Boston bomber to be executed

By teaching people not to murder they them self are murdering?

I dont doubt for one second that he is worthless scum, but why do we actually think that by murdering someone to prove a point is correct?

Im sorry, but the law states it is illegal to kill, so does that mean the executer (wether that is one person or ten) they are breaking the law!!!

Put him in jail for life, enough death has occurred, it's not right to see another family suffer!! Not only has three innocent family's had to deal with bereavement but now 4

Why? The whole point of having states is that their laws don't have to be (completely) consistent.

i study Ethics and the statistic was there and also 88% of americans believe it isn't a deterrence

Government: "Let's show that killing is wrong by killing!"

Anyone know when do we start raping rapists?

I am not saying they have to be 100% but some closeness would I believe be better

Too light, He should be kept in solitary confinement for the rest of his life, that is much worse.

Personally I'd prefer him to be kept with the prison Neo Nazi gang instead.

Spending the rest of his life getting gang raped is pretty much what he deserves IMO..

Great, I studied the death penalty. Numerous papers have found it was a deterrent. Here's for some starters:

Bailey, William and Peterson, Ruth – 1989
Cloninger, Dale – 1992
Cloninger, Dale and Marchesini, Roberto – 2001
Cloninger, Dale and Marchesini, Roberto – 2006
Dezhbakhsh, H., P. H. Rubin, and J. M. Shepherd. 2003
Dezhbakhsh, Hashem and Shepherd, Joanna – 2006
Ehrlich, Isaac – 1975
Ehrlich, Isaac – 1977
Kenneth Land, Raymond Teske Jr. and Hui Zheng – 2009
Zhiqiang Liu – 2004
Naci Mocan and Kaj Gittings – 2003
Joanna Shepherd – 2004
Joanna M. Shepherd – 2005
Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule – 2005a

Not all papers found it was a deterrence but a good number have so simply saying "it is not a deterrent" as if that fact was not up for debate is simply wrong.

Excellent list of studies there.

Also, on a common sense level it would seem as if capital punishment would be deterrent. If a country lessens the consequences of crime, then crime will increase. By getting rid of capital punishment, a country effectively cheapens human life and lessens the consequences for taking an innocent life. And, of course, if consequences for murder are reduced, then by default they are reduced for all other crimes.

I think UK proves beyond doubt that abolition of capital punishment massively increases crime rates across the board.

What seems to come from the studies is that not only does a state/country need the death penalty as a possible punishment, but that it actually needs to implement it. I mean what kind of deterrent is it if people are never executed? One of the Shepherd studies gives (from memory) the figure of executing at least 7 prisoners per year in order to deter murder most effectively. I think this is where a lot of the "anti-deterrent" studies go wrong; they fail to take frequency into account.

Singapore for example has mandatory death sentence, and it has some of the lowest crime rates in world.

And at what expense? Do you want our society to look like Singapore's?

Okay, but you still haven't answered my question: why? What is the virtue in what you are suggesting? Why would you be happier with all states using the death penalty, rather than just some of them?

No ideally I would want all states not to use the death penalty

So really, you don't care about consistency, you just don't like the death penalty. Fine.

no I care about both, I think there should be consistency and also believe that the death penalty should be abolished

no I care about both, I think there should be consistency and also believe that the death penalty should be abolished

no I care about both, I think there should be consistency and also believe that the death penalty should be abolished