Notes

If homicide is a relatively emotional, spontaneous crime, what does that imply for efforts to use harsh legal punishment, including the death penalty, to deter people from committing homicide?


I think the reason that such harsh punishments are enforced for those who commit homicide is that people are thinking about the consequence of the crime rather than the cause. In the end, despite the reason or intention behind the action, homicide was committed and someone died. Because of that, people want the person who committed the crime to be punished.

However, when you think about the reason behind the crime, that's when the reasoning for preventing this crime becomes ineffective. Since homicide is often an emotional and spontaneous crime, sometimes the person who committed it is not performing a premeditated murder. Someone who commits homicide may be fueled purely by emotion/rage/etc. In this case, attempting to prevent future homicide with this punishment seems futile. Even if someone understands the consequences of this crime, does not want to face the punishment, and attempts to live their life as a good civilian, none of that matters during a spontaneous homicide because the consequences of their actions will not come into their mind when they are blinded by emotion. (Maybe afterward, after the person calms down and realizes the severity of their actions. But by then, they've already committed the crime.)

Overall, the idea that "justice is blind" would come into play in this situation because a person who commits homicide will end up facing harsh legal punishments regardless of the fact that the murder might have been an emotional or spontaneous act.