This raises the interesting philosophical question of "what is a punishment." Or more specifically, what does "your society" philosophically think constitutes a "punishment," and for that matter what does your society think constitutes a "crime?" Moreover, WHY does any social or political entity need to have an idea of a punishment and what it constitutes?

I realize here that many of us are coming from different societies. For the sake of example ask yourself: What does nation else the specific state you live in, think constitutes a "punishment."

With respect to the United States, my home nation, and the various states I have resided in (and thus been a de facto 'citizen of') I honestly do not know the answer to these questions. I honestly do not know WHERE, in what document outlining the social contract of being a United States citizen, or _insert state name_ citizen it spells out why it serves the greater social good for there to be a police force, let alone for them to use force to detain, question, or otherwise impede the rights which the Constitution set out as being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? This may seem self-evident to some people, but in fact it is dramatically different from one culture to the next, and indeed from one STATE to the next.

For example, I have posted on this forum before about age of consent laws. Correct me if I am in error here but, in any event, I do know that there is not one consistent age of consent in all 50 U.S. states, nor in say Canada and the U.S. So for example, the age of consent may be 16 in Alabama, but 18 in Georgia. This means that behavior which is illegal "here" on this side of a state boundary, is illegal "over there" 10 meters away on that other side of the state boundary. There are almost countless examples of these local variations on laws (although again I do not know where these are written down, how they get decided, or whether they have sound philosophical bases underlying them), and indeed, they extend all the way to matters of life and death. What constitutes murder and what constitutes self-defense no doubt differs between different states. Is it not the case that certain forms of euthanasia are legal in some U.S. states and not in others? Certainly abortions are legal in some U.S. states, but perhaps not in all?

In short, I do not know the law. Moreover, I do not know the law SO THOROUGHLY, that I do not even know where (or if) it is written down in any sort of broader philsophical way, what constitutes a crime, or what constitutes a punishment for my own society! Thus I find it very hard to have a philosophical critique of a specific jurisprudential practice (the death penalty) not knowing how that practice is, or is not justified or validated through the larger philosophical structure of any specific state, or the nation of the U.S.

This leads me back to Bismarck's original comment, that giving a criminal choice is inherent contradictory to punishment. Is this even something that we can all agree with? Increasingly it seems to me that there is an effort to re-define crime as a "social problem," i.e., not as an inappropriate, or wrongful action or choice by an individual which has harmed another individual or the society in some way, but as a manifestation through an individuals behavior of a structural problem. While I do not want to take a distinctly oppositional stance to the idea that certain social milieu tend to predispose crime, I also have a problem with following such thinking to its ultimate conclusion, which is in my estimation to remove all agency from the individual and alleviate the individual of all his social responsibility to behave in a civil and sociable manner.

Yes, living in poverty, being a minority, suffering various forms of neglect or abuse, are all associated with resorting to behaviors that harm others, or else harm the social fabric. But does this mean that individuals should not be held acountable and responsible for their actions? If individuals are to be held accountable for their wrongs against society or others, then should having their choices in life reduced be a standard response of society, and is not ending one's life the ultimate way of reducing one's choices?