[Skybird]

Originally Posted by waste gate

OK, I'll go along with your thesis. Perhaps if the punishment came within two years, instead of ten plus years, the deterrent effect would be greater. Since terrible crimes are easily forgotten, the sooner the punishment the more likely the deterrent.

Any psychologist and behaviourist tells you that it is hard solid fact from experimental research that the more time lies between the event that is sanctioned, and the experience of the sanction, the more the probability that the subject will "learn" something from it is declining: the probability that it will chnage it's behavior as a reaction to the penalty falls constantly, and quickly with time. that's why it is especially important with young ones who for example have stolen, that they are brought to court and feel a sanction as soon as possible - best would be the next day. Also, there must be an "aversive stimulus" that can be felt, that is a must: to impose just a suspended sentence is contra-productive. It would be better, if for some pedagogical reasons a penalty is not suspended, but cut shorter. I would send a 15 year old teenager who has stolen for the first time to prison, but only for a couple of days, say half or full a week. But common practise is that for extremely questionable pedagogical reasons and concerns that the future of this young and still developing person could suffer harm, any penalty is suspended, or is transformed into some social work - that the offender may not be used to, but probably do not think of as a really aversive stimulus that a penalty by definition should be. It's mor elikely that he learns another lesson: "I can get away with it."

All this implies that the penalty does not prevent the penalised person from further existing. Your argument that a shorter time between deed and execution would be a deterrent to others, or the offender, is a non-starter, for that reason. When you are dead, you cannot be deterred, and you cannot change your behaviour in reacting to a penalising stimulus. Deterrence should work in advance, to prevent a deed. Penalty should work after the deed has been done, to prevent that it is repeated. So, you can't avoid seeing that death never can be a penalty. and since no one committing a crime on which there is death penalty expects or even plans to get caught, also for this reason death cannot be a deterrent for him, or others. and that may be the reason why death penalty has no effects of crime rates in those countries that practise it.