But what is the purpose of the death penalty if it isn't deterrence?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
not everyone.
it would seem some on this forum see the world like in the movie Highlander, where those that kill are rewarded, never punished. they argue "all life is sacrosanct", conveniently forgetting that the murderer's victim had their life taken from them.
it would seem some on this forum see the world like in the movie Highlander, where those that kill are rewarded, never punished. they argue "all life is sacrosanct", conveniently forgetting that the murderer's victim had their life taken from them.
lol, is anyone gunna answer my question?Varegg wrote:
But what is the purpose of the death penalty if it isn't deterrence?
The purpose of the death penalty is to punish, give closure justice yes revenge to the victims family.
That is why they call it the death PENALTY, and not the death DETERRENCE.
Now, since deterrence is your focal point in all of this, answer the question that has been dodged by Dilbert and now you. What is a deterrence in all of these utopian societies of yours? What can deter if not ones own conscience and sense of morality?
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-14 06:51:14)
The dettering factor of the death penalty used to be that the person that would be punished was made an example of (i.e: Decapitation on the town squate etc). This way people would always be aware of the punishments presence and this would cause you to think twice before commiting a crime (of course this didn't really work as well as it should've)
The other purpose of course, that still exists, is vengeance. An eye of an eye. If you take a life you're life will be taken in return.
Now I'm not going to state how i am in favour or against the death penalty. In my opinion, killing someone in return isn't always justice, even when it is done by the government after a trial.
The other purpose of course, that still exists, is vengeance. An eye of an eye. If you take a life you're life will be taken in return.
Now I'm not going to state how i am in favour or against the death penalty. In my opinion, killing someone in return isn't always justice, even when it is done by the government after a trial.
Last edited by Kampframmer (2011-03-14 06:54:41)
The point is lowing that the more violent a society is from the top down the more violent it's citizens are ... so one can actually conclude that based on the use of the death penalty and foreign military operations you indirectly lower the threshold of people to do murder ...
It's an too easy explanation I know and doesn't include a broader perspective but there is some truth to it ...
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for punishment should equal the crime, I just don't think the death penalty is the answer ... maybe life imprisonment without the possibility of parole perhaps ...
It's an too easy explanation I know and doesn't include a broader perspective but there is some truth to it ...
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for punishment should equal the crime, I just don't think the death penalty is the answer ... maybe life imprisonment without the possibility of parole perhaps ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
No the point is from those that oppose the death penalty is, "the death penalty is not a deterrence", fine, than what is deterrence, if to deter, is your main a point of concern? How many times do I have to ask, really?Varegg wrote:
The point is lowing that the more violent a society is from the top down the more violent it's citizens are ... so one can actually conclude that based on the use of the death penalty and foreign military operations you indirectly lower the threshold of people to do murder ...
It's an too easy explanation I know and doesn't include a broader perspective but there is some truth to it ...
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for punishment should equal the crime, I just don't think the death penalty is the answer ... maybe life imprisonment without the possibility of parole perhaps ...
My argument is the death penalty may not be a deterrence but that is not the point of it in the first place. I like Kampframmer's post on how it might have used to be a deterrence however.
At the risk of starting lowing off , I'm pretty sure that's the reason crime rates in many Islamic countries is low.
Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-03-14 07:20:30)
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
I did answer what I think may be a deterrence in the post you quoted ... do you even read what I post?lowing wrote:
No the point is from those that oppose the death penalty is, "the death penalty is not a deterrence", fine, than what is deterrence, if to deter, is your main a point of concern? How many times do I have to ask, really?Varegg wrote:
The point is lowing that the more violent a society is from the top down the more violent it's citizens are ... so one can actually conclude that based on the use of the death penalty and foreign military operations you indirectly lower the threshold of people to do murder ...
It's an too easy explanation I know and doesn't include a broader perspective but there is some truth to it ...
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for punishment should equal the crime, I just don't think the death penalty is the answer ... maybe life imprisonment without the possibility of parole perhaps ...
My argument is the death penalty may not be a deterrence but that is not the point of it in the first place. I like Kampframmer's post on how it might have used to be a deterrence however.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
My opinion on the death penalty isn't really set in stone.
It has it's pro's, I'm not afraid to admit that. It's a lot cheaper to just kill a criminal instead of locking them up and feeding them for 20+ years with the risk that they'll do it all again once they're out.
Of course there is the risk that someone might be innocent, but getting locked up for 20 years when you're Innocent isn't a fun ride either.
Now i think that the death penalty has somewhat lost it's use these days, because, as i previously stated, it doesn't set an example. If we do it behind closed doors with an injection, who will give a fuck? There's plenty of criminals that don't know when you receive the death penalty. If there was a humane way to set and example with it (by humane i mean: No public decapitations) than i don't see why not?
Of course the guide lines on when to give the death penalty need to be set correctly. Only with murder (or worse) should one be killed in return. And by murder i mean: premeditated.
There Will always be loads of pro's and con's to it.
It has it's pro's, I'm not afraid to admit that. It's a lot cheaper to just kill a criminal instead of locking them up and feeding them for 20+ years with the risk that they'll do it all again once they're out.
Of course there is the risk that someone might be innocent, but getting locked up for 20 years when you're Innocent isn't a fun ride either.
Now i think that the death penalty has somewhat lost it's use these days, because, as i previously stated, it doesn't set an example. If we do it behind closed doors with an injection, who will give a fuck? There's plenty of criminals that don't know when you receive the death penalty. If there was a humane way to set and example with it (by humane i mean: No public decapitations) than i don't see why not?
Of course the guide lines on when to give the death penalty need to be set correctly. Only with murder (or worse) should one be killed in return. And by murder i mean: premeditated.
There Will always be loads of pro's and con's to it.
It's not about deterrence. Sometimes there just isn't any.
It's about the fact the criminal, legal and justice systems are not perfect. They're run by humans who base decisions on emotions as often as fact and frequently make mistakes. Guilt and innocence is based on reasonable doubt, even confessions are not always truthful. Sentences change depending on a judges mood or the make up of the jury. So due to there being no deterrent factor involved and the fact you can never be 100% certain of someone's guilt, I could never support a system that can potentially put innocent people to death.
It's about the fact the criminal, legal and justice systems are not perfect. They're run by humans who base decisions on emotions as often as fact and frequently make mistakes. Guilt and innocence is based on reasonable doubt, even confessions are not always truthful. Sentences change depending on a judges mood or the make up of the jury. So due to there being no deterrent factor involved and the fact you can never be 100% certain of someone's guilt, I could never support a system that can potentially put innocent people to death.
this is why we don't have a jury system.DrunkFace wrote:
Sentences change depending on a judges mood or the make up of the jury. .
deterrence is irrelevant with respect to the death penalty.lowing wrote:
No the point is from those that oppose the death penalty is, "the death penalty is not a deterrence", fine, than what is deterrence, if to deter, is your main a point of concern? How many times do I have to ask, really?Varegg wrote:
The point is lowing that the more violent a society is from the top down the more violent it's citizens are ... so one can actually conclude that based on the use of the death penalty and foreign military operations you indirectly lower the threshold of people to do murder ...
It's an too easy explanation I know and doesn't include a broader perspective but there is some truth to it ...
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for punishment should equal the crime, I just don't think the death penalty is the answer ... maybe life imprisonment without the possibility of parole perhaps ...
My argument is the death penalty may not be a deterrence but that is not the point of it in the first place. I like Kampframmer's post on how it might have used to be a deterrence however.
The only thing capital punishment does is contribute to the circle of violence. It is an emotional response that should not be part of the justice system.
If it is possible to execute innocent people through errors in the justice system (CSI, pathologists, cops witnesses) then it is WRONG to kill people for a crime. You can't reverse the death of a executed i.e murdered innocent.
I have asked you capital punishers before:
what would you say to your family if you were to be executed for a capital crime that you didn't commit? (through some fuckup in the system).
The price our society pays if one innocent person is executed is incalculable, it is far more than the cost of incarceration of murderers. The price we have to pay for being a civilized society is to incarcerate people.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
Oh were you saying life in prison is a deterrence? Because we have plenty of states where the death penalty is not allowed and they still have murders and contribute to our high crime rate that you love to point out. So it really doesn't look like life in prison is a deterrence either.Varegg wrote:
I did answer what I think may be a deterrence in the post you quoted ... do you even read what I post?lowing wrote:
No the point is from those that oppose the death penalty is, "the death penalty is not a deterrence", fine, than what is deterrence, if to deter, is your main a point of concern? How many times do I have to ask, really?Varegg wrote:
The point is lowing that the more violent a society is from the top down the more violent it's citizens are ... so one can actually conclude that based on the use of the death penalty and foreign military operations you indirectly lower the threshold of people to do murder ...
It's an too easy explanation I know and doesn't include a broader perspective but there is some truth to it ...
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for punishment should equal the crime, I just don't think the death penalty is the answer ... maybe life imprisonment without the possibility of parole perhaps ...
My argument is the death penalty may not be a deterrence but that is not the point of it in the first place. I like Kampframmer's post on how it might have used to be a deterrence however.
Hence why I also stated it was an too easy conclusion, there are more factors to it than that alone ... but quite comprehensive studies have been done and one of the factors and conclusions in those is that the death penalty is not a deterrence ... but that conclusion must be seen in light with the rest of the study/studies, to pick that alone out of context is wrong and I pointed that out ...lowing wrote:
Oh were you saying life in prison is a deterrence? Because we have plenty of states where the death penalty is not allowed and they still have murders and contribute to our high crime rate that you love to point out. So it really doesn't look like life in prison is a deterrence either.Varegg wrote:
I did answer what I think may be a deterrence in the post you quoted ... do you even read what I post?lowing wrote:
No the point is from those that oppose the death penalty is, "the death penalty is not a deterrence", fine, than what is deterrence, if to deter, is your main a point of concern? How many times do I have to ask, really?
My argument is the death penalty may not be a deterrence but that is not the point of it in the first place. I like Kampframmer's post on how it might have used to be a deterrence however.
In addition to that I didn't single out the high crime/murder rates in the US as you seem to think, I posted on a more general basis as you may notice if you read my posts again ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I don't think the death penalty contributes to the "circle of violence", I think it is the end to an individuals crime. nothing more nothing less.Stubbee wrote:
deterrence is irrelevant with respect to the death penalty.lowing wrote:
No the point is from those that oppose the death penalty is, "the death penalty is not a deterrence", fine, than what is deterrence, if to deter, is your main a point of concern? How many times do I have to ask, really?Varegg wrote:
The point is lowing that the more violent a society is from the top down the more violent it's citizens are ... so one can actually conclude that based on the use of the death penalty and foreign military operations you indirectly lower the threshold of people to do murder ...
It's an too easy explanation I know and doesn't include a broader perspective but there is some truth to it ...
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for punishment should equal the crime, I just don't think the death penalty is the answer ... maybe life imprisonment without the possibility of parole perhaps ...
My argument is the death penalty may not be a deterrence but that is not the point of it in the first place. I like Kampframmer's post on how it might have used to be a deterrence however.
The only thing capital punishment does is contribute to the circle of violence. It is an emotional response that should not be part of the justice system.
If it is possible to execute innocent people through errors in the justice system (CSI, pathologists, cops witnesses) then it is WRONG to kill people for a crime. You can't reverse the death of a executed i.e murdered innocent.
I have asked you capital punishers before:
what would you say to your family if you were to be executed for a capital crime that you didn't commit? (through some fuckup in the system).
The price our society pays if one innocent person is executed is incalculable, it is far more than the cost of incarceration of murderers. The price we have to pay for being a civilized society is to incarcerate people.
It is an emotional response owed to the criminal by the victim and the victims family. I feel they deserve that closure.
We have talked about this, with todays science and technology, it is very hard for someone to get away with murder. This technology is setting people free as well as convicting.
What could you say? Perhaps the same thing you would say if you locked them up for life, have them die of natural causes in jail then found out they were innocent?
You keep speaking of deterrence, are you looking for a deterrence for crime in our prison system or not? If so what might that be? A direct questionVaregg wrote:
Hence why I also stated it was an too easy conclusion, there are more factors to it than that alone ... but quite comprehensive studies have been done and one of the factors and conclusions in those is that the death penalty is not a deterrence ... but that conclusion must be seen in light with the rest of the study/studies, to pick that alone out of context is wrong and I pointed that out ...lowing wrote:
Oh were you saying life in prison is a deterrence? Because we have plenty of states where the death penalty is not allowed and they still have murders and contribute to our high crime rate that you love to point out. So it really doesn't look like life in prison is a deterrence either.Varegg wrote:
I did answer what I think may be a deterrence in the post you quoted ... do you even read what I post?
In addition to that I didn't single out the high crime/murder rates in the US as you seem to think, I posted on a more general basis as you may notice if you read my posts again ...
So here we have it.
the major issues for anti death penalty is, " it is not a deterrence" ,yet none of you will tell me what a deterrence is supposed to be.
The other argument is, "life in prison is worse than death", yet no one can explain :
1. why the vast majority of death row inmates fight and appeal to stay alive instead of being put to death.
2. how a life time of routine, and comfort zone and zero responsibility, free meals, free gym free library, free college is supposed to be worse than death.
Where is your argument for these statements of yours? I get none, what I get is, stats about guns, and stats about which country is the most violent. Nothing addressing these arguments.
the major issues for anti death penalty is, " it is not a deterrence" ,yet none of you will tell me what a deterrence is supposed to be.
The other argument is, "life in prison is worse than death", yet no one can explain :
1. why the vast majority of death row inmates fight and appeal to stay alive instead of being put to death.
2. how a life time of routine, and comfort zone and zero responsibility, free meals, free gym free library, free college is supposed to be worse than death.
Where is your argument for these statements of yours? I get none, what I get is, stats about guns, and stats about which country is the most violent. Nothing addressing these arguments.
By deterrence i think they mean that people will think twice before commiting a crime because of the punishment.lowing wrote:
So here we have it.
the major issues for anti death penalty is, " it is not a deterrence" ,yet none of you will tell me what a deterrence is supposed to be.
The other argument is, "life in prison is worse than death", yet no one can explain :
1. why the vast majority of death row inmates fight and appeal to stay alive instead of being put to death.
2. how a life time of routine, and comfort zone and zero responsibility, free meals, free gym free library, free college is supposed to be worse than death.
Where is your argument for these statements of yours? I get none, what I get is, stats about guns, and stats about which country is the most violent. Nothing addressing these arguments.
And i can think of a lot worse things than life in prison, it's not a bout giving these people the worst punishment (if we would we would give em a life-long torture session and a slow painful death at the end) but it's about justice and what is fair. The death penalty tends to be fair as it's almost always an eye for an eye.
Basically, it is generally accepted that prison/capital punishment has three objectives:lowing wrote:
.........and we are talking about deterrence. All I keep hearing is how the death penalty is not a deterrence. Well if deterrence is the goal, and the death penalty is not a deterrence, and neither is a conscience, what is? Ya see, I want to punish the fucker, everyone else keeps mentioning deterrence, fine, so what is a deterrence?Varegg wrote:
Not drawing any conclusions at all, just saying that others have already ...
There are studies that concludes the above mentioned in addition with countries that have a high millitary activity also have a higher murder rate ...
1) Remove a potential threat from society
2) Work to avoid the criminal from repeating his offense
3) Work as a deterrent
In working as a deterrent, it is meant to instill some sort of "fear of the law", make you afraid of committing a crime because of the consequences.
The death penalty quite obviously covers all three points: the threat is removed, he cannot repeat his offense (seeing as he's, well, dead) and the threat of death should, in theory, scare people off from killing people.
However, the debate goes to whether or not the death penalty is a better alternative to punishing people than prison. And seeing as there is a general idea that we'd rather not kill people, the debate falls upon whether or not it works better as a deterrent than prison - being "just as good" doesn't quite cut it.
Now, that's a debate that has no definite answer, but there are several arguments against its effectiveness. Case studies show that there is little difference in homicide rates between extremely similar states where one has the death penalty and one doesn't. Furthermore, there has been little to no change in the rate of murders when states have gone away from the death penalty or re-installed it. Obviously there is no concrete answer to this, but if it is true that the death penalty doesn't work better as a deterrent than prison - why should we kill them? Wouldn't it then be better to give them a chance to contribute to society and do something positive with their lives?
The only points I can see to that question are ideas of justice, eye for an eye and closure for the victims. I've already pointed out my views on that - I think it's silly, primitive and a waste of human resources. The crime is done, and we sit there with two options. 1) Kill him. 2) Put him in prison, and help him back into society to contribute.
I don't know about you, but it seems to me that we'd be much better off with the latter. And we avoid killing someone, hurray.
Life sentences without parole (often the alternative to death sentences) kind of torpedo that theory. They can't really contribute to society if they're locked in prison for the remainder of their natural lives...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yeah, I'm against that as well (as mentioned somewhere earlier).FEOS wrote:
Life sentences without parole (often the alternative to death sentences) kind of torpedo that theory. They can't really contribute to society if they're locked in prison for the remainder of their natural lives...
But there are some who cannot be rehabilitated.Jenspm wrote:
Yeah, I'm against that as well (as mentioned somewhere earlier).FEOS wrote:
Life sentences without parole (often the alternative to death sentences) kind of torpedo that theory. They can't really contribute to society if they're locked in prison for the remainder of their natural lives...
What then?
And yeah...cba to read all those pages...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
It is the sad truth that some people might never be fit to leave prison, but that should be a running evaluation rather than a decision taken when they're 20. No-one is in the position to say that someone "will never change", in my opinion.FEOS wrote:
But there are some who cannot be rehabilitated.Jenspm wrote:
Yeah, I'm against that as well (as mentioned somewhere earlier).FEOS wrote:
Life sentences without parole (often the alternative to death sentences) kind of torpedo that theory. They can't really contribute to society if they're locked in prison for the remainder of their natural lives...
What then?
And yeah...cba to read all those pages...
tell me if you'd like the monsters who committed this crime to ever, ever ever roam the streets again:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … =rss_metro
I swear if they don't get at least life w/o parole, I'm voting out my current state legislators and governor in the next election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … =rss_metro
I swear if they don't get at least life w/o parole, I'm voting out my current state legislators and governor in the next election.
Ugh, at least try to contribute to the discussion rather than just posting the same kind of stories that were posted 10 pages ago.
I'm off to bed now, but anyway: if they can roam the streets again without being a threat, but an asset, to society, then yes, of course I fucking want them to.
I'm off to bed now, but anyway: if they can roam the streets again without being a threat, but an asset, to society, then yes, of course I fucking want them to.