Haven't studies [find your own source] shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent? It only provides an "eye for an eye" sense for some (not all).
It depends greatly on who you ask. None of the studies paid for by phillip morris could find any link between nicotine and addiction. So you really need to look at a large sample to figure out what the "social norm" is.
One of my favorite studies was done in a jail. They interviewed a bunch of people that had been convicted of breaking and entering. "What's your greatest fear when you break into someone's home?" The answer, by a
landslide, was "homeowner with a gun".
Criminals may not be the brightest bunch, but they know to look out for #1. They make their decisions like you and me: they consider the possibilities, count the pros and the cons, weigh the odds, and make their decision based on the expected return. Throw in a dash of "it may get you
killed" into the process and it usually has a significant effect on their decision. It's foolish to expect it to change their mind all of the time, but it will certainly have an
effect. Arguing against it because it's not 100% effective is just plain stupid, nothing is 100% effective.
I remember a conversation I had years ago with a kid in my town that was fairly well known as your typical punk. We were discussing some argument he was having with someone else we knew and he was talking about how he was going to severely beat up the guy if he ever caught him. I asked why he'd do something like that, even knowing the consequences, and he simply shrugged and said "ya gotta do what ya gotta do".
Those are the ones that really scare me, the ones where the consequences simply don't matter. So IMHO, the death penalty works just fine for them too. Put some constructive fear into the ones that can be scared, and permanently remove from circulation the ones that can't. The argument that "for some the death penalty isn't a deterrent" is
not an effective argument against it, it's actually an effective argument
for it.
