Death Penalty

[Antony]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

But that doesn't mean that if people see the government executing criminals, that the citizenry will follow suit. First, such private killings are illegal, and second, the government does a lot of things without the populace being emboldened to do the same things. Print money, levy taxes, etc.

I'm not talking about the citizenry and the populace in general - which is why I used the expression "violent types". State executions devalue human life, and give an excuse to the criminally-minded to commit murder. They don't rationalise judicial killings by saying to themselves, "he had due process and deserved it"; they think "I want this person dead; the state kills people; there's no reason why I shouldn't."

Quote:

I see no evidence that the double standard of executions means that such a message is actually being sent, so that simply doesn't strike me as an effective argument against the DP, compared to others that have been raised.

I don't know what sort of evidence you would accept. There is certainly no evidence of any deterrent effect of the death penalty, which depends on projecting a way of thinking onto potential murderers: "I won't kill because I'm scared of being executed."

What I do see is a correlation between the death penalty and higher murder rates; I'm just suggesting what looks to me like a likely explanation of why this should be. It's just a matter of getting inside the head of someone in a situation where they are tempted to commit murder.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Antony

they think "I want this person dead; the state kills people; there's no reason why I shouldn't."
(...)
It's just a matter of getting inside the head of someone in a situation where they are tempted to commit murder.

Thinking or organized crime, I think you are dead wrong and death penalty is dead right. They are scared where they see risks, and they do calculate the odds. If killing is unnecessary and extremely risky, then do something else than kill.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Antony

I'm not talking about the citizenry and the populace in general - which is why I used the expression "violent types". State executions devalue human life, and give an excuse to the criminally-minded to commit murder. They don't rationalise judicial killings by saying to themselves, "he had due process and deserved it"; they think "I want this person dead; the state kills people; there's no reason why I shouldn't."


I don't know what sort of evidence you would accept. There is certainly no evidence of any deterrent effect of the death penalty, which depends on projecting a way of thinking onto potential murderers: "I won't kill because I'm scared of being executed."

What I do see is a correlation between the death penalty and higher murder rates; I'm just suggesting what looks to me like a likely explanation of why this should be. It's just a matter of getting inside the head of someone in a situation where they are tempted to commit murder.

At the risk of being cliche, correlation isn't causation.

The whole atavistic notion of getting inside the head of 'violent types', or the 'criminal underclass', to stop them from committing more crimes isn't accepted by science for a good reason... it doesn't work.

On the other hand, it is promoted by Hollywood and pro-death penalty politicians for reasons that benefit them.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Thinking or organized crime, I think you are dead wrong and death penalty is dead right. They are scared where they see risks, and they do calculate the odds. If killing is unnecessary and extremely risky, then do something else than kill.

A rational person would be dissuaded by the death penalty but also by life imprisonment without parole. It is difficult to say what would dissuade an irrational person. I don't see evidence of greater deterrence of the death penalty over life in prison. I do see at least one advantage of the latter, namely that it can be rescinded.

Besides the cases where additional evidence is developed or uncovered are cases where forensic science advances. I had a conversation with an arson investigator a few months ago. He told me that everything he had learned about arson investigation when he was first trained in 1985 was wrong. It makes one wonder about the number of people who have been falsely convicted of arson on the basis of flawed science over the past 40 years.

[IchabodPlain]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

It seems that abolishing the death penalty is moot here then. You could keep the death penalty, hell you could even abolish life imprisonment and ONLY have the death penalty and still make improvements to the judicial process.

Bringing up judicial improvements only serves to highlight the basic issue that mistakes happen (which everyone agrees occurs, I think). The differences then is that the innocent stand a greater chance of living to see the day their case is rightfully overturned.

Quote:

I've said it before, these arguments are just not academic anymore. The only issue worth discussing is the death penalty versus other comparable sentences, such as life imprisonment or whatever. What are their comparisons and advantages. We use both for now but keep finding the death penalty losing favor. I wonder if there's a utilitarian reason versus a purely ethical one.

Cost. It's very expensive, compared to life w/out parole. Two is the argument above -being able to one day be set free, as opposed to dying before your conviction is overturned.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Ahh, my mistake, I thought the person repsonding to my comments on your post, was you.

crimresearch,

No, actually I jumped in because Antony and I appear to have similar points of view (sorry about the confusion). I am not sure I understand your position. You seem to acknowledge that the error rate is not zero. Do you think that there is a good reason to accept the death penalty anyway?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by halides1

crimresearch,

No, actually I jumped in because Antony and I appear to have similar points of view (sorry about the confusion). I am not sure I understand your position. You seem to acknowledge that the error rate is not zero. Do you think that there is a good reason to accept the death penalty anyway?

I've made my position completely clear. I'm the one who brought up the error rate, more than once. I've posted many times here over the years about what is wrong with the death penalty.

I've also posted that some of the arguments being made on both sides are based on faulty logic... and I refuse to agree with a falsehoood just because of which 'side' it supports.

If you just want to play this game of pretending that I hold the exact opposite of the position I've stated, then you can do so from the 'Ignore' bin.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Thinking or organized crime, I think you are dead wrong and death penalty is dead right. They are scared where they see risks, and they do calculate the odds. If killing is unnecessary and extremely risky, then do something else than kill.

You can think that if you like, but there's no evidence to support it. The death penalty correlates with higher, not lower, murder rates.

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Thinking or organized crime, I think you are dead wrong and death penalty is dead right. They are scared where they see risks, and they do calculate the odds. If killing is unnecessary and extremely risky, then do something else than kill.

That sort of deterrence works *on some people* if they are able to rationally evaluate the risks/consequences, as being swift, certain, and severe... which simply isn't the case in the DP as applied.

And the 'rationally' part simply isn't the case with a lot of people, including some criminals.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

At the risk of being cliche, correlation isn't causation.

I'm well aware of that, which is why it is important to analyse why a correlation exists. States of the US with the death penalty are also the states with the highest murder rates. It could be because a culture of violence in those states in itself also makes the death penalty more politically popular; or it could be what I am suggesting: that the death penalty itself contributes to the culture of violence.

The other claim, of course, would be that states with high murder rates have the death penalty because they have more "need" of it. That's the most tenuous of the possible connections. Supporters of the death penalty need to make their case by showing some evidence that it reduces crime - and not go on gloating over the fact that some "scumbag" has got what he deserves.

Quote:

The whole atavistic notion of getting inside the head of 'violent types', or the 'criminal underclass', to stop them from committing more crimes isn't accepted by science for a good reason... it doesn't work.

Who said it was to stop them committing crimes? I made the point as a rationalisation of the facts, that the death penalty correlates with higher murder rates.

What's notable is that very few of the death penalty fans here even try to suggest that it stops crime - other than the shallow point that the guy undergoing execution won't offend any more.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Antony

I'm well aware of that, which is why it is important to analyse why a correlation exists. States of the US with the death penalty are also the states with the highest murder rates. It could be because a culture of violence in those states in itself also makes the death penalty more politically popular; or it could be what I am suggesting: that the death penalty itself contributes to the culture of violence.

The other claim, of course, would be that states with high murder rates have the death penalty because they have more "need" of it. That's the most tenuous of the possible connections. Supporters of the death penalty need to make their case by showing some evidence that it reduces crime - and not go on gloating over the fact that some "scumbag" has got what he deserves.


Who said it was to stop them committing crimes? I made the point as a rationalisation of the facts, that the death penalty correlates with higher murder rates.

What's notable is that very few of the death penalty fans here even try to suggest that it stops crime - other than the shallow point that the guy undergoing execution won't offend any more.

And your 'notable' straw men and specious arguments are only worthy of being ignored. You can point fingers and call other people 'pro death penalty' all you like, when you throw in those fallacies, you are undermining the anti-death penalty argument.

[Antony]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

And your 'notable' straw men and specious arguments are only worthy of being ignored.

"Straw men" are they? Well, if we had some arguments of substance here, then we could have a discussion.

Quote:

You can point fingers and call other people 'pro death penalty' all you like,

I don't need to point fingers. People here are openly pro-death penalty. It's a bit more difficult to see which side of the argument you're taking, though.

Quote:

when you throw in those fallacies, you are undermining the anti-death penalty argument.

What "fallacies"? The correlation of the death penalty with high murder rates is a fact that death penalty supporters would rather ignore. If you don't like my take on it, you'll have to do a bit better than bandying words like "fallacy" about. Pointing out "correlation is not causation" doesn't say anything; how do you account for it?

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Well, you can ask Mandela if there would have made a difference if the government had executed him. Or any other dissident that eventually was released after change happened in their country...

Point taken.

But at this point I need to ask, what are we talking about?
Are we talking about what we think the laws should be for 2012 in state X?
Or are we talking about hypothetical best model for society under certain conditions?

I was going for the later.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

No, you go ahead and assume those strawmen.

I refuse to, just as you refuse to address what I actually posted.

First... I think you should lookup what strawman actually means.
You clearly don't understand what it means.

Second, I addressed what you said 100%.
You said your problem is that you don't want innocent people executed. I fully agreed. I don't want innocent people executed. I don't want to be sentenced to jail either. I don't even want to get a single dollar in fines.

Innocent people should not be found guilty and the problem with wrongful convictions is with the conviction no matter what the punishment is.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

No one has objected to this.

...or it means that the risk of wrongful execution isn't the only argument against the death sentence. Oh, wait, you see this yourself:
So because it's not the only counter-argument, it's "irrelevant"?

Actually, yes. Sometimes people think they have a problem with X because of Y. So the logical thing to do is remove Y from the equation and see if there is still a problem with X.

And quite often, that is the only way to realize that Z is the problem even though the person doesn't think it is.

It's possible Y & Z are problems, but you need to remove Y first to uncover Z.

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Can't speak for him/her, but in my eyes, no, it doesn't, because there willl always be wrongful executions.

Well you have your opinion which is perfectly valid.
I disagree of course, but as these are just opinions, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Megalodon

Er... yes?

Really? Again I would seriously disagree, but again, I doubt this will go any further than "rabbit season" "duck season"

[GrandMasterFox]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

That sort of deterrence works *on some people* if they are able to rationally evaluate the risks/consequences, as being swift, certain, and severe... which simply isn't the case in the DP as applied.

And the 'rationally' part simply isn't the case with a lot of people, including some criminals.

I'd actually agree with you here and go even step further, even criminals who go more towards the 'rationally' route are more likely to simply look for ways not to get caught rather than drop the whole thing.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Speculations about the mental health or IQ of an otherwise proven murderer are not a burden for my conscience. I take the attitude that the whole process from crime to death penalty can be seen as an accident where the convict died, if you don´t want to think that the insane or low-IQ convict "deserved" to die. He killed, and will be killed.

I think that speculations about the mental health or IQ of a murderer are an unnecessary detour in criminal processes. My moral philosophy does not need such splitting of hairs, we swallow camels anyway so why sift out every smallest gnat.

What does your moral philosophy say about, say, a person having en epileptic seizure while driving and ends up killing someone? Or is it only sufferers of illnesses you can't see, like mental illnesses, that makes you deserving of the death penalty if you kill someone because of it?

[AvalonXQ]

Like others, I have no issue with the idea of the death penalty as an appropriate criminal punishment in theory.

But in practice, our justice system sucks. It's far too error-prone and fallible. And because it's really not trustworthy, it really should not be entrusted with human life.

[Dcdrac]

I have an objection to the death penalty on practical and moral grounds it is provably not a deterrant to anyone that report alluded to earlier provides a shedload of evidence for that position, the moral grounds are the state has enough power to take life without given it anymore excuses to do so, and also a penal system based on revenge seems to me to be a sign of a failing society,the cycle has to stop at some point.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

What does your moral philosophy say about, say, a person having en epileptic seizure while driving and ends up killing someone?

Practically all moral philosophies and laws regard this as an unintentional accident, without any culpable person. Unless you want to theorize that epileptics should not have the moral right to hold a driving license. If we so politically agree, then the person would be a law-breaker a bit like drunk drivers.

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Or is it only sufferers of illnesses you can't see, like mental illnesses, that makes you deserving of the death penalty if you kill someone because of it?

This is fine enough for me. Otherwise you would have to pardon all criminals from any punishment, because they all had a criminal state of mind when they committed the crime.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by GrandMasterFox

First... I think you should lookup what strawman actually means.
You clearly don't understand what it means.

Second, I addressed what you said 100%.
You said your problem is that you don't want innocent people executed. I fully agreed. I don't want innocent people executed. I don't want to be sentenced to jail either. I don't even want to get a single dollar in fines.

And that makes me 'pro-death penalty' how?

Since you are going to keep on fabricating my position and what I've said, you can do it from the ignore bin.

[halides1]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

I've made my position completely clear. I'm the one who brought up the error rate, more than once.
SNIP
If you just want to play this game of pretending that I hold the exact opposite of the position I've stated, then you can do so from the 'Ignore' bin.

crimresearch,

I also brought up the error rate in this thread. I am not trying to pretend anything; I asked you a question because I did not know the answer. Now that I know that you don't favor the death penalty, would you mind stating or restating why? Is it because of the nonzero error rate, or is it something else? Thanks.

[PhantomWolf]

There is sort of a major flaw in the OP, in fact the major premise is very flawed. The OP seems to have forgotten that the US does attempt to go after and capture terror suspects and then stick them in jail. Remember that little place called Gitmo?

Similarly, the orders on OBL were to capture if possible, and had he not resisted they would have taken him alive and to Gitmo to stand next to others already there. In the same way, if we assumed that the FBI goes after the mythical Dogg and he resisted in a way that they believed endangered them, they'd be as likely to put bullets in him too.

Missile strikes are only used against those that the US can't get alive, similar to how a Police sniper would take out a bank robber holding hostages.

Thus the premise that there is a very different standard between the way criminals are dealt with and terrorists is actually incorrect and renders the OP meaningless.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

Practically all moral philosophies and laws regard this as an unintentional accident, without any culpable person. Unless you want to theorize that epileptics should not have the moral right to hold a driving license. If we so politically agree, then the person would be a law-breaker a bit like drunk drivers.

But their killing was the consequence of their illness, the same as when someone is declared criminally insane. Neither can be held responsible for their consequences, according to, as you say, the moral philosophies and laws of the modern world.

Originally Posted by JJM 777

This is fine enough for me. Otherwise you would have to pardon all criminals from any punishment, because they all had a criminal state of mind when they committed the crime.

A criminal state of mind and being criminally insane are two very different things.

But you could just make it easy for the discussion and say, yes, mental illness will not absolve you of a crime and you should be put to death like anyone else.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Antony

~~~
State executions devalue human life, and give an excuse to the criminally-minded to commit murder. They don't rationalise judicial killings by saying to themselves, "he had due process and deserved it"; they think "I want this person dead; the state kills people; there's no reason why I shouldn't."
....
There is certainly no evidence of any deterrent effect of the death penalty, which depends on projecting a way of thinking onto potential murderers: "I won't kill because I'm scared of being executed."

Just wow. Got Cognitive Dissonance?

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Originally Posted by mike3

What about the case of strikes to "kill terrorists"?

It's horrible, for the reason you deploy let alone the millions we have killed in other countries over my lifetime: summary execution abroad makes summary execution easier at home. You just extend the war to the Fatherland.

Quote:

If we can do that, why can't we execute (I.e. why can't we kill Dogg if we can kill some terrorists somewhere with a drone strike or missile or whatever)?

Since I object to the so-called War on Terror, you do not get to invoke war on terror tactics on that basis.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

But you could just make it easy for the discussion and say, yes, mental illness will not absolve you of a crime and you should be put to death like anyone else.

So I say then.

[Cainkane1]

I can understand societys frustration with murderers. I know of a punk kid who shot a young girl to death for a joy ride in her van. She was a young mother with an infant baby. He was 15 when he committed this crime which is to young to execute.

He was caught the same day of the crime and he was given life with a chance for parole after 20 years but he did something in prison which caused him to lose his parole.

If you go to Georgia inmate locators and look up Randy Dobbs you will see his picture and he looks perfectly happy and contented to me. He's with his peers and apparently to him every day is a joy.