So people have tried to give me some reasons. One argument states that the criminal justice system is really in place to protect people from having criminals repeat their crimes. Jails effectively prevent them from any recurrence (assuming perfect jail implementations, also something we don't have but philosophically could), and, life terms in jail would forever prevent their recurrence. Therefore, the death penalty is an unnecessary addition to the system. I find this philosophy to be incredibly flawed. I completely disagree with the premise. Laws exist to deter people from becoming criminals, not to keep criminals from society. Mental institutions exist to keep dangerous people away from society. Prisons and police exist in order to keep people from breaking the rules agreed upon as part of the social contract of living in states. Knowledge of punishment is what prevents people from doing things they might otherwise do, that, when looked at wholistic, would be damaging to the community. That's why theft is illegal. That's why drugs are illegal. That's why cheating on your taxes is illegal. The evidence for this should be obvious. Not all crimes are actually punished in such a way as to prevent people from committing .
again. If they were, containing recidivism could much more effectively be accomplished by castrating sex offenders, removing the limbs of major larsons, placing constant .
surveillance on swindlers, etc (in other words, still proportional punishment, but punishment geared towards preventing recurrence, rather than original deterrence). Granted, many of the punishments we dole out for crimes are geared towards addressing the crime committed. But certainly painting curbs does not aim to keep someone from .
using pot, fining someone does not stop them from purchasing alcohol for minors; or speeding; or parking illegally.