Would you support Capital Punishment for cases like these?
Yes
19.8% (18)
19.8% (18)
No
74.7% (68)
74.7% (68)
Maybe
5.5% (5)
5.5% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Question for all Anti-Death Penalty Folks

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Gorfias:
If conservative studies are correct, even killing an innocent would deter murder enough to, on balance, save the lives of several others.

Whoa....That's cold.
You have any sources on hand? I'll google it but It'd just lead me to ones that say the complete opposite.

Jux:

mavkiel:
I admit I favor a more draconian system. By all means lets give folks a fair trial, but if they are found guilty, just shoot them and be done with it.

Yes, even with fair trials some people might be wrongfully executed, but society as a whole would benefit. How many resources are people like this worth? Because lets face it, we do not have unlimited resources to throw at every problem. Is this person worth not improving the school system in that state? Are they worth not feeding hungry kids in this country? Or any other social programs which would reduce criminal behavior. (After school programs, education, work programs, more police, etc etc)

And how many innocent people are you willing to put to death?

As many people as are found guilty of these type of crimes. I have faith enough in the justice system that errors of that magnitude are relatively rare. With dna evidence and other tech improving evidence gathering abilities, errors will become increasingly rare.

Well...we're definatly not the only 1st World Country that still has capital punishment. Look at Japan, Singapore and S. Korea?

mavkiel:

Jux:

mavkiel:
I admit I favor a more draconian system. By all means lets give folks a fair trial, but if they are found guilty, just shoot them and be done with it.

Yes, even with fair trials some people might be wrongfully executed, but society as a whole would benefit. How many resources are people like this worth? Because lets face it, we do not have unlimited resources to throw at every problem. Is this person worth not improving the school system in that state? Are they worth not feeding hungry kids in this country? Or any other social programs which would reduce criminal behavior. (After school programs, education, work programs, more police, etc etc)

And how many innocent people are you willing to put to death?

As many people as are found guilty of these type of crimes. I have faith enough in the justice system that errors of that magnitude are relatively rare. With dna evidence and other tech improving evidence gathering abilities, errors will become increasingly rare.

So you're saying you're willing to put any innocent person to death that is wrongly convicted, or are you saying that as long as its a 1:1 ratio of guilty people to innocent people being executed, you're ok with it?

Gorfias:

Jux:

And how many innocent people are you willing to put to death?

If conservative studies are correct, even killing an innocent would deter murder enough to, on balance, save the lives of several others.

If they aren't correct, that is a very difficult question to answer. How many people would I be willing to get killed to maintain speed limits where they are rather than reduce them about everywhere by 10 MPH? A lot of lives would be saved by lowering speed limits, yet we do not for good reasons. Freedom and justice demand certain dangers and sacrifices. My right to walk across a street endangers me, but I demand the right to typically do so.

I demand murderers face a fair, even, swift and reasonably certain death penalty too.

Considering we still put people to death, yet the murder rate in america between 2000-2010 has fluctuated between 4.8-5.7 (per 100,000), I'd say deterrence doesn't work.

Comparing the death penalty to lowering speed limits is apples to oranges. We are talking about the possibility of innocent people being executed.

Damien Granz:

Vegosiux:

mavkiel:

However, I find spending the cash on these types of criminals distasteful in the extreme. Murder a few people in horrible ways, and get free clothing/food/shelter and occasional entertainment for life (lets not forget medical is covered as well). While elsewhere, even in this country(U.S.) you have folks going without food or shelter. Something about that just strikes me as horribly wrong.

Oh, it is horribly wrong, I agree. We're just disagreeing on how to fix it. To an extent, I'm sure we'd agree that better social security would contribute to prevention of some such crimes in the first place.

I love the implication there isn't that we should treat our citizens better, it's that we should treat our prisoners worse. It's like, he's veering that idea so hard to the right to just try his damnedest to avoid being a decent human being.

Ehm, I actually was taking the "treat citizens better" route myself, just to clear it up. That prisoners enjoy access to things many citizens don't is wrong - not because the prisoners are getting that access, bur because citizens aren't. So yeah my idea would not be "treat prisoners worse".

NotALiberal:
EDIT: I am of course talking theoretically, as in: Why would you oppose the death penalty for an airtight case like this? Or why wouldn't you? Seeing as the vast majority of this site is anti-death penalty, why are you anti death penalty in cases like this, where the death penalty would be justifiable? Is it because of the fact that far too many innocents die as a result of wrongful convictions? Or is just an arbitrary line in the sand you draw because it makes you feel bad?

Here's the thing: it costs the state more money in legal proceedings and paperwork to get somebody put to death than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. Not only that, it's not an effective deterrent against crime. So, if it doesn't save us money, and if it doesn't prevent these crimes from happening in the first place, then what is the purpose of the death penalty? The only benefit (if you can call it that) is "retribution" for the victims.

But if retribution is our goal, why do we stop at execution? What about rapists? If we want retribution, why don't we have them officially raped for the sake of revenge? Or have the victim tailor their own revenge?

That is why I'm against the death penalty. In a first world country, we should not be spending so much time and so many resources on a backwards and archaic idea of "revenge." All it's doing is wasting money and keeping us from pursuing more constructive paths to deter crime.

lordbyron227:
Well...we're definatly not the only 1st World Country that still has capital punishment. Look at Japan, Singapore and S. Korea?

..What, that makes it better? More people in your club makes it cooler than the other clubs? That's how we're dealing with things now?

Lilani:

Not only that, it's not an effective deterrent against crime.

Since this is going to be a major debating-point, I'm going to ask you to source this right away. I don't disagree with you (In fact, I hope it's true), but is there actually enough proof and studies to claim it?
I've only heard vague remarks and some facts stated by Ben&Teller on "Bullshit", but that hardly counts.

Diablo1099:

Gorfias:
If conservative studies are correct, even killing an innocent would deter murder enough to, on balance, save the lives of several others.

Whoa....That's cold.
You have any sources on hand? I'll google it but It'd just lead me to ones that say the complete opposite.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewsDeathPenalty062007.html is an example. Don't recall what the exact stats were for homicide increases after the death penalty was all but abolished in the 1950s.

Jux:
We are talking about the possibility of innocent people being executed.

On the other side, failure to act can get innocent people killed for failure to engage in specific deterrence. Leaving out general deterrence for now, executed Ted Bundy will never kill again. Willie Horton might.

Realitycrash:

Lilani:

Not only that, it's not an effective deterrent against crime.

Since this is going to be a major debating-point, I'm going to ask you to source this right away. I don't disagree with you (In fact, I hope it's true), but is there actually enough proof and studies to claim it?
I've only heard vague remarks and some facts stated by Ben&Teller on "Bullshit", but that hardly counts.

Current murder rates by country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Here a list of countries, and whether they permit death penalty or not. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Regarding death penalty deterrence studies: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies

If you're interested in a first hand account of the death penalty process in the US, I recommend The Autobiography of an Execution by David Dow.

Gorfias:

Diablo1099:

Gorfias:
If conservative studies are correct, even killing an innocent would deter murder enough to, on balance, save the lives of several others.

Whoa....That's cold.
You have any sources on hand? I'll google it but It'd just lead me to ones that say the complete opposite.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewsDeathPenalty062007.html is an example. Don't recall what the exact stats were for homicide increases after the death penalty was all but abolished in the 1950s.

Jux:
We are talking about the possibility of innocent people being executed.

On the other side, failure to act can get innocent people killed for failure to engage in specific deterrence. Leaving out general deterrence for now, executed Ted Bundy will never kill again. Willie Horton might.

Yeaaah..1950's...Fox News...I wonder how relevant this is today.

Jux:

Realitycrash:

Lilani:

Not only that, it's not an effective deterrent against crime.

Since this is going to be a major debating-point, I'm going to ask you to source this right away. I don't disagree with you (In fact, I hope it's true), but is there actually enough proof and studies to claim it?
I've only heard vague remarks and some facts stated by Ben&Teller on "Bullshit", but that hardly counts.

Current murder rates by country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Here a list of countries, and whether they permit death penalty or not. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Regarding death penalty deterrence studies: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies

If you're interested in a first hand account of the death penalty process in the US, I recommend The Autobiography of an Execution by David Dow.

Yeah, the first two links can easily be explained away as "cultural, social and economic"-factors.
What we need is one that says "Hey, we had Death Penalty. And now, we don't, and crime hasn't gone up for the last ten years!"

Realitycrash:
Yeah, the first two links can easily be explained away as "cultural, social and economic"-factors.
What we need is one that says "Hey, we had Death Penalty. And now, we don't, and crime hasn't gone up for the last ten years!"

Ok, how about we look at it by state then, just in the US, to reduce the cultural factor.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

Massachusetts abolished the capital punishment in 1984. The range of per capita between then and now is 1.9-4.3 per 100,000. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.htm

You'd have to go back to 1967 to see a dropoff in the per capita murder rate in MA.

Now we can look at execution rates. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-execution-rates

If the death penalty is truly a deterrence, we could rightly assume that the states that execute the most people would have lower murder rates. Oklahoma has the highest per capita execution rate. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/okcrimn.htm In roughly the same time period, we're seeing a 4.7-12.2 per capita murder rate.

And here is Texas, number two in per capita, but highest on number of executions.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
5.0-15.3 per 100,000 range in the same time period.

edit: will be back later to continue this

Gorfias:
On the other side, failure to act can get innocent people killed for failure to engage in specific deterrence. Leaving out general deterrence for now, executed Ted Bundy will never kill again. Willie Horton might.

"We will kill innocent people so that we can save innocent people."

You may have not used those words, but it is what you said, that the risk of executing innocents (DPIC currently lists 10 possible cases of executed innocents based on circumstances surrounding their case) is so that innocents may be safe.

And speaking of Ted Bundy, here's a list of caught US serial killers. Of those, only 16 were executed. I haven't taken the time to count the number listed in the article, but I would say the list exceeds 100. Of those, only one escaped prison (that being Ted Bundy). If there's one thing that you can say about the US prison system, it's that it's damn hard for a violent offender to actually escape once sentenced.

Jux:

Realitycrash:
Yeah, the first two links can easily be explained away as "cultural, social and economic"-factors.
What we need is one that says "Hey, we had Death Penalty. And now, we don't, and crime hasn't gone up for the last ten years!"

Ok, how about we look at it by state then, just in the US, to reduce the cultural factor.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty

Massachusetts abolished the capital punishment in 1984. The range of per capita between then and now is 1.9-4.3 per 100,000. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/macrime.htm

You'd have to go back to 1967 to see a dropoff in the per capita murder rate in MA.

Now we can look at execution rates. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-execution-rates

If the death penalty is truly a deterrence, we could rightly assume that the states that execute the most people would have lower murder rates. Oklahoma has the highest per capita execution rate. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/okcrimn.htm In roughly the same time period, we're seeing a 4.7-12.2 per capita murder rate.

And here is Texas, number two in per capita, but highest on number of executions.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
5.0-15.3 per 100,000 range in the same time period.

Granted, I'm certainly no expert, but isn't Massachusetts a "liberal stronghold", and Texas a Republican one? Aren't there vast differences in % of population that has higher education, a job, are more devotedly religious, poverty, etc?
I hate to say it, but I think people can claim "cultural factors" here too (An easy one would be 'Dem damn Mexican illegals being all over Texas, taking jobs and committing crimes!').
Some might say "Hey! Of course there is a higher crime-rate in states where they have the DP, because that is where it is needed! Without DP, it would be even higher!".

Edit: "For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9

For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8

For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3"

This seems like a more solid approach.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

And this: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

image

The graph is showing the average murder-rate with the different size of populations in states taking into account.

image

Sort of pokes a hole in the cultural-argument, but not fully. Does seem to hint at it being incorrect, though.

Realitycrash:

Jux:

Realitycrash:

Since this is going to be a major debating-point, I'm going to ask you to source this right away. I don't disagree with you (In fact, I hope it's true), but is there actually enough proof and studies to claim it?
I've only heard vague remarks and some facts stated by Ben&Teller on "Bullshit", but that hardly counts.

Current murder rates by country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Here a list of countries, and whether they permit death penalty or not. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Regarding death penalty deterrence studies: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies

If you're interested in a first hand account of the death penalty process in the US, I recommend The Autobiography of an Execution by David Dow.

Yeah, the first two links can easily be explained away as "cultural, social and economic"-factors.
What we need is one that says "Hey, we had Death Penalty. And now, we don't, and crime hasn't gone up for the last ten years!"

There are a shit-ton of studies about deterrence theory and how it doesn't work, actually.

Deterrence theory is, at best, severely wanting and incomplete. Most realistically, it's just straight up crap that continues to get peddled to the public by politicians too scared to actually address the real issues behind crime. Deterrence theory "works" against rational and reasonable people that are able to think in the long-term. Unfortunately, criminals generally are not rational nor reasonable or think in the long-term. I speak from personal experience with the field, both from the criminal justice side and psychological side. There is a particular book I own that goes deeply into all these issues with criminal justice, including deterrence theory, but it's stored away somewhere. So, here is a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies done on deterrence theory(it's really one of the most researched subjects in criminal justice).

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4Apx0EeqCJEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA367&dq=deterrence+theory+of+crime&ots=iF-Pg2w_Py&sig=9a0tLQwVP1qAf2SO1PdX69zTg1M

Obviously some pages are cut out, but for the most part you get the gist of it. I'll spoiler some of the important parts from their conclusion.

LetalisK:

Realitycrash:

Jux:

Current murder rates by country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Here a list of countries, and whether they permit death penalty or not. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Regarding death penalty deterrence studies: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies

If you're interested in a first hand account of the death penalty process in the US, I recommend The Autobiography of an Execution by David Dow.

Yeah, the first two links can easily be explained away as "cultural, social and economic"-factors.
What we need is one that says "Hey, we had Death Penalty. And now, we don't, and crime hasn't gone up for the last ten years!"

There are a shit-ton of studies about deterrence theory and how it doesn't work, actually.

Deterrence theory is, at best, severely wanting and incomplete. Most realistically, it's just straight up crap that continues to get peddled to the public by politicians too scared to actually address the real issues behind crime. Deterrence theory "works" against rational and reasonable people that are able to think in the long-term. Unfortunately, criminals generally are not rational nor reasonable or think in the long-term. I speak from personal experience with the field, both from the criminal justice side and psychological side. There is a particular book I own that goes deeply into all these issues with criminal justice, including deterrence theory, but it's stored away somewhere. So, here is a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies done on deterrence theory(it's really one of the most researched subjects in criminal justice).

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4Apx0EeqCJEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA367&dq=deterrence+theory+of+crime&ots=iF-Pg2w_Py&sig=9a0tLQwVP1qAf2SO1PdX69zTg1M

Obviously some pages are cut out, but for the most part you get the gist of it. I'll spoiler some of the important parts from their conclusion.

Yeah, I saw the study, but avoided it for three reasons;
1 - I hate quoting studies I have not read.
2 - Since it is such a large one, it pretty much forces everyone to go "Oh, either I stop my internet-browsing and read this ENTIRE STUDY just to take a stance pro or against DP, not to mention get the required education needed in a few academic fields to determine if it is accurate or not, or I ignore it.."
3 - People will go "Liberal BIAS!" and quote their own studies, which says something different. And then, it will require people actually reading studies, being competent in the field, and comparing them, and thus; See point 2.

So I prefer Graphs. Everyone loves graphs. They paint a pretty nice picture, and is adequate enough for internet-debate.
Thus; See my above post.

Realitycrash:
Granted, I'm certainly no expert, but isn't Massachusetts a "liberal stronghold", and Texas a Republican one? Aren't there vast differences in % of population that has higher education, a job, are more devotedly religious, poverty, etc?
I hate to say it, but I think people can claim "cultural factors" here too (An easy one would be 'Dem damn Mexican illegals being all over Texas, taking jobs and committing crimes!').
Some might say "Hey! Of course there is a higher crime-rate in states where they have the DP, because that is where it is needed! Without DP, it would be even higher!".

If we're looking at the DP as a deterrence though, it shouldn't matter if the state is red or blue. Education and poverty may affect it, but as for religious v secular, it goes against the grain of reasoning that a more religious state with the DP would have a higher murder rate, as the concept of hell is even more deterrence.

The reason I used Massachusetts was because the DP was abolished fairly recented, but not so long ago that there would be no data on it's effect. If you want to look at a more varied state (politically) without the death penalty, look at Iowa. It abolished the DP in 1965. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/iacrime.htm

Though even looking at your graphs, it seems the data supporting the DP as a deterrence is flimsy. Comparing Massachusetts and Connecticut, both more liberal states, Connecticut still has the higher murder rate, at least in 2008. I would like to see more comparison over the years, but I am still willing to bet that Massachusetts will have the lower murder rate over all.

Gorfias:

Jux:

And how many innocent people are you willing to put to death?

If conservative studies are correct, even killing an innocent would deter murder enough to, on balance, save the lives of several others.

If they aren't correct, that is a very difficult question to answer. How many people would I be willing to get killed to maintain speed limits where they are rather than reduce them about everywhere by 10 MPH? A lot of lives would be saved by lowering speed limits, yet we do not for good reasons. Freedom and justice demand certain dangers and sacrifices. My right to walk across a street endangers me, but I demand the right to typically do so.

I demand murderers face a fair, even, swift and reasonably certain death penalty too.

This reasoning is faulty, I will explain why I think so, but first let me explain the thread. I merely proposed this as a hypothetical experiment of sorts. The case in question is irrelevant, I just wanted to know on what grounds people oppose the death penalty (specifically liberals), and surprise surprise, it was your stereotypical bleeding heart liberalism, without a hint of logic or rationality. In all fairness though, some expressed the same reasons as why I do not agree with the death penalty in most cases, I just happen to think it appropriate in this one.

As for why that logic is faulty (IMO), is that unless we can ascertain beyond ANY reasonable doubt (that is, the only way he could be innocent is some massive government conspiracy involving aliens and the Illuminati are involved), the death penalty should not be used. We can always just overturn a wrongly convicted life sentence, but death is permanent. This isn't technically feasible though, and sometimes, life has a way of screwing you over, so we still run the risk of executing someone innocent, which IMO, is far too steep a price.

I still think someone just quickly executing this kid vigilante style, would be preferable, though.

Realitycrash:

Yeah, I saw the study, but avoided it for three reasons;
1 - I hate quoting studies I have not read.

Granted, it's limited to most of the pages. However, that doesn't mean you can't read the relevant parts.

2 - Since it is such a large one, it pretty much forces everyone to go "Oh, either I stop my internet-browsing and read this ENTIRE STUDY just to take a stance pro or against DP, not to mention get the required education needed in a few academic fields to determine if it is accurate or not, or I ignore it.."

It's actually a rather standard size for academic research. And no one has to read the entire study, that's why there is a "Results", "Summary", or "Conclusion" part. I generally don't even bother doing more than skimming methodologies since I know far smarter and knowledgeable people in the field have already vetted the research for publication. The chances of me somehow catching something they didn't are almost non-existant.

3 - People will go "Liberal BIAS!" and quote their own studies, which says something different.

And they'd be fucking wrong because deterrence theory not being very effective is not a controversial statement for anyone with experience in the field. They can state other studies all they like, but those studies are still in the minority.

And then, it will require people actually reading studies, being competent in the field, and comparing them, and thus; See point 2.

If they want to waste their time trying to dispute an entire body of research, they might as well try to dispute evolu....ah, fuck.

So I prefer Graphs. Everyone loves graphs. They paint a pretty nice picture, and is adequate enough for internet-debate.
Thus; See my above post.

....but what if the information doesn't fit well into a graph format?

If someone doesn't like what you say because there isn't a pretty picture to make it so they don't have to do 10 minutes of reading, they're not worth talking to.

Realitycrash:

Gorfias:

Diablo1099:

Whoa....That's cold.
You have any sources on hand? I'll google it but It'd just lead me to ones that say the complete opposite.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/FoxNewsDeathPenalty062007.html is an example. Don't recall what the exact stats were for homicide increases after the death penalty was all but abolished in the 1950s.

Jux:
We are talking about the possibility of innocent people being executed.

On the other side, failure to act can get innocent people killed for failure to engage in specific deterrence. Leaving out general deterrence for now, executed Ted Bundy will never kill again. Willie Horton might.

Yeaaah..1950's...Fox News...I wonder how relevant this is today.

Things may have changed. Did Ted Bundy come back to life and kill again, despite a death penalty?

The Gentleman:

Gorfias:
On the other side, failure to act can get innocent people killed for failure to engage in specific deterrence. Leaving out general deterrence for now, executed Ted Bundy will never kill again. Willie Horton might.

"We will kill innocent people so that we can save innocent people."

You may have not used those words, but it is what you said, that the risk of executing innocents (DPIC currently lists 10 possible cases of executed innocents based on circumstances surrounding their case) is so that innocents may be safe.

And speaking of Ted Bundy, here's a list of caught US serial killers. Of those, only 16 were executed. I haven't taken the time to count the number listed in the article, but I would say the list exceeds 100. Of those, only one escaped prison (that being Ted Bundy). If there's one thing that you can say about the US prison system, it's that it's damn hard for a violent offender to actually escape once sentenced.

You haven't even looked those who have killed behind bars. That happens too.

ITMT: One doesn't treat the innocent and the guilty alike. Guilty people may be let go. Innocent wrongly convicted, but the point is we're supposed to have a system that dishes out punishment in a commenserate manner to the guilty.

NotALiberal:
unless we can ascertain beyond ANY reasonable doubt (that is, the only way he could be innocent is some massive government conspiracy involving aliens and the Illuminati are involved), the death penalty should not be used. We can always just overturn a wrongly convicted life sentence, but death is permanent.

The wrongfully convicted can die behind bars too. The question is, is the official response fair and commensurate to the offense.

AverageExtraordinair:
Im not sure where I stand on this issue when talking about people I have never met.I know that if someone killed my family I would probably want them to be executed but viewing it from a distance I not so sure that the death penalty is a good idea although I can see the appeal. What I am positive of is that if something like this happened to the people posting on this forum their opinions on the matter would change so fast your head would spin.

INB4 flimsy denials

chapaca Shoot through

I know it seems like I am stalking you but your comments just beg to be taken to pieces... As your comment is about personal experience then anecdotal evidence is entirely appropriate at this stage, my uncle was killed at the age of 40 by an idiot doing some very stupid things in a car and as a result of that death my Fathers health worsened, he developed heart problems as a result of the stress and the fact that he had taken up smoking. He died at the age of 45 of a heart attack.

Not once did I think that the Death Penalty would be an appropriate response, but hey thats just my "flimsy denial" having experienced precisely what you claimed would change someones mind and NOT having it change my mind.

No, no death penalty. Ever. A civilized society does not sanction its government to carry out acts of personal vengeance, Justice and Rehabilitation are the tools of the civil.

Deterrence through punishment does not work.
Instead society should work on minimizing motives, make sure people are never that desperate that they need to resort to crime for food, housing or healthcare.

We'll never abolish crime, but we can try to prevent or reduce it through social safety net, and then minimize reoffending through rehabilitation.

lordbyron227:
Well...we're definatly not the only 1st World Country that still has capital punishment. Look at Japan, Singapore and S. Korea?

Note how all those countries have rigid conformist cultures with little regard for the rights of individual people?

In Singapore they almost kill everything but pickpockets. It's a draconic totalitarian dictatorship. If you have to compare your country to Singapore, that's already a strong indication that you're doing something wrong as a country.

Japan's prison system is known to be inhumane and quite frankly, quite barbaric even. And even there they only use the death penalty on cases with multiple murders with agrevating circumstances. And Japan has outrageous cases too. Kid grows up in broken home. Gets into lots of problems. Kills for people at an early age. Spends rest of life in prison untill suddenly hanged at the age of 48. Hanging is a very slow medieval execution method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norio_Nagayama

Korea only still has the death penalty on paper. The last conviction was in 2009, and nobody has been executed since 1998. Amnesty International classifies Korea as an "abolitionist in practice". Then again, the president of Korea who stopped the executions was himself a former death row inmate, sentenced to death for sedition because he criticised the regime.

Are people supposed to feel bad for a person who murders four people? Murders at least two of them to rob them.

As for hanging being slow, why do you say that? Sure, I suppose if the state wants to do it slow, they can screw up the knot, but otherwise its a clean snap. Sure I suppose you might be aware of your surroundings for 10 seconds after, but that hardly seems slow.

mavkiel:
Are people supposed to feel bad for a person who murders four people? Murders at least two of them to rob them.

As for hanging being slow, why do you say that? Sure, I suppose if the state wants to do it slow, they can screw up the knot, but otherwise its a clean snap. Sure I suppose you might be aware of your surroundings for 10 seconds after, but that hardly seems slow.

Maybe not, but how about the potentially innocent people who get misjudged and executed?
Most people i know of who oppose the death penalty do so because there is no 100% certain way of making sure no innocents get sentenced to death, instead of pity or moral reasons.

Falls under acceptable losses. Getting rid of such people promptly, not having to feed/cloth/shelter/guard dangerous individuals is worth it.

Also, lets not forget that at least a few people are probably deterred from committing these acts. (For example a bank robber deciding to not use a gun or a mugger realizing he shouldn't just shoot his victims.)

Realitycrash:

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Find an abandoned or uninhabited island, and drop all violent offenders, lifers, or death penalty eligible criminals on the island and forget them. Monitor the island to ensure that none try to escape, but give them nothing. Let them live or die on their own initiative.

No Escape - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Escape

All "violent offenders"?
Surely, you jest.

No, I was quite serious. If you murder, rape, commit armed robbery or brutal assaults, you go to the island. If you harm a child, you go to the island. Of course, if someone commits a violent offense, they may have a single chance at rehabilitation. I am not completely heartless. But it's "two strikes and you're out". Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and you go to the island. Simple.

People are always pissing and moaning about how violence is bad, and never solves anything. I agree. Therefore, I have proposed a solution. You either accept it, or you do not. In any event, the violent criminal would not only be removed from society, but no longer provide a financial burden beyond monitoring the island.

Hop-along Nussbaum:

Realitycrash:

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Find an abandoned or uninhabited island, and drop all violent offenders, lifers, or death penalty eligible criminals on the island and forget them. Monitor the island to ensure that none try to escape, but give them nothing. Let them live or die on their own initiative.

No Escape - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Escape

All "violent offenders"?
Surely, you jest.

No, I was quite serious. If you murder, rape, commit armed robbery or brutal assaults, you go to the island. If you harm a child, you go to the island. Of course, if someone commits a violent offense, they may have a single chance at rehabilitation. I am not completely heartless. But it's "two strikes and you're out". Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and you go to the island. Simple.

People are always pissing and moaning about how violence is bad, and never solves anything. I agree. Therefore, I have proposed a solution. You either accept it, or you do not. In any event, the violent criminal would not only be removed from society, but no longer provide a financial burden beyond monitoring the island.

How about assault? Assault is okay?, but Aggravated is not=
And how about the hundreds if not thousands of innocents that are going to end up on that island.
You want to, basically, put the prison-system back a few hundred years, to the middle-ages, where every sentence is in practice a death-sentence.

LetalisK:

Realitycrash:

Yeah, I saw the study, but avoided it for three reasons;
1 - I hate quoting studies I have not read.

Granted, it's limited to most of the pages. However, that doesn't mean you can't read the relevant parts.

2 - Since it is such a large one, it pretty much forces everyone to go "Oh, either I stop my internet-browsing and read this ENTIRE STUDY just to take a stance pro or against DP, not to mention get the required education needed in a few academic fields to determine if it is accurate or not, or I ignore it.."

It's actually a rather standard size for academic research. And no one has to read the entire study, that's why there is a "Results", "Summary", or "Conclusion" part. I generally don't even bother doing more than skimming methodologies since I know far smarter and knowledgeable people in the field have already vetted the research for publication. The chances of me somehow catching something they didn't are almost non-existant.

3 - People will go "Liberal BIAS!" and quote their own studies, which says something different.

And they'd be fucking wrong because deterrence theory not being very effective is not a controversial statement for anyone with experience in the field. They can state other studies all they like, but those studies are still in the minority.

And then, it will require people actually reading studies, being competent in the field, and comparing them, and thus; See point 2.

If they want to waste their time trying to dispute an entire body of research, they might as well try to dispute evolu....ah, fuck.

So I prefer Graphs. Everyone loves graphs. They paint a pretty nice picture, and is adequate enough for internet-debate.
Thus; See my above post.

....but what if the information doesn't fit well into a graph format?

If someone doesn't like what you say because there isn't a pretty picture to make it so they don't have to do 10 minutes of reading, they're not worth talking to.

Well, yes, you can say "read the summary!". And so the summary says (in essence) "The DP has no deterring effect". And then someone pulls a different study that says in the summary "The DP HAS!", and so you have to compare not just the summary, but how the research is done (i.e methodology), the facts cited, if their sources are correct, etc. And thus, it takes forever and a general know-how in academics.
No Liberal/Conservative will take "the summary" at face-value. Both will assume that it is skewed, and will either find his own study that says otherwise, or (hopefully) compare studies and decide which one is true. But the last option takes time (and, as I said, know-how).

Realitycrash:

Well, yes, you can say "read the summary!". And so the summary says (in essence) "The DP has no deterring effect". And then someone pulls a different study that says in the summary "The DP HAS!", and so you have to compare not just the summary, but how the research is done (i.e methodology), the facts cited, if their sources are correct, etc. And thus, it takes forever and a general know-how in academics.
No Liberal/Conservative will take "the summary" at face-value. Both will assume that it is skewed, and will either find his own study that says otherwise, or (hopefully) compare studies and decide which one is true. But the last option takes time (and, as I said, know-how).

That's when you point out that they cited a study and you cited a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies. If they managed to find a meta-analysis that said the opposite of this one, I'd eat my sock.

You are never going to convince someone that obstinate. That shouldn't be your goal, anyway. What makes you think a partisan is going to be more accepting of graphs or more easily digestible information?

LetalisK:

Realitycrash:

Well, yes, you can say "read the summary!". And so the summary says (in essence) "The DP has no deterring effect". And then someone pulls a different study that says in the summary "The DP HAS!", and so you have to compare not just the summary, but how the research is done (i.e methodology), the facts cited, if their sources are correct, etc. And thus, it takes forever and a general know-how in academics.
No Liberal/Conservative will take "the summary" at face-value. Both will assume that it is skewed, and will either find his own study that says otherwise, or (hopefully) compare studies and decide which one is true. But the last option takes time (and, as I said, know-how).

That's when you point out that they cited a study and you cited a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies. If they managed to find a meta-analysis that said the opposite of this one, I'd eat my sock.

To which they will claim "LIBERAL BIAS!" on the Meta-study, and we are back to square one.

You are never going to convince someone that obstinate. That shouldn't be your goal, anyway. What makes you think a partisan is going to be more accepting of graphs or more easily digestible information?

I won't, and they aren't. Noticed how no-one has actually tried to refute the Deterrence-arguments? They won't agree, but they won't try to refute it either.
Making the whole point moot.
And the graphs..Well, it's nice, I guess. Some things aren't accurately described with graphs, true, but this way people can take a few quick glances, instead of having to click on a link and do some (albeit short) reading.
They are going to ignore the facts anyway, so might as well let them ignore it quickly and get back to their business right away.

Realitycrash:

Hop-along Nussbaum:

Realitycrash:

All "violent offenders"?
Surely, you jest.

No, I was quite serious. If you murder, rape, commit armed robbery or brutal assaults, you go to the island. If you harm a child, you go to the island. Of course, if someone commits a violent offense, they may have a single chance at rehabilitation. I am not completely heartless. But it's "two strikes and you're out". Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and you go to the island. Simple.

People are always pissing and moaning about how violence is bad, and never solves anything. I agree. Therefore, I have proposed a solution. You either accept it, or you do not. In any event, the violent criminal would not only be removed from society, but no longer provide a financial burden beyond monitoring the island.

How about assault? Assault is okay?, but Aggravated is not=
And how about the hundreds if not thousands of innocents that are going to end up on that island.
You want to, basically, put the prison-system back a few hundred years, to the middle-ages, where every sentence is in practice a death-sentence.

If it serves as a deterrent, then absolutely. Its a simple choice. Don't want to go to jail or the island? Don't do the crime. By the by, "assault" can be as simple as telling someone you're going to beat them up. Beating them up is battery. In any event, like I said, you get one chance at rehabilitation. After than, away you go. Society should not be burdened with those who cannot conform to simple basic rules.

Hop-along Nussbaum:

Realitycrash:

Hop-along Nussbaum:

No, I was quite serious. If you murder, rape, commit armed robbery or brutal assaults, you go to the island. If you harm a child, you go to the island. Of course, if someone commits a violent offense, they may have a single chance at rehabilitation. I am not completely heartless. But it's "two strikes and you're out". Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, and you go to the island. Simple.

People are always pissing and moaning about how violence is bad, and never solves anything. I agree. Therefore, I have proposed a solution. You either accept it, or you do not. In any event, the violent criminal would not only be removed from society, but no longer provide a financial burden beyond monitoring the island.

How about assault? Assault is okay?, but Aggravated is not=
And how about the hundreds if not thousands of innocents that are going to end up on that island.
You want to, basically, put the prison-system back a few hundred years, to the middle-ages, where every sentence is in practice a death-sentence.

If it serves as a deterrent, then absolutely. Its a simple choice. Don't want to go to jail or the island? Don't do the crime. By the by, "assault" can be as simple as telling someone you're going to beat them up. Beating them up is battery. In any event, like I said, you get one chance at rehabilitation. After than, away you go. Society should not be burdened with those who cannot conform to simple basic rules.

Deterrent? Gee, maybe you wanna look up, and see how little Deterrence the DP actually has (none, according tot he studies we have cited) What makes you think your Island will have any?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked