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.
To be overly verbose compared to the other replier's pithy joke:
Capital punishment works as a two-way deterrent. The "fear of execution" element isn't for those who would do the crime anyways, it's to encourage greater care and caution amongst the "lesser" criminals, in example a mugger would avoid hitting someone in the head if they knew the difference between brain damage and no-brain-damage mugging was a week in a slammer or death.
As for the ones who would do the crime anyways, it still lowers crime rate in the area, because almost all criminals are multiple-offenders. Most murderers are also batterers, assaulters, thieves, money launderers, or extortionists. And the greatest indicator for if someone will murder, is if they have in the past: If you are willing to kill one, you're usually willing to kill two. Permanently stopping a violent maniac can reduce the overall crime count in a neighborhood by dozens, if not hundreds, over the course of their otherwise-lifespan.
There's an anecdote that's frequently mentioned on the Lotus Eaters, gangs of thieves would check each other before committing burglaries for weapons to make sure no-one was carrying.
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.
Fear of execution won't stop jig gang bangers. They don't seem to care
To be overly verbose compared to the other replier's pithy joke:
Capital punishment works as a two-way deterrent. The "fear of execution" element isn't for those who would do the crime anyways, it's to encourage greater care and caution amongst the "lesser" criminals, in example a mugger would avoid hitting someone in the head if they knew the difference between brain damage and no-brain-damage mugging was a week in a slammer or death.
As for the ones who would do the crime anyways, it still lowers crime rate in the area, because almost all criminals are multiple-offenders. Most murderers are also batterers, assaulters, thieves, money launderers, or extortionists. And the greatest indicator for if someone will murder, is if they have in the past: If you are willing to kill one, you're usually willing to kill two. Permanently stopping a violent maniac can reduce the overall crime count in a neighborhood by dozens, if not hundreds, over the course of their otherwise-lifespan.
There's an anecdote that's frequently mentioned on the Lotus Eaters, gangs of thieves would check each other before committing burglaries for weapons to make sure no-one was carrying.