Especially if we murder enough murderers and give it a chance.
Unfortunately, the argument of deterrence is a rather weak on now that we have statistics and data and a more sober perspective of the issue with thousands of years of its use.
In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.” In the United States, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average.
In a state-by-state analysis in the US of the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.
There is no current information that would support this argument in its entirety.
An inmate killing another inmate is also something that, by the economic argument those in favor of the death penalty attempt to use, will benefit society as we no longer have to pay for the deceased inmate’s incarceration expenses.
I think that the amount of crime in Canada would increase and the murder rate would increase.
If people can do something and think that they can get away with it then they are most likely going to try to do just that.
Because of the complexity of causality in crime and the legal system, statistics are not convincing in and of themselves.
The problem with deterrence is that few offenders commit a crime anticipating that they will be apprehended, even with some degree of premeditation.