The Death Penalty

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Alright. I would seriously doubt the ability of any study that claimed to have found such a correlation, either way.

Because the "deterrence argument," however, is brought up to explain why the death penalty is a good thing, I think the burden of proof should be on the shoulders of those who employ it - the pro-DP crowd. If deterrance cannot be proven than it should be left out of the argument.

It has been proven. No reasonable person thinks otherwise.

The only dissenters are the whack job righties, and the stupid partisan think tanks. Might as well listen to the flat earthers if you are going to listen to them.

[Kuciwalker]

The reasonable studies show that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

How can you have a reasonable study of something when you can't control for any of a dozen outside influences?

Common sense also shows this. The death penalty is so rarely applied in the US that it is negligible deterrent value

Then I wouldn't call it much or a moral issue either

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Agathon
The reasonable studies show that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Common sense also shows this. The death penalty is so rarely applied in the US that it is negligible deterrent value, and almost none to a gangbanger who is more likely to die from the actions of other gangsters, and would find the prospect of being given a lethal injection 10 years down the road completely irrelevant. It obviously doesn't deter serial killers and it doesn't deter the usual boring domestic murderers who just lose it.

Common sense to me suggests you are right, but in the absence of any kind of proof it seems safer to ignore that facet of the discussion altogether. There are far better reasons, IMO, to be anti-death penalty.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The reasonable studies show that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

How can you have a reasonable study of something when you can't control for any of a dozen outside influences?

Because you can control for them. Social scientists are often stupid, but they aren't that dumb

Common sense also shows this. The death penalty is so rarely applied in the US that it is negligible deterrent value

Then I wouldn't call it much or a moral issue either

So killing people for no real reason is not a moral issue? I guess that's Bushthink.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Common sense to me suggests you are right, but in the absence of any kind of proof it seems safer to ignore that facet of the discussion altogether. There are far better reasons, IMO, to be anti-death penalty.

There are lots of reasons to be anti-death penalty, but that is no reason to discount good work, just because some right wing nutbags funded a sophistical think tank to say the opposite.

Let's hold this dispute to the same standards as the evolution vs creationism dispute.

Steven Levitt's recent book claims (in the oft referenced section on crime reduction) that, on the most optimistic reading, increased use of capital punishment accounted for (theoretically) at most a 4% reduction in homicides. We also know that violent crime rates in general have declined in the US in the last fifteen years, but the decline is the same for crimes that do not attract the death penalty.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the death penalty has had basically no bearing on the reduction of violent crime. On the other hand, we know for certain that increased police presence does have such an effect. Increasing prison sentences also has an effect, but we know from the experiences of other countries that harsher prison sentences are not necessary for a reduction in crime.

In any case, the sorts of crimes that attract the death penalty are the sorts of crimes for which preventive deterrence is useless anway (drugged out maniacs, gangsters, domestics, serial killers).

When it comes to the death penalty and deterrence, that dog don't hunt.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Can you prove that fear of assrape is a deterrent? You stated earlier that getting killed via DP was not a deterrent, so...

For the kinds of crimes that can be deterred, prison is a deterrent. One of the major downsides of prison is being assraped by Mr Big. Everyone knows this.

I take it NZ doesn't have serial killers.

Perhaps we may have had one. We did have a couple of notorious serial rapists in the 90s.

BTW, what exactly do you mean by "doesn't work?" As in, "doesn't deter criminals?" I think it's been established that one can come up with other reasons for the DP than deterrance.

It doesn't deter criminals to the extent that having it is a more efficient deterrent than other things we might do with the same resources (like put more cops on the streets).

I don't know about that. I don't think I'm in a position to know which is worse. But we are much more able to rectify the erroneous sentencing of an innocent man after the fact if he is still alive when his innocence is discovered.

We do know which is worse, because we know that the death penalty is not an efficient deterrent to the sort of crimes that it is punishment for.

I have no doubt that if the death penalty was enforced for stealing candy, it would be an effective deterrent to many prospective candy stealers. But can you imagine trying to deal with the effects of such a law?

[Cyclotron]

Well, perhaps there is evidence to support that, as you say - I haven't heard those reports before. Still, I find it more convenient in my discussions of the death penalty to say the whole matter is inconclusive - this is the main point of most pro-DP people I meet, and denying that issue tends to pull out the rug from under them. To their credit, the pro-DP posters here have relied very little on that argument.

[Kuciwalker]

Perhaps we may have had one. We did have a couple of notorious serial rapists in the 90s.

You also have the same population as the DC metropolitan area...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
There are lots of reasons to be anti-death penalty, but that is no reason to discount good work, just because some right wing nutbags funded a sophistical think tank to say the opposite.

You haven't answered the question of how a reliable conclusion can be drawn from studies in which it is impossible to control for a multitude of outside influences.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Well, perhaps there is evidence to support that, as you say - I haven't heard those reports before. Still, I find it more convenient in my discussions of the death penalty to say the whole matter is inconclusive - this is the main point of most pro-DP people I meet, and denying that issue tends to pull out the rug from under them. To their credit, the pro-DP posters here have relied very little on that argument.

It might be more convenient, but that doesn't mean it isn't the case.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Agathon
For the kinds of crimes that can be deterred, prison is a deterrent. One of the major downsides of prison is being assraped by Mr Big. Everyone knows this.

Fair enough.

Perhaps we may have had one. We did have a couple of notorious serial rapists in the 90s.

If you did, you'd better have given him more than 25 years. Everyone knows that serial killers can't be rehabilitated - they are the most extreme example of a kind of criminal that needs to be permanently removed from society, making life sentences neccessary.

It doesn't deter criminals to the extent that having it is a more efficient deterrent than other things we might do with the same resources (like put more cops on the streets).

Translating this into "it doesn't work" presupposes that deterrence is the only argument for the death penalty, which is clearly not the case.

We do know which is worse, because we know that the death penalty is not an efficient deterrent to the sort of crimes that it is punishment for.

Ah, but that just makes them comparable, not worse. An argument for why the DP is less desirable than life in prison needs to go beyond just "it's ineffective." If the DP is ineffective at deterrence, than life in prison is equally so.

I have no doubt that if the death penalty was enforced for stealing candy, it would be an effective deterrent to many prospective candy stealers. But can you imagine trying to deal with the effects of such a law?

I think it would be atrocious. Candy stealers can easily be rehabilitated, and any sane person would agree that the punishment does not fit the crime. But now I'm stating the obvious.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You haven't answered the question of how a reliable conclusion can be drawn from studies in which it is impossible to control for a multitude of outside influences.

Because it is possible to control for these things. As I said, social scientists are often daft, but they aren't completely stupid.

Why don't you read Levitt's book? It explains the falsity of your position quite well, and it's a fun read.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Agathon
It might be more convenient, but that doesn't mean it isn't the case.

I find the evidence inconclusive, and thus distracting from the core of the argument. However, I will be the first to admit that I am not up to date on my DP scholarship, and perhaps studies have proven one side or the other by now. I suspect, however, that there are criminal sociologists (or whatever those people are called... criminologists?) that have come out with reports opposing the one you quoted.

[Kuciwalker]

Because it is possible to control for these things. As I said, social scientists are often daft, but they aren't completely stupid.

Given the relatively small number of societies, I doubt that you can control, and I also doubt the statistical significance of the sample size.

Why don't you read Levitt's book? It explains the falsity of your position quite well, and it's a fun read.

What's my position again?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

If you did, you'd better have given him more than 25 years. Everyone knows that serial killers can't be rehabilitated - they are the most extreme example of a kind of criminal that needs to be permanently removed from society, making life sentences neccessary.

I imagine he will find it hard to get parole (it was 25 to life, but that means 25 in NZ Law - life usually means a minimum of 12 years served or something like that - this was an extreme case).

There was some special circumstance such that he can be released but kept under permanent surveillance. A moot point really, the guy will be eligible for retirement once he gets out.

Translating this into "it doesn't work" presupposes that deterrence is the only argument for the death penalty, which is clearly not the case.

Except it is. All the other semi-coherent arguments rely on metaphysical or religious fictions, or retributivism. None of these work, so we are left with deterrence.

Ah, but that just makes them comparable, not worse. An argument for why the DP is less desirable than life in prison needs to go beyond just "it's ineffective." If the DP is ineffective at deterrence, than life in prison is equally so.

The death penalty costs a lot more to administer than life in prison. The cost in lawyers' fees alone is astronomical. The death penalty is less efficient than imprisonment. That is the main reason for rejecting it.

I think it would be atrocious. Candy stealers can easily be rehabilitated, and any sane person would agree that the punishment does not fit the crime. But now I'm stating the obvious.

It would be overkill.