[Persona]

	Originally Posted by Beric To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	2. Too many people are incarcerated for life, costing too much money. Either shorten their sentences and work on rehabilitation that actually works, or start implementing a cheaper death penalty for the more heinous crimes.

option 3: invest in prevention

[Beric]

	Originally Posted by Persona To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	option 3: invest in prevention

Agreed. I think all of these should be used, where applicable. However, I think prevention needs to occur on a more basic level. There's problems with the structure of society and the economic system. Problems with a poor family structure (or lack of it). And so on and so forth...

[Vermillion]

	Originally Posted by Einarr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fear of the consequences are the only thing that enforce laws.

I agree if there were no harsh penalties I'd be out there raping every toddler in sight and murdering old people in nursing homes just for the lulz.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Traverser]

	Originally Posted by Vermillion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I agree if there were no harsh penalties I'd be out there raping every toddler in sight and murdering old people in nursing homes just for the lulz. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I like the way you put this. There's more to deterrence than just the threat of force. For instance, most people understand that a community wholly made of thieves and murderers will not go very far anyway. At least, not in the long-term.

I personally don't prefer the death penalty at all for one reason: the wrongfully accused are often put in the cross-hairs. If we are to develop a system that maximizes protection and minimizes harm to the individual, we would find that death penalties can become expensive mistakes. With that being said, however, it's not always the case that the wrongfully accused are perfectly innocent. In fact, it could very well be that the majority of the wrongfully accused already have a history of violence, which makes sense considering the tendencies of prosecutors to pick and choose their cases.

Nevertheless, I think there are better, safer, alternatives that can be played out. I've read of "public service" (aka enslavement, but the judges won't tell you that), which at least affords the accused some freedom to prove their innocence after the fact. Plus, it makes more sense to have the accused compensate the victims, or left-behind family members, than to simply kill him/her out of spite.

Then theres another idea I've been pondering about, reserved only for those who can't even trusted with a spork: exile. Simply drop them in a random area that is relatively hospitable, complete with hut and bare essentials, and let them figure out how to survive on their own. If guilty, they may find a new appreciation for civilized life (or not; they could be in their element, all the more incentive to say away from us). If innocent, they at least get to live. Plus, there are few maintenance costs.

[Aronnax]

That would give police officers a life expectancy measured in weeks (pull someone over for speeding, get a shotgun to the face). Victims/witnesses would be killed as a preventative measure.

Creating that kind of tension between law enforcement and the general population would make law enforcement effectively a military occupation. If you've paid attention you know how fruitless military occupations are without a significant degree of support from the general population.

	Originally Posted by Einarr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Fear of the consequences are the only thing that enforce laws.

Bull, most laws are followed because they align with standard moral codes.

Do you know what will frequently make people distort their moral code? Fear of death. They'll lie, cheat, steal and kill to avoid their death or the death of loved ones.

[Sk8ordude]

If we kill everybody we can prevent crime 100 percent of the time.

[mormeguil]

An excessive punishment just makes people willing to use more extreme way to evade punishment, not the behavior itself.

What behavioral research as discovered is that a light punishment dealt quickly after an offense is most effective to stop someone from doing a behavior.

With that in mind, before any trial are conducted give some form of light sentence effective in a few days. Either a daily "Good citizen" class, maybe a few hours of community work etc.

Right now it takes months between an adverse behavior and a sentence being given.

[True Rune]

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

I like the way you put this. There's more to deterrence than just the threat of force. For instance, most people understand that a community wholly made of thieves and murderers will not go very far anyway. At least, not in the long-term. I personally don't prefer the death penalty at all for one reason: the wrongfully accused are often put in the cross-hairs. If we are to develop a system that maximizes protection and minimizes harm to the individual, we would find that death penalties can become expensive mistakes. With that being said, however, it's not always the case that the wrongfully accused are perfectly innocent. In fact, it could very well be that the majority of the wrongfully accused already have a history of violence, which makes sense considering the tendencies of prosecutors to pick and choose their cases. Nevertheless, I think there are better, safer, alternatives that can be played out. I've read of "public service" (aka enslavement, but the judges won't tell you that), which at least affords the accused some freedom to prove their innocence after the fact. Plus, it makes more sense to have the accused compensate the victims, or left-behind family members, than to simply kill him/her out of spite. Then theres another idea I've been pondering about, reserved only for those who can't even trusted with a spork: exile. Simply drop them in a random area that is relatively hospitable, complete with hut and bare essentials, and let them figure out how to survive on their own. If guilty, they may find a new appreciation for civilized life (or not; they could be in their element, all the more incentive to say away from us). If innocent, they at least get to live. Plus, there are few maintenance costs.

His view of society makes the individual extremely expendable. A society that doesn't care about individuals will probably be unable to protect them. I can't take these lines of thought seriously at all. It's just selfishness imposed on society.

[Subgenius]

I don't see what's wrong with state sponsored revenge and retribution. No one to really get back at other than a faceless entity that is the prison system, so the usual claim that it will just start a never ending cycle of violence kind of gets cancelled out due to inability to get revenge on the killer in any meaningful way.

[Krutz]

The simple answer to this silly question is NO.
Anyone who can't recognize how stupid it would be to execute people for all crimes,
from jaywalking and shoplifting all the way to murder must be semi retarded.
Everyone has probably broken some law knowingly or unknowingly.

Just take a look at site like this and you will see its a bad idea:
hxxp://publicrecordsguide.com/criminal-offenses.html

	Property Crimes The FBI has specifically categorized certain kinds of criminal offenses as property crimes. These may include burglary, larceny as well as motor vehicle thefts. Instances of arson are considered to be property crimes as well since they are often committed with an aim to destroy property. Statistics for 2007 fixed the number of property offenses in the U.S. at 9,843,481

If your aim is population reduction then sure it would work wonders, that's 9,843,481 less people.

[Megalomania]

Studies by social psychologists have shown that the death penalty is not an effective method for deterring crime. In order for a punishment to effectively deter crime it must occur swiftly (not our justice system), be consistent and fit the crime (moderate punishment).

So unless you want to set up an assembly line of execution I don't see your idea being very effective.

The only argument I can see someone making for the death penalty is that it gets rid of problem people.

[nowt]

Could we at least wait for the organ transplant tech, as per Niven's Known Space, in particular The Jigsaw Man?

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by Einarr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh I can hear it now............................as far as I am concerned, death is the only punishment that prevents a re-occurrence of a crime. "Rehabilitation' is a joke.

Well, I, for one, see something good in this idea.

It's a great theme for a dystopian short story.

The punchline comes when the rulers of the totalitarian state decide that, because humans cannot fairly and impartially administer the law, they build an A.I. to do it for them.

The A.I. quickly realizes that there is no one who has not committed some crime or another, and commands its robot police to administer the appropriate penalties....

[Nemesis]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Studies by social psychologists have shown that the death penalty is not an effective method for deterring crime. In order for a punishment to effectively deter crime it must occur swiftly (not our justice system), be consistent and fit the crime (moderate punishment).

Yup.

On top of that, many serious crimes (like murder) occur in the heat of the moment. That is, in those moments the consequences of one's actions, even if it's the electric chair, do not even register in someone's mind. The threat of punishment is not a reliable deterrant.

---------- Post added 10-11-2011 at 11:56 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Einarr To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But if it got rid of the US government I would push the button right now

So, what kind of entity are you suggesting lead your little tyrannical death-to-jaywalkers world?

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, what kind of entity are you suggesting lead your little tyrannical death-to-jaywalkers world?

Didn't you read my story?


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

[Uriel]

	Originally Posted by Krutz To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Just take a look at site like this and you will see its a bad idea: hxxp://publicrecordsguide.com/criminal-offenses.html If your aim is population reduction then sure it would work wonders, that's 9,843,481 less people.

About 10 Million less taxpayers.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by Uriel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	About 10 Million less taxpayers.

If we had fewer people, we wouldn't need to worry about the missing taxpayers; if you don't have as many citizens to support, your expenses should go down.

---------- Post added 10-13-2011 at 12:15 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Nemesis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yup. On top of that, many serious crimes (like murder) occur in the heat of the moment. That is, in those moments the consequences of one's actions, even if it's the electric chair, do not even register in someone's mind. The threat of punishment is not a reliable deterrant.

This is why we need a better enforcement system where people blatantly caught violating laws regarding serious or society-threatening offenses and are clearly doing something illegal should be shot on the spot. Is that crack cocaine? Yes? Bang, you're dead. Are you standing over a dead body with a bloody knife? Bang, you're dead. This will deter people from having even the appearance of impropriety. If people want to break the law, let them try, but the second they're caught, they've signed their own death warrants.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This will deter people from having even the appearance of impropriety.

And you consider the appropriately necessary level of paranoia a good thing?

You and Einarr seem to be forgetting that the point of laws is to make society viable to live in; they aren't an end unto themselves. A society where anyone can be executed at any time for essentially no reason is practically the definition of the worst possible society.

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And you consider the appropriately necessary level of paranoia a good thing? You and Einarr seem to be forgetting that the point of laws is to make society viable to live in; they aren't an end unto themselves. A society where anyone can be executed at any time for essentially no reason is practically the definition of the worst possible society.

Well, there has to be a reason, and if the police aren't accountable then they should be shot too. But such a system as this would make society more viable to live in. It would discourage crime and encourage people to avoid wrongdoing. It's the closest we can get to stamping out criminal urges entirely, and it would greatly improve the safety of society if all the criminals were more easily dealt with.

[IotaNull]

Have you even considered the safety implications of what essentially amounts to an occupying army being allowed to shoot citizens pretty much at will?

I give your utopia one week before it either descends into anarchy or results in a massive armed revolution. Assuming the police themselves have the guts to enforce the law, knowing that one false positive for any crime will result in being executed themselves.

Some ideas are so asinine that ridicule is the only appropriate response.

[Equinox]

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

Have you even considered the safety implications of what essentially amounts to an occupying army being allowed to shoot citizens pretty much at will? I give your utopia one week before it either descends into anarchy or results in a massive armed revolution. Assuming the police themselves have the guts to enforce the law, knowing that one false positive for any crime will result in being executed themselves. Some ideas are so asinine that ridicule is the only appropriate response.

I can understand why you don't think it's viable, but I think that fear is pretty much the only way to make people moral. We know they won't do it on their own, so if we hold a gun to the public's collective head (literally) we'll end up convincing them to do what's right. Sure it's artificial, and sure it'll be difficult to get over the false positive problem, but if we could implement such a system, I think it would work. Yes, it's essentially martial law, but it's a heck of a lot better than letting people enjoy their "freedom" and run amok and mess up everyone else's lives.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I can understand why you don't think it's viable, but I think that fear is pretty much the only way to make people moral.

No, because it's not a solution at all. It is, however, a good way to guarantee that any criminals who do exist will be incredibly dangerous. What's the best way to avoid being caught? Kill everyone in sight whenever you commit a crime. Also, as I mentioned, false positives would get the police executed, which would make them reluctant to act in the vast majority of situations.

As I said, your utopia would descend into a state of every-man-for-himself open warfare or a massive armed revolution in a matter of days.

	We know they won't do it on their own, so if we hold a gun to the public's collective head (literally) we'll end up convincing them to do what's right.

A state that has no qualms imposing the death penalty for all crimes and presumably for any reason they feel like (just make new laws) has no moral high ground whatsoever.

	Sure it's artificial, and sure it'll be difficult to get over the false positive problem, but if we could implement such a system, I think it would work.

"We'll find a way" is not a solution.

	Yes, it's essentially martial law, but it's a heck of a lot better than letting people enjoy their "freedom" and run amok and mess up everyone else's lives.

No, it's not. Killing someone is a better way than any other to mess up their lives, and you advocate it being done with impunity for pretty much any reason.

My earlier question stands: what about a nuclear holocaust? Low crime rates are obviously more desirable than even a basic quality or assurance of life, so why not go the whole hog and literally annihilate the entire planet, rendering it permanently uninhabitable to any life and ensuring that no further crimes can be committed? Or, alternatively, have the government install mind control chips in everyone and submit entirely to their will. Who needs freedom, right?

[Purgatid]

The purpose of the justice system is to protect the innocent. Criminals pay for transgressions with time and/or resources. If the justice system incorrectly incarcerates one of those it is supposed to protect, the then freed man is compensated through resources. If the justice system kills the one convicted, and the convicted then is found to be one of the innocents the justice system is supposed to protect, then the justice system has killed an innocent and is not able to compensate for the wrongful punishment, and no resources will be spent. In short, the state gets away with murder, and we don't have a justice system anymore.

While I agree with Einarr that death is the only way to permanently guarantee that a person will not repeat a criminal act, I disagree that this an effective way to go. My reasons for this is listed below.

* The risk that someone is falsely convicted.
* If every crime is punishable by death, then those wronged might not report the crime.
* Criminals will fight to the death to avoid capture.
* Because family and friends may protect those who have commited a crime, trying to prevent their loved ones from dying may result in them themselves being labeled criminals, and they might also fight to the death to avoid capture.
* Police would not move on crimes hard to prove, because a mistake accusing someone wrongly may lead to the police themselves being convicted.
* A criminal may be rehabilitated and thus contribute to society, but if they are killed, no such possibilty exists.
* When a dysfunctional law is passed, it is removed after a couple of years, usually with just a few victims. With death penalty for all crimes, there will be dead innocents as a result.

Now, I don't believe in jail either. Jail is a stupid idea, and we've had it since the 1800ds, and it has never worked. What is jail? Jail is a school for criminals. Say I try to sell cannabis that I have grown myself, and I get caught. I am sent to prison. In prison, I spend my days together with people who may very well have experience in selling drugs that I do not have. I form new criminal contacts, and everyone I hang out with validate my criminal behavior.

Jail is possibly the worst place you can send someone whom you want to stop commiting crime.

I would suggest some form of slavery instead. We can call it social services if you so wish. My point is that in the eyes of society (as opposed to the individual who might see crime as something personal that needs to be avenged) criminality is a cost. That cost needs to be repaid in one way or the other. If the criminals are unwilling to change their ways (or if we are unable to motivate them to do so) then payment for costs rendered should be in labor. There is of course flight risks, and there is of course the risk of society labeling innocents as criminals to attain free labor. But I believe we can parry those problems, and go from criminality = costs + jailtime = costs, to criminality = costs - forced labor = gain.

[Ghostwheel]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A society where anyone can be executed at any time for essentially no reason is practically the definition of the worst possible society.

The Obsidian Order disagrees with you:


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

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by Ghostwheel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The Obsidian Order disagrees with you: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I looked it up on Wikipedia. Now that's a group of people (or whatever they are) I'd get along with!