A Warning for JohnT

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Jesus Christ! Check your facts before you go bad mouthing people. China, Russia, most of the former USSR, most of the middle east, most of Africa, and probably a few more still use the death penalty.

The countries that don't use the death penalty generally fall into two catagories. 1) Members of the EU or countries which hope to become members of the EU. 2) Catholic countries that follow the dictates of the Pope.

There's a spill over effect from this as left leaning states try to immitate the EU by outlawing the death penalty.

Jesus Christ! Check the context before you post. That quote was referring to death penalty for children.

[Whaleboy]

Jesus Christ! Check your facts before you go bad mouthing people. China, Russia, most of the former USSR, most of the middle east, most of Africa, and probably a few more still use the death penalty.

He was referring to the DP for children

The countries that don't use the death penalty generally fall into two catagories. 1) Members of the EU or countries which hope to become members of the EU. 2) Catholic countries that follow the dictates of the Pope.

Ummm, the UK had the DP outlawed before we were members of the EU.

There's a spill over effect from this as left leaning states try to immitate the EU by outlawing the death penalty.

wtf? I love the way you present it as the natural order, or the way it should be and those that do not do it are somehow malfunctional or inadequate . Ned's DL?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by David Floyd
OTOH, the purpose of the criminal justice system is NOT rehabilitation (at least not in Texas/the US) - it's punishment.

Rehabilitation is one of the main reasons of the justice system, however, some crimes are considered so horrible that no rehabilitation can occur. Thus the best thing the state can do is make an example out of those criminals in order to get a deterent effect.

[Whaleboy]

Rehabilitation is one of the main reasons of the justice system, however, some crimes are considered so horrible that no rehabilitation can occur. Thus the best thing the state can do is make an example out of those criminals in order to get a deterent effect.

Learn your history. If you're a sociopath, severe psychopath or psychotic, deterrents aren't going to stop you from killing. In nations where it was abolished, there has not been seen a significant rise in the murder rates, and even in the USA, murder is still ridiculously high. Far better to look at the reasons for that, not least guns.

Deterrents would only work with hot-blood (second degree) murder, like killing in self-defense, where rational people may be more inclined to stop themselves if they think of the deterrent in a given situation. But then, even the USA does not execute for second-degree murder, so the point is defunct.

[MikeH]

The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrant. There has been enough research into it over the years.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Learn your history.

Having read a great many of your posts I am confident I know far more about history then you do.

If you're a sociopath, severe psychopath or psychotic, deterrents aren't going to stop you from killing.

Only a small portion of murders are sociopaths or psychopaths. Numerous studies have shown the deterent effect works well on most of the other would be murders. Factor in other variables (i.e. the over all crime rate, the number of people in the young male age group, the strength of the economy, etc...) you come up with a rough figure of the number of crimes detered. Sure, it's a guess but we are trying to figure out the number of murders that didn't happen so it will always be a guess.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MikeH
The death penalty doesn't work as a deterrant. There has been enough research into it over the years.

There's been tons of research and for every study you have which says there isn't a deterent I can show one which says it does work as a deterent. The DP, like gun control, attracts alot of nonscientific politically motivated fake studies. The good scienctific studies control for various factors and take a neutral approach.

A few years back the Economist did an issue one the death penalty and their conclusion was there was a slight demonstrable deterent effect from the death penalty. They also showed a decrease in violent crime after concieled handgun permits were allowed for law abiding citizens.

[MikeH]

Sounds like you are referring to Ehrlich's work which has some serious logical flaws and has been almost universally discredited. The evidence shows the opposite. It has no deterrent effect at all and it is much, much more expensive.

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

[Pekka]

I don't know.. I just don't know.. I mean she was only 12.. but then again, she was already 12.. old enough to know better. If this was like a 4 year old kid, I think that person couldn't be held responsible for the whole mess, just partially.. but she was 12. There's a big difference when 12 year old gets grounded or what ever punished, and that person starts messing things up and refusing to do things and locking to their rooms and throwing stuff.

Then there's the person who goes to grab a gun and shoots her mom in the face while she sleeps, because she couldn't go out with some boys. 12, 20, 50, I don't care, that person IS responsible in my books. 12 years olds can't handle their emotions so well and actions? Yeah but they don't go shooting people in the face while they sleep! That is NOT normal. That's not 'it got out of the hands a little' or 'I was blinded by anger'. That's some sick stuff right there, period.

I don't believe in DP, so I don't think she should get that. But I do think she needs to be isolated and examined, and punished. I wouldn't let her out when she turns 18.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They also showed a decrease in violent crime after concieled handgun permits were allowed for law abiding citizens.

I assume they also made an estimate at the number of accidental deaths or injuries per year before and after the new legislation?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Oerdin


There's been tons of research and for every study you have which says there isn't a deterent I can show one which says it does work as a deterent. The DP, like gun control, attracts alot of nonscientific politically motivated fake studies. The good scienctific studies control for various factors and take a neutral approach.

A few years back the Economist did an issue one the death penalty and their conclusion was there was a slight demonstrable deterent effect from the death penalty. They also showed a decrease in violent crime after concieled handgun permits were allowed for law abiding citizens.

If what you are saying is that we can't prove one way or another if it's a deterrent then we have to ignore deterrent as a factor in determining whether to use it or not. Which leaves us with the morality and cost arguments.

1. It costs the state more to execute than imprison.
2. Whether or not you think that executing murderers is ok or not there can be no debate that executing an innocent person is murder, no matter how good/fair the legal system is there will always be mistakes made. Innocent people have and will continue to be executed. Is there any way anyone can morally justify this?

[Dinner]

Mike: It does cost more to execute a prisoner then to give him life in prison but, at least in California, those costs have been greatly reduced. The study you linked used data from 1988 but in the early 1990's the state of California passed a new law which had appeals for DP cases go directly to the state Supreme court instead of through the various appellate courts. The cases would have reached the Supreme Court any way only now we've skipped 2-3 of the minor courts thus saving costs and duplicate work. That speed up the time between sentence and the sentence being carried out plus it freed up space in the courts. The prisoner still gets to see the state and federal supreme courts so he gets his rights but the state cut its costs significantly.

Here is a nice article written by George E. Pataki the Governor of New York State.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Articles/Pataki.htm

With in two months of Pataki coming into office New York reinstated the death penalty. The results? Violent crime has dropped 23, assaults are down 22, and murders have dropped by nearly one-third. Sure, some of that had to do with a good economy and an aging population but the drop was so large and so sustained that the government of the state of New York has concluded that at least some part of the drop in violent crime must be the result of a deterrent effect.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MikeH
If what you are saying is that we can't prove one way or another if it's a deterrent then we have to ignore deterrent as a factor in determining whether to use it or not. Which leaves us with the morality and cost arguments.

No, it most certainly can be proved that a deterrent effect exists, but, because of the number of politically motivated studies out there we have to be careful to only look at well done science and not crack pot science.

Whether or not you think that executing murderers is ok or not there can be no debate that executing an innocent person is murder, no matter how good/fair the legal system is there will always be mistakes made. Innocent people have and will continue to be executed. Is there any way anyone can morally justify this?

There is no doubt that a certain extraordinarily small number of innocent people will be put on death row. Now with DNA evidience that number should be smaller then ever. Why do I continue to support the death penalty given this knowledge? Easy, the needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. Since there is a deterrent effect far more innocent people are saved each year then innocents put to death. Just see how few people are executed but presumably how large the number of people who are still alive because the deterrent works.

[MikeH]

I shouldn't have got sidetracked by the deterrent issue. Whether or not it has a deterrent effect is, at the end of the day, totally irrelevent to the rights and wrongs of the issue. Increased crime detection has a huge deterrent effect as well. If people think they'll get caught they are less likely to commit crimes of any type. Personally I think that's a better way to deter crime than execution.

Cutting and speeding appeals means you are just more likely to execute innocent people doesn't it? Surely that's a bad thing. If you are going to execute people it's vital that you do everything possible to ensure you have the right one isn't it? Cutting down on appeals to cut costs is a very, very worrying step. You didn't answer the bit about innocent people getting executed.

And what about the racial bias in the penalties you are likely to receive for the same crimes? How can anyone justify an intrinsically system where more blacks get the death penalty than whites for exactly the same crimes?

[Whaleboy]

Having read a great many of your posts I am confident I know far more about history then you do.

Why do I find myself questioning your ability to back up your ego?

Only a small portion of murders are sociopaths or psychopaths. Numerous studies have shown the deterent effect works well on most of the other would be murders. Factor in other variables (i.e. the over all crime rate, the number of people in the young male age group, the strength of the economy, etc...) you come up with a rough figure of the number of crimes detered. Sure, it's a guess but we are trying to figure out the number of murders that didn't happen so it will always be a guess.

The number of young people in most Western societies, including the USA, is actually decreasing due to the falling birthrate since the 60's.

A significant majority of those in jail for murder, severe violence and severe sexual assault are psychopathic (estimates are that 1% of the overall human population are psychopathic) many are sociopathic and a lot of the more dangerous killers are psychotic to some degree. I trust you know what the terms I have used mean. A lot of other killers have numerous other mental disorders.

Nonetheless, I'd like to see the studies which support your statement that the deterrent effect works on many would-be killers, by which I assume cold-blooded murder, since with hot blood the USA doesn't execute as far as I know.

A few years back the Economist did an issue one the death penalty and their conclusion was there was a slight demonstrable deterent effect from the death penalty. They also showed a decrease in violent crime after concieled handgun permits were allowed for law abiding citizens.

Sounds like you are referring to Ehrlich's work which has some serious logical flaws and has been almost universally discredited. The evidence shows the opposite. It has no deterrent effect at all and it is much, much more expensive.

You read my mind

I think that even if you can show a slight deterrent effect, that does not justify the death penalty, because in other words you are sacrificing people to a (slight at that) sociological end, which introduces some quite nasty slippery slopes, the risk of which I'd rather avoid.

MikeH, let's not forget the problem of revenge polluting justice, the woefully flawed idea of two wrongs making a right (an eye for an eye) the ethical concern of whether you can wholly define a person by that murder and eliminate them in a sense, eliminating the murder.

For every pro-DP argument I've heard I have seen it knocked down and replaced, the counters ignored because pro-DP seems to appeal to the testicles. Then, it is usually those that don't understand the anti-DP arguments that support pro-DP, after all the latter is a simpler position that's easier to understand .

The exception to that is the classic utilitarian argument for death penalty (needs of the many), which, oddly enough, most utilitarians seem to avoid since by a more advanced definition of happiness or welfare, it passes a point whereby the act becomes absurd.

So no, I think the pro-DP arguments are simplistic and apologetic for the primitive emotional state which causes society to kill in revenge, or perhaps as part of a witch-hunt or moral panic. I observe the people that support aren't exactly the type I would want running the country (tyranny of the idiots).