Final answer:
The concept that public executions deter crime is part of the rationale for capital punishment but remains a highly debated issue, with contrasting views and limited statistical support. Socrates, however, valued the integrity of the soul over physical consequences, considering moral corruption to be a greater harm.
Step-by-step explanation:
The thought that witnessing someone's death as a punishment would deter others from committing crimes is a component of the rationale behind capital punishment and is meant to serve as a deterrent against criminal behavior. This concept aligns with the belief that the fear of harsh consequences can prevent crime. However, ethnographic studies suggest that in some tribal societies, the approach to deterrence involved making every member of the tribe accountable for an individual's actions, thus collectively discouraging crime.
When it comes to the argument that it is better to have less murder overall, even if it means the accidental killing of an innocent, the stance is highly contentious. Supporters of capital punishment often claim it acts as a deterrent, yet statistical and psychological research does not consistently support this assertion. The deterrent effect is a complex and debated issue within the realm of criminology and law.
Socrates, on the other hand, emphasized the harm to one's character and soul over physical harm, including death. He believed moral corruption was the greatest harm that could befall a person, outweighing any physical suffering.