May I use that quote in gun control debates? (giving proper attribution to you, of course)
If all the other countries jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?
The U.S. likes to think of itself as a world leader, not a follower. To many Americans, the fact that European countries are doing something is not going to convince them that the U.S. should. It might even make them more resistant.
Anyway, one part of the answer to the OP’s question is: Because, in the U.S., that’s the kind of thing that’s decided by the individual states. Are you asking why the state of _______ still has the death penalty (for those states that do), or why the federal government hasn’t taken that decision away from the states?
You can both believe that some crimes deserve the death penalty, and that the state will never be accurate enough with their judical system to allow carrying that penalty out.
Which happens to be my position.
So true, and even apparent here when anything European is suggested as an alternative to the American Way.
But you need to look at the cultural mores that support that belief and the political system which is somewhat chaotic and possibly too easily manipulated.
Use it anywhere without attribution- it is a pretty standard criminological theory.
I’m glad I live on a continent where politics is carefully ordered and kept well in hand.
It is more a cultural than political question, and even those states that have given up judicial killing still incarcerate at ridiculous levels (every fourth prisoner in the world is in an American jail!)
That’s the technical answer (until such time as the SCOTUS decides that the death penalty is “cruel and unusual”, if ever).
It dodges the implicit question of why so many Americans support it, as witnessed by the fact that so many states do.
I think the best answer is that a lot of Americans want to be “tough on crime” and feel that the death penalty is that. Many also feel that the criminals deserve death, given what they have done: it’s justice, which may be at least as important as deterrent.
I’m against it, myself: I don’t think a civilized people should be in the business of killing anyone unless it’s absolutely necessary. But I can understand why people are in favor. I find it a lot easier to understand than why so many people believe in myths.
Yes, that’s the simple answer. Not a load of crap like this:
But do note the qualifying adjectives.
“Too” far. The grammar death penalty for you. But hey, it least its not fascist in your mind. A government run by and for corporations is fascist by definition. If the 2008/9 bailouts and non-reform taught us nothing, it should have at least opened the eyes of the public that the government will stop everything to save a corrupt bank, but do nothing to save millions of homeowners. With “civil” forfeiture laws for routine traffic stops, anal probing by the TSA et al, if you think that isn’t Franco style fascism, you are entitled to your opinion. You do understand that the US funds the Gaza Ghetto crime against humanity, don’t you? We are a fascist country.
To examine capital punishment in practical terms, one must first look at the behavioral dynamic of negative reinforcement.
We learn not to do certain things based on negative reinforcement (punishment). Touch a red stove element, get instant negative reinforcement and probably never do that again (at least, intentionally). The dynamic is that we avoid things that lead to negative reinforcement. The problem is, as far as crime is concerned, the thing we learn to avoid is not the proscribed behaviors but the thing that leads to negative reinforcement: getting caught at it.
The more removed the negative reinforcement is relative to the act, the less effective the behavioral dynamic is. Hence, criminals go to great lengths to not get caught in the first place, then if they do get caught, strive to avoid conviction and punishment. Hence, the criminal justice system is a fundamental failure on its very premise: it encourages a different set of behaviors than intended. On top of that, the example of one person getting away with some heinous crime seems to more severely undermine the credibility of the system than does the example of any number of people receiving their just desserts. Which means the deterrence effect is simply not there at all. If a person is inclined toward a criminal act, the deterrence they face relates to capture and prosecution, not to the very act itself.
Beyond all of that, one must consider the headspace of the actor. In the most egregious cases, the person or persons involved in mayhem have reached a pass wherein they no longer give a fuck. Some of them proceed with the intention of deliberately following their victims into the existential void. Others seek to enforce their demise by the hand of someone else.
So capital punishment fails on both fronts. It fails to provide a credible deterrent, and it fails to address the underlying issues relating to what drives people past the edge of reason. It solves nothing and it is not obvious that it does not make things worse. Yet, we are conditioned to believe that “just desserts” make the system fair and in no way nudge us down the path to becoming monsters ourselves.
It’s kind of hard to have a “massive over-reaction to multiple murder.” Just saying.
I think the less interesting (for those who just want to America bash) answer is our system of laws and government was built intentionally to only allow things on which there is broad consensus to be effected as laws/policies. In most of Europe you just need a bare majority agreeing at one point in time and you can change lots of laws of the land. In the U.S., it just doesn’t work that way, then on top of it this specific area of law is actually a matter of Federalism/State law. Criminal punishments for State crimes are essentially the domain of the States, even if a strong majority in both Houses of Congress felt it was time to remove capital punishment as one of the possible sentences in the Federal criminal code, that would have very little meaning.
The Federal government has only executed a small handful (I think like maybe 2-3) of people since the 1970s. So if the Feds repealed capital punishment, it actually would have little impact on its use in the United States. In fact, all but 2-3 of the highest practitioners of capital punishment could repeal it and the impact would be minimal. Some States with CP like New Hampshire and Washington almost never carry out executions (New Hampshire hasn’t in like 40+ years, and they only have one death row inmate.)
It begs the question why some of these States which essentially no longer practice executions have it as a statute, I think the actual simplest explanation is our conservative approach to laws doesn’t make us a country where it’s expected to repeal laws as they get outdated. That’s why many strange laws remain on the books here for generations.
I think there are a few States (Texas primarily) where capital punishment is a major political issue and where many voters and politicians are deeply committed to it. Outside of that, I honestly don’t think the common trope of “politicians want votes for being tough on crime” applies to the death penalty. I don’t know hardly anyone who votes on the death penalty as an issue, and avoiding the moniker of being “soft on crime” tends to be more associated with your position on things like mandatory sentencing / truth in sentencing laws and etc.
To a European it’s shocking that we have executions, but Americans actually, as a whole, don’t seem to care that much one way or the other.
Especially since the only way to stop the States that are really committed to them would be a constitutional amendment, something few people want to bother with on any issue, let alone one that isn’t very important to them.
Would an amendment to the Constitution be required for the federal government to simply take away that states’ rights to execute?
As I’m sure you already know, that’s entirely missing (avoiding) the point.
I don’t know where you’re getting this, but I strongly suspect it’s a lot closer to the feeling many of us have when a bad guy gets killed in a movie we’re watching.
The real reason the US executes and Europe doesn’t is because Europe doesn’t have very good crime policy. You’re far more likely to be assaulted, robbed, or stolen from in Europe. You can’t go to any major city without getting your pocket picked. They don’t execute criminals because overall, they just aren’t that interested in stopping crime.
I don’t see any particular reason to think that politics in the US is any more chaotic or manipulatable than European politics. More to the point, if we’re saying that bad politics is at least partially responsible for the US still using the death penalty, can’t we also suggest that it could be bad politics that means Europe doesn’t?
I live (almost) in London. Never had my pocket picked. Been to Paris a few times, Brussels, Copenhagen - didn’t happen to me.
Oddly enough - that’s still the most reasonable suggestion in your post. We don’t care as much about stopping crime? On what basis? Are we just generally more immoral than Americans?
Which is why the crime the death penalty is realistically for - murder - is so much lower in the US than Europe.
Or is it the other way round…?