A rewarding performance

Maybe a life of imprisonment existing on gruel, a breakfast favourite of monks for centuries and a recent addition to Madonna’s menu, and perhaps her latest single on repeat, would have deterred some from pulling the trigger? Or perhaps potential criminals, with bad hearing, would simply fast-track the crime to take advantage of a long-term detox?

Could the crime be averted if the law required the execution of the family members of the murderer instead of the murderer? Or would the perceived benefits still win out as pragmatic individuals ensured mother-in-laws paid the ultimate price for too many pieces of unwanted advice.

Whatever you think of the death penalty and its ability to achieve justice in the execution of Amrozi, you need to question the role of disincentives. By understanding the motivations of Amrozi rather than bluntly executing him, there is the chance of stumbling upon a punishment which proves a forceful disincentive for individuals around the world who aspire to emulate the acts of Amrozi.

While I will continue to chance my luck at the traffic lights, men and women around the world will carry on taking human lives for reasons we cannot predict or fully comprehend - 72 virgins waiting in paradise being the most plausible.

While the two crimes are incomparable in every respect, the law of incentives governs both. Choosing an effective deterrent is unfortunately trial and error, a luxury the Victorian police have, but one those who pass the laws that validate the death penalty do not.

Does equating human lives with human lives, as the death penalty attempts to do, achieve justice? A resounding yes would be heard by the majority of Australians but for killers such as Amrozi, the perceived benefits outweigh the fatal price they, and their victims, have to pay. As a disincentive, the death penalty fails but as a tool for retribution, it may achieve the finality many desperately need.