A case for public hanging.

[Ray9]

Here is my opinion of capital punishment. In theory I'm against it; in practice I support it. Liberal Democrats may need to consult someone to explain this. This incident took place just a few miles from where I live and I believe all four should be dragged to a public square and hung by the neck until dead.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[INTJRyan]

Here is my opinion of capital punishment. In theory I'm against it; in practice I support it. Liberal Democrats may need to consult someone to explain this.

Why is that? I'm pretty much used to conservative Republicans holding hypocritical views.

In reality, this is a horrible crime, and I shed no tears for a criminal put to death. However, there is not equal justice under the law in this country. I work in the legal profession and see it everyday. The rich get preferential treatment if for no other reason than being able to hire better/more attorneys and experts. Until this inequality is abolished (an impossibility in my view) the State should not be killing people.

[Storm]

I'm not seeing any reasons why hanging is better than the current system of capital punishment. I'm also not seeing any reason why a public execution is better than a private one.

[LordCorbin]

In reality, this is a horrible crime, and I shed no tears for a criminal put to death. However, there is not equal justice under the law in this country. I work in the legal profession and see it everyday. The rich get preferential treatment if for no other reason than being able to hire better/more attorneys and experts. Until this inequality is abolished (an impossibility in my view) the State should not be killing people.

I agree. Though, to be honest, if I was in charge, I would fast track these scum to the end of the line(after their convictions of course).

[Ray9]

I'm not seeing any reasons why hanging is better than the current system of capital punishment. I'm also not seeing any reason why a public execution is better than a private one.

A crime like this is not just a crime against victims, it's a crime against the community. It's a crime against humanity. The community deserves to see justice done and it deserves to see it done quickly. There are no mitigating circumstances when killing is done for the sake of killing. My guess is that public hangings would have a profound deterrent effect on thrill killers.

In reality, this is a horrible crime, and I shed no tears for a criminal put to death. However, there is not equal justice under the law in this country. I work in the legal profession and see it everyday. The rich get preferential treatment if for no other reason than being able to hire better/more attorneys and experts. Until this inequality is abolished (an impossibility in my view) the State should not be killing people.

Local communities should have the right to enforce this punishment to protect the innocent from future immitators. Let all the members of the community be the jurors. As far as equal treatment under the law, that should be up to each individual community to decide. If some communities decide they want to sacrifice the innocent for some lofty, theoretical purpose then so be it.

[Holiman]

Some crimes are so bad that society itself feel's the need for both the harshest punishment available but also something that might instill a fear in those that might seek to do the same. Almost any case that recieves the death penalty will then of course be so terrible that the argument against the death penalty becomes nearly impossible to make and keep.

People do bad things and their must be punishment. The death penalty has to me some things that make it both unreasonable and useless.

1. its expensive. I know everyone thinks they can make it cheaper but you cannot and keep it fair and just if you did it would just make more problems.

2. its unfair. How many death row inmates have been found either innocent or wrongly convicted. You cannot make amends to a corpse.

3. its never been proven to stop others from commiting crimes. You sometimes only make the person killed into a icon that those of bent natures might look up towards later.

4. its not a very good punishment. No matter how terrible the wait, the fear or the trauma in the death penalty it doesnt really pay for the crime one must commit to be deserving of the punishment.


To add because I just cannot stand to let statements such as Ray9 has just made I qoute

Dr. Arthur Raper was commissioned in 1930 to produce a report on lynching. He discovered that "3,724 people were lynched in the United States from 1889 through to 1930. Over four-fifths of these were Negroes, less than one-sixth of whom were accused of rape. Practically all of the lynchers were native whites. The fact that a number of the victims were tortured, mutilated, dragged, or burned suggests the presence of sadistic tendencies among the lynchers. Of the tens of thousands of lynchers and onlookers, only 49 were indicted and only 4 have been sentenced."

[Profit]

A crime like this is not just a crime against victims, it's a crime against the community. It's a crime against humanity. The community deserves to see justice done and it deserves to see it done quickly. There are no mitigating circumstances when killing is done for the sake of killing. My guess is that public hangings would have a profound deterrant effect on thrill killers.



Capital punishment has little impact on deterring murder or violent crimes. It may actually cause a slight increase in murder rates.

From: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This is a short paper looking at statistical data concerning the impact of capital punishment as a deterrent.

" In 1935 Robert Dann published an analysis of homicides in Philadelphia during 60 days before and 60 days after five highly publicized executions. Dann argued that the deterrent effect of the executions should result in lower homicide rates during the post-execution periods. The result was the opposite; rates were higher than usual. Some 20 years later Leonard Savitz did a similar study, although in his work the critical days were the ones when death sentences were pronounced after well-publicized trials. Savitz found no significant difference in homicides for the before and after periods.7 Similar studies of short-term deterrence were carried out in Chicago and California, and again no deterrent effect was found."





Profit added to this post, 4 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Why is that? I'm pretty much used to conservative Republicans holding hypocritical views.

In reality, this is a horrible crime, and I shed no tears for a criminal put to death. However, there is not equal justice under the law in this country. I work in the legal profession and see it everyday. The rich get preferential treatment if for no other reason than being able to hire better/more attorneys and experts. Until this inequality is abolished (an impossibility in my view) the State should not be killing people.

I agree with Ryan. While I shed few tears for criminals I know that some individuals receive preferential treatment and some innocent people are convicted of crimes. For these reasons I do not support capital punishment.

[INTJRyan]

Loal communities should have the right to enforce this punishment to protect the innocent from future immitators. Let all the members of the community be the jurors. As far as equal treatment under the law, that should be up to each individual community to decide. If some communities decide they want to sacrifice the innocent for some lofty, theoretical purpose then so be it.

Sacrifice the innocent? Wow. Ok moving on...

Do you realize the chaos that would cause? And we already tried that. It led to a phrase now used in common parlance: witch hunt. If anything, there should be more uniformity in the law, not less.

[Ray9]

Here are two more locals that should have danced at the end of a rope.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Mogura]

I think the idea behind public hangings is to serve as a crime deterrent for the general public. This was in the days before education, newspapers, Internet etc. was widely available. Also, it probably provided some sort of satisfaction for the mob mentality that demanded action, whether justified or not.

Though the crime you cite is indeed heinous and warrants an appropriate punishment (execution perhaps), I don't think a public hanging would really do much except to satisfy the mob that demands "justice".

As for child serial rapists, I would support public beheadings...

[Warrior]

A crime like this is not just a crime against victims, it's a crime against the community. It's a crime against humanity. The community deserves to see justice done and it deserves to see it done quickly. There are no mitigating circumstances when killing is done for the sake of killing. My guess is that public hangings would have a profound deterrent effect on thrill killers.



Loal communities should have the right to enforce this punishment to protect the innocent from future immitators. Let all the members of the community be the jurors. As far as equal treatment under the law, that should be up to each individual community to decide. If some communities decide they want to sacrifice the innocent for some lofty, theoretical purpose then so be it.

I'm all for the death penalty. In fact, I'd like to see it used a little more, but not because it has a deterrent effect. It may or may not, but the purpose is to punish, not to deter someone from committing a crime.





Warrior added to this post, 7 minutes and 4 seconds later...



1. its expensive. I know everyone thinks they can make it cheaper but you cannot and keep it fair and just if you did it would just make more problems.

So. It's well worth it.

2. its unfair. How many death row inmates have been found either innocent or wrongly convicted. You cannot make amends to a corpse.

This is not relevent. Innocent people being convicted of crimes is not good, but it is a seperate matter. It has no bearing on whether or not the death penalty is suitable punishment for a crime.

3. its never been proven to stop others from commiting crimes. You sometimes only make the person killed into a icon that those of bent natures might look up towards later.

Again not relevent. The penalty for any crime is to punish, not to deter. This logic could be used to abolish all penalties for all crimes.

4. its not a very good punishment. No matter how terrible the wait, the fear or the trauma in the death penalty it doesnt really pay for the crime one must commit to be deserving of the punishment.

What payment would you suggest? I think taking a person's life is fitting punishment for some crimes.

[IrishGuy]

Public hangings just encourage and incite mob rule and in the recent past they were used primarily to intimidate African American communities. I'm all for punishing those who commit heinous crimes, but my intuition tells me that public hangings would just encourage extrajudicial execution. When you get into the realm of extrajudicial executions you get lynchings and the Salem witch trials all over again.

[Ray9]

Capital punishment has little impact on deterring murder or violent crimes. It may actually cause a slight increase in murder rates.

I'm wondering if murders committed in prison by inmates serving life sentences are considered in some of these statistics.

[Profit]

I'm wondering if murders committed in prison by inmates serving life sentences are considered in some of these statistics.

You are reaching my friend.

"Data from 1973 to 1984 show that murder rates in the states without the death penalty were consistently lower and averaged only 63% of the corresponding rates in the states retaining it."

"Another method is to follow the murder rate in a fixed state or jurisdiction and see what happened when capital punishment was abolished, and, in some cases, when it was reintroduced. Sellin and others did studies of this kind too. These investigations again failed to reveal any additional deterrent effect due to capital punishment.5"

[Warrior]

You are reaching my friend.

"Data from 1973 to 1984 show that murder rates in the states without the death penalty were consistently lower and averaged only 63% of the corresponding rates in the states retaining it."

"Another method is to follow the murder rate in a fixed state or jurisdiction and see what happened when capital punishment was abolished, and, in some cases, when it was reintroduced. Sellin and others did studies of this kind too. These investigations again failed to reveal any additional deterrent effect due to capital punishment.5"

Any number of factors could account for this, but whether there is a deterrent effect or not doesn't matter. The point of capital punishment is just that - punishment. (It's not called capital deterrence.)

[Profit]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
During 2002, the latest year for which such data are available, there were 978 jail inmate deaths and 2,946 state prisoner deaths from all causes. During the same year, suicides accounted for 314 jail inmate deaths and 168 state prisoner deaths. Fewer than 50 deaths in either local jails (20) or state prisons (48) were homicides.
During 2002, there was a higher homicide rate among the U.S. resident population (6 per 100,000) than either in state prisons (4 per 100,000) or in local jails (3 per 100,000).
Most states had no prisoner homicides during the course of a year. Thirty-one states reported none during 2001. Twenty-nine states reported none during 2002. During the two-year period from 2001 through 2002, three states reported 43 percent of all prison murders -- California, 21; Texas, 10 and six in Maryland.

California, Texas, and Maryland all have or had capital punishment in 2002.





Profit added to this post, 1 minutes and 23 seconds later...

Any number of factors could account for this, but whether there is a deterrent effect or not doesn't matter. The point of capital punishment is just that - punishment. (It's not called capital deterrence.)

I am specifically arguing against Ray's statement that capital punishment is a deterrent. You should also read the entire report.

[hubcap]

You are reaching my friend.

"Data from 1973 to 1984 show that murder rates in the states without the death penalty were consistently lower and averaged only 63% of the corresponding rates in the states retaining it."

"Another method is to follow the murder rate in a fixed state or jurisdiction and see what happened when capital punishment was abolished, and, in some cases, when it was reintroduced. Sellin and others did studies of this kind too. These investigations again failed to reveal any additional deterrent effect due to capital punishment.5"

One of the problems with these studies is that the average inmate spends over 10 years on Death Row before being executed. It isn't difficult to understand why the death penalty as currently used isn't much of a deterrant.

I believe that if the punishment were more swift there would be more of a deterrant effect.

However, it is certain that no person will ever commit another crime after they are executed, so they are certainly deterred from further crimes.

[Mogura]

"Data from 1973 to 1984 show that murder rates in the states without the death penalty were consistently lower and averaged only 63% of the corresponding rates in the states retaining it."

Interesting. I wonder if this is because states without the dealth penalty tend to be liberal, thus providing better social services and educational opportunities so that fewer individuals "slip through the cracks".

Perhaps I'm reaching, but I think pondering the why behind the statistical data is more important than the statistical data itself...

[Profit]

One of the problems with these studies is that the average inmate spends over 10 years on Death Row before being executed. It isn't difficult to understand why the death penalty as currently used isn't much of a deterrant.

I believe that if the punishment were more swift there would be more of a deterrant effect.

However, it is certain that no person will ever commit another crime after they are executed, so they are certainly deterred from further crimes.

Again, please read the entire report.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Valiyn]

Better to lock someone away and apologize to the innocent later for locking then up then kill anyone swiftly and be wrong about them being guilty. The death penalty should never be swift, nor should any passing of legal judgment be swift. Making the people afraid of the government/law isn't crime deterrence, it's oppressive rule. That is why we have a lengthy process, so we have less chance of inciting the guilty to punishment and to make sure everything is well established with evidence.

[Tyrant Soup]

Ethical and practical considerations should be argued separately. Do murderers deserve to die? Yes.

[Valiyn]

Do murderers deserve to die? Yes.

Why? Is there a statistical correlation between killing someone and a decline in how many people are killed by other people (murder)?

[Aronnax]

Nations without a death penalty have a lower per capita murder rate than nations with a death penalty. This indicates murder rate is more strongly related to cultural issues rather than a lack of punishment.

However, killing killers feels right so it's far more gratifying to focus on executions rather than the social issues that lie at the root of the problem. That's why you get posts talking about how important it is to "hang them by the neck until dead" rather than posts discussing "What are the socioeconomic conditions that created young men like this and what should we do to fix the problem?"

[Corbu]

As for child rapists, I would support public beheadings...
Fixed it for you, you seem to have added a word. Although I would be tempted to remove "child" as well.

As for the alleged criminals, after a trial by their peers, if they are found guilty execution is acceptable.





Corbu added to this post, 23 minutes and 3 seconds later...

Nations without a death penalty have a lower per capita murder rate than nations with a death penalty. This indicates murder rate is more strongly related to cultural issues rather than a lack of punishment.
Source?

However, killing killers feels right so it's far more gratifying to focus on executions rather than the social issues that lie at the root of the problem. That's why you get posts talking about how important it is to "hang them by the neck until dead" rather than posts discussing "What are the socioeconomic conditions that created young men like this and what should we do to fix the problem?"

The socio-economic conditions are the enabling, labeling and failing to hold people accountable for their actions. These "young men" do not have the same values as the rest of the inhabitants of their environment and choose to not adapt to the identified norms of the society, they had a choice, they committed a crime. Any attempt to shift the focus off of their horrendous act and place the liability back onto society is circular and non-productive.

[Warrior]

Why? Is there a statistical correlation between killing someone and a decline in how many people are killed by other people (murder)?

Who cares. Once again, the purpose of punishment is ot punish, not to prevent other crimes. The only questions that matters is whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for a particular crime.





Warrior added to this post, 3 minutes and 44 seconds later...

Nations without a death penalty have a lower per capita murder rate than nations with a death penalty. This indicates murder rate is more strongly related to cultural issues rather than a lack of punishment.

However, killing killers feels right so it's far more gratifying to focus on executions rather than the social issues that lie at the root of the problem. That's why you get posts talking about how important it is to "hang them by the neck until dead" rather than posts discussing "What are the socioeconomic conditions that created young men like this and what should we do to fix the problem?"

If you want a thread about changing socioeconomic conditions that created young men (apparently women never commit crimes) and what should we do to fix the problem, I'm all for that. That question, however, is not relevent to the argument of whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for those individuals that do commit crimes.

[Profit]

Who cares. Once again, the purpose of punishment is ot punish, not to prevent other crimes. The only questions that matters is whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for a particular crime.


You have distilled a pretty complex philosophical and judicial question down to a single sentence that puts forth your understanding of the purpose of punishment.

Reasons for punishing criminals.

• They deserve to be punished.
• Punishment will stop them from committing further crimes.
• Punishment tells the victim that society disapproves of the harm that he or she has suffered.
• Punishment discourages others from doing the same thing.
• Punishment protects society from dangerous or dishonest people.
• Punishment allows an offender to make amends for the harm he or she has caused.
• Punishment ensures that people understand that laws are there to be obeyed.

Some of the possible answers to the question of why offenders should be punished may conflict with each other. This is because some answers are based on reasons having to do with preventing crime whereas others are concerned with punishment being deserved by an offender. When a court imposes a punishment on an offender, it often tries to balance the sorts of reasons for punishment noted earlier, but sometimes certain purposes of punishment dominate other purposes. Over time there have been shifts in penal theory, and therefore in the purpose of punishment due to a complex set of reasons including politics, public policy, and social movements. Consequently, in a cyclical process, an early focus on deter- rence as the rationale for punishment gave way to a focus on reform and rehabilitation. This, in turn, has led to a return to punishment based on the notion of retribution and just deserts.

[Warrior]

Reasons for punishing criminals.

• They deserve to be punished.

Yes.

• Punishment will stop them from committing further crimes.

Usually not - only the death penalty can assure this, but this isn't relevent.

• Punishment tells the victim that society disapproves of the harm that he or she has suffered.

No. This is what laws are for. Punishment is just the consequences of the action.

• Punishment discourages others from doing the same thing.

Maybe, maybe not, but again, this isn't relevent.

• Punishment protects society from dangerous or dishonest people.

No. Punishment exists specifically because something did not protect society.

• Punishment allows an offender to make amends for the harm he or she has caused.

No. Punishment is simply the consequences of someone's (unlawful) actions. That individual can make amends, but that has no bearing on the punishment.

• Punishment ensures that people understand that laws are there to be obeyed.

No. This is what parents are for. It's too late to learn that you should have obeyed a law after you have broken it.

Some of the possible answers to the question of why offenders should be punished may conflict with each other. This is because some answers are based on reasons having to do with preventing crime whereas others are concerned with punishment being deserved by an offender. When a court imposes a punishment on an offender, it often tries to balance the sorts of reasons for punishment noted earlier, but sometimes certain purposes of punishment dominate other purposes. Over time there have been shifts in penal theory, and therefore in the purpose of punishment due to a complex set of reasons including politics, public policy, and social movements. Consequently, in a cyclical process, an early focus on deter- rence as the rationale for punishment gave way to a focus on reform and rehabilitation. This, in turn, has led to a return to punishment based on the notion of retribution and just deserts.

There isn't any conflict. Punishment is the prescribed consequences of breaking the law. Period. Punishment isn't about deterrence, reform, rehabilitation, public safety, or anything else.

[PunkinA]

Who cares. Once again, the purpose of punishment is ot punish, not to prevent other crimes. The only questions that matters is whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for a particular crime.


The purpose of a legal system is to protect the citizenry. If we escalate crime or murder in the community, the act of punishment defies the purpose of the legal system that allows it. The law does not intend to preserve justice. Instead its stated purpose in this country is to promote life and liberty. Punishment and justice serve as a means to reach those goals and do not represent the ends in and of themselves.

A crime like this is not just a crime against victims, it's a crime against the community. It's a crime against humanity. The community deserves to see justice done and it deserves to see it done quickly. There are no mitigating circumstances when killing is done for the sake of killing. My guess is that public hangings would have a profound deterrent effect on thrill killers.

Thrill killers act out of unreasonable motivations. By definition they are not acting logically. Reasonable deterrents have no effect on a man operating without reasonable capacity.



Local communities should have the right to enforce this punishment to protect the innocent from future imitators. Let all the members of the community be the jurors. As far as equal treatment under the law, that should be up to each individual community to decide. If some communities decide they want to sacrifice the innocent for some lofty, theoretical purpose then so be it.

Local communities do have the right to enforce this punishment. However they must follow the law. The law is the way our rights are enacted. In this case, the overarching right is laid out in the fifth amendment. Every local community can enact punishments, as long as they are consistent with the personal rights provided by the constitution. If we are willing to throw away the constitutional rights provided every citizen, then the concept of rights for a local community become a meaningless farce.

The suggestion of lynch mob style justice corrupts the value of both individual justice and community justice.

[Aronnax]

If you want a thread about changing socioeconomic conditions that created young men (apparently women never commit crimes) and what should we do to fix the problem, I'm all for that. That question, however, is not relevent to the argument of whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for those individuals that do commit crimes.

The 4 people mentioned in the original link were all young men, hence the "young men like this" statement.

The death penalty is more expensive than lifelong incarceration because of the 5th amendment (a grand jury is required in capital cases) and the appeals process necessary to prevent executing the wrongfully convicted. If the public is going to carry the burden of additional cost there should be some additional social value. When you look at per capita murder rates for nations with and without a death penalty the nations with a death penalty have a significantly higher per capita murder rate. In other words the is no tangible social benefit and if you insist on drawing a correlation between the two capital punishment increases murder rates.

The only discernible benefit of capital punishment is "it makes us feel good" which is a horrible foundation for any public policy, much less one that involves matters of life and death.

[Warrior]

The 4 people mentioned in the original link were all young men, hence the "young men like this" statement.

The death penalty is more expensive than lifelong incarceration because of the 5th amendment (a grand jury is required in capital cases) and the appeals process necessary to prevent executing the wrongfully convicted. If the public is going to carry the burden of additional cost there should be some additional social value. When you look at per capita murder rates for nations with and without a death penalty the nations with a death penalty have a significantly higher per capita murder rate. In other words the is no tangible social benefit and if you insist on drawing a correlation between the two capital punishment increases murder rates.

The only discernible benefit of capital punishment is "it makes us feel good" which is a horrible foundation for any public policy, much less one that involves matters of life and death.

Many things could influence murder rates other than having the death penalty. Simply showing a correlation between the two doesn't isn't justification one way or the other.

The other benefit is that it is the only punishment that suits some crimes. Who is the "us" that it makes feel good. I'm a huge supporter of the death penalty, but it certainly does not make me feel good when it has to be used.

[Talkahuano]

capital punishment increases murder rates.
As Warrior said, this isn't necessarily true.

There are a lot more factors than the death penalty when someone chooses to murder. For example, a lot of men convicted of murdering women said they initially only planned to rob her. But she didn't fight back in any way, so they raped, got excited, and murdered. It's not an uncommon situation.
Those men weren't thinking of the death penalty, they were just getting carried away (and should of course be punished).

Each murder is different and each motive for murder is different, and I bet you most murderers won't think about the death penalty at all when committing the crime.

[aku chi]

Punishment is the prescribed consequences of breaking the law. Period. Punishment isn't about deterrence, reform, rehabilitation, public safety, or anything else.

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it right. Judges, politicians, and citizens have vastly different perspectives on the purpose of punishment. Your particular perspective is not universally shared (nor, I am confident, is it shared by a majority of the citizens of the US). Personally, I have the complete opposite perspective. I believe that the only proper purpose of punishment is deterrence (and some public safety in certain cases). I don't think there is anything you can say that would change my views on this matter but you certainly won't change my views simply by repeatedly proclaiming that your views are objectively correct.

With regards to the original post, I completely agree with Storm; making executions public and more archaic / dangerous / failure-prone / graphic doesn't serve any purpose from my perspective (deterrence).

(On another note, I'm seriously disturbed by people who would prefer harsher punishments for rapists (even child rapists) than murderers. It doesn't make much sense to me...)

[Warrior]

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it right. Judges, politicians, and citizens have vastly different perspectives on the purpose of punishment. Your particular perspective is not universally shared (nor, I am confident, is it shared by a majority of the citizens of the US). Personally, I have the complete opposite perspective. I believe that the only proper purpose of punishment is deterrence (and some public safety in certain cases). I don't think there is anything you can say that would change my views on this matter but you certainly won't change my views simply by repeatedly proclaiming that your views are objectively correct.

I make no claim that my views are objectively correct. Clearly people disagree with me. I keep repeating myself hoping someone will come up with an argument I have not heard before that might change my mind. So far, no one has.

If you think the only reason for punishment is deterrence, are you always punishing yourself in hopes of preventing something? Why should we single out only law breakers? Why shouldn't everyone have to line up each morning for their beating in the hopes that it will deter someone from doing something bad?

With regards to the original post, I completely agree with Storm; making executions public and more archaic / dangerous / failure-prone / graphic doesn't serve any purpose from my perspective (deterrence).

Nor does it really serve any purpose from my perspective either. I may support the death penalty, but it can still be quick and clean with minimal observation beyond those carrying it out.

[polaroid]

IMHO, quick death is too merciful for many criminals. I'd like to see the worst offenders (child abusers and rapists) locked up alone in windowless concrete boxes forever.

Murderers who can't be reformed might deserve capital punishment, though. I don't know, seems a bit barbaric, and it is very expensive.

[IrishGuy]

I've always been pretty ambiguous about the death penalty. I understand the logic that murder should be punished with murder, but that assumes a perfect legal system that we do not have. Capital punishment is an absolute punishment. I think you need absolute proof beyond a shadow of a doubt (as opposed to reasonable doubt) to justify that kind of punishment. That kind of certainty simply does not exist in most cases.

As for public hanging; the emotional shock value from witnessing a public hanging cuts both ways. Those related to the perpetrator may feel very angry that their loved one was given such a harsh treatment (especially if prejudice is suspected). This could lead to more crime. Also, the second someone is hanged extrajudicially, public outrage will skyrocket.

[SeaCzar]

I think the blame for this incident lies with the parents for raising these little bastards to think like this. I say let the parents swing with the kids. Too bad abortion can't be retroactive.

[Ray9]

This infuriates me:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lucid]

The government shouldn't have the right to kill people. It's strange that many people in this thread posting in favor of giving the government the right to kill people have posted in other threads against giving the government the right to tax people, or prohibit guns etc. Your beliefs are inconsistent.

And I think it's because of emotions. Some crimes are, indeed, incredibly heinous. These crimes evoke in us an irrational, emotional reaction. All this stuff about deterrence is just so much justification. Likewise the "the government has to kill people so that private citizens won't take the law into their own hands!" Private citizens are rational beings capable of controlling themselves. The can and should be expected to do so even in the face of heinous crimes against their loved ones.

Lets use reason when making policy instead of emotion, especially when it comes to policies of life or death.

[LaoTzu]

This infuriates me:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Stop watching the news...it's part of the problem.
It is sensationalized, and it gives the false impression that all there is to know outside your door is what could kill you.
At the very least, remove your emotion chip before watching. Today's media is more inclined to elicit an emotional response from you than an intellectual one.


As far as capital punishment goes, I would never support it. Removing criminals from society should be the only goal. Blood for blood does nobody any favors. You should be doing your best to stamp out the notion of revenge-killing; not publicly supporting it. I'd regale you with the statistics of how many on death-row have since been exonerated, but I'd prefer to acquaint you with this story:



One 14-year-old boy in the program had shot and killed an innocent teenager to prove himself to his gang. At the trial, the victim’s mother sat impassively silent until the end, when the youth was convicted of the killing. After the verdict was announced, she stood up slowly and stared directly at him and stated, “I’m going to kill you.” Then the youth was taken away to serve several years in the juvenile facility.

After the first half-year the mother of the slain child went to visit his killer. He had been living on the streets before the killing, and she was the only visitor (in jail) he’d had. For a time they talked, and when she left she gave him some money for cigarettes. Then she started step-by-step to visit him more regularly, bringing food and small gifts.

Near the end of his three-year sentence, she asked him what he would be doing when he got out. He was confused and very uncertain, so she offered to help set him up with a job at a friend’s company. Then she inquired about where he would live, and since he had no family to return to, she offered him temporary use of the spare room in her home. For eight months he lived there, ate her food, and worked at the job.

Then one evening she called him into the living room to talk. She sat down opposite him and waited. Then she started, “Do you remember in the courtroom when I said I was going to kill you?” “I sure do,” he replied. “I’ll never forget that moment.” “Well, I did it,” she went on. “I did not want the boy who could kill my son for no reason to remain alive on this earth. I wanted him to die. That’s why I started to visit you and bring you things. That’s why I got you the job and let you live here in my house. That’s how I set about changing you. And that old boy, he’s gone. So now I want to ask you, since my son is gone, and that killer is gone, if you’ll stay here. I’ve got room and I’d like to adopt you if you let me.”
And she became the mother he never had.
--Jack Kornfield (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Warrior]

The government shouldn't have the right to kill people. It's strange that many people in this thread posting in favor of giving the government the right to kill people have posted in other threads against giving the government the right to tax people, or prohibit guns etc. Your beliefs are inconsistent.

I don't see anything inconsistent with those beliefs. They seem to be fairly unrelated. (Although I don't understand how anyone can argue the government doesn't have the right to tax people.)

And I think it's because of emotions. Some crimes are, indeed, incredibly heinous. These crimes evoke in us an irrational, emotional reaction. All this stuff about deterrence is just so much justification. Likewise the "the government has to kill people so that private citizens won't take the law into their own hands!" Private citizens are rational beings capable of controlling themselves. The can and should be expected to do so even in the face of heinous crimes against their loved ones.

I agree with the latter part of your statement, but there is nothing irrational about punishment having to fit the crime. In my opinion, the death penalty meets this criteria for some crimes.

Lets use reason when making policy instead of emotion, especially when it comes to policies of life or death.

Reason and logic have their (important) place, but they are not the only factors. I agree that this issue is of extreme importance. So much so that I'm not willing to limit myself to only listening to the rational arguments. If someone has something to add, they should add it. Maybe I will agree, maybe not, but the issue is serious enough that ideas should be aired out.

[Lucid]

Reason and logic have their (important) place, but they are not the only factors. I agree that this issue is of extreme importance. So much so that I'm not willing to limit myself to only listening to the rational arguments. If someone has something to add, they should add it. Maybe I will agree, maybe not, but the issue is serious enough that ideas should be aired out.

But it's more than people airing their ideas. It's killing people as an emotional response. Logic isn't the only thing in the world and of course emotions should be considered. But I don't think they should be considered in cases of life or death.

That said, and before I'm predictably accused of bleeding heart liberalism, it's not that I have anything against killing people. It's that emotions are not enough of a justification to do so and our legal system is not and cannot be perfect enough to trust it with deciding who lives and who dies.

[Ray9]

The government shouldn't have the right to kill people. It's strange that many people in this thread posting in favor of giving the government the right to kill people have posted in other threads against giving the government the right to tax people, or prohibit guns etc. Your beliefs are inconsistent.

Here's my opinion of capital punishment: In theory I'm against it; in practice I support it.

You present the theory of reason over emotion. Now, in theory reason will always hold sway. But theory is sometimes lacking where the rubber meets the road. Life is not lived in theory, it is lived in practice. Life is tenuous, precious, it's everything. The life of one is connected and bonded to all others who are connected and bonded to it. It's all we have in this universe. There is nothing more important in this short life than the love we have for our families, friends and neighbors. Every life is woven into the fabric of every other life it touches, some more than others. When a life is removed by evil the wound is shared by all those other lives, especially the closest lovedones. The wounds are lifetime wounds. This is practice, not theory. There is no punishment that can account for this so in theory, capital punishment serves no purpose. But punishment is not the issue nor is deterence. The issue is to recognize evil and remove it from this world as you would any malignancy that in the future could come back.

[Lucid]

Ray, you don't know anything about my life or whether I have cause to have put my theory into practice or not. Just saying "life is theory in practice and reason isn't always enough" doesn't cut it.

Either you are a person who makes decisions about whether someone will live or die based on emotion or you are not.

Also, the point of law is to remove mob rule and emotional reactions from the system. Law is supposed to be impartial and based on reason over emotion. That's what it was created for and that is the role it fills in our society.

[Warrior]

But it's more than people airing their ideas. It's killing people as an emotional response. Logic isn't the only thing in the world and of course emotions should be considered. But I don't think they should be considered in cases of life or death.

That said, and before I'm predictably accused of bleeding heart liberalism, it's not that I have anything against killing people. It's that emotions are not enough of a justification to do so and our legal system is not and cannot be perfect enough to trust it with deciding who lives and who dies.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I'm don't mean the debate should happen every time there is a capital crime committed. I only mean when the debate is whether to have the death penality or not and if so, when it should be applied. I think people should speak their mind at that time, if only because they may have a point overlooked previously that could have a major impact on the discussion. After that, application should follow the rules and regulations laid out and the appropriate courtroom process.

[aku chi]

I make no claim that my views are objectively correct. Clearly people disagree with me. I keep repeating myself hoping someone will come up with an argument I have not heard before that might change my mind. So far, no one has.
Okay. There are several previous topics that have focused on this issue. I recommend checking out this nifty topic originally started by Rudy long ago (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). You could also take a look at this more recent topic (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that I contributed in.

To be honest, I'm not sure how I could convince you that deterrence is both effective and a legitimate purpose of the courts; it seems obvious to me. I will, however, try.

If you think the only reason for punishment is deterrence, are you always punishing yourself in hopes of preventing something? Why should we single out only law breakers? Why shouldn't everyone have to line up each morning for their beating in the hopes that it will deter someone from doing something bad?

Deterrence is used to discourage behaviors that other people dislike. Parents use it to influence their children's behavior, the strong use it to influence the weak, and most relevantly, laws, police, and the courts use it to influence citizens' behavior. Criminals are singled out because criminal laws define the behavior that law-makers would like to discourage. I would argue that these laws aren't usually arbitrary; they reflect certain shared values of the law-makers. I would also like to point out that punishment does not need to be applied directly to deter. Expected punishment can deter. For example, I have been informed through many sources that there is a possibility that I will be imprisoned by the State if I murder someone. As such, I would factor in this expected cost before considering whether or not to commit a murder.

There are, for example, several reasons we (society) would like to discourage theft. My favorite reason happens to be economic. In a world where theft isn't punished by the State, citizens have an incentive to take costly precautions to avoid being targetted by thieves (going out less often, carrying less cash, travelling in groups, purchasing home security systems and/or hiring guards, etc...). This is a waste; their money isn't going into anything productive and they are more inconvenienced and less happy. It would be ideal if there were fewer thefts so that citizens would rationally purchase fewer theft precautions. So, the law-makers make a law that punishes thieves, the police enforce it, and the courts arbitrate. Now, potential thieves are faced with a higher expected cost of thievery. They might be caught and punished by the state, which would be costly to them. As a result, fewer people will choose to steal (only those for whom the costs still outweigh the benefits) and those who do steal will steal less on account of being more careful. On the whole, resources will be redirected from citizens purchasing theft protection to (hopefully) more productive ends. How much should we punish thieves? The optimal economic option (I believe) is to punish them such that their expected punishment (chance of being caught * actual punishment) is close to the costs to the victim of the theft. After all, we don't want to discourage all theft; we merely want the thieves to take into account the costs to their unwilling victim.

On the (more related) subject of murder, we prefer harsher punishments. While there is some theft we would prefer to allow (let me know if you want an example), we might want to deter all murders. If so, we should offer a higher expected punishment (higher actual punishment and, more importantly, higher rates of convicting murderers). Potential premeditated murderers will only murder if they get more expected benefit out of the kill than the expected costs (which hopefully include a high chance of severe State punishment). Murders that are not premeditated (so-called crimes of passion) are less likely to be deterred. Expected punishment can still have some deterrant effect in these cases. Certain behaviors are more likely to lead to accidental 'in-the-moment' homocides (like picking fights at bars and committing armed robbery). Higher expected murder or homocide punishment will make such behaviors themselves have a higher cost.

[Lucid]

Maybe I misunderstood you, but I'm don't mean the debate should happen every time there is a capital crime committed. I only mean when the debate is whether to have the death penality or not and if so, when it should be applied. I think people should speak their mind at that time, if only because they may have a point overlooked previously that could have a major impact on the discussion. After that, application should follow the rules and regulations laid out and the appropriate courtroom process.

I took you to mean what you describe here, but I also take such things as going without saying. Of course we should all give our opinions and ideas on any issue we're interested in. I didn't mean that we should all shut up about it or that anyone who disagrees with me should shut up about it. I just meant to express my own thoughts on the matter. :)

[Tyrant Soup]

Why? Is there a statistical correlation between killing someone and a decline in how many people are killed by other people (murder)?

Deterrence is a practical consideration, not an ethical one.





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 10 minutes and 33 seconds later...


It's that emotions are not enough of a justification to do so and our legal system is not and cannot be perfect enough to trust it with deciding who lives and who dies.

Hypothetically, if guilt COULD be established with 100% accuracy, would you be in favor of capital punishment for murder?





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 22 minutes and 21 seconds later...


As far as capital punishment goes, I would never support it. Removing criminals from society should be the only goal. Blood for blood does nobody any favors. You should be doing your best to stamp out the notion of revenge-killing; not publicly supporting it.

You are simply stating a personal preference. It's not an persuasive argument.


I'd regale you with the statistics of how many on death-row have since been exonerated, but I'd prefer to acquaint you with this story:

And I could present you with stats on killers who got off easy and the victim was left with the short end of the stick.

As for the feel-good story, I could probably present contrary tales where the unrepentant killer thumbs his nose at the victim's family.

[PunkinA]

Hypothetically, if guilt COULD be established with 100% accuracy, would you be in favor of capital punishment for murder?

I can't answer for Lucid, but I would still be against capital punishment for any crime, assuming the criminal could be safely detained. It's important to separate the difference between the two situations though.

Allowing capital punishment in a perfectly efficient legal system compromises my own values, but may reflect the values of my citizens. I don't like it, but it's kind of democratically legitimate. However, allowing capital punishment in a system that likely has convicted innocents compromises the whole system. Your values as well as mine get stomped upon when the government kills innocents. Killing innocents is the crime deserving of punishment. A government bound to commit a crime has no legitimacy.





PunkinA added to this post, 12 minutes and 48 seconds later...

The issue is to recognize evil and remove it from this world as you would any malignancy that in the future could come back.

Continuing your theme Ray, evil is a nice theory, but in practice better tools can describe the phenomena. Abandoning old superstitious theories will offer more practical gains in preserving life, which we both value highly.

[Lucid]

Hypothetically, if guilt COULD be established with 100% accuracy, would you be in favor of capital punishment for murder?

I still don't think the government should have the right to kill people. But if you could establish with 100% accuracy I'd have much less of a problem with it and other than that whole government over extending its authority thing I'd be fine with it.

[yoginimama]

This infuriates me:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Lets use reason when making policy instead of emotion, especially when it comes to policies of life or death.

It's interesting how many people, despite self-identifying as INTJs, are going with the Ray9 "this infuriates me [therefore by implication it's wrong]" strategy of deciding how to punish crimes. It strikes me as odd that Lucid's plea to use reason in these matters is not getting more traction in the discussion.

Of course we're outraged by the horrible, senseless murder of that woman. That in itself does not mean (a) that the young men who have been arrested are in fact the right ones, (b) thatthere are not previously-unknown, legitimate mitigating factors like serious mental illness or histories of severe abuse, or (c) that, even if found guilty, the perpetrators should be executed.

I can acknowledge those realities at the same time as I'm also agonizing over what the victim's injured daughter must be going through, thinking "goddamn those little fuckers, if they're guilty then I HATE them, I HATE them, I HATE THEM."

And I do. Whoever killed that woman, whether it's the young men who were arrested or some other ones, I hate them for what they did. It was vicious, cruel, senseless, and--well--hate-worthy. So I accept their karmic invitation and I hate them and what they did with every fiber of my being. That does not mean they should be executed. I can hate them and what they did without believing that that must mean their case fits the legal conditions for execution. I can hate them and what they did without being mad if it doesn't. I can hate them and what they did without thinking I somehow need to fix the situation myself or the earth will crash into the sun.

I can hate them and what they did without thinking it's a good idea for the state to kill people. Because, imho, it's not.

[zibber]

Here is my opinion of capital punishment. In theory I'm against it; in practice I support it. Liberal Democrats may need to consult someone to explain this. This incident took place just a few miles from where I live and I believe all four should be dragged to a public square and hung by the neck until dead.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Count to ten.

(Oh, and your thread title gave me the idea there would be a case. These are some hyperlinks. Truth in advertising!)

[yoginimama]

Another thing to consider with regard to the type of crime under discussion here--

The lives of the four men who have been arrested for the murder of the local mother have now become a nightmare from which there will be no awakening. They're shackled, they're imprisoned, their names and faces have been broadcast across the local news, they've been jeered and cursed by enraged crowds. They've brought horrible shame to their families. If it starts looking more and more like they really are guilty--like they really did decide to commit a savage murder just for the fun of it--those families may very well disown them. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened.

They will not be able to make their charges go away. If they did kill this woman and injure her daughter, there's no going back, there's no wishing it away, there's no saying they're sorry. Because of the brutality of what they did, no one will feel sorry for them even if significant mitigating circumstances exist for their behavior. If those mitigating circumstances cause a lessening of their sentence, people will believe they're "getting off" and will hate them even more. They will have good reason to fear becoming victims of vigilante justice. And they will know perfectly well that no one who would be in a position to help them will have a whole lot of sympathy for their plight.

Whatever vision they might have had for their future--and it may never have extended beyond having fun over the next upcoming weekend--is over now. In a sense, they are now as dead as their victim; the lives they might have lived are forever beyond them. Even if they don't get significant prison sentences, what kind of lives will they be able to live? As the reality of this settles in on them, to whom can they express their horror and grief? Everyone will just say, "Maybe you should have thought of that before you went and killed someone, dumbass. Now shut up."

In other words: no one here needs to worry about these guys beyond feeling the natural revulsion at what they've allegedly done. Their lives are already total hell, and unlikely to get any better. We want them to suffer? They are. That doesn't change or fix what happened--but nothing can do that, unfortunately. The horrific karma of these men, however, has assuredly already found them and will continue to play out for the rest of their miserable lives.

[Holiman]

I'm all for the death penalty. In fact, I'd like to see it used a little more, but not because it has a deterrent effect. It may or may not, but the purpose is to punish, not to deter someone from committing a crime.





Warrior added to this post, 7 minutes and 4 seconds later...



So. It's well worth it.



This is not relevent. Innocent people being convicted of crimes is not good, but it is a seperate matter. It has no bearing on whether or not the death penalty is suitable punishment for a crime.



Again not relevent. The penalty for any crime is to punish, not to deter. This logic could be used to abolish all penalties for all crimes.



What payment would you suggest? I think taking a person's life is fitting punishment for some crimes.



I dont think I can find a middle ground with someone who simply doesnt seem to care about the issues with capital punishment. You from what I have gathered have a predisposition towards punishment as some kind of fix all that I cannot agree with. The cost to me is the most important part of any goverment program regardless of the outcome I judge its worthiness by its expense compared to how much good its does. That you have no problem with the state ordering peoples death regardless of their innocence again boggles the mind. Since you are utterly married to your punishment which can never 'fit' a crime and wont consider any argument that doesnt effect your opinion of just desserts I doubt you will ever be satisfied with any argument against the death penalty.

As for my suggestions they are simple take some of this mis-spent money on research and grass root movement to alter our present penal system towards something less expensive and more fruitful solutions that our society can adopt.

[Tyrant Soup]

I can't answer for Lucid, but I would still be against capital punishment for any crime, assuming the criminal could be safely detained.

If you are simply presenting a personal preferences, then I have no problem with it. You are free to choose to spare those who kill your love ones. But if you would like to force the view on all others, then logical justification is called for.





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 13 minutes and 29 seconds later...


I can hate them and what they did without thinking it's a good idea for the state to kill people. Because, imho, it's not.

You started out appealing for the use of logic, but you did not use any in your argument. You simply presented a personal preference.

[Valiyn]

You started out appealing for the use of logic, but you did not use any in your argument. You simply presented a personal preference.

I think she makes a valid point when it comes to using logic and did make use of it in her argument. After all, she is making the case from the point of view many took to try to better communicate her view -- which she acknowledges is from the same breeding ground as many who have posted so far in terms of hating the guilty for their actions. That is not a lack of logic so much as a continuation to convince others stop and think before deciding someone is guilty and must be dealt with in a brutal fashion.

[Corbu]

Another thing to consider with regard to the type of crime under discussion here--

The lives of the four men who have been arrested for the murder of the local mother have now become a nightmare from which there will be no awakening. They're shackled, they're imprisoned, their names and faces have been broadcast across the local news, they've been jeered and cursed by enraged crowds. They've brought horrible shame to their families. If it starts looking more and more like they really are guilty--like they really did decide to commit a savage murder just for the fun of it--those families may very well disown them. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened.

They will not be able to make their charges go away. If they did kill this woman and injure her daughter, there's no going back, there's no wishing it away, there's no saying they're sorry. Because of the brutality of what they did, no one will feel sorry for them even if significant mitigating circumstances exist for their behavior. If those mitigating circumstances cause a lessening of their sentence, people will believe they're "getting off" and will hate them even more. They will have good reason to fear becoming victims of vigilante justice. And they will know perfectly well that no one who would be in a position to help them will have a whole lot of sympathy for their plight.

Whatever vision they might have had for their future--and it may never have extended beyond having fun over the next upcoming weekend--is over now. In a sense, they are now as dead as their victim; the lives they might have lived are forever beyond them. Even if they don't get significant prison sentences, what kind of lives will they be able to live? As the reality of this settles in on them, to whom can they express their horror and grief? Everyone will just say, "Maybe you should have thought of that before you went and killed someone, dumbass. Now shut up."

In other words: no one here needs to worry about these guys beyond feeling the natural revulsion at what they've allegedly done. Their lives are already total hell, and unlikely to get any better. We want them to suffer? They are. That doesn't change or fix what happened--but nothing can do that, unfortunately. The horrific karma of these men, however, has assuredly already found them and will continue to play out for the rest of their miserable lives.

Let me clarify: The four were arrested, if they are found guilty there is no chance of redemption on their part, they have done something so horrific their karma is screwed for at least the rest of this life.

your position is: they can do no more harm, they are in a hellish way, they are suffering like we want them to and for all intent purposes they are dead. correct?

Your position is compelling and has many merits, where/what we disagree upon is the compassion aspects. Simply I view the use of the death penalty as a compassionate means to put their suffering to an end and have great difficulty understanding the opposite position. Admittedly I do have sensitivity issues, it is just the image of injured and tortured animals with no chance of survival pops into my head and my logical conclusion is euthanasia.

[PunkinA]

If you are simply presenting a personal preferences, then I have no problem with it. You are free to choose to spare those who kill your love ones. But if you would like to force the view on all others, then logical justification is called for.

The desire to preserve even the lives of criminals is not a logical one, I agree. It is a personal value judgment.

The desire to kill murderers to fulfill a sense of just punishment is not logical either. It is a personal value judgment. Logical justification cannot legitimize either perspective. They are both results of desires.

I do agree that logical arguments can be made to develop a case for either view, explaining how one view leads to some intended or unintended consequences. The final judgment still lies in whether the consequences themselves are found desirable. There exists no condition which is objectively or absolutely desirable so any argument boils down to a persuasive appeal to ethos, not logos.

I also agree that legal policies are best developed by considering logical arguments. In this case there is no perfect logical justification FOR or AGAINST. I also agree that some arguments are illogical, and should be thrown out. A value judgment is neither logical nor illogical though, so I earnestly believe the realm of valid rhetoric limits itself to only non-contradictory or non-illogical arguments. A strict reliance on logic is fruitless.

To exemplify my point, this whole thread lacks a logical basis for either side. The Pro-Hangers merely state their values as if they were true axioms; Punishment is required, or Justice must be served. What is illogical is treating these personal values as if they were impregnable bastions of truth. They only become true upon assumption, but logic does not provide for Truth by assumption. Lewis Carrol illustrates this well in "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles."

[Holiman]

In this case there is no perfect logical justification FOR or AGAINST.


Ahem I think I made logical arguments against the death penalty.

1. its expensive. I know everyone thinks they can make it cheaper but you cannot and keep it fair and just if you did it would just make more problems.

2. its unfair. How many death row inmates have been found either innocent or wrongly convicted. You cannot make amends to a corpse.

3. its never been proven to stop others from commiting crimes. You sometimes only make the person killed into a icon that those of bent natures might look up towards later.

4. its not a very good punishment. No matter how terrible the wait, the fear or the trauma in the death penalty it doesnt really pay for the crime one must commit to be deserving of the punishment.

[PunkinA]

Holiman, the arguments follow logical form, but the strength of the arguments come from the non-logical assumptions they are built upon.

1. is valid, but helps me only if I value efficiency of dollars spent.

2. the notion of fairness is determined by personal preference. We may each have different opinions of what is fair.

3. Is a valid argument, but it only refutes an assertion made by the opposition. It does not posit any merit on its own. 3b, is not even logical, it is hypothetically anecdotal. What may possibly happen in one occurrence does not reflect the overall effectiveness of policy.

4. What constitutes a good punishment is subject to personal judgment.

Each of your arguments stem from some arbitrary position you happen to hold. Even if we both hold these values in common, they are not absolutely true.

[Profit]

Holiman, the arguments follow logical form, but the strength of the arguments come from the non-logical assumptions they are built upon.


2. the notion of fairness is determined by personal preference. We may each have different opinions of what is fair.

Each of your arguments stem from some arbitrary position you happen to hold. Even if we both hold these values in common, they are not absolutely true.

What if instead of saying its not fair Holiman had just said he was against the death penalty because innocent people have been convicted and executed. That sounds like a logical argument to me.

Also, I think everyone agrees that its not 'fair' when an innocent person is convicted and given a the death penalty for a crime they didn't commit.

[Holiman]

Holiman, the arguments follow logical form, but the strength of the arguments come from the non-logical assumptions they are built upon.

1. is valid, but helps me only if I value efficiency of dollars spent.

2. the notion of fairness is determined by personal preference. We may each have different opinions of what is fair.

3. Is a valid argument, but it only refutes an assertion made by the opposition. It does not posit any merit on its own. 3b, is not even logical, it is hypothetically anecdotal. What may possibly happen in one occurrence does not reflect the overall effectiveness of policy.

4. What constitutes a good punishment is subject to personal judgment.

Each of your arguments stem from some arbitrary position you happen to hold. Even if we both hold these values in common, they are not absolutely true.


I dont see how cost isnt a logical argument. All things are basically finite, the system doesnt have an unlimited source of finance. The goverment as a keeper of the system must weigh the basics of cost vs. effectivness in its endevors. So if the program in question isnt cost effective it should be scraped.

The term fair isnt whats important the fact is a death sentence is final once its carried out and since death is something that cannot be undone. A death sentence must needs be used only when its positive it cannot be a mistake. Since that is an impossibility and has been proven so time and again we must admit its flawed and find an alternative.

Since there has been research long and tedious amounts regarding the subject of deterence in crimes I would say this is entirely logical. There are enough facts to make a solid opinion that deterence is ineffective at the very least, and potentially makes things worse.

Punishing a person is personal and because of that reason alone we must improve our system, our system has been flawed for hundreds of years and changes are few and poorly thought out and implemented.

[IrishGuy]

Punishing a person is personal and because of that reason alone we must improve our system, our system has been flawed for hundreds of years and changes are few and poorly thought out and implemented.

I agree that our system has some serious flaws in it. What kind of improvements did you have in mind?

[Holiman]

I agree that our system has some serious flaws in it. What kind of improvements did you have in mind?

I had earlier posted;

As for my suggestions they are simple take some of this mis-spent money on research and grass root movement to alter our present penal system towards something less expensive and more fruitful solutions that our society can adopt.

study the problem, seek new solutions and implement them in tests and stages until we find something worthwhile.

If I attempt to row a bow with a wet noodle I dont just try rowing harder I seek a better oar. What has changed about the US penal system in 200 years?

[Ray9]

What has changed about the US penal system in 200 years?

It's not the penal system that has changed, it's the people who are coming into it. The odious legacy of "The Great Society" -- the propagation of single-parent families has unleashed a tidal wave of criminality that threatens the very fabric of our way of life. We are now suffering the law of unintended consequences as criminal behavior and a lack of respect for life itself wreaks havoc in our communities. There is no way to structure prisons to deal with the results of bad social engineering because the seeds of evil are planted early in the development of perpetrators and some, unfortunately, are born evil. We need to return to a time when punishment is swift and sure. More bad social engineering is not the answer.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Nemesis]

the propagation of single-parent families has unleashed a tidal wave of criminality that threatens the very fabric of our way of life.

Do you have any sources to back this statement up? I mean actual published and peer-reviewed psychological studies that suggest a link between single parent families and criminality?

[yoginimama]

the propagation of single-parent families has unleashed a tidal wave of criminality that threatens the very fabric of our way of life. We are now suffering the law of unintended consequences as criminal behavior and a lack of respect for life itself wreaks havoc in our communities....the seeds of evil are planted early in the development of perpetrators...We need to return to a time when punishment is swift and sure....

And very probably visited on the wrong people, for exactly those reasons ("swift and sure")

But if you're seriously arguing that social evil is the result of family structure, how do you explain the antebellum South? Slave owners thought they had the right to:

1) Buy and sell their slaves
2) Break up their slaves' families in doing so, separating husbands, wives, parents, children
3) Have sex with their slaves
4) Visit sadistic, cruel, graphic, often extreme punishments on their slaves--shackles, whipping, threats of death, branding...
5) Prohibit their slaves from learning to read and write

How do we account for this ongoing, multigenerational crime, perpetrated without shame and in fact supported not just by slave-owners but by almost all the bystanders in the region?

How do we account for that pervasive "lack of respect for life itself"? That disdain for the family?

Were the majority of Southerners from 1650-1865 raised by single parents??

Was antebellum Southern society the result of some kind of big-government social engineering from the 1660s that we somehow don't know about??

[PunkinA]

Holiman, you have done well to restate your opinions, and show how the lynch mob approach logically fails to uphold your opinions. I also hold many of the same things you express as valuable myself. I was not intending to imply you were wrong in your judgments.

Even though we both agree, even if 100 people agree, the opinions we hold do not become facts. Saying that we should do something, or that we must do something, in an unqualified sense, is not a logical statement. It is merely an expression of our position.

I desire intensely to prevent the government from killing individuals who are not-guilty of the crime. My desire is not logical, but to me it feels undeniable. Yet, if I come in contact with someone else who doesn't feel the same, I will not be able to persuade them to my view through any logical argument. A person who values chaos or destruction is no less logical than I am. They just have a different set of core values.

Some things just don't qualify as 'TRUE' or 'FALSE'. These things lie outside the jurisdiction of logic.

[Aronnax]

It's not the penal system that has changed, it's the people who are coming into it. The odious legacy of "The Great Society" -- the propagation of single-parent families has unleashed a tidal wave of criminality that threatens the very fabric of our way of life. We are now suffering the law of unintended consequences as criminal behavior and a lack of respect for life itself wreaks havoc in our communities. There is no way to structure prisons to deal with the results of bad social engineering because the seeds of evil are planted early in the development of perpetrators and some, unfortunately, are born evil. We need to return to a time when punishment is swift and sure. More bad social engineering is not the answer.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


That's interesting Ray, it's too bad that your entire argument is based on the false assumption that crime rates are increasing.

Per capita incidence of violent crime, theft, burglary and rape have all decreased. Here's a chart from the FBI that gives actual values from 1986 to 2005:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The invention of the 24 hour news network increased your awareness of crime. The networks are drawn to the heart wrenching horror stories that will get people to tune in and sit through commercials. Crime has gone down, your awareness of crime has gone up; you're confusing personal perspective with reality.

[Holiman]

Holiman, you have done well to restate your opinions, and show how the lynch mob approach logically fails to uphold your opinions. I also hold many of the same things you express as valuable myself. I was not intending to imply you were wrong in your judgments.

Even though we both agree, even if 100 people agree, the opinions we hold do not become facts. Saying that we should do something, or that we must do something, in an unqualified sense, is not a logical statement. It is merely an expression of our position.

I desire intensely to prevent the government from killing individuals who are not-guilty of the crime. My desire is not logical, but to me it feels undeniable. Yet, if I come in contact with someone else who doesn't feel the same, I will not be able to persuade them to my view through any logical argument. A person who values chaos or destruction is no less logical than I am. They just have a different set of core values.

Some things just don't qualify as 'TRUE' or 'FALSE'. These things lie outside the jurisdiction of logic.



Maybe it was my misunderstanding I had thought you meant my argument must be logical not my interpretation of what I consider are facts.

I consider my points logical because they are based on solid research or real world concepts that can be studied, checked or backed up. My opinion comes from how I interpret those concepts and of course you are correct that doesnt mean I am correct or will be able to persuade anyone.

I felt that since I can lay out my sticks and point to real world situations, and not speak of arbitrary concepts like justice or deserving punishments that we could come to a consenus about the issue. Such as if someone could lay out a logical justification for the death penalty other than the one fact of a dead man cannot commit crimes again. I would be more than willing to hear them out.

[Ray9]

The invention of the 24 hour news network increased your awareness of crime. The networks are drawn to the heart wrenching horror stories that will get people to tune in and sit through commercials. Crime has gone down, your awareness of crime has gone up; you're confusing personal perspective with reality.

I don't watch a lot of television news. I'd be interested to see crime statistics before "The great society".

[RBM]

I don't watch a lot of television news. I'd be interested to see crime statistics before "The great society".

Ha Ha ! Sounds like an admission of a rich fantasy life - just like an INTJ, by golly !

[Tyrant Soup]

I felt that since I can lay out my sticks and point to real world situations, and not speak of arbitrary concepts like justice or deserving punishments that we could come to a consenus about the issue.

1. Justice is not an arbitrary concept. If I gouged out one of your eyes, it will make you less capable at competing with me for resources. Since society cannot restore your vision, it must restore the balance by depriving me of the same.

2. The fact that all murderers cannot be convicted with certainty does not mean that the same uncertainty applies to a particular case.

3. In the absolute sense, nothing can really be proven with a 100% certainty. We must necessarily arbitrate how much proof is sufficient.

[Holiman]

1. Justice is not an arbitrary concept. If I gouged out one of your eyes, it will make you less capable at competing with me for resources. Since society cannot restore your vision, it must restore the balance by depriving me of the same.


I absolutely hate the eye for an eye qoute for so many reasons. First regardless of why you made the comment its traces are to jewish law but then jesus said to NOT follow the concept. But most of the people who support the Death penalty are self proclaimed christians.... sorry seperate rant there. The entire concept is tit for tat and this is entirely arbitrary. There are thousands of reasons why tit for tat is not reasonable or logical when dealing with people. But since its your comment back up your point show me one article showing an eye for an eye restores balance. Hell just show any evidence of that working ever.


2. The fact that all murderers cannot be convicted with certainty does not mean that the same uncertainty applies to a particular case.



What part of the Death penalty isnt something you can get wrong and make amends with. Regardless of where the faults end or how we spin relevance death is finale. Mistakes have been made you cannot argue this nor can we be assured they wont occure again would you trust your own life or that of a loved one with a system proven to be curropted ?



3. In the absolute sense, nothing can really be proven with a 100% certainty. We must necessarily arbitrate how much proof is sufficient.

In all things but the Death penalty I find the levels we strive for to be acceptable.

[ElstonGunn]

My guess is that public hangings would have a profound deterrent effect on thrill killers.

I hope you wouldn't actually execute someone based on a guess.


I don't watch a lot of television news. I'd be interested to see crime statistics before "The great society".

Here's a start on that.

Homicide rate in the US per 100,000 population, 1960-2005
1960 -- 5.1
1961 -- 4.8
1963 -- 4.6
1965 -- 5.1
1967 -- 6.2
1969 -- 7.3
1971 -- 8.6
1973 -- 9.4
1975 -- 9.6
1977 -- 8.8
1979 -- 9.8
1981 -- 9.8
1983 -- 8.3
1985 -- 8.0
1987 -- 8.3
1989 -- 8.7
1991 -- 9.8
1993 -- 9.5
1995 -- 8.2
1997 -- 6.8
1999 -- 5.7
2001 -- 5.6
2003 -- 5.7
2005 -- 5.6

Even the lowest of these numbers is still three to six times the homicide rates of countries like Ireland, Germany, France, the UK, Norway, and Canada. Just for reference purposes, in 2008, the US executed more people than Europe, Africa, South America, the rest of North America, and Oceania combined. Evenly distributed, the US executes someone every 10 days.

[MartinH]

Though the crime you cite is indeed heinous and warrants an appropriate punishment (execution perhaps), I don't think a public hanging would really do much except to satisfy the mob that demands "justice".

Entertainment and gratification, anyway.

Why do people enjoy self-righteousness so much? The tabloids here (UK) are always whipping it up - find someone blameworthy most of all, the punters *love* it.

If you (not Mogura, in general) want to kill criminals, whatever, but do it privately, in public it's not a deterrent it's sick entertainment and if anything desensitises people to violence/murder as long as it's to *them*.

[Tyrant Soup]

I absolutely hate the eye for an eye qoute for so many reasons. First regardless of why you made the comment its traces are to jewish law but then jesus said to NOT follow the concept. But most of the people who support the Death penalty are self proclaimed christians.... sorry seperate rant there.

Who cares what Jesus said? The original dude got it right. :)


The entire concept is tit for tat and this is entirely arbitrary.

No it isn't. It's based on our primal desire for self interest.


There are thousands of reasons why tit for tat is not reasonable or logical when dealing with people.

Then might I bother you to name a few?


But since its your comment back up your point show me one article showing an eye for an eye restores balance. Hell just show any evidence of that working ever.

Printed articles are irrelevant. It's intuitively self evident. If I poked out one of your eyes, would you be happier if society poke out your other eye, or would you rather they punish me? Which course of action balances things out?

[Holiman]

Well I apologize for bringing jesus into the debate its a personal soap box issue. But to your second comment how does your primal desire for self interest possibly relate to punishment. Primal desire for self interest is most likely a leading cause of murder, and your response is to stay at the level society finds unacceptable. That is not just foolish but it runs contrary to the entire concept of law. Unless you are chasing after Ray9 into his fantasy of recreating lynching mob's for solutions your just going down the wrong path my friend.

Now you want to understand how tit for tat or eye for an eye is wrong forgive me for being blunt. If you were to break into my home and rape my wife, should your wife expect a visit from me later on ? To take this retarded concept further should we have to compare wives to see if their equally attractive? I would rather trust in a penal system with all its present flaw's and mistakes thank you.

[LaoTzu]

Part of my issue with this thread is the idea that the OP would ENJOY watching these people die.

I don't really care who it is, I'm not going to enjoy watching them die. Hitler dying before my eyes is not something I would care to see. I have calmed my curiosity on a few occasions when 'death' vids get some pub. I've never watched the Saddam hanging...and even in that case, when the men taunted him before his death...I felt more pity for him than he deserved. Picture that... pitying a douchebag like Saddam... it pisses me off more than his crimes that I felt that for a mass muderer. (perhaps it was the human condition I pitied.... there, that's better...)

By killing people, you make a martyr of them to someone out there, and it makes you no safer than if they were long forgotten in a cell.

[ElstonGunn]

It's based on our primal desire for self interest. [...]

Printed articles are irrelevant. It's intuitively self evident. If I poked out one of your eyes, would you be happier if society poke out your other eye, or would you rather they punish me? Which course of action balances things out?

Primal self-interest, maybe, but it's not in our rational self-interest. But I guess that statement depends on how you define "self-interest," so let's look at a few concepts and see if we can find one where using the death penalty fits.

If capital punishment were a deterrent, then it would lead to lower crimes rates. Lower crime rates are a good thing, in that crime makes society unsafe, and lack of safety is bad, by any reasonable standard. The death penalty does not deter violent crime, so it isn't in our self-interest in terms of valuing a society with lower crime rates.

If our self-interest is viewed from an economic standpoint, then executing a criminal would be good if it were less expensive than housing him in prison for life. Prison is (maybe somewhat counter-intuitively at first glance) cheaper. The death penalty is not in society's economic self interest.

If self-interest involves restitution of the offense, then the death penalty would be good if it brought murder victims back to life. Next question.

If self-interest involves a primitive bloodlust, then the death penalty is good if it offers revenge killings of murderers. Under the current system, at least 39 innocent people have been executed ("at least" implying "probably more"), and between 1973 and 2005, 123 people from various states were released from death row after in light of new evidence overturning their wrongful convictions. And from the other end of the spectrum, countless guilty people have avoided execution. Capital punishment is, at best, questionably efficient at filling this definition of "self-interest."

I can't find a definition or concept of "self-interest" that supports the death penalty especially well. I really can't find one that outweighs the conceptions of self-interest that argue against the death penalty. What kind of self-interest were you referring to?

[Holiman]

To those whom support the death penalty exactly how can you reconcile your theories with this

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Ray9]

I can agree that the death penalty should never be given when there is doubt about guilt and conflicting testimony. But when there is no doubt and malice and premeditation are involved, get a rope and make the world a better place.

[Warrior]

I dont think I can find a middle ground with someone who simply doesnt seem to care about the issues with capital punishment. You from what I have gathered have a predisposition towards punishment as some kind of fix all that I cannot agree with. The cost to me is the most important part of any goverment program regardless of the outcome I judge its worthiness by its expense compared to how much good its does. That you have no problem with the state ordering peoples death regardless of their innocence again boggles the mind. Since you are utterly married to your punishment which can never 'fit' a crime and wont consider any argument that doesnt effect your opinion of just desserts I doubt you will ever be satisfied with any argument against the death penalty.

As for my suggestions they are simple take some of this mis-spent money on research and grass root movement to alter our present penal system towards something less expensive and more fruitful solutions that our society can adopt.

I'm not sure what middle ground you're looking for. We're wither going to have capital punishment or we aren't. There isn't anything in between.

What I have a problem with is convicting innocent people of a crime. You've never mentioned this as a concern. However, this has no bearing on capital punishment. It is a seperate issue that should be addressed, though.

Economics is a concern, but no tthe most important. Propoer principles need to be applied and the most important here is that the punishment for breaking a law needs to be in proportion to the crime. I'm perfectly open to arguments that try to explain that the death penalty does not fit any crime. I just haven't heard one yet. Frankly, of all the costs involved, the economic costs are the smallest.

If there are solutions that prevent crime in the first place, I'm open to that as well. However, as long as the crimes are committed, there needs to be appropriate punishment.

[Holiman]

I'm not sure what middle ground you're looking for. We're wither going to have capital punishment or we aren't. There isn't anything in between.

What I have a problem with is convicting innocent people of a crime. You've never mentioned this as a concern. However, this has no bearing on capital punishment. It is a seperate issue that should be addressed, though.

Economics is a concern, but no tthe most important. Propoer principles need to be applied and the most important here is that the punishment for breaking a law needs to be in proportion to the crime. I'm perfectly open to arguments that try to explain that the death penalty does not fit any crime. I just haven't heard one yet. Frankly, of all the costs involved, the economic costs are the smallest.

If there are solutions that prevent crime in the first place, I'm open to that as well. However, as long as the crimes are committed, there needs to be appropriate punishment.


By middle ground I mean a place where we can find an understanding of each other's opinions and move towards concepts other than you see things your way and I see mine. When I discuss issues with someone I try to understand their point of view so If neither of us change our opinions at least we walk away with a better understanding of each other. So far I dont understand your platform.

Economics is probably the most important factor in violent crimes. Violence rarely rushes into murder at once its a gradual slope either in domestic or petty crimes etc. The recidivism of criminals has gotten so bad in many states they have instituted 3 strike law's and such. The number one reason they get so many chances is these same states have nearly revolving door's at the jails. Probation and parole are thin strings where most cases simply fall through the cracks. So you can wave away the cost as a small issue and miss the forest in all the trees.


The punishment fitting the crime however, you cannot punish the crime that actually fits the requirements of the death sentence. We most commonly use the same method used to put down our beloved pets, its low impact and gentle. It doesnt help the victim or their families, vengence is a horrible useless action we have known this fact for years now.


Lastly to Ray9 thank you soo much your restoring my faith in you. Now that your half way to seeing reason lets go the other half. Our system is incapable of working 100% on even the best of cases. The number of overturned death sentences in the last year alone proves our system has major flaws.

[Warrior]

By middle ground I mean a place where we can find an understanding of each other's opinions and move towards concepts other than you see things your way and I see mine. When I discuss issues with someone I try to understand their point of view so If neither of us change our opinions at least we walk away with a better understanding of each other. So far I dont understand your platform.

Economics is probably the most important factor in violent crimes. Violence rarely rushes into murder at once its a gradual slope either in domestic or petty crimes etc. The recidivism of criminals has gotten so bad in many states they have instituted 3 strike law's and such. The number one reason they get so many chances is these same states have nearly revolving door's at the jails. Probation and parole are thin strings where most cases simply fall through the cracks. So you can wave away the cost as a small issue and miss the forest in all the trees.

I think you are intentionally missing the point. I'm not waving away the monetary costs, I'm saying that other costs - the impacts on people's lives, and not just the person being executed, is horrendous. I'm not glad when someone gets executed. I wish there was some other way. I can only imagine how hard it is on the people who actually have to authorize it and carry it out.


The punishment fitting the crime however, you cannot punish the crime that actually fits the requirements of the death sentence. We most commonly use the same method used to put down our beloved pets, its low impact and gentle. It doesnt help the victim or their families, vengence is a horrible useless action we have known this fact for years now.

Viewing capital punishment as vengence is not correct. We're not taking revenge - that's what I would do in the absence of capital punishment. When someone is put to death, it is an appropriate punishment for their crime.


Lastly to Ray9 thank you soo much your restoring my faith in you. Now that your half way to seeing reason lets go the other half. Our system is incapable of working 100% on even the best of cases. The number of overturned death sentences in the last year alone proves our system has major flaws.

Agreed, so let's fix them, but using capital punishment as a fitting punishment isn't one of them. Putting someone to death who was innocent gets a lot of attention, but having that innocent person sit in prison doesn't seem to bother anyone. What bothers me is that an innocent person gets convicted in the first place. That's where attention needs to be focused.

[Aronnax]

Viewing capital punishment as vengence is not correct. We're not taking revenge - that's what I would do in the absence of capital punishment. When someone is put to death, it is an appropriate punishment for their crime.


I think this may be the disconnect: are you arguing that punishment has an inherent value that is unassociated with deterrence or rehabilitation?

[Tyrant Soup]

But to your second comment how does your primal desire for self interest possibly relate to punishment.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, tits for tats is perfectly rational. Individuals who lack the desire to do this will eventually have their ability to compete diminished. They will be eliminated through natural selection.


Now you want to understand how tit for tat or eye for an eye is wrong forgive me for being blunt. If you were to break into my home and rape my wife, should your wife expect a visit from me later on ?

If your wife was considered to be your property, then yes, you could do the same damage to his property. Fortunately, we no longer consider women to be chattel.





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 16 minutes and 10 seconds later...


If capital punishment were a deterrent, then it would lead to lower crimes rates. [.....]The death penalty does not deter violent crime, so it isn't in our self-interest in terms of valuing a society with lower crime rates.

If we accept this argument, then it can also be argued that prison sentences doesn't deter crime, therefore we should abolish it.


If our self-interest is viewed from an economic standpoint, then executing a criminal would be good if it were less expensive than housing him in prison for life. Prison is (maybe somewhat counter-intuitively at first glance) cheaper. The death penalty is not in society's economic self interest.

But this is really an argument against the cost effectiveness of the current judicial process. It means we ought to find a cheaper process to convict and kill a murderer. It does not automatically mean that capital punishment is bad.


If self-interest involves restitution of the offense, then the death penalty would be good if it brought murder victims back to life.

But since we can't, we need to do the next best thing. Just because someone is dead does not mean that everyone's debt to him is erased.


If self-interest involves a primitive bloodlust, then the death penalty is good if it offers revenge killings of murderers. Under the current system, at least 39 innocent people have been executed ("at least" implying "probably more"), and between 1973 and 2005, 123 people from various states were released from death row after in light of new evidence overturning their wrongful convictions. And from the other end of the spectrum, countless guilty people have avoided execution. Capital punishment is, at best, questionably efficient at filling this definition of "self-interest."

Without capital punishments, there would be thousands of unavenged killings every year. This is bad. So we need to strike a balance between two imperfect choices.

[Aronnax]

If we accept this argument, then it can also be argued that prison sentences doesn't deter crime, therefore we should abolish it.


You're really reaching with this one.

The argument for why capital punishment is ineffective as a form of deterrence is formed by comparing nations. Across the board nations without a death penalty have a significantly lower murder rate than nations that still have executions. If execution was an effective form of deterrence the converse would be true.

In order for this argument to show that prisons are ineffective as a form of deterrence you'd have to find a nation that has a low crime rate and no prisons.

[zibber]

It's not the penal system that has changed, it's the people who are coming into it. The odious legacy of "The Great Society" -- the propagation of single-parent families has unleashed a tidal wave of criminality that threatens the very fabric of our way of life. We are now suffering the law of unintended consequences as criminal behavior and a lack of respect for life itself wreaks havoc in our communities. There is no way to structure prisons to deal with the results of bad social engineering because the seeds of evil are planted early in the development of perpetrators and some, unfortunately, are born evil. We need to return to a time when punishment is swift and sure. More bad social engineering is not the answer.


How about BETTER SOCIAL ENGINEERING?!?!

Swift and sure punishment won't solve the problem.

(Also, evil is a big word. More like: "some, unfortunately, are born in the wrong class".)

[aku chi]

You're really reaching with this one.

The argument for why capital punishment is ineffective as a form of deterrence is formed by comparing nations. Across the board nations without a death penalty have a significantly lower murder rate than nations that still have executions. If execution was an effective form of deterrence the converse would be true.

In order for this argument to show that prisons are ineffective as a form of deterrence you'd have to find a nation that has a low crime rate and no prisons.

Correlation =/= Causation

There are many (relevant) differences besides the presence of capital punishment between nations. It would be ideal to find past data where captial punishment was introduced or abolished in the same region. Is there such data?

It seems unlikely to me that the threat of state administered death upon conviction would have a positive effect on potential murderers (that is to say, more of the former would lead to more of the latter). However, it does seem reasonable that the threat of state administered death upon conviction would have a low marginal deterrance effect when compared with life imprisonment upon conviction.

(For the record, I'm pretty indifferent concerning the presence or absense of capital punishment.)

[reb]

i think everyone knows i am 'into' genetics. destroying genetics of people like charlie manson before they can be replicated has to make the world a 'safer' place. behaviourally, destroying the genetics of gang members who beget more gang members will reduce the number of gang members, by simple deduction. getting rid of the genetics of 'royalty' such as thieves (madoff, geitner, et al) would contribute materially to those who work retaining what they worked for with much sweat and effort. i'm firmly in the death penalty camp because of the 'no further offspring' angle.

if i have a chicken that turns out aggressive roosters, i'm going to put that chicken in the stew pot. i have an aggressive rooster in two tupperware containers in the freezer at this moment. i can think of a number of aggressive roosters that 'should be in the stew pot' among so called 'humanity'; kim jung il and ahmadenijad come to mind, as do a number of u.s.s. of a. thieves.

[AlR]

Who cares. Once again, the purpose of punishment is ot punish, not to prevent other crimes. The only questions that matters is whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for a particular crime.
...

I agree with Warrior on this one. I can read all the arguments for or against capital punishment and my logical mind could be swayed either way if the proper persuasion techniques are applied (hey we are all susceptible). But in the pit of my stomach there is no doubt that for murder Capital Punishment is the right thing (yes, there are different levels of murders...let's go with the example that started in this thread).

However, if you now ask me HOW I'd implement it given the limitations of our current government system and resources, now I'd care about figuring out how to protect the potential innocently convicted. I'd probably recommend laws that will apply Capital Punishment on a limited basis.

[PunkinA]

Air, your argument astounds me. You abandon whether logic can prove it is right or not. You even deny that meaningful arguments matter in this area. As long as you've got the pit of your stomach...

If we've all got pits in our stomach, and mine is different than yours, why bother talking about it at all. Why even contribute to the debate.

Perhaps you are just offering a public service announcement? "Hey everybody, I'm not going to think about this one! I got a biological type feeling here in my stomach." *points to lower intestine* "And biological is three letters smarter than logical."

Your kind of thinking gives me a feeling in my head. I'm off to find some aspirin.

[Tyrant Soup]

In order for this argument to show that prisons are ineffective as a form of deterrence you'd have to find a nation that has a low crime rate and no prisons.

That is one of many ways. It is not the only way.

[Tyrant Soup]

I'm glad there's no capital punishment for killing threads.:)