Death Penalty - Cllr Lister

Letters Page - Evening Advertiser - 26th November 2003

Why is the death penalty not always a deterrent?

YOUR correspondent Peter Heaton-Jones is of course quite correct ­ the death penalty is not always a deterrent (EA November 18), but since few of us are anxious to die, his statement begs the question, why is it that the death penalty is not always a deterrent?

There would seem to be two prime reasons. The first, and most obvious, is that unpremeditated murders result from fits of bad temper, they are essentially crimes of passion, loss of self-control. Clearly deterrence has very little part to play in such circumstances.

The other group are premeditated murders, and in such cases deterrence clearly plays a part. But the extent depends in large measure on the murderer's assessment of the risk of being caught. Such murderers go to considerable lengths to conceal their crime and their association with it.

It is apparent, therefore, that the real deterrent is the sum of the anticipated penalty and the chance of being caught, and it necessarily follows that the more potent the penalty the greater the deterrent effect as the chance of detection may not vary very much.

This clearly begs the question ­ what percentage of murders are solved? I would be most interested to know the answer, as it is clearly a most important part of the equation.

Dr C O Lister

Abbey Meads Conservative Councillor