One who opposes capital punishment can terminate all discussion simply by asserting that it is morally unacceptable for a society to take the life of one of its own, and that it would be unacceptable even if it could be demonstrated that capital punishment deters some who would murder if their society did not invoke the death penalty. Likewise, one who supports capital punishment can foreclose further discussion by asserting that an eye must be taken for an eye even if the taking of an eye does not deter anyone any more than would a lesser penalty. Each of these positions is as irrefutable as it is incapable of persuading anyone who does' not already accept it. The question of deterrence is, however, paramount. It is paramount not merely for those whose position would be based on capital punishment's deterrent effect -those who would favor capital punishment if it does deter, but would not if it does not-but also for those who favor and those who oppose capital punishment for any reason and wish to see their view become public policy. 1 For it seems inevitable that public policy will be derived from the assessment of capital punishment's deterrent effect. Therefore, even those who support or oppose capital punishment categorically for purely moral reasons and for whom the question of deterrence is irrelevant tend to argue their positions in terms of the ability or lack of ability of capital punishment to deter. This has led to a situation in. which the discussion of capital punishment has become-like the discussions of homosexuality, abortion, and pornography-a discussion in which both the proponents and opponents have raised to the level of high art the