Killing Terrorists Saves Lives

Commentary ^ | 11/12/09 | Evelyn Gordon

[Nachum]

When four Knesset members proposed legislation last week to institute the death penalty for child murderers, it revived a long-dormant Israeli debate over the pros and cons of this penalty in general. The latest installment, in today’s Jerusalem Post, supports the current de facto ban on executions, arguing that they deter neither murderers nor terrorists.

Regardless of whether that’s true, it misses the point: Israel desperately needs a death penalty for hard-core terrorists — not as a deterrent but to prevent them from being released to kill again. And, equally important, to spare the country wrenching emotional blackmail over kidnapped soldiers.

[thulldud]

As soon as the word "deterrent" is spoken, the discussion is already loaded beyond saving.

People kill when they shouldn't — fact. Obviously, when they do, they haven't been "deterred". If they had been "deterred", we would never know about it. For this reason, I consider talk about "deterrence" to be a smokescreen.

Skip that and let's hear the real issue.

[G Larry]

Oh, and while you’re at it, taking terrorists prisoner is no longer a “value-added” proposition, either.

[mckenzie7]

The latest installment, in today’s Jerusalem Post, supports the current de facto ban on executions, arguing that they deter neither murderers nor terrorists.

At least the executed criminal/murderer/terrorist won't kill again!

[dan1123]

People kill when they shouldn't — fact. Obviously, when they do, they haven't been "deterred". If they had been "deterred", we would never know about it. For this reason, I consider talk about "deterrence" to be a smokescreen.

I have three objections to that. First, people do everything when they shouldn't. This doesn't mean that there should be no consequences. Second, you do know in aggregate if deterring methods worked, because you can see the incidence rate drop. Third, the cost of committing an act is based partially on the potential consequences of the action and how likely those consequences are to occur. If a "deterrent" is removed, then the cost of the act is reduced.

[thulldud]

I am objecting to the insistence that capital punishment must satisfy some standard of "deterrence" before it is justified. Anti-capital punishment advocates tend to feature this sort of reasoning, trumping justice with pragmatism.

They aren't concerned with aggregate measures anyway, since their real goal is to do away with all punishment. Accordingly, they focus on individual murderers that weren't "deterred" as proof that deterrence doesn't work; then they throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Just for the record, I will say that I have no doubt that capital punishment is deterrent; I am just pointing out that deterrence is not the reason for it.

[dan1123]

Ah, I understand now. One thing you can use against anti-capital punishment proponents is the fact that several people have been killed by convicted murderers, but no innocent person has been put to death by mistake under capital punishment in the US in the last century.