Putting criminals back in society vs holding them in prison for punishment.

[skeptik]

The point is that there is no actual evidence to suggest that the death penalty is an effective deterrent at all, and in fact all research suggests the opposite. The only thing on the side of the death penalty being a deterrent argument is them simply stating that the death penalty is a deterrent, and this seems like a pretty strong argument to a lot of people. Think about it for a second. If you're going to commit a crime that is eligible to be punishable by the death penalty, are you really going to care what happens to you too much?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

 

[Ross]

So you're trying to say the death penalty is the single biggest factor in those statistics you've tossed out? What about Alaska, D.C. and Michigan, which have high murder rates despite no death penalty? Or Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon, which have low murder rates and a death penalty?

It's also important to know how many people each of those states has on death row, and whether the people on death row are responsible for a lot of those extra murders.

.

The death penalty needs to be implemented more. Convicted criminals show no signs of stopping or decreasing the amount of crimes they commit. Calling hits on people outside of prison, among others, would easily be avoided with the death penalty.

 

[skeptik]

Hey look, you're fucking stupid.

 

[Ross]

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The point is that there is no actual evidence to suggest that the death penalty is an effective deterrent at all, and in fact all research suggests the opposite. The only thing on the side of the death penalty being a deterrent argument is them simply stating that the death penalty is a deterrent, and this seems like a pretty strong argument to a lot of people. Think about it for a second. If you're going to commit a crime that is eligible to be punishable by the death penalty, are you really going to care what happens to you too much?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

Too bad that's not what I was actually talking about.

Obviously deterrence is a shitty argument for capital punishment. What I was talking about is using it to prevent proven murderers from killing more people in the future. This is especially important when it comes to the higher-ups of terrorist organizations, who might continue co-ordinating the deaths of hundreds or thousands from behind bars, but there are also ordinary hardened murderers for whom a life sentence is practically an invitation to be as violent as they want while in prison (although arguably the idea of "prisons for really bad people" is to put everyone who doesn't mind killing on a whim in the same place, and letting them kill each other off if they so desire). In the case of people who still pose a threat to less violent prisoners, or even to society at large, putting them down is an act of societal self-defense.

 

[skeptik]

What a bullshit argument. The fact that the prison system is incapable of controlling some inmates from killing each other every once in a while is no justification for the death penalty. Also, inmates sentenced to die are put on death row and are in isolation, so the people doing the killings in prisons are those whom a judge and jury found did not deserve to die. So what you're then suggesting is that we need to kill more people through capital punishment? We have to loosen our criteria for justification of government-sanctioned murder?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/getcat.php?cid=3

 

[AchrisK]

I really don't think those statistics mean much. If you claim that those statistics prove that the death penalty is not a deterrent, you also imply that having no death penalty is a deterrent for murder. That makes no sense.

The statistic that you are missing, which doesn't exist, is as follows: How many people were deterred by the death penalty? As vihris-gari stated, you cannot automatically assume that the death penalty is the single biggest factor in those statistics.

If we consult reality, we see that it is an undeniable fact that consequences are a deterrent for actions that warrant them. People constantly evaluate the consequences of their actions and make choices. To say that any punishment has no bearing on the decision making process of one considering a given action is illogical and ignorant. It's part of how we teach our children. It's a large part of the reason why any society has a given level of order.

Although this is a fact, it doesn't mean that every action is thought through with consequences in mind, especially things done in passion. It also doesn't mean that there are some people who are more prone to ignore consequences on a regular basis. I understand this.

Also, along these lines, I believe that logic also shows us that a swifter consequence is more effective than one that is carried out long after guilt is determined.

I believe the death penalty would be a deterrent for more people if it were much swifter. And it would be even more of a deterrent if it was done publicly in a more brutal looking fashion (the guillotine is very swift and painless for the criminal, but it's also very gruesome for the onlookers. It is probably more "humane" than lethal injection).

 

[Eligos]

such as overdose due to a lack of understanding of consequences etc.

There has not been a recorded overdose on marijuana. Not one.

 

[Eligos]

I really don't think those statistics mean much.

Without statistics, debate is just a matter of who has a louder voice or appeals to the emotions of the audience better. Think Hitler. Statistics are necessary and they mean a lot as long as you follow parameters.

 

[cookiecutter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Incapacitation_.2F_Societal_protection

Apparently you have a little more research to do.

The death penalty would be replaced by life imprisonment so they are removed from society either way. I thought that was obvious.

If you claim that those statistics prove that the death penalty is not a deterrent, you also imply that having no death penalty is a deterrent for murder.

Actually no. The only thing we are saying is that the death penalty is not a deterrent. There is no evidence suggesting that is a deterrent so we can't say that it is. I don't know how you leaped to the further conclusion that not having the death penalty is a deterrent.

Unless I am misunderstanding you and you mean that the removal of the death penalty would mean that there would no longer be any deterrent to criminals. This seems silly though because obviously we are arguing the death penalty vs. life imprisonment not death penalty vs. freedom.

 

[SentinelSlain]

My main gripes with the legal system in my country are these: it mainly serves to guard the riches of the wealthy, and not as much to guard social norms, the whole system is built up of the kind of elitist assholes who have set ideas about what the public as a whole think, and they act in order to avoid following the general consensus on things like punishments for horrific crimes. Lastly, as a reiteration of the first point, I hate how someone who stole millions from a bank might face an incredibly long jail sentence, but an abusive mother who let her young son die whilst being abused by her boyfriend will get a couple of years at the most.

 

[AchrisK]

...
Actually no. The only thing we are saying is that the death penalty is not a deterrent. There is no evidence suggesting that is a deterrent so we can't say that it is. I don't know how you leaped to the further conclusion that not having the death penalty is a deterrent.

I was assuming that you (generic) think there is an actual correlation between those statistics, and how the death penalty does or does not deter murder.

But if I am reading you right, you do not believe there is any such correlation. In that case, my inference was incorrect.

So, as I originally said, those statistics are pretty much meaningless. There are no statistics for murders that were deterred.

But what about the other stuff I said? You say there is no proof that the death penalty is a deterrent, but to say that any consequence is not a deterrent is illogical. So, extending that out a bit, if consequences are deterrents, then worse consequences are stronger deterrents. I think this is quite a bit stronger evidence than louder yelling.

It is my belief that the lack of speed (and public spectacle) in carrying out this type of consequence greatly reduces the deterrence factor of the death penalty.

 

[Ben_t]

It is my belief that the lack of speed (and public spectacle) in carrying out this type of consequence greatly reduces the deterrence factor of the death penalty.

I can't believe I'm actually trying to argue with you even if it was proven countless times before how useless it is if you have made up your mind already.

But this is totally retarded. Do you know that even with the great lengths of time right now and all the procedures, we have seen on average 5 exonerations per year from 2000-2007? That is on average 5 persons that could have been killed while being innocent. Can you imagine how many more mistakes could be made just so we can have the public spectacle that you claim is going to deter future criminals (and that has to be done fast to be even more effective!!!)?

 

[AchrisK]

I can't believe I'm actually trying to argue with you even if it was proven countless times before how useless it is if you have made up your mind already.

Then try discussing. You can attempt to show me the error of my ways, or attempt to have me clarify my views, if they seem outlandish. I do not believe I am above learning something new.

But this is totally retarded. Do you know that even with the great lengths of time right now and all the procedures, we have seen on average 5 exonerations per year from 2000-2007? That is on average 5 persons that could have been killed while being innocent. Can you imagine how many more mistakes could be made just so we can have the public spectacle that you claim is going to deter future criminals (and that has to be done fast to be even more effective!!!)?

Well, I do believe the things I said, but let me clarify that I am not making proposals as to how it should be, especially the public spectacle thing. I believe consequences are a deterrent, and I believe that the lack of speed in carrying them out remove some of the effectiveness of the consequence. But I also acknowledge what you are saying. There is no perfect system. I don't know what to say about the wrongly accused. Obviously our current system is flawed. Is it purely a numbers game? If a few innocent people die, but even more people are spared because the deterrent is stronger, is that an equation that is valid to use? A similar one is used in war. Would I be willing to die innocently in this equation? People die for their country.

I don't know.

 

[arg]

bring back guillotines and hangings, there's public spectacle for yer! and it's metal

 

[cookiecutter]

I was assuming that you (generic) think there is an actual correlation between those statistics, and how the death penalty does or does not deter murder.

But if I am reading you right, you do not believe there is any such correlation. In that case, my inference was incorrect.

So, as I originally said, those statistics are pretty much meaningless. There are no statistics for murders that were deterred.

But what about the other stuff I said? You say there is no proof that the death penalty is a deterrent, but to say that any consequence is not a deterrent is illogical. So, extending that out a bit, if consequences are deterrents, then worse consequences are stronger deterrents. I think this is quite a bit stronger evidence than louder yelling.

It is my belief that the lack of speed (and public spectacle) in carrying out this type of consequence greatly reduces the deterrence factor of the death penalty.

The statistics are meaningful in that they fail to establish that the death penalty is a deterrent. The burden of proof is on those supportive of the death penalty in this case. I won't argue that consequences are not a deterrent just that this particular one is.

 

[AchrisK]

The statistics are meaningful in that they fail to establish that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Which means they are meaningless. They don't establish or prove anything. You say it yourself, they "fail to establish". They cannot be looked at to prove OR disprove anything. But they can be used to give the illusion that they prove something.

The burden of proof is on those supportive of the death penalty in this case. I won't argue that consequences are not a deterrent just that this particular one is[n't].

So, why is this one particular consequence special? It IS a deterrent, but I guess the question is, is it more of a deterrent than life in prison. I don't believe this can truly be established by statistics, because we cannot collect those types of statistics. But it seems to me, by logic (and what else do we have to go on?), that it should be more of a deterrent than life in prison.

 

[Eligos]

Which means they are meaningless. They don't establish or prove anything. You say it yourself, they "fail to establish". They cannot be looked at to prove OR disprove anything. But they can be used to give the illusion that they prove something.

"Fail to establish" means they disprove it. It means the collected data does not demonstrate the possibility of the death penalty deterring crime. Read a book.

 

[Cythraul]

i don't think its as simple as that. there would be repurcussions of legalisation that you haven't acknowledged, such as overdose due to a lack of understanding of consequences etc.

I don't agree with that at all. Exactly how are people not going to be able to understand the consequences of drug use if they were legalized? I don't see how legislation has anything to do with that.

plus, what drugs do you legalise and how do you control use?

What exactly do you mean by controlling use in this context?

and what is appropriate use? society has enough problems due to people not being able to control their intake of alcohol, cigarettes etc. legalising more drugs is hardly a quick fix to an abundance of drug related crime.

I can't take this point seriously. Look, it's not like I haven't thought about the potential downsides associated with the legalization of drugs, but what you're saying here is misleading. You suggest that we ought not to add onto the problems already faced by society, and I'm inclined to agree, but in order for this to be a compelling case against drug legalization, you would have to show that there would be more problems on the whole associated with the legalization of drugs than problems associated with their prohibition. The problems associated with drug prohibition are legion, and I see no obvious reason to think that repeal of drug prohibition would on the whole be any worse than the situation we're in now.

 

[skeptik]

AchrisK: The evidence that I provided shows that there is no correlation between the death penalty and a disproportional reduction in violent crimes. I thought that was obvious enough, but I guess not. Once again, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent of violent crimes and by no means justifies killing people who don't need to die. Even if you find a book written be somebody who says "I did not kill my brother in law because I knew that if I did, I would be executed," that is still worthless. That's one person. I have a strange feeling that there are as many people who would rather be executed than sentenced to life in prison as there are of the opposite. I know that I personally would rather be executed than spend 50+ years locked away until I just die. And finally, even if the death penalty was more of a deterrent than life imprisonment, that still does not justify its usage.