the death penalty does not deter murder because most murders are either "crimes of passion" or are planned by people who don't think they'll get caught.
the death penalty does not deter murder because most murders are either "crimes of passion" or are planned by people who don't think they'll get caught.
Studies claiming a positive relationship between death penalty and deterrence are highly controversial. In fact there seems to be strong concensus among criminologists that there is no such relation:
Pascal's Wager [en.wikipedia.org] holds that, whether or not God's existence can be proved, belief in God is the most prudentially rational choice, because one has everything to gain if God exists, and nothing to lose if he does not.
Property is a state-protected monopoly over the use of certain objects. This is inefficient since it restricts its use when it might be benificial for people other than the owner. It would be better to exchange the system of owner rights to a model where the claimer with highest potential of social benefit receives the rights.
By outlawing recreational drugs, the government loses control and overview on a well-developed business. By legalizing recreational drugs, the government has a chance to regulate the quality, receive extra tax income and does not need to spend many resources on (mostly ineffective) prosecution.
'This statement is a very good "sandbox example" for debatepoint.'
Human rights are possibly a consequence of what is right and wrong. However if that is really the case, cannot be established. Hence, that the death penalty is incompatible with human rights does not say that it is incompatible with righteousness.