Sorry about not getting back to this sooner, but I'm not feeling well and both mentally and physically do not feel fit for a prolonged debate right now (if you want more information you can read venting). But I do want to touch a couple of things:
Simon_Jester wrote:The problem I have always had with this line of reasoning is that is difficult to find the point where we can stop invoking it. Is it only violence towards human beings that promotes more violence towards human beings? Or is eating animals also a contributing factor? What about blowing up mountainsides for roads? Where does it end?
I'm willing to believe you have an answer for that. I certainly hope so. But I'd like to know where.
Its the attitudes and biases that it stems from that are the problem, and to a large degree why blowing up mountain sides isn't a problem. Mountains aren't human, they aren't even biological, so we think about them differently than a serial killer. Your argument is that we do no favors to some of these people by putting them in an isolated concrete box, but the reality is that the
vast majority are almost certainly not that dangerous. One of the lesser known hallmarks of a serial killer, for example, is that many of them start to slip up subconsciously as if they
want the authorities to catch them. They still have a meager understanding that what they are doing is, well,
wrong, they just can't fight the compulsions without help.
The problem is that humans are well known to pay more attention towards certain kinds of information that may represent a threat or a reward to them later, and rate those events as more common or more likely on a day to day basis than they really are. * So when mister serial killer or first degree murderer is in the news people get scared, and are alerted to keep a lookout for similar stories... at which point our other very well known bias towards confirming what we already believe kicks in. You find such stories. Now you're on a jury for a murder case. You think the guy looks like Mr. First Degree Murderer you saw in the news, so you decide to throw the book at him. Or maybe you're voting on new, stricter sentencing laws, maybe even death penalty related laws. You vote in favor of the tougher crime laws, because you perceive the problem to be worse than it is.
The death penalty specifically plays into this because it exacerbates the situation. If you get the death penalty, you must have done something
terribly serious. You're more likely to be in the news. And to stay there, sparking controversy. Or outrage. You aren't just a statistic anymore... you're like the evil twin of the single dead mass murder victim. Representative of a problem that is, unlike the mass murder victim, much less significant then people think.
Yes, this is more complex then simply "america has a violent culture, and its because of its harsh sentencing policy of which capitol punishment is part." It has to do with a complex interplay of human biases, news reporting biases, and on top of that we can see other symptoms in our culture. But that's what really ought to be expected when dealing with social issues.
* There is almost certainly an evolutionary reason for this. It generally costs less to be cautious then reckless.
