> I suppose the assumption you make is that the death penalty is meant as a deterrent. Yes, but the assumption is not mine. It is an axiom of our criminal lega

> I suppose the assumption you make is that the death penalty is meant as a deterrent. Yes, but the assumption is not mine. It is an axiom of our criminal legal-justice system, namely: punishment deters future crimes. > My world-view is that the death penalty is a form of punishment for serious crime. It is not meant as a deterrent, not meant as some "lesson" for others. And I, personally, see no problem with it as a form of penalty to be payed by some. (I also reject Blackstone's formulation) Punishment without social purpose is sadism. I suspect I misunderstand your position. The answers to the following may help me understand. If you are advocating for punishment without a useful social purpose (like deterring future crimes): 1. Why limit the death penalty to serious crimes? 2. Why punish at all, if it achieves nothing? 3. What do you think the death penalty should achieve? It's just a thought exercise – no real need to reply.