If the death penalty is a deterrent....

[CFLarsen]

I can see two reasons for the death penalty: Justice and deterrent. Now, there have been a lot of discussions on just how much justice there is in taking a life for a life, or sometimes not even for a life, and I really don't think anyone will be able to sway the other party to a measurable degree. So, this thread is not about that.

What I'm curious about is this: If you think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, why not have public executions?

This is certainly not the case today: In fact, it has long since been illegal to photograph or record anything from an execution. People want to see criminals dead, but they don't want to watch them die.

If the death penalty is a deterrent, wouldn't it be more effective as a deterrent, if people could actually see what went on? If you want to scare people into not committing crimes - which is what a deterrent is - then why not go all the way?

Which, of course, leads to the next, logical step: Why not have the execution methods as gruesome as possible?

Drawing and quartering. The Virgin of Nuremberg. The garotte. The Guillotine. And so on.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What I'm curious about is this: If you think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, why not have public executions?

They are, aren't they - at least to some extent? I thought the victim's/victims' relatives - and some news reporters - could watch, if they wanted to.

[Ian Osborne]

A guy in Iran has just been flogged and hanged in public for child murder.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Matabiri
They are, aren't they - at least to some extent? I thought the victim's/victims' relatives - and some news reporters - could watch, if they wanted to.

Could be. But I don't see where the deterrent comes in. That's the justice part.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
A guy in Iran has just been flogged and hanged in public for child murder.

Yes, I saw the pictures as well.

That's what triggered this thread. Pun intended.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Could be. But I don't see where the deterrent comes in. That's the justice part.

See what you mean. It's common knowledge though that there is a death penalty (at least in some, uncivilised countries) and regular news reports on them being carried out - isn't that public enough for deterrence?

[HarryKeogh]

does anyone still honestly think the death penalty, at least in relation to other punishment such as life in prison, is a deterrent? the facts seem to say no or at best it is marginally better than long prison terms.

I think most people support it out of a sense of revenge. Although I am strongly against the death penalty there is a part of me, that ugly, dark part of me that also thinks the theme song from "9 to 5" is a catchy tune, that is glad to see the sickest crimes be punished brutally (like that man in Iran who raped and killed 15+ kids. I think to torture someone like that is wrong but I'm also not shedding any tears for him).

As for making the executions as gruesomes as possible, I'm sure in most countries it goes against their constitution (at least here it does) and even in Iran there were Iranian bystanders who were embarassed at the gruesomeness and spectacle of it all. That may reduce crime slightly (I say slightly because I think most criminals don't think they will be caught...they tend to be stupid, thankfully) as would making prison conditions as uncomfortable as possible but I think most societies realize maintaining our humanity is more important and beneficial to society than any small reduction in crime this would provide.

And let's face it, if you're a sick enough bastard to kill 15 kids I don't think any threat of punishment would make you stop.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Matabiri
See what you mean. It's common knowledge though that there is a death penalty (at least in some, uncivilised countries) and regular news reports on them being carried out - isn't that public enough for deterrence?

That's what I am asking. Seeing is believing, right? If you want to scare people, you have to show them what will happen if they fall out of line.

You can't just threaten with something. The threat has to be real.

Or, that's how the theory goes...

[Zep]

If you are looking for purely a revenge motive, better to keep the convict alive and subject them to punishment then. To kill them simply releases them from punishment.

But to stick to the intended topic, without looking for the stats somewhere I saw them before, the death penalty, in and of itself, is no real deterrent to the crimes it is punishment for. Even the threat (and carrying out) of public punishment and execution did not seem to have deterred the Iranian chap from any of his henious crimes.

Even if the crims even bother to take stock of the consequences while committing the crimes, they will rationalise their actions with the "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" thinking. That is, if stealing gets you executed as does murder, why not just kill people to make the stealing easier.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
does anyone still honestly think the death penalty, at least in relation to other punishment such as life in prison, is a deterrent? the facts seem to say no or at best it is marginally better than long prison terms.

I am asking those who do think the death penalty is a deterrent.

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
I think most people support it out of a sense of revenge.

That's another discussion: How much does revenge enter the concept of justice?

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
And let's face it, if you're a sick enough bastard to kill 15 kids I don't think any threat of punishment would make you stop.

So, I take it you are of the opinion that this won't act as a deterrent. I am interested to hear from those who do think the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Zep
If you are looking for purely a revenge motive, better to keep the convict alive and subject them to punishment then. To kill them simply releases them from punishment.

Yes, that's my standpoint as well.

Originally posted by Zep
But to stick to the intended topic, without looking for the stats somewhere I saw them before, the death penalty, in and of itself, is no real deterrent to the crimes it is punishment for. Even the threat (and carrying out) of public punishment and execution did not seem to have deterred the Iranian chap from any of his henious crimes.

OK, but that's not sticking to the intended topic. :) I am looking for people who think it does act as a deterrent.

Originally posted by Zep
Even if the crims even bother to take stock of the consequences while committing the crimes, they will rationalise their actions with the "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" thinking. That is, if stealing gets you executed as does murder, why not just kill people to make the stealing easier.

English does have the weirdest aphorisms....

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, I take it you are of the opinion that this won't act as a deterrent. I am interested to hear from those who do think the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

I'm glad to see that you like to open up your threads for healthy debate.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
I'm glad to see that you like to open up your threads for healthy debate.

Thank you!

[Ed]

It seems to me that if one is deterrable there are numerous reasons to be deterred and the promise of a horrible death, while nice, will not add to the deterrance arsenal appreciably.

There was an interesting book on executions in England (whose name, as so much else, escapes me) which pointed out that given the ubiquity of hanging as a punishment there was never any shortage of candidates.

While I am against executions, per se. there is a certain something that attends having a really evil person put away. I guess that it is basically revenge but also a reflection of outrage that a life sentence cannot assuage. Didn't we have this conversation recently? And Claus, didn't you have some nutsy contention about these malfactors wanting to commit suicide or something along those lines?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I can see two reasons for the death penalty: Justice and deterrent. You left one out: Irreparable breach of the social contract.

This amounts to a derail, since it goes off in another direction from the OP, but I think it's important to consider.

Torts and most crimes are not punishable by death because the damage done to the individual (in the case of a tort) or to society (in the case of a crime) is not so severe that it justifies imposing a disproportionate punishment. We don't impose the death penalty for robbing a bank for the same reason we don't jail people for double-parking: the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. Justice is not served when punishment is too harsh, nor when it is too light.

We, as society, recognize this intuitively, if not intellectually, whenever we hear of a drunk driver killing a pedestrian and getting off with a fine and a suspended sentence, or of someone being caught with a few ounces of marijuana and being sent to prison for life under a "three-strikes-and-out" law. We recognize that justice has not been served in either case, because the punishment is ridiculously light or ridiculously harsh.

We object to these abuses because we intuitively, if not intellectually, understand and agree to the concept of the social contract - that we give up certain liberties in exchange for receiving the benefits of living in civilized society. We also expect that when we transgress that contract, we will be treated fairly - not receiving punishment that is too harsh or too light.

But what do we do when someone irreparably breaches the social contract? What happens when someone demonstrates that he is too wilfully dangerous to be allowed in our midst? We lock him up, of course - not just as punishment, not just as deterrent, but for our own protection.

But are not some crimes so heinous that society is justified in concluding that the criminal has irreparably breached the social contract? That the criminal, by his actions, has notified society he has no intention of being bound by any of its restrictions, and if allowed to roam free in our midst, would continue to repeatedly and grievously harm society?

What does society owe this kind of criminal? Why is it obligated to keep him alive?
What I'm curious about is this: If you think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, why not have public executions?Because, while there's no question it is a deterrent, nobody knows how much of a deterrent it is. Murderers serving life sentences only because their state has no death penalty have been known to kill again; if the murderer had been executed after his first murder, the odds are overwhelming that he would not have committed the second (the recidivism rate among executed murderers is zero).

Beyond that, though, how much of a deterrent is the death penalty? I don't know, and I don't think anybody knows. Hence, I am opposed to this...

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/i/drawn%20and%20quartered.jpg

...because it unjustifiably frightens the children.

Which, I guess, is a deterrent...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
And Claus, didn't you have some nutsy contention about these malfactors wanting to commit suicide or something along those lines?

I don't recall having nutsy contentions. :)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BPSCG
You left one out: Irreparable breach of the social contract.

[snip]

But what do we do when someone irreparably breaches the social contract? What happens when someone demonstrates that he is too wilfully dangerous to be allowed in our midst? We lock him up, of course - not just as punishment, not just as deterrent, but for our own protection.

But are not some crimes so heinous that society is justified in concluding that the criminal has irreparably breached the social contract? That the criminal, by his actions, has notified society he has no intention of being bound by any of its restrictions, and if allowed to roam free in our midst, would continue to repeatedly and grievously harm society?
How is this not covered under the broad category of "Justice"? You can call it whatever you like, but you are saying that it is not just to allow some people to live. What does society owe this kind of criminal? Why is it obligated to keep him alive?
Because it is wrong to kill people. Because, while there's no question it is a deterrent, nobody knows how much of a deterrent it is.
I disagree. how many potential murderers do you think sit and say, "well, I think I'll kill that dude because I'll only do life in prison. If there were the death penalty..." I think that murders come down to two broad categories: Murders that are done in the heat of the moment, where considerations of punishment are not in the killers mind at all; and murders that are planned in which the killer does not think they will get caught. I don't think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent in either case.
Murderers serving life sentences only because their state has no death penalty have been known to kill again; if the murderer had been executed after his first murder, the odds are overwhelming that he would not have committed the second (the recidivism rate among executed murderers is zero). Recidivism and deterrence are 2 separate issues. The odds are also overwhelming that if the same person was kept in high security prison without parole that he wouldn't kill again either.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Thanz

Because it is wrong to kill people.[


No, it is not wrong, per se. It is the circumstances that can make it wrong. We kill people regularly, much of this activity goes unnoticed, I am afraid.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BPSCG
What does society owe this kind of criminal? Why is it obligated to keep him alive?

Those questions fall under the category "Does a society have the right to take a person's life". That's not the question I asked.

Originally posted by BPSCG
...because it unjustifiably frightens the children.

Why "unjustifiably"? Get'em while they're young?

[IllegalArgument]

I'm against the death penalty only on the principal that we could accidently put an innocent person to death.

[crimresearch]

"Because it is wrong to kill people"

Says whom?

Claus announced plans to kill all the air marshalls he sees, and I doubt if that has had any deterrent effect on any of them.

[BPSCG]

What does society owe this kind of criminal? Why is it obligated to keep him alive?Originally posted by Thanz
Because it is wrong to kill people.Always?
Because, while there's no question it is a deterrent, nobody knows how much of a deterrent it is.
I disagree. You disagree in that you believe it is not a deterrent at all or you disagree in that you believe it is known how much of a deterrent it is?

If the former, again, people serving life sentences for murder have gone and murdered again. People who have murdered and later been released have murdered again. But people who have been executed have never murdered again.

If the latter, then how much of a deterrence do you believe it is?
how many potential murderers do you think sit and say, "well, I think I'll kill that dude because I'll only do life in prison. I don't know, as I stipulated before. But I do know that murderers who have been executed never murder again, while those who have not, sometimes do. So obviously, the death penalty does serve some deterrence.
If there were the death penalty..." I think that murders come down to two broad categories: Murders that are done in the heat of the moment, where considerations of punishment are not in the killers mind at all; and murders that are planned in which the killer does not think they will get caught. I don't think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent in either case.It may not act as a deterrent for the first murder. but when applied, it acts as a perfect deterrence to any subsequent ones.

The threat of the death penalty may have little deterrent effect - again, nobody knows for sure, and that includes both you and me.

But the imposition of the death penalty works perfectly as a deterrent - for that person.

Maybe we need to have Claus clarify which one he means.

[Ian Osborne]

Read this (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/chamberlain/chamberlainhome.html) and tell me you believe in the death penalty...

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Those questions fall under the category "Does a society have the right to take a person's life". That's not the question I asked.I know. I said it was a derail, and maybe I should have started my own thread. Sorry (it's still an important issue, though, and when you think about it, should be settled before we settle yours. I think we'll finally reach universal agreement on the issue around the third or frouth millenium. Maybe the fifth.).
Why "unjustifiably"? Get'em while they're young? For God's sake, think of the children!!!

Seriously, though, it sounds like you think public executions would serve as a deterrent for impressionable young minds.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Read this (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/chamberlain/chamberlainhome.html) and tell me you believe in the death penalty... Bitch framed the dingoes.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by crimresearch
"Because it is wrong to kill people"

Says whom? Most, if not all, civilizations since the dawn of time.

Are you saying that it is not wrong to kill people? Then why punish anyone for it?

Claus announced plans to kill all the air marshalls he sees, to be fair, I think it was anyone with a gun on a plane. It's just that most of those will be marshalls. and I doubt if that has had any deterrent effect on any of them. I should think not.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Always?
As a starting point, yes. I am able to be persuaded that a particular killing was necessary or justified - the easiest example being self defence. Outside of that, you will need a lot to convince me. The threat of the death penalty may have little deterrent effect - again, nobody knows for sure, and that includes both you and me.

But the imposition of the death penalty works perfectly as a deterrent - for that person.

Maybe we need to have Claus clarify which one he means. You have snipped the part where I addressed this. I think that Claus must be taken to mean general deterrence (the public at large) rather than specific deterrence (one offender who is caught). Otherwise, it would be like asking :"Do you think that dead people kill other people?" and it belongs in the paranormal forum for a lively discussion of zombies.

[crimresearch]

I'm just trying to see if you are saying that it is wrong, and needs punishment , when the killings are accidental, or in self defense.

Or is it more that *some* killings are wrong?

'All killings are always wrong', is a very different proposition from 'Some killings are sometimes wrong'.

[c0rbin]

As cruel and unusual as it is to take a life as punishment, which of the following is more cruel and unusual:

1) Injecting the subject with a drug that puts him to sleep and then a second which stops his heart.

2) Parading the subject in front of a mob and then squeazing the life out of him slowly. What of the family of the subject, forced to watch their child mutilated and humiliated for the crowd?

I am suggesting that horrible death from executions past have not deterred those who would commit murder throughout history. So why should a state choose a messy spectacle over a _more_ human and clinical execution?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Thanz
As a starting point, yes. I am able to be persuaded that a particular killing was necessary or justified - the easiest example being self defence. Outside of that, you will need a lot to convince me.Now you've confused me. Which do you believe - that killing is always wrong? Or that it is not always wrong (again, this is off-topic, really...)?
You have snipped the part where I addressed this. I think that Claus must be taken to mean general deterrence (the public at large) rather than specific deterrence (one offender who is caught). Otherwise, it would be like asking :"Do you think that dead people kill other people?" and it belongs in the paranormal forum for a lively discussion of zombies. Well, let's ask Claus what he thinks, shall we, since I'm prepared to acknowledge that he's the wolrd's leading authority in that area.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
does anyone still honestly think the death penalty, at least in relation to other punishment such as life in prison, is a deterrent? the facts seem to say no or at best it is marginally better than long prison terms.



George Bush has gone on record as saying he thinks it is a deterrent.

[crimresearch]

"Well, let's ask Claus what he thinks, shall we, since I'm prepared to acknowledge that he's the wolrd's leading authority in that area."


I would tend to agree...as with so many of Claus' woo-woo beliefs, he has projected it onto other people, and asked them to defend his silly notions about deterrence.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I'm just trying to see if you are saying that it is wrong, and needs punishment , when the killings are accidental, or in self defense.

Or is it more that *some* killings are wrong?

'All killings are always wrong', is a very different proposition from 'Some killings are sometimes wrong'.
I'll admit that my first response was somewhat glib. But it is the starting point for the discussion. As I said in another post, a self defence killing may be necessary/justified.

I think that "some killings are sometimes wrong" is too wishy-washy. Some killings are always wrong.

Generally speaking, killing is wrong. If there is a killing, the burden is on the killer to prove that the killing was not wrong. I believe that to be a very high burden.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Thanz
I'll admit that my first response was somewhat glib. But it is the starting point for the discussion. Not really; the discussion is about whether - if we accept the premise that the death penalty serves as a deterrent - we should have public executions or not.

I derailed the thread with my first post (my bad). If you'd like to start another thread on that topic, I'll be happy to meet you there.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Thanz
Most, if not all, civilizations since the dawn of time.

Most, if not all, civilisations since the dawn of time have killed people when it was expedient to do so, and frequently when it was not.

Edit for spelling

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Thanz
I disagree. how many potential murderers do you think sit and say, "well, I think I'll kill that dude because I'll only do life in prison. If there were the death penalty..."

The number, though admittedly small is greater than zero. There have been several reported instances where some poverty-stricken elderly individual killed someone in a state known to not have capital punishment specifically so that they could live out their remaining years in a prison system that provides free cable TV, free medical care, and three hot squares a day.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Maybe we need to have Claus clarify which one he means.

By all means.

The first. But not just for the person who committed the crime, but also for the rest of society. That's where the "public" comes in.

I thought that was obvious, but obviously, it wasn't...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BPSCG
For God's sake, think of the children!!!

They watch Jerry Springer and Oprah, what could be worse? :D

Originally posted by BPSCG
Seriously, though, it sounds like you think public executions would serve as a deterrent for impressionable young minds.

No, I am asking if those who believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent also think there should be public executions.

[ma1ic3]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I can see two reasons for the death penalty: Justice and deterrent.

And can potentially save time, space, and money!

Originally posted by Thanz
If there is a killing, the burden is on the killer to prove that the killing was not wrong. I believe that to be a very high burden.


That doesn't make any sense. The only evidence that you can get is evidence that when you killed someone, you killed them for a reason that is accepted as being "ok" by you. You can't get evidence that it is ok, that is an opinion. Unless of course you're going to prove that what you did wasn't wrong by quoting a dictionary, which tends to have very circular definitions.

This is probably the reason why the topic is about whether it is a deterrent or not, because there is actually evidence that can be acquired for or against that.

[TragicMonkey]

I don't think it matters how gruesome or messy you make the execution; it's simply not going to deter anyone. People commit murder because they lack sympathy for their fellow man--they do not put themselves in his place, and do not question their action in the light of whether it is right or wrong. If they did, they wouldn't be committing murder to start with.

So, stick a severed head on a pole, and make 'em look at it. Why would they care? If they don't put themselves in their victim's place, why would they do it for a total stranger, another murderer?

[ma1ic3]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
So, stick a severed head on a pole, and make 'em look at it. Why would they care? If they don't put themselves in their victim's place, why would they do it for a total stranger, another murderer?

Reminds me of Vlad Tepes. I think his gruesome method worked because of superstition though, that, and what he did was very shocking.

The chances of getting caught going up will continue to deter people more and more. But I would think that the effects of the severity of the punishment itself would cap out a lot earlier. If the punishment for what you are going to do is life in prison, you probably aren't thinking, "well, it's not death, so I'll take the chance of getting caught". That's a really ****** punishment, you already know that you don't want to get caught. The only thing to think about at that point is your chances of getting caught. And if you're just not thinking at all, then neither one matters.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by ma1ic3
That doesn't make any sense. The only evidence that you can get is evidence that when you killed someone, you killed them for a reason that is accepted as being "ok" by you. It is only "me" if you are trying to convince "me". But how does this not make sense? It is the way criminal law works. If you kill someone, unless you can convince someone that it was self defence, or justified in some other way, you are going to jail.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Thanz
It is only "me" if you are trying to convince "me". But how does this not make sense? It is the way criminal law works. If you kill someone, unless you can convince someone that it was self defence, or justified in some other way, you are going to jail.

Assuming you are caught...

[CBL4]

I can think of one case where it clearly is a deterrent. If a lifer in prison commits murder, I would think it would clearly be appropriate to execute him. What is the alternative punishment? A second life sentence?

This is the only time I would advocate the death penalty. For an innocent man to be put to death, it would require two false convictions of a major crimes. I believe this is possible in our injustice system but I hope it is unlikely enough to allow the execution.

Another time when it could be deterence is if we have a terrorist in jail who is part of group that frequently takes hostages to get prisoners released. His death would prevent crimes by his terrorist buddies.

CBL

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by CBL4
Another time when it could be deterence is if we have a terrorist in jail who is part of group that frequently takes hostages to get prisoners released. His death would prevent crimes by his terrorist buddies.

CBL

but then we open up another ethical can of worms; killing someone because of another person's/group's actions.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Kodiak
The number, though admittedly small is greater than zero. There have been several reported instances where some poverty-stricken elderly individual killed someone in a state known to not have capital punishment specifically so that they could live out their remaining years in a prison system that provides free cable TV, free medical care, and three hot squares a day.

If that's true, then that is strong evidence in favor of deterrence. Do you have any evidence that the claim is true?

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Ladewig
If that's true, then that is strong evidence in favor of deterrence. Do you have any evidence that the claim is true?

With 15 or 20 years of mandatory appeals an elderly person could pull this off in a death penalty state and still finish his life without being executed.

Like you, I would be interested in knowing how many times something like this has happened. I could imagine it's an incredibly small number.

[CFLarsen]

I may have missed it, but has anyone gone on record to say that they support the death penalty?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Ladewig
If that's true, then that is strong evidence in favor of deterrence. Do you have any evidence that the claim is true?


Tokyo man says he stabbed woman so he could go to prison (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=2&id=320511)

A transsexual who said he tried to rape a woman so he could go to prison and have a sex change operation has been jailed for life. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3161209.stm)


Heinz Josef Bruhl told authorities he set the fire so he could go to prison and get shelter. (http://newspapers.mywebpal.com/partners/754/public/news478335.html)

Todd Van Dorn is clear on his motive for stabbing an Oregon State Hospital psychiatrist in the neck with a pen. He was betting that the assault would get him out of the hospital's forensics program and into the state penitentiary, an attempt that ultimately failed. (http://www.katu.com/salem/story.asp?ID=73672)

I did some googling. This is what I came up with.

MattJ

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I may have missed it, but has anyone gone on record to say that they support the death penalty?

I support the death penalty.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I support the death penalty. Me, too. But only for wrong-thinking people... Oh, wait a minute, that means I support the death penalty for hate crimes. I'm confused; is that politically correct or not?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Me, too. But only for wrong-thinking people... Oh, wait a minute, that means I support the death penalty for hate crimes. I'm confused; is that politically correct or not?

Considering where we each sit on the political spectrum, I think it's fine... ;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I may have missed it, but has anyone gone on record to say that they support the death penalty?

I support it in limited cases. Serial killers, child molesters that kill, terrorists....

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Me, too. But only for wrong-thinking people... Oh, wait a minute, that means I support the death penalty for hate crimes. I'm confused; is that politically correct or not?

Moreover, if you support the death penalty for hate crimes, and it's not PC, are you committing a hate crime yourself, and deserving of the death penalty?

For your own safety, best stick to making up new lyrics for My Fair Lady, Beeps. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I support the death penalty.

Do you support public executions?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Me, too. But only for wrong-thinking people... Oh, wait a minute, that means I support the death penalty for hate crimes. I'm confused; is that politically correct or not?

Do you support the death penalty or not?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
I support it in limited cases. Serial killers, child molesters that kill, terrorists....

Do you support public executions?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you support public executions?

I support the death penalty but not public executions.

[ma1ic3]

Originally posted by Thanz
It is only "me" if you are trying to convince "me". But how does this not make sense? It is the way criminal law works. If you kill someone, unless you can convince someone that it was self defence, or justified in some other way, you are going to jail.

Yes. Which you can get evidence for. The law has already made it pretty clear what they consider to be wrong. There stance on what is and isn't wrong however, isn't something you get evidence for. Instead, you can only get evidence that what you did isn't what they consider to be wrong.

And btw, the burden of proof wouldn't be on the killer in this instance. You're innocent until proven guilty.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I may have missed it, but has anyone gone on record to say that they support the death penalty?

Yes. And I'd test vaccines on them.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you support the death penalty or not? Yes, for the most heinous crimes. I also support allowing a defendant to submit any evidence of actual innocence after conviction, regardless of any statutes of limitations.

[crimresearch]

Back to the death penalty as deterrence...

The word can be slapped onto a number of results, such as claiming that cleaning up a neighborhood has deterred criminals in general.

In the context of deterring an individual from committing a specific crime through the threat of harsh punishment, deterrence seems to have produced less than stellar results...

The ASC's position on the matter reflects the view that "The death penalty’s questionable efficacy as a deterrent can be linked to several factors. First, in order for any punishment to deter crime, the punishment must be certain and swift.
This is clearly not the case in the U.S., as the vast majority of homicides do not result in a death sentence and, when they are imposed, it takes many years for the sentence to be carried out. ....
...Furthermore, one must also assume that the types of criminal acts that can be so punished are rational and premeditated. In fact, the opposite is often the case – murder is often a crime of passion, crimes committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or criminal acts committed by individuals afflicted with a serious mental condition (Glaser, 1977). None of these crimes can be readily deterred."
http://www.justiceblind.com/death/ascpolicypaper.html


But if CLaus wants to post the scientific research from whence he got the premise about the death penalty being an effective real world deterrent, I'd love to look at them.

Somebody be sure and let me know when that happens... m'kay?
;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you support public executions?

Other than the current system? No.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ed
I support it in limited cases. Serial killers, child molesters that kill, terrorists....

I hope that it is understood that I meant I favor the execution of only those found guilty of capital crimes who fall into the current legal strictures.

[CFLarsen]

Grammatron, ma1ic3, BPSCG, Kodiak,

Why don't you support public executions?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by crimresearch
But if CLaus wants to post the scientific research from whence he got the premise about the death penalty being an effective real world deterrent, I'd love to look at them.

Somebody be sure and let me know when that happens... m'kay?
;)

Perhaps if you read what I actually wrote, it would help the debate. I didn't say that the death penalty was an effective real world deterrent. I asked those who think it is what they think about public executions.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Grammatron, ma1ic3, BPSCG, Kodiak,

Why don't you support public executions?

I don't see the purpose...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Perhaps if you read what I actually wrote, it would help the debate. I didn't say that the death penalty was an effective real world deterrent. I asked those who think it is what they think about public executions.

Where did I say I thought the death penalty was an effective real world deterrent?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I don't see the purpose...

Because....?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Where did I say I thought the death penalty was an effective real world deterrent?

Where did I say you did?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Where did I say you did?

I thought you were including me when you stated: "I didn't say that the death penalty was an effective real world deterrent. I asked those who think it is what they think about public executions."

Forgive me if I was mistaken.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Because....?

Because what?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Tokyo man says he stabbed woman so he could go to prison (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=2&id=320511)

A transsexual who said he tried to rape a woman so he could go to prison and have a sex change operation has been jailed for life. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3161209.stm)


Heinz Josef Bruhl told authorities he set the fire so he could go to prison and get shelter. (http://newspapers.mywebpal.com/partners/754/public/news478335.html)

Todd Van Dorn is clear on his motive for stabbing an Oregon State Hospital psychiatrist in the neck with a pen. He was betting that the assault would get him out of the hospital's forensics program and into the state penitentiary, an attempt that ultimately failed. (http://www.katu.com/salem/story.asp?ID=73672)


I did some googling. This is what I came up with.

MattJ

The claim wasn't that people commit crimes for the express reason of going to prison. The claim was that poverty-stricken people who live in states that do not have capital punishment commit murder for no other reason than to go prison.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I thought you were including me when you stated: "I didn't say that the death penalty was an effective real world deterrent. I asked those who think it is what they think about public executions."

Forgive me if I was mistaken.

You're forgiven.

[Ladewig]

double post

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Because what?

What is wrong with public executions?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What is wrong with public executions?

I didn't say there was anything wrong with them, but I also do not see how/why they would be better than the current system.

[ma1ic3]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I didn't say there was anything wrong with them, but I also do not see how/why they would be better than the current system.

That's my stance on it as well.

Considering how many people there are, and how many murders take place, I suppose someone, somewhere, would be deterred by it. But I think that since everyone already knows that there are consequences for taking someones life, that its wouldn't have a noticable impact.

[rikzilla]

I support the death penalty.

I do not support public executions.

-z

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Grammatron, ma1ic3, BPSCG, Kodiak,

Why don't you support public executions?

Well, like others have said I do not see the point in them, they add nothing and probably will end up costing more.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Ladewig
The claim wasn't that people commit crimes for the express reason of going to prison. The claim was that poverty-stricken people who live in states that do not have capital punishment commit murder for no other reason than to go prison.

I did some googling. That was what I came up with.

Here (http://www.uni.edu/vanworme/murder-suicide.html) is some evidence that people commit crimes in order to get the Death Penalty.

I've said that I prefer to keep the Death Penalty for those who are serving a life sentence and show a willingness to continue to kill inside prison. It would seem I need to re-think, or get access to a statistical comparison. I would hate for my position to lead to more murder:

Robert Allen Smith (Associated Press, 1998) was given the death sentence on July 12, 1996, for killing a fellow inmate in 1995 at the Wabash, Indiana Correctional Facility. Smith said he killed the inmate so he would receive the death penalty and avoid having to serve his 68-year-sentence for battery and habitual offender conviction.

MattJ

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Ladewig
The claim wasn't that people commit crimes for the express reason of going to prison. The claim was that poverty-stricken people who live in states that do not have capital punishment commit murder for no other reason than to go prison.

I remember more than one instance, but I'll be damned if I can find a reference to anything on the web.

[CFLarsen]

OK, I think I spot a pattern: Public executions are pointless. They will not scare people off.

And I don't really see an argument for deterrence at all, public or no public executions. People don't hold back because of the death penalty.

The reasons are "an eye for an eye", and/or "breach of the social contract to an unacceptable degree".

That leaves the question: What crimes should result in the death penalty?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
OK, I think I spot a pattern: Public executions are pointless. They will not scare people off.

And I don't really see an argument for deterrence at all, public or no public executions. People don't hold back because of the death penalty.

The reasons are "an eye for an eye", and/or "breach of the social contract to an unacceptable degree".

That leaves the question: What crimes should result in the death penalty?

Public execution serve no purpose regaurdless if they detter or not.

As far as what crimes should result in executions, well I think that's covered under state and federal laws already, why don't you have a look?

[thaiboxerken]

I don't see where the deterrent comes in.

I have yet to see a repeat offenses from a person who's been executed.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
OK, I think I spot a pattern: Public executions are pointless. They will not scare people off.

And I don't really see an argument for deterrence at all, public or no public executions. People don't hold back because of the death penalty.

The reasons are "an eye for an eye", and/or "breach of the social contract to an unacceptable degree".

That leaves the question: What crimes should result in the death penalty?

Premeditated Murder
Multiple Murder
Contracting a Murder


As far as puplic executions go...it would appeal to the mob mentality far more than it's deterrent value.

-z

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Grammatron
As far as what crimes should result in executions, well I think that's covered under state and federal laws already, why don't you have a look?

I'm asking what you think.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm asking what you think.

I'm content with the current laws and find myself in agreement with them.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm for the death penalty for those cases that Rikzilla said. I'm also for public execution. I'm in agreement with George Carlin on the public executions though, it should be done for entertainment, like the "Running Man" movie. That would be awesome.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The reasons are "an eye for an eye", and/or "breach of the social contract to an unacceptable degree".

Don't forget the fact that the executed have a recidivism rate of zero...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Premeditated Murder
Multiple Murder
Contracting a Murder


As far as puplic executions go...it would appeal to the mob mentality far more than it's deterrent value.

-z

I can think of only one more:

High Treason by an active servicemen.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Don't forget the fact that the executed have a recidivism rate of zero...

Provided he is guilty. And I don't think you want to go there... ;)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Provided he is guilty. And I don't think you want to go there... ;)


What? ;)

Even the executed innocent will never commit a crime...

In all seriousness, my only problem with capital punishment today is the possibility of executing the innocent. So long as capital punishment is an option, the legal system should always be striving to decrease that liklihood.