

It's hard to say what that means. Better, I think, to realize that we're not capable of rehabilitating people, of predictably changing a convicted felon's attitude(s). They might change for the better, but we have no way of engineering that change and no way to ascertain if it has happened.

Logically, from the standpoint of societal order, control, and efficiency, if we're going to keep someone in prison for life, then we might as well kill them once their valid appeals have been exhausted.

That's an empty argument as long as we're unable to determine if someone has been rehabilitated.

The status quo now is that prisons go through some motions under the auspices of 'rehabilitation' without the slightest idea of whether or not those programs are actually rehabilitating anyone. Hence, a rather high rate of return wrt many sorts of felonies.

Prisons are full of people doing life sentences on the installment plan.

Some crimes, like the one you cited, will generate a more emotional response than others. But any crime against humanity (such as armed robbery, human trafficking and slavery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault, etc.) might be considered heinous.

Wrt what criteria should a convicted felon be stripped of any 'right' to be a part of free society?

Part of the problem is the way we've collectively evolved to think about things in terms of rights, as opposed to the most efficient ways to achieve societal goals. But this is an integral and necessary caveat wrt any society which values individual freedom.

And then there's the corruption of the criminal justice system, from top to bottom.

Freedom carries with it a certain amount of crime and corruption. It's unlikely that we'll ever kill all the felons who, logically, should be killed. We lack the capability to clearly decide such questions.

Excellent post. I don't believe in killing even all muderous felons. I hate to admit that I think it's not a punishment, they simply go to sleep, then oblivion. They might have tortured, terrorized, and killed their victims in unimaginably horrific ways, yet they just get to go to sleep.

Maybe I am a terrible person, but as I have said, people close to me were murdered.

 

[Jack21222]

As for me, I have said before that I am only for the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt. It can't be having the finger pointed by someone, it can't be circumstantial, so it would be very rare.

And again, my point is that in the minds of the juries, there often IS NO DOUBT even when convicting an innocent. I really do not think it is possible to create a system that guarantees that only a guilty party gets executed 100.000000000% of the time.

 

[Evo]

And again, my point is that in the minds of the juries, there often IS NO DOUBT even when convicting an innocent. I really do not think it is possible to create a system that guarantees that only a guilty party gets executed 100.000000000% of the time.

Never said it doesn't happen and never said I had a plan to stop it. Why on Earth are you adressing these things to me? Reading comprehension problem?

 

[rede96]

Hello and welcome to these parts.

Thank you.

Just to cover some of the good points you raised...

Some crimes, like the one you cited, will generate a more emotional response than others. But any crime against humanity (such as armed robbery, human trafficking and slavery, kidnapping, rape, aggravated assault, etc.) might be considered heinous.

True, but I was only considering just one type for the purpose of this post and that was premeditated murder. Mainly because I do not think it is possible to have one system that works in all cases for all crimes.

Wrt what criteria should a convicted felon be stripped of any 'right' to be a part of free society?

Again, for me the criteria is simple. Any case where premeditated murder is known beyond any reasonable doubt.

Part of the problem is the way we've collectively evolved to think about things in terms of rights, as opposed to the most efficient ways to achieve societal goals. But this is an integral and necessary caveat wrt any society which values individual freedom.

But what is 'right' and 'wrong', other than what individuals or societies define?

I would argue that there is no such natural concept as right and wrong other than what the powers that be define.

So we can decide very easily that the ‘right’ thing to do is to look at the problem from the standpoint of the most efficient ways to achieve societal goals.

Also, without going too deep just what is ‘individual freedom’? For me this concept does not exist if you are living as part of any society. Whether explicit or implied, there are rules that one agrees to adhere to by living as part of any society. So I would suggest that one is only ‘free’ to live within these constraints.

And then there's the corruption of the criminal justice system, from top to bottom.

Although that is another good point I think the issues of how we administrate legislation is a different problem than the one being discussed. So I'll politely ignore that point for now

Freedom carries with it a certain amount of crime and corruption. It's unlikely that we'll ever kill all the felons who, logically, should be killed. We lack the capability to clearly decide such questions.

I would argue we do have the capability to decide who lives and who dies. Governments are doing it daily. Just look at all that has happened in Iraq, Syria, etc. Many innocent people have been killed in the name of our ‘fight on terror’.

So I think the issue comes down to how we justify making the decision. And being my cynical self, this often comes down to what governments think they can get away without jeopardizing the next election campaign.

Anyway, some good points to consider, thanks. But for me I have read nothing so far that would convince me that we should not have the death penalty for clear cases of premeditated murder. Nor that this would not be more beneficial to society in the long run.

 

[rede96]

And again, my point is that in the minds of the juries, there often IS NO DOUBT even when convicting an innocent. I really do not think it is possible to create a system that guarantees that only a guilty party gets executed 100.000000000% of the time.

I would agree, however we are not talking about all cases. Just the ones where there is no doubt. The two cases mentioned in this thread are good examples. Proven serial killers, people caught in the act, people who admit their crimes would be other examples.

So I am not suggestion that every murder should or could lead to the death penalty nor that some guilty people would get off with lighter sentences.

 

[rede96]

The point seems clear to me

It is one thing to argue about one particular crime or another, but the problem of creating a law to cover all situations is another matter.

How should a law read so that it would only apply is cases of certainty; and certainty according to whom? How do we legally distinguish between strong evidence, and relative certainty?

I would suggest by the fact the Brievik was caught on tape, identified by scores of people, was caught at the scene and admitted his guilt.

I don't think there is any discussion of guilt here.

 

[rede96]

As for me, I have said before that I am only for the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt. It can't be having the finger pointed by someone, it can't be circumstantial, so it would be very rare.

And it would have to be heinous, pre-meditated murder. Not a battered wife snapping, never for a crime that wasn't murder, etc... I merely state a personal opinion and you keep going "so how would go about making this law, yada, yada? I haven't said anything about creating laws. If and when I do, then you can ask me for specifics.

If that's not clear enough, it would be this scenario "if there was a death penalty, and if I saw the details, and if I was asked if I thought that case deserved the death penalty, it would depend on what they used for evidence to find the person guilty of murder", not that my opinion would matter.

I thought that was perfectly clear. So I would say that there are two types of 'guilt' we are talking about here.

1) Where guilt is beyond doubt. (e.g. caught in the act or admitted to it with supporting evidence.)

2) Where guilt needs to proven though trial.

I didn't see #2) leading to the death penalty, although I think there may be cases where the evidence is so over whelming that it might be?

 

[Jack21222]

Never said it doesn't happen and never said I had a plan to stop it. Why on Earth are you adressing these things to me? Reading comprehension problem?

Because we live in the real world, discussing a real world problem. In the real world, we would need a way to distinguish a case like Brievik's vs a case like Kirk Bloodworth's. I'm arguing that there is no way possible to isolate such cases without the possibility of killing an innocent. I'm addressing these things to you because you seem to be arguing that we should have the death penalty for cases like Brievik's. It's a natural follow-up question to ask how you think it can be implemented without killing innocent people.

I thought that was perfectly clear. So I would say that there are two types of 'guilt' we are talking about here.

1) Where guilt is beyond doubt. (e.g. caught in the act or admitted to it with supporting evidence.)

2) Where guilt needs to proven though trial.

I didn't see #2) leading to the death penalty, although I think there may be cases where the evidence is so over whelming that it might be?

So you're saying people in the first category should be put to death without trial?

 

[MarcoD]

Well, then I guess I don't believe in punishment But I'm sure everybody will disagree with me here...

I don't believe in punishment either. And I am pretty hard-core on that too.

 

[arildno]

Because we live in the real world, discussing a real world problem. In the real world, we would need a way to distinguish a case like Brievik's vs a case like Kirk Bloodworth's. I'm arguing that there is no way possible to isolate such cases without the possibility of killing an innocent

That is called precedence.
A verdict based on the amount of evidence against Breivik, for example, would set a standard for what other cases would be admissible for death penalty.

 

[Jack21222]

That is called precedence.
A verdict based on the amount of evidence against Breivik, for example, would set a standard for what other cases would be admissible for death penalty.

You live in a country that doesn't even have regular life imprisonment, let alone the death penalty. I live in a country where innocent people are sentenced to death. It seems like every year we hear of another case where an innocent person was released from death row.

You cannot let your desire for revenge against Brievik put in place a system where innocent people can be killed.

 

[MarcoD]

You cannot let your desire for revenge against Brievik put in place a system where innocent people can be killed.

The question is whether the public, or individuals hurt have any right to vengeance.

The Sharia has the 'eye-for-an-eye' principle, which leads to interesting cases. For example:

A woman who was thrown acid into her face by a man pleaded at a Sharia court that on basis of that principle, she had the right to do similar. The court subsequently, after a readmission, agreed that she had that right, and she was allowed to trickle acid into one of the eyes of the convict (in a hospital after local sedation). The woman, after some months, waived that right.

Interesting, no?

EDIT: What is even more interesting is that anti-Islam populists in my country, actually want laws which are more into accordance with Sharia than our traditional law.

 

[rede96]

So you're saying people in the first category should be put to death without trial?

Well there is an interesting thought... No that was not what I meant, sorry my bad. (Although I’d obviously prejudged him in my own mind.)

I was trying to make a distinction between knowing guilt and having to prove guilt, which I admit needs a bit more thought on my part.

I think arildno summarised it better here:

That is called precedence.
A verdict based on the amount of evidence against Breivik, for example, would set a standard for what other cases would be admissible for death penalty.

 

[rede96]

I don't believe in punishment either. And I am pretty hard-core on that too.

So do you believe that there should be no consequences for breaking the law?

 

[Evo]

Because we live in the real world, discussing a real world problem. In the real world, we would need a way to distinguish a case like Brievik's vs a case like Kirk Bloodworth's. I'm arguing that there is no way possible to isolate such cases without the possibility of killing an innocent. I'm addressing these things to you because you seem to be arguing that we should have the death penalty for cases like Brievik's. It's a natural follow-up question to ask how you think it can be implemented without killing innocent people.

Are you unaware that we have the death penalty in 35 states in the US right now? In those 35 states whether to go for the death penalty is an option on any first degree murder conviction. It is not always requested. That's the real world.

The UK does not have the death penalty, and seems doubtful they will bring it back.

So you're saying people in the first category should be put to death without trial?

What the heck are you talking about? Are you aware that the death penalty is a sentence not a conviction. Do you know that a sentence comes AFTER the conviction?

 

[MarcoD]

So do you believe that there should be no consequences for breaking the law?

No, but there's the question about the right for individual, or public, vengeance. Our judicial system evolved out of the 'witch hunt,' i.e., it was largely fueled by human emotions - primarily existential fears and vengeance.

I think people, the ones hurt - not the public, have a limited right to vengeance [not 'eye-for-an-eye'], and justice takes that into account, and there is the case that retribution has an educational effect, but other than that, I don't believe in punishment as the guiding underlying principle of justice.

EDIT: It's actually interesting that Gaddafi thought that law isn't necessary since he was a firm believer in traditions and the 'emergence of the free will of the people'. I found that a fallacy, it leads to a medieval form of anarchy. I.e., you're never sure of anything, and for some reason, you might end up being shot for stealing an apple (or worse, have been thought of stealing an apple). [Though I have no idea how justice actually worked in Libya.]

 

[MarcoD]

You live in a country that doesn't even have regular life imprisonment, let alone the death penalty. I live in a country where innocent people are sentenced to death. It seems like every year we hear of another case where an innocent person was released from death row.

You cannot let your desire for revenge against Brievik put in place a system where innocent people can be killed.

Well, to be honest, he can. I might not agree with him, but that would be his democratic right.

It is actually a case where I don't know whether some 'superior' humanist moral principle should outweigh democracy, but I nudge to democracy here. (Apart from that, I'll also admit that I just don't care about what happens to the dude.)

Thing is you could also look at what the consequences to society would be if the death penalty would have been in place.

The man turned himself into the police. I find him an idiot and a coward for that, but I sometimes also wonder whether he isn't just mocking the Norway judicial system there. (The guy thought everything through, why no that?)

Question is: Would he not have committed his crimes this way, or would he have fought himself to death with more human cost?

I think he would have done similar but just not have made himself public. (I.e., more bombs - no shooting.)

Another question: What if you introduce the death penalty. Will that, on a long run, cost more human lives? (We have all seen the US movies where criminals are pretty certain of the law, and just continue shooting after their (2nd, not sure) murder.

The cost of capital punishment doesn't seem to outweigh the benefits. But I might be mistaken.

 

[Willowz]

I doubt Norway will go bankrupt over holding Brevik in jail.

 

[Jack21222]

Are you unaware that we have the death penalty in 35 states in the US right now? In those 35 states whether to go for the death penalty is an option on any first degree murder conviction. It is not always requested. That's the real world.

The UK does not have the death penalty, and seems doubtful they will bring it back.

What the heck are you talking about? Are you aware that the death penalty is a sentence not a conviction. Do you know that a sentence comes AFTER the conviction?

Evo. You're making no sense in this thread. You usually make pretty clear arguments, but here, the things you're saying seem to have no connection to the things I'm saying.

Everybody else, even if they disagree with me, seems to at least understand my points.

What in my post lead you to believe that I thought there was no death penalty in the US?

 

[Evo]

Evo. You're making no sense in this thread. You usually make pretty clear arguments, but here, the things you're saying seem to have no connection to the things I'm saying.

Everybody else, even if they disagree with me, seems to at least understand my points.

What in my post lead you to believe that I thought there was no death penalty in the US?

You keep making nonsensical posts like this one below that has nothing to do with me giving an opinion, which I explained in great detail so hopefully you would be capable of understanding it. Did you even read what I posted? If you had read it, you would know that I said what "my personal opinion" is. I'm not making any case for changing anything. Please try to read posts before you respond.

Because we live in the real world, discussing a real world problem. In the real world, we would need a way to distinguish a case like Brievik's vs a case like Kirk Bloodworth's. I'm arguing that there is no way possible to isolate such cases without the possibility of killing an innocent. I'm addressing these things to you because you seem to be arguing that we should have the death penalty for cases like Brievik's. It's a natural follow-up question to ask how you think it can be implemented without killing innocent people.

So you're saying people in the first category should be put to death without trial?

You don't seem to understand that I only offered how I personally feel about when *I* would consider the death penalty, but I have no desire to discuss it. I made that clear in an earlier post, so it's beyond me why you keep asking me questions. If you ask me anymore questions, you're talking to yourself and wasting your time.

 

[Bobbywhy]

rede 96 of the UK asks: “Should we bring back Capital punishment for premeditated murder?

My opinion is NO, Capital punishment (the death penalty) should not be brought back in the United Kingdom. I believe it should not be used anywhere, no matter how heinous the crime. I am against all violence, and killing a convicted murderer is simply more killing.

I will not detour this thread with the issue of mistaken convictions.

The entire European Union has stopped executing murderers labeling the practice of capital punishment as “barbaric” and one that relies on the ancient code of vengeance, such as “an eye for an eye”.

Only a minority of States here in America continues to execute convicted murderers. And those state governments struggle over how to kill the killers. Judicial systems wrangle over which is cruel…killing with high voltage driven amperage, or a properly tied noose, or a high velocity lead projectile, or an injection of deadly fluids, or asphyxiation by lethal gasses. Lawyers argue this or that method is unusual. Huge fortunes of public money and many years are wasted litigating these disputes.

American TV and games bring murder and violence into people’s homes for entertainment, so many grow up thinking killing is normal. The young people are taught “Thou shalt not kill” while the authorities plan and then kill convicted murderers. This contradiction forces our youth to try to rationalize the opposing teachings.

My opinion is that the safety of our society demands the permanent removal of a deviant convicted murderer. Someone here already mentioned sending them to Turkey?? Perhaps there is merit in that idea; in exchange for our Foreign Aid a country would accept our deviant killers. In this way a murderer could NEVER again enter our society or ever have any contact or communication with the outside world. They would disappear from the face of the earth, never to be seen or heard from again. And there would be no additional killing.

 

[klimatos]

Isn't the law about justice?

As any lawyer will tell you, no it is not. We have courts of law. We do not have courts of justice. Legal scholars try to write laws that can only be interpreted in one way. They are not always successful, and sometimes politics makes these laws deliberately vague. This brings to mind the old maxim: "There are two things you should never watch being made -sausage and laws."

Justice always varies with perspective. What is just to A is unjust to B and a matter of indifference to C. As the Bible says, "It's a matter of whose ox is being gored".

 

[klimatos]

I don't believe in punishment as the guiding underlying principle of justice.

I don't know how much experience you have had with real criminals. I make no claims to being an expert, but I have taught college courses in a prison. I firmly believe that it is only the fear of punishment that keeps many criminals within even their limited boundaries. As a group, they have poor impulse control. To want to do something is to do it with little thought of the consequences. But they fear being caught and punished. Without this fear, they would unhesitatingly commit even worse crimes. Many have told me so.

And some of these criminals are truly evil--in the traditional sense of that word!

 

[MarcoD]

As any lawyer will tell you, no it is not. We have courts of law. We do not have courts of justice. Legal scholars try to write laws that can only be interpreted in one way. They are not always successful, and sometimes politics makes these laws deliberately vague. This brings to mind the old maxim: "There are two things you should never watch being made -sausage and laws."

Justice always varies with perspective. What is just to A is unjust to B and a matter of indifference to C. As the Bible says, "It's a matter of whose ox is being gored".

This is a semantical difference. If the law is not about justice, then what is it about?

PS: I would say that any lawyer who believes so should go back to class, or rethink whatever was told to him.

[ Actually, this is a pretty nihilistic statement. There are always people who believe that the law doesn't apply to them (marxists, fundamental Islamists, anarchists, whoever.) If the law isn't about justice, why would one obey it? That lawyer would be an idiot for believing so. ]

 

[WhoWee]

Its my first time posting in this part of the PF, so just thought I’d say hello!

I live in the UK where the death penalty was abolished in the 60’s. (Well I think it was actually abolished in the 90’s but the last hanging was in the 60’s.)

I don't know if it is just me, but it seems that I am reading more and more about brutal and premeditated murders in today’s society.

The latest one, about a boy who murdered his girlfriend of a ‘free breakfast’ was probably one of the most brutal and upsetting I’d read in a while, particularly as I have a daughter her age.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...-joshua-davies-is-pure-evil-115875-23391730/"

Where there is clear evidence of such a premeditated act, I can’t see any reason why this person should not be put to death.

I don’t really believe the death penalty is a deterrent, but I do think the punishment should fit the crime and that death penalty would also save a lot of tax payer’s money in keeping someone ‘comfortably’ in some prison for life.

I know some may argue that we have a duty to rehabilitate, but to me that ‘right’ is lost when one commits such a heinous crime.

So I was just wondering what others thought?

IMO - the punishment should fit the crime. However, there is a flaw in our system whereby the penalty for killing a person along with all of the witnesses is the same.

I think each case should be considered on it's own merits. A life sentence might be appropriate in a situation where circumstantial evidence leads to a conviction. In clear cut cases where an act is on tape or witnessed by a large group - a death sentence might be more appropriate. For the most vile offenders and situations where witnesses are murdered - I favor a long sentence of hard labor followed by a death sentence.

 

[MarcoD]

I don't know how much experience you have had with real criminals. I make no claims to being an expert, but I have taught college courses in a prison. I firmly believe that it is only the fear of punishment that keeps many criminals within even their limited boundaries. As a group, they have poor impulse control. To want to do something is to do it with little thought of the consequences. But they fear being caught and punished. Without this fear, they would unhesitatingly commit even worse crimes. Many have told me so.

And some of these criminals are truly evil--in the traditional sense of that word!

I hardly broke a law in my life so I wouldn't know. But what impulse control? If someone takes a gun and robs a bank, that is not about impulse. They do it to amass 'bling-bling,' not because they lack impulses.

The deterrent nature of punishment I agree with - but that is different from what I see a lot, the right to public, or individual, vengeance.

 

[WhoWee]

I hardly broke a law in my life so I wouldn't know. But what impulse control? If someone takes a gun and robs a bank, that is not about impulse. They do it to amass 'bling-bling,' not because they lack impulses.

The deterrent nature of punishment I agree with - but that is different from what I see a lot, the right to public, or individual, vengeance.

To go back to my last post to frame this response.

If the intent was to rob the bank and someone is injured or killed - perhaps a sentence of life in prison fits the crime. However, if the robber escapes and kills all of his accomplices to escape prison - that might warrant a death penalty? If the robber accidentally kills a security guard then murders all of the witnesses - the death penalty might not be adequate punishment - perhaps a long sentence first?

 

[MarcoD]

To go back to my last post to frame this response.

If the intent was to rob the bank and someone is injured or killed - perhaps a sentence of life in prison fits the crime. However, if the robber escapes and kills all of his accomplices to escape prison - that might warrant a death penalty? If the robber accidentally kills a security guard then murders all of the witnesses - the death penalty might not be adequate punishment - perhaps a long sentence first?

I personally disagree with about everything you said. Life isn't that simple, and you simplified beyond credibility. If a poor black person of age 18 who lacks role models and believes that he is repressed by a racist capitalist society takes up a gun, also because of that culture which glorifies violence, glorifies heroism (he's a hero at that moment), and glorifies gang-culture, then what do you reasonably want to do about it?

You can stick him in a black hole for the rest of his life, but that doesn't seem like the right punishment to me.

[ I personally only met people who abuse the law, or think that it doesn't apply to them. It's a miracle I even still believe in it. ]

 

[WhoWee]

I personally disagree with about everything you said. Life isn't that simple, and you simplified beyond credibility. If a poor black person of age 18 who lacks role models and believes that he is repressed by a racist capitalist society takes up a gun, also because of that culture which glorifies violence, glorifies heroism (he's a hero at that moment), and glorifies gang-culture, then what do you reasonably want to do about it?

You can stick him in a black hole for the rest of his life, but that doesn't seem like the right punishment to me.

When you posted this:

"I hardly broke a law in my life so I wouldn't know. But what impulse control? If someone takes a gun and robs a bank, that is not about impulse. They do it to amass 'bling-bling,' not because they lack impulses.

The deterrent nature of punishment I agree with - but that is different from what I see a lot, the right to public, or individual, vengeance."

Were you thinking about the "poor black person of age 18 who lacks role models and believes that he is repressed by a racist capitalist society takes up a gun" presented in your response to me - or are you setting me up with a strawman?