protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 57,173
- 18,363
It is what the convicted killers who are spared the death penalty, may decide, that we need to be thinking about.The Death Penalty is not a deterrent, nor has it ever been.
Its role has been to take Revenge out of the hands of the family and friends of the victim, and to put it into the more methodical and dispassionate hands of the State.
Revenge... for the victim, primarily, and, secondarily, for the victim's family and friends, and even, in a tertiary sort of way, for the community at large, for thus damaging and weakening and disturbing the community.
Revenge.
It has been thus, since the earliest times, when the payment of 'wergeld' (blood money) and eye-for-an-eye personal violence were taken out of the hands of an aggrieved peasantry and put into the hands of the local nobility of a post-tribal, feudal, pre-medieval Europe.
In that respect, nothing has really changed since those earlier times.
Except that nowadays, the State exacts that Revenge through a long, drawn-out legalistic Danse Macabre - tightly controlled and monitored, to ensure the fewest possible mistakes.
Usually, the system works.
Sometimes, it doesn't.
But let's not forget how State-sponsored Capital Punishment got its start, and why it has been sustained for so many long centuries - fulfilling, as it does, a basic human need.
Revenge.
And it is a component we have to keep, because just because one person may decide they don't need the ultimate punishment to satisfy their desire for justice/revenge (whatever you want to call it) some people still do. And if those people decide the State cannot give it to them, they may decide to do it themselves.