Total Posts:106|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does the death penalty deter crime?

16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 3:52:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I find it logical that it would. Mainly because the criminals prefer life without parole. So it would logically deter crine if the threat was high enough. And the correlation in times of moratorium and post moratorium have remarkable correlation. When using data from the FBI we see states with a DP their crimes fall faster then in abolitionist states (mere conparisons of Dakota to Texas is misleading) but no study really proves the issue...

For example, before economists made studies too complex for criminologists (they can't always read the complex equations used by Erlich and others) they where never able to find a deterrent effect, usually finding no difference.

The first study showing deterrence was authored by Ehrlich. Before his study NO credible work agreed with his assumption. Multiple studies failed to replicate his results, and his study had many methodological errors.

Ehrlich still was an advocate of his work. He published on other study replicating the results... After investigation was found to have flaws and was thrown into the junk science pile.

Then an initial wave of studies came out (over 100) after these studies. Not until the late 1990s, these studies found no deterrent effect.

These new studies had the same problem as its earlier counterparts. The models [usually] are not robust, and any change in the sensitive economic equation leads to large changes in the results. So any minor mistake could ruin any one of these studies. This also means the authors can change results based on the desire of their authors. The many flaws in these studies has been shown in academic studies (example Donahue and Wolfers offer evidence that these studies are weak evidence). Many call these complicated economic studies "voodoo economics".

The only way a study can prove deterrence is if they find moratoriums increase crime, and more DP usage lowers crime. Using basic statistics shows a casual relationship. However most studies find the evidence for deterrence weak, and that the majority of research disagrees with a deterrence hypothesis.

I don't know the answer, any thoughts?

Reference:
Jon Sorensen and Rocky Leann Pilgrim "Lethal injection: Capital Punishment in Texas during the modern era," University of Texas Press, 2006
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 3:54:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with Rothbard. "Another common liberal complaint is that the death penalty does not deter murder from being committed. All sorts of statistics are slung back and forth trying to "prove" or disprove this claim. While it is impossible to prove the degree of deterrence, it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty. Sometimes the liberal argument comes perilously close to maintaining that no punishment deters any crime — a manifestly absurd view that could easily be tested by removing all legal penalties for nonpayment of income tax and seeing if there is any reduction in the taxes paid. (Wanna bet?) Furthermore, the murderer himself is certainly "deterred" from any repetition of his crime — and quite permanently."

http://mises.org...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 3:59:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If killing is wrong, killing shouldn't be used to punish a murdered. You lose the moral high ground, and basically refute the idea that killing is indeed wrong.

It is more expensive.

It is cruel and unusual punishment.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 3:59:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 3:59:01 PM, Contra wrote:
If killing is wrong, killing shouldn't be used to punish a murderer. You lose the moral high ground, and basically refute the idea that killing is indeed wrong.

It is more expensive.

It is cruel and unusual punishment.

Fixed
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 3:59:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 3:54:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
I agree with Rothbard. "Another common liberal complaint is that the death penalty does not deter murder from being committed. All sorts of statistics are slung back and forth trying to "prove" or disprove this claim. While it is impossible to prove the degree of deterrence, it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty. Sometimes the liberal argument comes perilously close to maintaining that no punishment deters any crime — a manifestly absurd view that could easily be tested by removing all legal penalties for nonpayment of income tax and seeing if there is any reduction in the taxes paid. (Wanna bet?) Furthermore, the murderer himself is certainly "deterred" from any repetition of his crime — and quite permanently."

http://mises.org...

Recidivism is a non problem. Amongst murderers it's the lowest group. Citing a few instances is laughable (like what prodp.com did).

I never argued against deterrence, only it's studies.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:00:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 3:59:01 PM, Contra wrote:
If killing is wrong, killing shouldn't be used to punish a murdered. You lose the moral high ground, and basically refute the idea that killing is indeed wrong.

That is a possibility.


It is more expensive.

No it's not. See the source I cited? It has long rebuttals to that analysis.


It is cruel and unusual punishment.

No it's not...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:01:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 3:59:01 PM, Contra wrote:
If killing is wrong, killing shouldn't be used to punish a murdered. You lose the moral high ground, and basically refute the idea that killing is indeed wrong.

Killing isn't wrong. Murder is wrong. There's a distinction, and you know there is and saying "two wrongs dont make a right" is just ignorant.

It is more expensive.

Possibly. Although most studies indicating that have certain flaws (like, comparing death row with a medium security prison--not where you would put capital murderers) but either way thats irrelevant.

It is cruel and unusual punishment.

False.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:03:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 3:59:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/10/2012 3:54:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
I agree with Rothbard. "Another common liberal complaint is that the death penalty does not deter murder from being committed. All sorts of statistics are slung back and forth trying to "prove" or disprove this claim. While it is impossible to prove the degree of deterrence, it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty. Sometimes the liberal argument comes perilously close to maintaining that no punishment deters any crime — a manifestly absurd view that could easily be tested by removing all legal penalties for nonpayment of income tax and seeing if there is any reduction in the taxes paid. (Wanna bet?) Furthermore, the murderer himself is certainly "deterred" from any repetition of his crime — and quite permanently."

http://mises.org...

Recidivism is a non problem. Amongst murderers it's the lowest group. Citing a few instances is laughable (like what prodp.com did).

I never argued against deterrence, only it's studies.

You wouldn't agree that its a non problem if you had a family member murderer by a killer who struck again. It's true that its rare, but it still happens even within prison walls at times (not just against other inmates).
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:04:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think inmates should be forced to do productive work in prison, and the revenue generated from that work should be given directly to the victim or family of victim for the remainder of the prisoner's sentence.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:04:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No, and it's foolish to think so. Criminals DO NOT WANT TO GET CAUGHT, nor do they expect to. If they expected to get caught, they wouldn't commit crimes to begin with. To them, getting life in jail and getting death might as well be the same thing. And also, there is always a point in a crime where it escalates. It goes from breaking and entering to felony murder. It goes from assault to murder. Criminals don't think to themselves, "Well if I stop now they'll just get me for 30 years." No. They act without thinking.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:05:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:04:38 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think inmates should be forced to do productive work in prison, and the revenue generated from that work should be given directly to the victim or family of victim for the remainder of the prisoner's sentence.

^ That. Send them to work camps with shock collars that kill instantly if they set foot outside the property. If the family doesnt want him, the slave should be sold to the highest bidder
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:06:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think there are any moral implications in killing someone that meets the following criteria:

1) Has intentionally killed multiple people.
2) Has proved that they cannot be rehabilitated.

I however, do not think the state is competant enough to be given the responsibility of issuing the death penalty.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:07:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:04:56 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
No, and it's foolish to think so. Criminals DO NOT WANT TO GET CAUGHT, nor do they expect to. If they expected to get caught, they wouldn't commit crimes to begin with. To them, getting life in jail and getting death might as well be the same thing.

That certainly explains why 95% of innmates fight their death sentences tooth and nail.

And also, there is always a point in a crime where it escalates. It goes from breaking and entering to felony murder. It goes from assault to murder. Criminals don't think to themselves, "Well if I stop now they'll just get me for 30 years." No. They act without thinking.

You're assuming hot blooded crimes. Cold blooded, premeditated murder (the kind that is punished by death) does include and analysis of the potential hazards to committing the crime.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:08:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:01:56 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 3:59:01 PM, Contra wrote:
If killing is wrong, killing shouldn't be used to punish a murdered. You lose the moral high ground, and basically refute the idea that killing is indeed wrong.

Killing isn't wrong. Murder is wrong. There's a distinction, and you know there is and saying "two wrongs dont make a right" is just ignorant.

It is more expensive.

Possibly. Although most studies indicating that have certain flaws (like, comparing death row with a medium security prison--not where you would put capital murderers) but either way thats irrelevant.

The GAO says:

"In recent years, studies, and articles, and reports have been published on the costs associated with the death penalty at a state level. They have generally concluded that, contrary to what many people beleive, death sentence cassis cost more then non-death cases. However, we found these conclusions were not adequately supported. Most of these studies dud not actually compare death sentence cases with non-death sentence cases, and some of these studies did not contain actual cost data. Further, even in cases where cost data were cited, these data were incomplete."

See source in OP


It is cruel and unusual punishment.

False.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:08:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:05:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 4:04:38 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think inmates should be forced to do productive work in prison, and the revenue generated from that work should be given directly to the victim or family of victim for the remainder of the prisoner's sentence.

^ That. Send them to work camps with shock collars that kill instantly if they set foot outside the property. If the family doesnt want him, the slave should be sold to the highest bidder

I don't agree with going that far. I simply think that factories should be built into prisons, and that the workers should work at or below minimum wage. Sentences should be determined by how much they pay back to the families, and not by time. However, I feel that the money paid back to the families should have to be earned in the factory.
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:10:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:06:59 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I don't think there are any moral implications in killing someone that meets the following criteria:

1) Has intentionally killed multiple people.
Yep. Like soldiers.
2) Has proved that they cannot be rehabilitated.

I however, do not think the state is competant enough to be given the responsibility of issuing the death penalty.
Sapere Aude!
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:10:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To what degree it's a deterrence is based on the individual. There's plenty of murderers who wouldn't think twice about the consequences of their actions in the heat of the moment. If it were a really effective deterrence, there wouldn't be murder, and yet there's plenty of it.

People weigh cost vs gain all the time to determine whether what they want is worth the risk. That goes for lying, cheating, stealing, etc.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:11:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:03:01 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 3:59:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/10/2012 3:54:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
I agree with Rothbard. "Another common liberal complaint is that the death penalty does not deter murder from being committed. All sorts of statistics are slung back and forth trying to "prove" or disprove this claim. While it is impossible to prove the degree of deterrence, it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty. Sometimes the liberal argument comes perilously close to maintaining that no punishment deters any crime — a manifestly absurd view that could easily be tested by removing all legal penalties for nonpayment of income tax and seeing if there is any reduction in the taxes paid. (Wanna bet?) Furthermore, the murderer himself is certainly "deterred" from any repetition of his crime — and quite permanently."

http://mises.org...

Recidivism is a non problem. Amongst murderers it's the lowest group. Citing a few instances is laughable (like what prodp.com did).

I never argued against deterrence, only it's studies.

You wouldn't agree that its a non problem if you had a family member murderer by a killer who struck again. It's true that its rare, but it still happens even within prison walls at times (not just against other inmates).

That's fallacy. Appeal to emotion.

Statistically those on LWOP rarely commit crimes again. And the rate of recidivism is so low the prison guards assign murderers to the easiest jobs (for example, they clean the watch houses even if no ones around).
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:11:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:08:50 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 8/10/2012 4:05:40 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 4:04:38 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
I think inmates should be forced to do productive work in prison, and the revenue generated from that work should be given directly to the victim or family of victim for the remainder of the prisoner's sentence.

^ That. Send them to work camps with shock collars that kill instantly if they set foot outside the property. If the family doesnt want him, the slave should be sold to the highest bidder

I don't agree with going that far. I simply think that factories should be built into prisons, and that the workers should work at or below minimum wage. Sentences should be determined by how much they pay back to the families, and not by time. However, I feel that the money paid back to the families should have to be earned in the factory.

Unfortunately, taking away a loved one is a debt that cannot be repaid. Ever. The killer owes their next of kin an eternity of servitude. I would only support the death penalty if thats what the owner (next of kin) wishes and there is an incredible amount of evidence of guilt. Otherwise, enslavement replaces life without parole.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:12:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:10:23 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
To what degree it's a deterrence is based on the individual. There's plenty of murderers who wouldn't think twice about the consequences of their actions in the heat of the moment. If it were a really effective deterrence, there wouldn't be murder, and yet there's plenty of it.

People weigh cost vs gain all the time to determine whether what they want is worth the risk. That goes for lying, cheating, stealing, etc.

I am aware of deterrence theory. I agree the DP can deter. But it's academic support is zero.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:12:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yep. Like soldiers.

Soldiers kill, or they die. A Soldier is not reasonable for the violent acts that he commits, so long as he is acting within the confines of his mission and general orders.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:13:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:11:11 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/10/2012 4:03:01 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 3:59:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/10/2012 3:54:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
I agree with Rothbard. "Another common liberal complaint is that the death penalty does not deter murder from being committed. All sorts of statistics are slung back and forth trying to "prove" or disprove this claim. While it is impossible to prove the degree of deterrence, it seems indisputable that some murders would be deterred by the death penalty. Sometimes the liberal argument comes perilously close to maintaining that no punishment deters any crime — a manifestly absurd view that could easily be tested by removing all legal penalties for nonpayment of income tax and seeing if there is any reduction in the taxes paid. (Wanna bet?) Furthermore, the murderer himself is certainly "deterred" from any repetition of his crime — and quite permanently."

http://mises.org...

Recidivism is a non problem. Amongst murderers it's the lowest group. Citing a few instances is laughable (like what prodp.com did).

I never argued against deterrence, only it's studies.

You wouldn't agree that its a non problem if you had a family member murderer by a killer who struck again. It's true that its rare, but it still happens even within prison walls at times (not just against other inmates).

That's fallacy. Appeal to emotion.

Statistically those on LWOP rarely commit crimes again. And the rate of recidivism is so low the prison guards assign murderers to the easiest jobs (for example, they clean the watch houses even if no ones around).

Of course it's an appeal to emotion. Having a loved one killed is an emotional thing.

You could well be right--the vast majority of murderers have no intention of killing again. The vast majority of murderers should also not be executed. But we can both agree that in exceptional circumstances, someone is too dangerous to be left alive.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:13:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:12:44 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Yep. Like soldiers.

Soldiers kill, or they die. A Soldier is not reasonable for the violent acts that he commits, so long as he is acting within the confines of his mission and general orders.

Yet they fit perfectly into your category for who we should as society kill.
Sapere Aude!
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:14:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The threat being high enough would not logically deter crime if criminals don't expect to be caught. Most criminals don't commit murder expecting to be locked up for life. They do it while expecting to escape scot-free. As such their primary focus will be on evading detection and arrest as opposed to the consequences should such evasion fail.

Ehrlich's study was proven false by the National Academy of Science and by Dartmouth University as well.

I'll post more on this later.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:14:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Unfortunately, taking away a loved one is a debt that cannot be repaid. Ever. The killer owes their next of kin an eternity of servitude. I would only support the death penalty if thats what the owner (next of kin) wishes and there is an incredible amount of evidence of guilt. Otherwise, enslavement replaces life without parole.

It all depends on the manner in which the person was killed. For example: there is a huge difference between manslaughter and first degree murder.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:14:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yet they fit perfectly into your category for who we should as society kill.

I'm sorry, I thought we used common sense on this forum?
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:15:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:14:20 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Unfortunately, taking away a loved one is a debt that cannot be repaid. Ever. The killer owes their next of kin an eternity of servitude. I would only support the death penalty if thats what the owner (next of kin) wishes and there is an incredible amount of evidence of guilt. Otherwise, enslavement replaces life without parole.

It all depends on the manner in which the person was killed. For example: there is a huge difference between manslaughter and first degree murder.

Very true. I'll amend my statement to in certain circumstances
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Apollo.11
Posts: 3,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:16:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:14:55 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
Yet they fit perfectly into your category for who we should as society kill.

I'm sorry, I thought we used common sense on this forum?

I'm sorry, I thought we didn't place the value of people's lives into illogical absolutes that have no foundation in rational thought.
Sapere Aude!
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:16:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:07:52 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 8/10/2012 4:04:56 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
No, and it's foolish to think so. Criminals DO NOT WANT TO GET CAUGHT, nor do they expect to. If they expected to get caught, they wouldn't commit crimes to begin with. To them, getting life in jail and getting death might as well be the same thing.

That certainly explains why 95% of innmates fight their death sentences tooth and nail.


Of course they do once they've been arrested.

Up until the moment that a criminal gets caught, they don't expect to be caught, and they aren't thinking about the consequences.

And also, there is always a point in a crime where it escalates. It goes from breaking and entering to felony murder. It goes from assault to murder. Criminals don't think to themselves, "Well if I stop now they'll just get me for 30 years." No. They act without thinking.

You're assuming hot blooded crimes. Cold blooded, premeditated murder (the kind that is punished by death) does include and analysis of the potential hazards to committing the crime.

I reiterate, someone who is going to commit murder does not expect to be caught. No matter what the killer will get at least life in prison when he's caught, and if that alone isn't enough to deter them, it's doubtful that the possibility of the death penalty is. If the killer planned ahead, don't you think they'd be confident that they'll be able to get away and thus they won't have to consider the consequences?
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2012 4:17:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/10/2012 4:12:31 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 8/10/2012 4:10:23 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
To what degree it's a deterrence is based on the individual. There's plenty of murderers who wouldn't think twice about the consequences of their actions in the heat of the moment. If it were a really effective deterrence, there wouldn't be murder, and yet there's plenty of it.

People weigh cost vs gain all the time to determine whether what they want is worth the risk. That goes for lying, cheating, stealing, etc.

I am aware of deterrence theory. I agree the DP can deter. But it's academic support is zero.:

I'm saying the DP is not that much of a deterrence. As has been pointed out, people simply don't want to get caught, period, and will weigh the cost vs gain. If they think there is a high chance of getting caught, they probably won't do it, or will wait for a more advantageous time.

But I don't think the DP itself is much of a deterrence. I think you're just as likely to commit murder in a DP state versus a State that doesn't have the death penalty.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)