Read this, which transcribes a speech by New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Key paragraph:
So, like many of the supporters who took the time to meet with me this week, I have believed the death penalty can serve as a deterrent to some who might consider murdering a law enforcement officer, a corrections officer, a witness to a crime or kidnapping and murdering a child. However, people continue to commit terrible crimes even in the face of the death penalty and responsible people on both sides of the debate disagree—strongly—on this issue. (Boldface added.)
Is Richardson suggesting that the death penalty doesn't deter because "people continue to commit terrible crimes"? Whoever said that everyone is deterrable? There are (logically) three classes of people: (1) those who will not commit murder, even if it is punishable only by life imprisonment; (2) people who will commit murder even if it is punishable by death; and (3) people who will commit murder if it is punishable by life imprisonment but not if it is punishable by death. People in class 1 don't need to be deterred from committing murder. People in class 2 are undeterrable. People in class 3 are deterrable. The point of capital punishment is to deter those who are deterrable. Richardson seems to be saying that since some people are undeterrable (i.e., in class 2), nobody is deterrable (i.e., in class 3). (Put differently: Not everybody is deterrable; therefore, nobody is deterrable.) That is a flagrant fallacy. Somebody make this man take a Critical Thinking course.
Addendum: According to a recent study, each execution of a judicial death sentence saves 18 innocent lives. By signing the law that repeals New Mexico's death penalty, Bill Richardson has signed the death warrants of many of his state's citizens. Good job, Bill, you monster. Your job is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of your citizens, not facilitate their murders.
Addendum 2: Let's apply Richardson's logic elsewhere. Public schools continue to produce illiterates; therefore, public schools are failures and should be abolished. Welfare programs haven't eliminated poverty; therefore, welfare programs are failures and should be ended. In general, Richardson is reasoning that because something isn't perfect, it is worthless. That, with all due respect, is perfectly idiotic.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 