The Death Penalty

Page 4 of 5 [ 77 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

23 Jan 2014, 12:44 pm

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.

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

23 Jan 2014, 12:52 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

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.

:roll:

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

zer0netgain wrote:

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.

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:

zer0netgain wrote:

@ 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.

... 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:

zer0netgain wrote:

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.

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.

Max000
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

23 Jan 2014, 1:00 pm

Raptor wrote:

GGPViper wrote:

*sigh*

thewhitrbbit wrote:

I have no problems with the death penalty when:

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

Raptor wrote:

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

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

GGPViper wrote:

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.

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.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

23 Jan 2014, 1:37 pm

/\
I meant I don't agree with it in principle.
Your eye roller seems to not be working. Here, you can have one of mine as a gift. :roll:

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,810
Location: London

23 Jan 2014, 2:12 pm

So you think crimes other than murder (or equivalent crime involving deliberate taking of life) should be punished with murder, even though that increases the murder rate?

I respect that somewhat more than just disregarding the evidence. I apologise for being sarcastic towards you earlier. Personally, I feel teleology is more important than deontology - that is, the consequences of punishment are generally more important than whether the punishment is principally wrong.

(Going off on a slight tangent, the common counter to that is framing someone to prevent a riot- IMO the damage that does to society and to the policeman's honour is not insignificant, but I do also think the framed man has rights that should not be violated).

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

25 Jan 2014, 4:24 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dTLCedm9iw[/youtube]

Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

27 Jan 2014, 6:07 am

A possibility would be to execute any judge or jury that sentenced an innocent man to death. It seems to me that this might lead to more thorough trials. It would be more just than having the death penalty and not doing this. It makes little difference whether an innocent is murdered by an individual, or a justice system, after all. The men responsible should hang in both cases if either should.

Or we could not execute people.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

27 Jan 2014, 7:31 am

Stannis wrote:

A possibility would be to execute any judge or jury that sentenced an innocent man to death.

you seem to have a tenuous grasp of the idea of accountability.
it would be draconian to summon people to adjudicate a case with the threat that if they arrive at a verdict that is later found to be unfounded, then the death penalty will be applicable to all the errant jurors (who were originally innocent citizens). are the jurors allowed to be any less than omniscient in gauging the given evidence and it's presentational preamble according to the relevance needed to establish guilt?
when one is called to jury duty, should one fear for their life if they are not capable of investigating the veracity of the provided evidence given by 2 equally morally elastic sides?
can one claim they are too stupid to be on jury duty as a reason for their declination of the "invitation" ?

Stannis wrote:

It seems to me that this might lead to more thorough trials. It would be more just than having the death penalty and not doing this. It makes little difference whether an innocent is murdered by an individual, or a justice system, after all. The men responsible should hang in both cases if either should.

thoroughness is not a measure of accuracy. something can be both thoroughly accurate or thoroughly inaccurate.
if jurors are liable to be punished with the death penalty if they are later found to have been incorrect in their verdict, then how impartial do you think they would remain?

they would both be impartial to a verdict of guilty, and likewise be impartial to a verdict of not guilty, and so they would either remain silent or excuse themselves from the proceedings.

to force jurors to return and make a decision in that environment (with it's inherent dangers) is a scenario that is the stuff of science fiction.
people with feeble minds that can be blown easily away by a loosely assembled conjecture are those that would advise similarly to you.

Stannis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,631

27 Jan 2014, 8:12 am

b9 wrote:

Stannis wrote:

A possibility would be to execute any judge or jury that sentenced an innocent man to death.

Quote:

The post you are commenting on was intended as tongue in cheek social commentary. Sorry.

My personal view is that any justice system that kills innocents is illegitimate. Since errors are broadly speaking inevitable, that makes the death penalty illegitimate (there are other things that make it undesirable as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread).

I would also argue that we should sentence those in the justice system responsible for a false conviction of death, as we would anyone guilty of manslaughter. It doesn't matter to me that they thought they were correct at the time. If they thought they were correct at the time, then they are negligent, because an innocent man was killed. If the death penalty is going to be invoked, then those responsible for false sentences must be seriously punished also. Still, I would prefer it if the death penalty were never invoked.

donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

17 Feb 2014, 11:50 pm

Supporting the death penalty is definitely a typical NT thing.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,810
Location: London

18 Feb 2014, 5:49 am

donnie_darko wrote:

Supporting the death penalty is definitely a typical NT thing.

No it isn't.

OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

18 Feb 2014, 6:03 pm

Oh, I support it wholeheartedly. Could I pull the switch on somebody or vote for them to die? Yep. There is a difference between an innocent that was murdered and somebody dying who needs killing. Yes, those are strange concepts to some of you, but some of the rest of us get it. It's not an NT thing or an AS thing.

And for a the people who say that those of us with AS can't support it, why don't you look at all the posts where people are wanting bullies to die, or people who were simply RUDE to them or picked on them? Double standard anybody?

_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com

hyena
Deinonychus

Joined: 6 Feb 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 306

18 Feb 2014, 6:11 pm

I support the death penalty for revenge. If a person intentionally killed another without provocation they should die for it. Anything else is injustice.

OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

18 Feb 2014, 6:19 pm

I actually have a tshirt around here somewhere from back when I was 21. It says "USMC Kill them all and let God sort them out".

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Feb 2014, 7:50 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:

Oh, I support it wholeheartedly. Could I pull the switch on somebody or vote for them to die? Yep. There is a difference between an innocent that was murdered and somebody dying who needs killing.

For me, the question isn't the killing part, since as you say some people need it, but the part where we decide who does in fact need it. Our justice system is so flawed at the moment that I can't in good conscience support allowing it to dispense capitol punishment, since there is no way to rectify the inevitable mistakes.

_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

19 Feb 2014, 11:26 am

I echo Dox47's post.

But beyond that, I am increasingly of the view that our policy approach to criminal law is precisely backwards. We formulate law, policy and practice in an effort to respond to crime; we do not formulate law, policy or practice in order to prevent crime from occurring in the first place.

This is due, in part, to populist democracy. "Tough on crime" policies are popular, and the population that clamours for them is not particularly interested in participating in a deeper debate about how to make communities safer.

But policy makers are shirking their responsibilities if all that they do is echo the mob. We should have a political system in which policy choices are made with evidence based analysis, and sound, non-partisan advice from sources both within and outside of government. That doesn't happen.

Economic studies time and again have demonstrated that the strongest social factor linked to violent crime is income inequality--not absolute poverty, but the gap between rich an poor. If there is, indeed, a causal link between income inequality and violent crime (and I'm not yet ready to state that with assurance) then it would follow that policy steps intended to close the income gap are not only good economic policy, but they are good social policy as well.

But the mob is deaf to economic analysis, and our political lords and masters hear only the baying for punishment.

_________________
--James

Page 4 of 5 [ 77 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

The Death Penalty Post Reply New Topic

The Death Penalty