The Death Penalty

Post Reply New Topic

I have no problems with the death penalty when:

2.) The crime is deserving (rape, murder)

Actually, if a family member/relative of mine were a child molester I'd tie the hangman's noose for them.

Offender concerns

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.

http://www.thenation.com/article/175737 ... rren-hill#

This is simply TORTURE!! !

*sigh*



Please allow me to repeat myself. I'm a man of copy and paste.

Actually, if a family member/relative of mine were a child molester I'd tie the hangman's noose for them. Hell, I'd even pay for the rope!
I'm serious.

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.

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.

@ 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.

To summarize: statistical findings and case studies converge to disprove the claim that the death penalty has any special deterrent value. The belief in the death penalty as a deterrent is repudiated by statistical studies, since they consistently demonstrate that differences in homicide rates are in no way correlated with differences in the use of the death penalty. Case studies consistently reveal that the murderer seldom considers the possible consequences of his action, and, if he does, he evidently is not deterred by the death penalty. The fact that men continue to argue in favor of the death penalty on deterrence grounds may only demonstrate man's ability to confuse tradition with proof, and his related ability to justify his established way of behaving.

As evidence, we had a rash of cop killings in Florida. Finally, Florida passed a law saying if you kill a cop, it's life in prison without parole or death. The killings stopped. Clearly, the kinds of people doing this didn't fear imprisonment capped at X years if they got caught, but the idea of NEVER getting out or being put to death made them think twice. Also, keep in mind that most of these murders were "thrill kills" where the practically ambushed the cop just so they could brag about being a cop killer.

That will never wash with me. By that logic why not just de-criminalize sex crimes?

Your point of view is not supported by the scientific literature.

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.