[WS:] Not necessarily. Deterrence is grounded in a utilitarian concept of law, which not everyone shares. Retributionists would argue that the only purpose of punishment is retribution to satisfy justice, not to achieve any other practical end (such as future crime prevention.) Thefact that it discriminated against the poor etc. is no more a logical reason for abolition than the existence of potholes in the road is a reason for abolition of the road. A logical consequence is that it should be applied to to rich and powerful as well, as Andie argued. As to the claim of too many innocent victims - I do not think we have any reliable numbers is, so we will never know for sure. I happen to believe that in most cases the persons condemned to die as guilty as charged, and the only outstanding issue is not guilt but leniency i.e. whether the convicted person should die or serve a jail term.
As I said before, I happen to believe that death penalty is applied too wantonly in cases where it is not necessarily justified (e.g. killing a cop, as many people have good reasons to fear them and panic) - but that calls for imposing restrictions on its application - e.g. federal sentencing guidelines that limit it application to most severe cases, such as multiple murders, deliberate acts of cruelty, etc. - but not necessarily abolition. But I do not want to give up the right of executing the likes of Breivik, or for that matter the most notorious Wall Street crooks, either.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."