The Death Penalty
2.) The crime is deserving (rape, murder)
Please allow me to repeat myself. I'm a man of copy and paste.
1. Man rapes victim.
2. Man is left with a choice: (A) kill victim or (B) let victim live.
(A) has the advantage of eliminating a testimony which would put the rapist at risk of being convicted. If he also gets rid of the body, there is no physical evidence and little to no chance that he will be convicted.
(B) has the advantage that rape is a lesser crime than murder, and should he be convicted, he would face a lighter sentence if he decided to let the victim live.
If one introduces the death penalty for rape, or any sentence which differs little from the sentence for murder, one is actually encouraging rapists to kill their victims.
Furthermore, since psychopathy seems to be more prevalent among convicted rapists (I have found figures ranging from 12 to 40 percent based on US data) than among the general population (estimated at approx. 1 percent), one would expect the average rapist to display more psychopathic traits than the average Joe.
And the current research suggests that psychopaths tend to overestimate rewards compared to punishments. A psychopath would thus be more likely to appreciate action A (the potential of walking away free = pure reward) compared to action B (getting a lighter sentence = less punishment).
Victim concerns
Assume that there was indeed a zero tolerance policy towards rape which resulted in the death penalty.
How would a rape victim then react if he or she believed that the offender should be punished, but that the offender should not be put to death? The only viable option would then be not to report the rape in the first place...
Imagine for instance a sexual assault against a child (which is usually the scenario where the call for the death penalty surfaces most frequently). These assaults often involve family members or close acquaintances. Are we to believe that a child would report a brother, father or uncle knowing that they would get the needle?
Summary
Imposing the death penalty for sexual assault would introduce an incentive for escalating the crime, and it would introduce a disincentive against reporting the crime.
That will never wash with me. By that logic why not just de-criminalize sex crimes?
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
This is one issue that I feel truly conflicted over. One one hand, I feel it should be strictly reserved for the most evil among us (serial killers, rapists, terrorists), and carried out quickly rather than letting them spend 20 more years in jail. Then again, I'm not God, so I have no idea when someone's heart has grown so cold they'll no longer repent for their crimes. I don't like the idea of forcing someone to face God's eternal justice too quickly.
Either way, one big problem is the current condition of the American prison system. Most hardcore criminals don't appear to fear losing their freedom, and I think one reason is that conditions on the inside are better than what homeless law-abiding citizens go through. Prison needs to be a place that criminals truly live in terror of, not a vacation resort for the evil and crazy.
_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.
Either way, one big problem is the current condition of the American prison system. Most hardcore criminals don't appear to fear losing their freedom, and I think one reason is that conditions on the inside are better than what homeless law-abiding citizens go through. Prison needs to be a place that criminals truly live in terror of, not a vacation resort for the evil and crazy.
I have a few recovering drug addict friends who have served time. According to them, it's pretty far from being a vacation resort. The staff is usually not all that concerned from protecting prisoners from themselves or each other, after all. In any case, it taught them enough to know that they would rather stay clean and sober than to risk getting wasted and doing something that would send them back.
Either way, one big problem is the current condition of the American prison system. Most hardcore criminals don't appear to fear losing their freedom, and I think one reason is that conditions on the inside are better than what homeless law-abiding citizens go through. Prison needs to be a place that criminals truly live in terror of, not a vacation resort for the evil and crazy.
At least this is one thing we can agree on.
_________________
Aspie Score: 115/200
NT Score: 104/200
Qualities of both Aspies and Neurotypicals.
http://glossynews.com/society/health/20 ... r-mauling/
_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi
Either way, one big problem is the current condition of the American prison system. Most hardcore criminals don't appear to fear losing their freedom, and I think one reason is that conditions on the inside are better than what homeless law-abiding citizens go through. Prison needs to be a place that criminals truly live in terror of, not a vacation resort for the evil and crazy.
At least this is one thing we can agree on.
Awwww, and here I thought the 80,000 annual sexual assaults in the US prison system were sufficient. Some people have so unreasonably high standards...
How about hiring some of those prison guards who made an international name for themselves for their initiative and entrepreneurship at Abu Ghraib? I'm sure Charles Graner and Lynndie England have some excellent ideas for reforming the US corrective system...
3) It is more expensive than life imprisonment
6) If somebody really has committed murder, I'd rather they take the slow route to the grave.
@ 2 - It is an effective deterrent. You can't measure negative events. We have no way to log people who choose NOT to commit a crime that could lead to the death penalty. A person determined to kill will always kill...regardless of the threat of punishment.
Your point of view is not supported by the scientific literature.
Schuesser:
Have any studies been done which showed a statistically significant effect of the bill?
In any case, you'll notice I didn't say "life imprisonment is not a deterrent". It's just the death penalty isn't significantly better.
Do you apply this level of thought to all your posts?
The reason we criminalise acts such as theft and rape is, in essence, to decrease their frequency. The most obvious way is by providing a deterrent (i.e. "if I steal that, I could go to prison. I don't want to go to prison, so I won't steal").
Viper is re-using a very old argument that was popularised by Thomas More. In Tudor England, pickpocketing was a capital offence. Pickpockets therefore had nothing to lose once they were caught- they may as well murder the witness, because they could hardly be executed twice (and they often did). There was no deterrent - in fact, there was an incentive to murder. Similarly, a rapist may as well murder their victim if rape is given the same punishment as murder, because there is no deterrent (although given the relative rates of conviction for rape and murder there might be a deterrent for truly rational agents).
The point, Raptor, is that there must continually be a deterrent. If you have no further way to punish someone, they may as well keep murdering if it gives them a chance of escaping punishment. The justice system should never incentivise murder.
Statistical data is largely meaningless as it can be twisted to say most anything.
Okay, we're dealing with causation, which CAN NOT be measured, but it's talking about correlation. What other factors did they measure. If the moral fabric of society is unraveling and society becomes more violent and depraved, the death penalty may be an effective deterrent, but not effective enough to counter the increase in violent tendencies (which aren't being studied).
Likewise, a nation that does not have the death penalty might get better results because of a more efficient criminal justice and imprisonment process which gives people a reason to not commit a crime.
Statistical data is largely meaningless as it can be twisted to say most anything.
Someone should force the Nobel Prize committee to revoke the Nobel Prize to Peter Higgs and François Englert. After all, the Higgs-Boson was found using statistical analysis.
Statistical data is largely meaningless as it can be twisted to say most anything.
Someone should force the Nobel Prize committee to revoke the Nobel Prize to Peter Higgs and François Englert. After all, the Higgs-Boson was found using statistical analysis.
FOUND or theorized? Last I checked, we have yet to actually prove its existence.
Besides, it's that statistics are so easy to manipulate that make them largely unreliable when quoted in stories and studies. A very strict scrutiny of HOW the study is done and how the statistics are compiled is needed to determine credibility. A single misleading question in a survey can render the results tainted.
Statistical data is largely meaningless as it can be twisted to say most anything.
Someone should force the Nobel Prize committee to revoke the Nobel Prize to Peter Higgs and François Englert. After all, the Higgs-Boson was found using statistical analysis.
FOUND or theorized? Last I checked, we have yet to actually prove its existence.
Besides, it's that statistics are so easy to manipulate that make them largely unreliable when quoted in stories and studies. A very strict scrutiny of HOW the study is done and how the statistics are compiled is needed to determine credibility. A single misleading question in a survey can render the results tainted.
Didn't the LHC find it? Science is about evidence—not proof, and before we can find evidence of anything, we need to imagine it, and then explain how it can theoretically exist. Einstein's theory of relativity started out as a daydream, for instance.
Statistical data can be used to say anything if you take it out of context, but if you don't take it out of context, it's at least a decent tool.
My main issue with capital punishment, is that it's a weak sentence. Everybody is going to die. If you execute someone who would otherwise spend the rest of their life in prison, then you are simply letting them die early without first serving out their sentence. Death is not a punishment, because they are going to die anyway. Many who are executed in the US don't even exhaust all of their appeals, because they want to die. They know their life is over. In some cases they actually take legal action to force the government to carry out the execution. How is that punishment? You are giving them what they want.
That combined with all the other moral and legal issues, I don't think it is a good public policy. If you still insist to do it anyway, it should be appropriate only in very limited circumstances. Because carrying out mass executions, is just messed up.
FOUND or theorized? Last I checked, we have yet to actually prove its existence.
Ahem...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.7214v2.pdf
http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Publi ... 1.full.pdf
Then I assume that you can provide numerous well researched sources - strictly scrutinized by you yourself in accordance with the above requirements to determine credibility - to documents the following claim:
... and I would like to hear how you can reconcile your sudden and highly convenient demand for methodological rigour with your own reliance on a purely anecdotal claim:
In fact - given your lack of faith in the scientific acumen of your fellow WP posters - I look forward to seeing a barrage of high quality carefully controlled peer-reviewed scientific studies to support your above claim about the death penalty being an effective deterrent... studies which of course in no way suffer from the fundamental methodological failings of statistical analysis that you have so authoritatively unearthed and admonished in the arguments of those you disagree with.
Evidently, given the rigorous methodological standards for scientific inquiry in your own claims, we are about to be awe-struck by your academic excellence.
2.) The crime is deserving (rape, murder)
Please allow me to repeat myself. I'm a man of copy and paste.
1. Man rapes victim.
2. Man is left with a choice: (A) kill victim or (B) let victim live.
(A) has the advantage of eliminating a testimony which would put the rapist at risk of being convicted. If he also gets rid of the body, there is no physical evidence and little to no chance that he will be convicted.
(B) has the advantage that rape is a lesser crime than murder, and should he be convicted, he would face a lighter sentence if he decided to let the victim live.
If one introduces the death penalty for rape, or any sentence which differs little from the sentence for murder, one is actually encouraging rapists to kill their victims.
Furthermore, since psychopathy seems to be more prevalent among convicted rapists (I have found figures ranging from 12 to 40 percent based on US data) than among the general population (estimated at approx. 1 percent), one would expect the average rapist to display more psychopathic traits than the average Joe.
And the current research suggests that psychopaths tend to overestimate rewards compared to punishments. A psychopath would thus be more likely to appreciate action A (the potential of walking away free = pure reward) compared to action B (getting a lighter sentence = less punishment).
Victim concerns
Assume that there was indeed a zero tolerance policy towards rape which resulted in the death penalty.
How would a rape victim then react if he or she believed that the offender should be punished, but that the offender should not be put to death? The only viable option would then be not to report the rape in the first place...
Imagine for instance a sexual assault against a child (which is usually the scenario where the call for the death penalty surfaces most frequently). These assaults often involve family members or close acquaintances. Are we to believe that a child would report a brother, father or uncle knowing that they would get the needle?
Summary
Imposing the death penalty for sexual assault would introduce an incentive for escalating the crime, and it would introduce a disincentive against reporting the crime.
That will never wash with me. By that logic why not just de-criminalize sex crimes?
You totally missed his entire point. I would suggest that you read it again, until you can comprehend it.
He is not advocating de-criminalize anything. Only that the punishment needs to fit the crime, so as to not give the perpetrator incentive to escalate the crime. My god even the bible says "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot". Not a life for everything. You people want to throw out thousands of years of legal precedent, and start killing people for any and every reason you see fit. Even when doing so will result in even greater loss of innocent life. Thats just sad. Never in the history of the world has human life been cheaper then it is today.
Last edited by Max000 on 23 Jan 2014, 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
The issue with the death penalty and Developmental Disorders |
03 Apr 2024, 4:19 pm |
Name a villain who falls to their death |
24 Apr 2024, 4:40 am |
Oklahoma students walk out after trans student’s death |
29 Feb 2024, 11:16 am |
Why an autistic teen’s death raises questions about police t |
09 Apr 2024, 12:39 pm |