Studies spur new death penalty debate (didn't see posted, libs will love this/ sarcasm)

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

We could put a convicted murderer to death, and destroy one life,

or we could let him loose again in a few years on “good behavior”

and sentence how many INNOCENT future victims to death?

Nitrogen Asphyxiation

Simply the cleanest, non-poluting, no bio hazard, painless (no lawsuits) way to execute prisoners. It has the additional bonus of not having to worry about finding a vein or cleaning up a bloody mess after wards. Simply place the medical breathing mask over the mouth and nose, and turn on the nitrogen, prisoner goes to sleep. Wait 10 min and check for brain waves. No brain waves = dead. If brain waves are detected, wait 5 min and check again. Repeat as necessary but the first 10 min wait will likely kill 99% of the prisoners.

Frankly, I've always thought of the whole "deterrence" argument as a diversion, a distraction from the idea of death as punishment.

Truth is, the libs argue that the state-sanctioned death of a criminal does not prevent others from committing crimes/murder, that in Britain, pickpockets worked the crowds at executions and that pickpocketing was a hanging offense, therefore capital punishment didn't deter anyone.

But the truths are at least these 2: The criminal put to death will never kill again. And (my main point): you cannot tell what others are thinking and what motivates them.

How would anyone know if a man was planning to murder his business partner, and the morning he was to do it he reads about some Texan being put to death, and realizes just how likely it is he'll be caught, and could face it himself? Or that some street thug whose friend was given the needle a month before, decides NOT to get into a car and participate in a drive by?

Only God knows what motivates each of us. Thus, my belief that the entire argument regarding deterrence is just a canard.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.