I've come to the realization that there's an angle to capital punishment that never comes up. For most of Western history incarceration simply did not exist. Punishment was corporal or capital* (heh, literally "body or head"). I suppose exile was a third option, but it was usually commutation of capital punishment. For minor offences such as fighting or petty theft you were beaten or put in the stocks or faced something something similar. For crimes against the lives (or property, if of sufficient value) of people you were executed. Armed robbery or assault with a weapon, for instance, has been a capital offence in most times and places.
Now a common argument against capital punishment is that it is not a deterrent to anybody. Of course its not! We only use it for the most heinous of crimes; in many places 1st degree murder is far more likely to yield a life sentence unless your particular case was especially vile. But here's the thing, outside crimes of passion, most murderers have a long list of priors, many of which would have had you in a noose prior to the 19th century. If armed robbery was a capitol offence, a whole lot of folks wouldn't live long enough to commit homicide.
What if the proper use of capital punishment actually requires us to apply it more broadly? "What about accidentally convicting innocent people?" you ask. Well, there is a reason Blackstone's ratio is 1) a ratio and 2) set at one in ten rather than one in a million.
The main thing a death penalty does is establish that there is an ultimate price.
Having an ultimate punishment affects society on a deep instinctual level. Communities know there is a beast and if they don't get their act together they'll wake it. Having a death penalty is peace through strength.
Lesser people and children naturally push the limits just to find out where the limits are; they can't just know through reason like normal civilized adults. That's why the real problem we're facing is the lack of corporal but really lack of any punishment in schools and by parents.
A stitch in time is an elementary school teacher bitch slapping the worst troublemaker in the class or dragging them out by their hair. Kids shouldn't be afraid of their teachers, but they should fear their wrath.
God needs to be more liberal (heh) with his lightning bolts every now and then. Just go full Zeus and zap every single sinner in Chicago every ten minutes or something. Not even fatal bolts, we can make it a tourist attraction to have strippers just outside the city limit, you cross a line, look at them, then get a 60-volt zap to one eye, six times per hour, like clockwork.
It would reduce crime rates to near zero across the entire world. It'd be great.
I've come to the realization that there's an angle to capital punishment that never comes up. For most of Western history incarceration simply did not exist. Punishment was corporal or capital* (heh, literally "body or head"). I suppose exile was a third option, but it was usually commutation of capital punishment. For minor offences such as fighting or petty theft you were beaten or put in the stocks or faced something something similar. For crimes against the lives (or property, if of sufficient value) of people you were executed. Armed robbery or assault with a weapon, for instance, has been a capital offence in most times and places.
Now a common argument against capital punishment is that it is not a deterrent to anybody. Of course its not! We only use it for the most heinous of crimes; in many places 1st degree murder is far more likely to yield a life sentence unless your particular case was especially vile. But here's the thing, outside crimes of passion, most murderers have a long list of priors, many of which would have had you in a noose prior to the 19th century. If armed robbery was a capitol offence, a whole lot of folks wouldn't live long enough to commit homicide.
What if the proper use of capital punishment actually requires us to apply it more broadly? "What about accidentally convicting innocent people?" you ask. Well, there is a reason Blackstone's ratio is 1) a ratio and 2) set at one in ten rather than one in a million.
The main thing a death penalty does is establish that there is an ultimate price.
Having an ultimate punishment affects society on a deep instinctual level. Communities know there is a beast and if they don't get their act together they'll wake it. Having a death penalty is peace through strength.
Lesser people and children naturally push the limits just to find out where the limits are; they can't just know through reason like normal civilized adults. That's why the real problem we're facing is the lack of corporal but really lack of any punishment in schools and by parents.
A stitch in time is an elementary school teacher bitch slapping the worst troublemaker in the class or dragging them out by their hair. Kids shouldn't be afraid of their teachers, but they should fear their wrath.
this is pretty much it.
i'm not afraid of God. i think He is my friend and wants the best for me. but, i fear His wrath.
today, people who do not know God know no wrath to fear either.
God needs to be more liberal (heh) with his lightning bolts every now and then. Just go full Zeus and zap every single sinner in Chicago every ten minutes or something. Not even fatal bolts, we can make it a tourist attraction to have strippers just outside the city limit, you cross a line, look at them, then get a 60-volt zap to one eye, six times per hour, like clockwork.
It would reduce crime rates to near zero across the entire world. It'd be great.