G504

I went to Penn Law School, which is a pretty good school (sorry Tulane). I now teach at University of Miami, few schools better (sorry LSU). I did criminal defense for a couple years out of law school, and I've studied a fair about of criminal justice theory. I all my years, I have never come across one credibility theory that supports the notion that excessively high punishments actually deter crime. They only result in making the people consider the governing body arbitrary and unjust. It doesn't work with the death penalty, it doesn't work with million dollar lawsuits for illegally downloading music, it's not going to work here. Sure, maybe people will stop using the word "bounty" (just like people took to calling illegal downloading "file sharing"), but defensive players will continue to target Pro-Bowlers just back from injury. Or those too old and slow (like Warner) or rookies (like Cam). Or those that just don't get their fair share of flags (I'll PAY the Saints $500,000 fine if you can prove no team ever discussed hitting Vick extra because he doesn't get as many flags as say a Tom Brady).

http://www.darrylbercegeay.com/wsmith1.jpg

QBREES9

In NASCAR they say if you're not cheating your not winning. This type of punishment was way way way out of line.

Danno

The death penalty definitely deters the perpetrator from murdering someone again.

alexonfyre

So does life in prison and....NEVER MIND!! NOT GOING THERE!! BACK TO BAD MOUTHING GOODELL!

Danno

He didn't claim life in prison didn't deter crime.

FinSaint

But it's deterring quality can also backfire, for example in a case where the perpetrator knows that a certain crime that he/she is committing is punishable by death - there is a higher incentive for him/her to kill all potential witnesses.

That is why at certain point the attended deterrence can actually cause more crime than it decreases.

Danno

That same incentive exists if the penalty is life in prison too.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent, its a punishment for murdering another human being.

FinSaint

Every punishment in the judicial system automatically carries with it a deterrence quality (including the death penalty), that has been the case ever since the criminal system took the pivotal step towards having the ultimate goal of rehabilitating perpetrators instead of simply punishing them. Hence a system of corrections and rehabilitation exists nowadays instead of a straightforward penal system of the olden times.

Of course experts disagree and it is to some extent a matter of opinion, but I do think that there is a higher chance of a perpetrator committing additional crimes if the consequence of the initial crime is a death penalty instead of penalty of life in prison. And we have to remember that in US only the federal system carries a life sentence without parole, so in practice a "life in prison" can mean a 20 to 30 year prison sentence before parole in the state system.

"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

foreverfan

QBREES9

SMU football