Yes, which is why my question isn’t just rhetorical. How many is too many? You could make a case for 1 (if you believe the crime is too heinous), or 2 (if you believe in second chances), or 3+ even. But where do you draw the line and accept someone isn’t going to stop?
OK, so ignoring that not going to change doesn’t mean the death penalty is valid (the very idea presupposes the existence of states and the idea that a power structure can put people to death), that using the upper limits of your statistics means that for every 1 (0.35) who would reoffend that is murdered, you’ve also murdered 2 (0.65) who would not.
So if you do want to go ahead on your executions, the number of reoffenses should be up at 3 or so as a minimum.
But there are better ways to deal with it, as executing people is bad for the people who have to do it, the families of the executed, and sometimes even the victims and families as they’re robbed of a chance for closure and understanding.
Yes, which is why my question isn’t just rhetorical. How many is too many? You could make a case for 1 (if you believe the crime is too heinous), or 2 (if you believe in second chances), or 3+ even. But where do you draw the line and accept someone isn’t going to stop?
OK, so ignoring that not going to change doesn’t mean the death penalty is valid (the very idea presupposes the existence of states and the idea that a power structure can put people to death), that using the upper limits of your statistics means that for every 1 (0.35) who would reoffend that is murdered, you’ve also murdered 2 (0.65) who would not.
So if you do want to go ahead on your executions, the number of reoffenses should be up at 3 or so as a minimum.
But there are better ways to deal with it, as executing people is bad for the people who have to do it, the families of the executed, and sometimes even the victims and families as they’re robbed of a chance for closure and understanding.