People are inclined to cite studies showing that capital punishment has no deterrent effect; if true, I suspect this is a fairly modern development coincidental with the doing away with public executions.
I have long thought that monsters like this should be executed on pay-per-view with all proceeds going to the victim's family.
It's a deterrent for the offender!
It certainly has the attrition effect. There aren't that many hardened, violent criminals who cannot be suffered alive. The policy of "catch and release" just produces better criminals, often with revenge in their minds.
I suspect this is a fairly modern development coincidental with the doing away with public executions.
I read that even in olde times, when public executions were the norm, most criminals were sure that *they* will never be caught. True or not? On one hand, crime then was so high that no nobleman would ever venture out unarmed; bodyguards were often present. On the other hand, law enforcement was often left to the same noblemen and their soldiers. The city guard was not very efficient, poorly paid, and was largely focused on staying alive.
Actually “Freakonomics” claimed (I don’t know how you can “prove” it one way or another) that executions were fairly effective in preventing murders with each execution preventing about six murders.
Now, just imagine the impact if executions were TIMELY and PUBLIC.
The purpose of captial punishment is not deterrent. And it is not punishment.
The purpose of captial punishment is the protection of society.
Becki