My stance on a
NYT article on new evidence the death penalty might deter is akin to
this one. [The article notes that proof here can be a dubious thing, but there probably is
some net deterrence.] I get off the bus as to allowing it in "a very small number of crimes of such moral atrocity" even if that is "a suitable moral response." How are we supposed to do that equitably, especially with additional risk of arbitrary application? They also tend to be done by people where free will is particularly unclear, making societal execution dubious. If anything, deterrence -- murder in prison or in an escape -- might be a more just reason. Dubious still, but perhaps a bit less so.
