[KittenClaws]

Disagree. First and foremost, the death penalty is -- first and foremost -- the most appropriate possible punishment that society can impose. It's a matter of symmetry: If one takes a life, one's life is then forfeit.

If this also serves a deterrent purpose, then well and good.

The deterrent is "if one takes a life, one's life is then forfeit".

You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe.

[okie01]

My construction means that, even if there were no deterrent effect, the death penalty would still be appropriate.

. Granted, if there is a deterrent effect, so much the better.

A subtle difference. But a an important difference.

Libs are prone to argue that there is no provable deterrent effect. My response is: So what? Even if there is no deterrent effect, the death penalty is still perfectly appropriate.