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

[AchrisK]

"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.

You are incorrect. Ask anybody.

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.

Well I understood that, after I had thought it through.

Once again, the death penalty is not an effective deterrent of violent crimes...

We don't know this.

...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.

It's obviously not proof of anything larger, but it could be seen as an indication that that sort of thought process occurs.

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.

I agree, and I tend to think I would make the same choice, but I am not sure.

And finally, even if the death penalty was more of a deterrent than life imprisonment, that still does not justify its usage.

This is a separate argument, and I think I tend to be on the other side of it. But I don't know that I want to get into that one.

 

[skeptik]

Don't you think we should consider the ethics of utilizing the death penalty before we even think about whether or not it would be effective? On what grounds do we have the authority to take the life of somebody who, when the prison system works as it should, poses no further threat to society? What benefit does society gain from waylaying its moral standing in favor of bloody vengeance?

And as far as "we don't know that" goes, how much absence of evidence do you need before you concede that there is no reason to believe that the death penalty effectively or significantly deters violent crimes?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

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

Yeah, I'll concede that the inmate killings issue is better resolved with prison logistics, but you haven't done anything to convince me that people who pose a grave national security / mass murder threat ought to be spared the death penalty if there is good reason to believe they may still be a danger even in prison (i.e. people who have a lot of political influence or are otherwise well-connected). I think that alone is enough reason to keep capital punishment on the table.

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

You're neglecting the fact that murders happen inside prison too, but anyway I already conceded to Dodens that inmate-on-inmate killings are better resolved through prison logistics.

 

[skeptik]

you haven't done anything to convince me that people who pose a grave national security / mass murder threat ought to be spared the death penalty if there is good reason to believe they may still be a danger even in prison (i.e. people who have a lot of political influence or are otherwise well-connected).

Like who? I can't even think of any examples or really understand what you're talking about, or why this couldn't also be solved with "prison logistics." For example, do you think it was absolutely necessary to national and/or international security for Saddam Hussein to be executed? Couldn't we have just not given him a platform from which to speak and held him indefinitely and in general isolation?

 

[Vimana]

DDenos, yo need to lihgten up man adn stop craingn abut this stupdi sutf LOL

 

[byrne]

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.

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

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.

consequences of drug use i.e. how it messes with your mind / how you will think when you take different forms of illicit drugs etc. if drugs were legal tomorrow, people wouldn't be likely to read pamphlets on "how to enjoy yourself on cocaine and do it safely!" all (probably) drugs are safe when taken in a controlled environment, but legalising would completely change that degree of control. people would be interacting on a completely different scale under influence of a whole range of drugs and who knows what would happen.

control = how much can someone sell to an individual of a particular drug, who can buy it, through what intermediary can it be sold, when is it safe/ok to take them etc etc.

in terms of levels of crime, you seem to be pretty narrow-minded in thinking about numbers of criminals behind bars (as i read it). but there would be a whole raft of unintended consequences (as much as people would try and plan for it) that are certainly create valid reasons to say simply legalising drugs is the solution to a whole bunch of existing problems.

plus of the people behind bars on drug related crimes, there would still be a portion (id bet a significant one) that would turn to other forms of crime even if drugs were legalised .... and that's because they are inherently criminal, unethical and are high-risk/high-reward focussed - not people who are pioneering some sort of human rights cause .....

obviously neither of us can definitively say what the end result would look like comparatively. but i think the questions i ask are more than compelling an argument to reiterate, "don't criticise, legalise" is a pretty weak and baseless solution to an issue; it would more likely (at least in the short run) cause more problems that it would solve.

 

[AchrisK]

Don't you think we should consider the ethics of utilizing the death penalty before we even think about whether or not it would be effective? On what grounds do we have the authority to take the life of somebody who, when the prison system works as it should, poses no further threat to society? What benefit does society gain from waylaying its moral standing in favor of bloody vengeance?

Yes I suppose that chicken should come before that egg, but we are not making policy here. Are you asking me to try and gather my thoughts and discuss the morality of the death penalty now?

And as far as "we don't know that" goes, how much absence of evidence do you need before you concede that there is no reason to believe that death penalty does not effectively or significantly deter violent crimes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

So what are we left with? How about the logical extension of consequences and their relative effectiveness based on severity? What else is there?

 

[skeptik]

Yes I suppose that chicken should come before that egg, but we are not making policy here. Are you asking me to try and gather my thoughts and discuss the morality of the death penalty now?

Don't you think whether or not we are morally justified in utilizing the death penalty is somehow related to utilizing the death penalty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


So what are we left with? How about the logical extension of consequences and their relative effectiveness based on severity? What else is there?

Chris, Chris, Chris...

YOU are the one making the positive claim. When you make a positive claim, you need to have evidence supporting the claim. You have no evidence. YOUR argument is the argument from ignorance. My argument is that you have no proof. And you don't. You can't say "the death penalty is a good idea because there's no proof that it isn't" any more than you can say "God exists because there's no proof that he doesn't." This is the argument from ignorance. When you make a positive claim and your opponent points out that there is an overwhelming absence of evidence, that's bad for you, not your opponent. What I said is that we have no reason to believe that the death penalty works. That's not a positive or negative claim, but is rather agnostic.

 

[The Ozzman]

If you are able to rehabilitate the people who are incarcerated, then let them go back into society. If they offend again, they should go back to prison for life.

Drugs should be decriminalized, but I'm not sure this would be ideal for the harder drugs like heroin and cocaine. The softer type drugs like weed, amphetamines and LSD should be though.

 

[AchrisK]

Don't you think whether or not we are morally justified in utilizing the death penalty is somehow related to utilizing the death penalty?

Yes, but again, we are not making policy here. We are evaluating existing policy.

Chris, Chris, Chris...

YOU are the one making the positive claim. When you make a positive claim, you need to have evidence supporting the claim. You have no evidence. YOUR argument is the argument from ignorance. My argument is that you have no proof. And you don't. You can't say "the death penalty is a good idea because there's no proof that it isn't" any more than you can say "God exists because there's no proof that he doesn't." This is the argument from ignorance. When you make a positive claim and your opponent points out that there is an overwhelming absence of evidence, that's bad for you, not your opponent. What I said is that we have no reason to believe that the death penalty works. That's not a positive or negative claim, but is rather agnostic.

I have no formal training in logic, so bear with me.

Tell me, is this a valid definition:

http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Positive_claim

Positive claim

A positive claim is any claim about reality. It may in fact be a "negative claim" that is to say a claim that something is "not real" or "not true." Positive claims should be supported with evidence in scientific settings.

I feel that I am not the one making a positive claim. I mainly began evaluating the "evidence" for your claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent. I did offer my view, and what it is based on. I also gave a possible reason for why the death penalty, though it exists, may be less of a deterrent than it has the potential to be. But it has all been in response to your claim and your evidence.

 

[Dak]

Don't you think we should consider the ethics of utilizing the death penalty before we even think about whether or not it would be effective? On what grounds do we have the authority to take the life of somebody who, when the prison system works as it should, poses no further threat to society? What benefit does society gain from waylaying its moral standing in favor of bloody vengeance?

And as far as "we don't know that" goes, how much absence of evidence do you need before you concede that there is no reason to believe that the death penalty effectively or significantly deters violent crimes?

1. Draining public resources to be on what amounts to "life support" because we can't trust them outside prison walls is just as bad as a "threat to society". It is constant theft.

2. Labeling execution for murder/rape as "immoral" would be laughably misguided if it weren't sad. The murder/rape was immoral. A penalty for a immoral act is not immoral.

 

[cookiecutter]

1. Draining public resources to be on what amounts to "life support" because we can't trust them outside prison walls is just as bad as a "threat to society". It is constant theft.

It costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

 

[Dak]

It costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

I am aware of that, and that needs to be fixed. There is no point in having the death penalty for someone to sit on death row for decades.

 

[skeptik]

Yes, but again, we are not making policy here. We are evaluating existing policy.



I have no formal training in logic, so bear with me.

Tell me, is this a valid definition:

http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Positive_claim




I feel that I am not the one making a positive claim. I mainly began evaluating the "evidence" for your claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent. I did offer my view, and what it is based on. I also gave a possible reason for why the death penalty, though it exists, may be less of a deterrent than it has the potential to be. But it has all been in response to your claim and your evidence.

Is it not your position that the death penalty is a significant deterrence to violent crime, and that this in part justifies its usage?

1. Draining public resources to be on what amounts to "life support" because we can't trust them outside prison walls is just as bad as a "threat to society". It is constant theft.

I know that both you and I heavily support an overhaul of the criminal justice system, so I'm assuming that you're speaking of an "ideal" system and not the system that we have now in which it's significantly more expensive to kill somebody than it is to give them a life sentence, but at the same time, I can't imagine a system in which it wouldn't be more expensive. Sentencing somebody to death is pretty fucking serious and deserves an extensive appeals process. I really don't think that you can work out a proper, non-vigilante minded justice system in which it would be cheaper to execute than to sentence for life. With that said, I find it bizarre to be more worried about "public resources" than "human lives."

2. Labeling execution for murder/rape as "immoral" would be laughably misguided if it weren't sad. The murder/rape was immoral. A penalty for a immoral act is not immoral.

Once again, the old adage that normal children learned at age 2, "two wrongs don't make a right." It is never justified to kill a person that poses no threat to others against his or her will. Executions are immoral acts because they needlessly take lives. The claim that "a penalty for an immoral act is not immoral" is utterly ridiculous. Do you really think that any penalty is justified, or did you just word that poorly? And again, what do you get out of execution over life imprisonment? What benefit does society gain from it, leaving aside any kind of financial issue?

 

[AchrisK]

Is it not your position that the death penalty is a significant deterrence to violent crime, and that this in part justifies its usage?

It is my position that a swiftly carried out death penalty, especially one done publicly, should be a bigger deterrent than life in prison. I don't think I have had the goal of justifying the usage of the death penalty in this discussion. See response to Ben_t.

But again, we were talking about your position and the data that supports it.

 

[skeptik]

My position is that the position that claims that the death penalty is a significant deterrence does not have the evidence to make that claim, and further that deterrence itself is not a good argument when it comes to taking human lives.

 

[CF87]

I think this is a pretty well talked about topic on this forum, especially when someone brings Varg up.

If you want to burn shit down and kill someone Norway seems like the place to do it. As beautiful as the place is would be scared to live there just because it seems like it's not really a big deal to kill someone,etc.. the crime rate has to be high(not that I know anything about crime rate).

 

[Cythraul]

consequences of drug use i.e. how it messes with your mind / how you will think when you take different forms of illicit drugs etc. if drugs were legal tomorrow, people wouldn't be likely to read pamphlets on "how to enjoy yourself on cocaine and do it safely!" all (probably) drugs are safe when taken in a controlled environment, but legalising would completely change that degree of control. people would be interacting on a completely different scale under influence of a whole range of drugs and who knows what would happen.

I don't see how you could possibly support these claims. For one thing, there is already a wealth of knowledge concerning the long-term effects of drug use. That knowledge is not going to disappear if drugs were legalized. But I realize that is not the substance of your claim. You're saying something quite different, but it still makes no sense to me. What is it about legalization that would change people's risk assessment of drug use? You've left that a complete mystery. Tell me why people's risk assessment would change as a result of legalization.

control = how much can someone sell to an individual of a particular drug, who can buy it, through what intermediary can it be sold, when is it safe/ok to take them etc etc.

I don't quite see why you think this is an issue.

in terms of levels of crime, you seem to be pretty narrow-minded in thinking about numbers of criminals behind bars (as i read it).

Really? Where did you get this idea?

but there would be a whole raft of unintended consequences (as much as people would try and plan for it) that are certainly create valid reasons to say simply legalising drugs is the solution to a whole bunch of existing problems.

I wouldn't deny that there would possibly be some unintended negative consequences of legalization. My only point is that there are already a host of unintended negative consequences of prohibition that are well-understood and I see no strong evidence to suggest that the possible unintended negative consequences of legalization would outweigh the unintended negative consequences of prohibition.

plus of the people behind bars on drug related crimes, there would still be a portion (id bet a significant one) that would turn to other forms of crime even if drugs were legalised .... and that's because they are inherently criminal, unethical and are high-risk/high-reward focussed - not people who are pioneering some sort of human rights cause .....

But the claim that crime on the whole would be reduced is not falsified by this particular point. Sure, it's true that some people are just criminal by nature, but even if it's true that these people would still commit crimes if drugs were legalized, it is still the case that there is a whole host of criminal activities that are sure to be eliminated by legalization. So I don't see what the problem is.

 

[Dak]

With that said, I find it bizarre to be more worried about "public resources" than "human lives."

Once again, the old adage that normal children learned at age 2, "two wrongs don't make a right." It is never justified to kill a person that poses no threat to others against his or her will. Executions are immoral acts because they needlessly take lives. The claim that "a penalty for an immoral act is not immoral" is utterly ridiculous. Do you really think that any penalty is justified, or did you just word that poorly? And again, what do you get out of execution over life imprisonment? What benefit does society gain from it, leaving aside any kind of financial issue?

Thsi is where you and I disagree. The death penalty for murder/rape is not wrong or immoral. You cannot make any kind of restitution to the victim for either crime, so you should pay with your life. That is justice, not a 3 hots and a cot for life.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

So you and Matt fundamentally disagree here. You feel that the punishment for a crime of the caliber of murder or somesuch ("crime X" let's say) should necessarily be dealt with in a way that acts as retribution (that is to say, by a defined standard of retribution which is carried out as un-bureaucratically as possible to all who commit crime X, and which is relatively "impartial" compared to typical revenge on a personal level). I don't really agree with this either. The Wiki article on retributive justice claims that "punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime, with an eye to the satisfaction and psychological benefits it can bestow to the aggrieved party, its intimates and society." I don't feel that the satisfaction of the victimized party is the necessary duty to be fulfilled by punishment or whatever is done as response to crime X. That is petty.