The Death Penalty

[Agathon]

Still no actual argument for the death penalty.

D- from the stupid righties.

[Agathon]

The Death Penalty has been proven to have no deterrent effect. Even if you count the deterrent effect on the felon, it doesn't make for a good argument, since there are cheaper ways of ensuring that the felon doesn't reoffend (Life Imprisonment being the obvious one).

The money spent on the endless appeals and death penalty cases would be better spent putting additional police on the streets. That is something that actually does reduce crime.

Americans need to take a good hard look at themselves. Countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand have much lower homicide and violent crime rates than the US, yet the prison sentences handed down in these countries are much lighter than those handed down in the US.

Unless you believe that Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders are simply more peaceable people than Americans (which is along the same lines as saying that Blacks are inherently more violent, and just as daft as saying that), the US is doing something wrong.

A lot of it can be put down to your dumbass decision to allow relatively unrestricted gun ownership.

[Cyclotron]

No, agathon, there is a cohesive argument here - people with life in prison spend more time in prison than those being executed; thus, they may be more likely to escape, and be a danger to society.

The other argument is that death is an appropriate punishment for those who commit heinous crimes; it's an arbitrary distinction, but not necessarily illogical: if you believe a certain crime deserves death, then it follows that you will want people who commit that crime executed.

Or, if I've butchered the pro-DP position, Sloww, let me have it.

[Kuciwalker]

The Death Penalty has been proven to have no deterrent effect.

Cite? I've seen studies that go both ways.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The Death Penalty has been proven to have no deterrent effect.

Cite? I've seen studies that go both ways.

Cite? How could you ever hope to prove something like that either way? Take a poll of potential criminals?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
No, agathon, there is a cohesive argument here - people with life in prison spend more time in prison than those being executed; thus, they may be more likely to escape, and be a danger to society.

That's completely silly. At most it is an argument for increased prison security. Prison breaks are quite rare, and the escapees are almost always recaptured, and usually sooner rather than later.

The other argument is that death is an appropriate punishment for those who commit heinous crimes; it's an arbitrary distinction, but not necessarily illogical: if you believe a certain crime deserves death, then it follows that you will want people who commit that crime executed.

The problem with this is the belief that certain crimes deserve death. On what basis is that made? If it's the usual right wing basis, that means they just want to.

The concept of desert w/regard to punishment has no meaning outside of deterrence. That is why we have punishments.

Any attempt to say otherwise involves metaphysical or religious handwaving. The only decent attempt is some sort of retributivist theory, but retributivism is impractical and won't give you the results you want (without a fair bit of arbitrary tinkering).

This is just another in my series of posts pointing out that right wing ideology is based on fictions.

Social conservatives basically believe in fairies. That's the problem here: people taking as real things that manifestly aren't.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Cite? How could you ever hope to prove something like that either way? Take a poll of potential criminals?

They look at correlation between DP and murder.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Agathon
Still no actual argument for the death penalty.

D- from the stupid righties.

I don't know who you're talking about, but I know valid points have been made to support it.
Your mind is made up, but that mind calls "righties" stupid.
There are points to all political parties, which is why I go independent.
You can think what you want about that statement, too.
I know how I vote, and who I've voted for.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's completely silly. At most it is an argument for increased prison security. Prison breaks are quite rare, and the escapees are almost always recaptured, and usually sooner rather than later.

I agree, that was my argument as well, but I suppose you can't deny the basic truth that people have more time to be a "constant threat," as Sloww put it, both outside the jailhouse (escaping) and inside (abuse of other inmates and guards).

The problem with this is the belief that certain crimes deserve death. On what basis is that made? If it's the usual right wing basis, that means they just want to.

The concept of desert w/regard to punishment has no meaning outside of deterrence. That is why we have punishments.

Again, you're preaching to the choir. I believe it's an arbitrary judgement as well - but perhaps saying that such crimes don't deserve death is equally arbitrary. I would argue that we have a justice system to protect people, not to decide the just fate of criminals - I don't think it's possible to establish a definitive fit between a crime and a punishment that everybody agrees on.

This is just another in my series of posts pointing out that right wing ideology is based on fictions.

Yes, I've noticed that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They look at correlation between DP and murder.

And somehow manage to screen out all the myriad other social factors, many of which still aren't well understood, that contribute towards crime rates? Not likely.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
And somehow manage to screen out all the myriad other social factors, many of which still aren't well understood, that contribute towards crime rates?

No. Which is one of the reasons that the studies go both ways, and for Aggie to claim that it has been "disproven" is absurd.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No. Which is one of the reasons that the studies go both ways, and for Aggie to claim that it has been "disproven" is absurd.

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.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

I agree, that was my argument as well, but I suppose you can't deny the basic truth that people have more time to be a "constant threat," as Sloww put it, both outside the jailhouse (escaping) and inside (abuse of other inmates and guards).

Then let's put everyone to death in that case. In fact, let's do more than that, let's find out who is most likely to be a threat even though they have committed no crimes, and put them to death to, just to be safe.

In other words, worrying about infinitesimal risks is pointless.

The threat from prison inmates is almost nil. Some of them might do bad things to each other, but that is part of the deterrent effect of prisons. Not wanting to be assraped is a powerful deterrent. As for the guards, they have a dangerous job. But so do firefighters and police officers and soldiers and so on.

But it's moot. There are simply more effective ways to reduce the threat than the death penalty. Perhaps we could spend the money on making prisons more secure, perhaps on something else.

Again, you're preaching to the choir. I believe it's an arbitrary judgement as well - but perhaps saying that such crimes don't deserve death is equally arbitrary. I would argue that we have a justice system to protect people, not to decide the just fate of criminals - I don't think it's possible to establish a definitive fit between a crime and a punishment that everybody agrees on.

Of course that is true. But it is also true for a lot of things outside the sphere of crime. It doesn't stop us having a workable justice system.

To make the justice system better by fixing appropriate punishments requires some knowledge of which punishments would be most efficient in deterring crime, and some knowledge of what other things we could do to deter crime, and some knowledge of the likely side effects of such regimes (such that they don't compromise other values we have).

We perhaps don't know the exact numbers, but we do know that the death penalty doesn't work. We also know that it is possible to run a society like Australia or New Zealand without having extreme punishments of any sort (I think the longest sentence ever given in NZ was effectively 25 years).

So the response is: we don't know exactly what the best punishment would be for murdeer, but we know that the death penalty is worse than alternatives.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


No. Which is one of the reasons that the studies go both ways, and for Aggie to claim that it has been "disproven" is absurd.

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.

If you want to increase the frequency of death penalty applications, then be prepared to pay the enormous cost it will incur. Or you could limit appeals, in which case more innocent people would be put to death.

But that money would be better spend on things like more police, which have a proven record of lowering crime rates. Other countries have demonstrated that you don't even need severe prison sentences to have a lower crime rate.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Agathon
The threat from prison inmates is almost nil. Some of them might do bad things to each other, but that is part of the deterrent effect of prisons. Not wanting to be assraped is a powerful deterrent.

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

As for the rest of that first part, I don't feel qualified to respond. I was trying to explain, as I conceived them, the points of the other side, but I'm sure they would be better covered by pro-DP posters.

Of course that is true. But it is also true for a lot of things outside the sphere of crime. It doesn't stop us having a workable justice system.

To make the justice system better by fixing appropriate punishments requires some knowledge of which punishments would be most efficient in deterring crime, and some knowledge of what other things we could do to deter crime, and some knowledge of the likely side effects of such regimes (such that they don't compromise other values we have).

No argument here.

We perhaps don't know the exact numbers, but we do know that the death penalty doesn't work. We also know that it is possible to run a society like Australia or New Zealand without having extreme punishments of any sort (I think the longest sentence ever given in NZ was effectively 25 years).

I take it NZ doesn't have serial killers.

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.

So the response is: we don't know exactly what the best punishment would be for murdeer, but we know that the death penalty is worse than alternatives.

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.