Thoughts on the Death Penalty

[3RA1N1AC]

You guys remember that guy from Portland who was snatching little boys back in the 90s? Didn't he request to be executed by hanging or something strange?

 

[magnifier661]

Deterrence is not the reason we have a death penalty. We had it long before anyone did any studies. Not because it deterred people, but because it put an end to them and was the punishment fitting the crime.

And 103 on your wikipedia page I already looked at. It talks about death penalty as a tool for prosecutors in plea bargaining.

That is a cause to deter for harsher punishment. Do you know english? Shall we use German?

 

[magnifier661]

That doesn't mean that the Pro death penalty crowd doesn't argue that it is a deterrent. It only means that that argument is wrong.

Read the sentence after that, where further studies showed from every 1 person that had the death penalty, 7 lives were saved? When you say it's wrong, then why would that model be accurate?

 

[Denny Crane]

Long list of distinguished jurists and others intimately involved in the application of the death penalty. Read the left column.

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=1324

Typical:

 

[Denny Crane]

Read the sentence after that, where further studies showed from every 1 person that had the death penalty, 7 lives were saved? When you say it's wrong, then why would that model be accurate?

Side effect. Not the purpose.

If it were the purpose, they'd have done the studies and if the studies say it's a deterrent then they'd allow the death penalty. The opposite is the order things happen.

 

[Minstrel]

and carrying out the sentence is done so people know the laws have teeth.

Which is another way of saying "deterrence."

 

[Denny Crane]

Which is another way of saying "deterrence."

Absolutely not.

I mean absolutely, too.

It means the legal system has integrity.

EDIT:

 

[Minstrel]

Absolutely not.

I mean absolutely, too.

It means the legal system has integrity.

People "knowing the law has teeth" matters so that they respect the law. If people commit crimes, they're not respecting the law. So a law "having teeth" has to mean it's deterring crime.

 

[Denny Crane]

People "knowing the law has teeth" matters so that they respect the law. If people commit crimes, they're not respecting the law. So a law "having teeth" has to mean it's deterring crime.

Yes respect the law. That doesn't have anything to do with deterrent.

See the edit I made in my previous post.

You're trying to play semantic games. That's a game you won't win

 

[Denny Crane]

Before he became one of those creepy democrats.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[Minstrel]

Yes respect the law. That doesn't have anything to do with deterrent.

See the edit I made in my previous post.

You're trying to play semantic games. That's a game you won't win

No, re-phrasing the same sentiment to avoid using a word you don't like is the definition of semantic games.

I simply pointed out that you made the deterrence argument under new wording.

 

[Further]

I have zero moral issue with the state killing people who have been found guilty of a serious crime. However, I am 100% opposed to the death penalty. Here are my reasons:

First, it is more expensive to kill someone than to lock them up for life without hope of parole. These maggots should have the minimum amount of money spent on their miserable lives as possible.

Second, the constant appeals process by those opposed to the death penalty (which is a cottage industry in and of itself) makes the family re-live the horror of the crime. Putting someone away for life with no hope of parole limits the appeals.

Third, we humans are not perfect. Yet the death penalty is a perfect solution in the sense it cannot be revoked. There have been enough cases where people have been put to death or were on death row for crimes they did not commit to make me oppose the death penalty.

Fourth, it has not proven to be a deterrent. Why go to the trouble and expense of killing someone if it doesn't work?

Fifth, the death penalty is not punitive enough. There is one of two possibilities: a) there is a Hell; or b) there isn't. If there is, making someone's life Hell on earth for 30-70 years doesn't take much a chunk out of eternity. If there isn't, then you have relieved their suffering, thereby doing them a favor. Let them suffer on earth for a few years before they're sent on their way.

Put them away for life without hope of parole, and whatever happens to them in prison, happens. People who are serving life for violent offenses shouldn't be mixed with anyone else without those characteristics. No TV, no weights, no time outside and food enough for sustenance. Put a photo in their cell of their victim, so they never forget. If life is so cheap to them, let them live in a society made up of only those people. If they are raped or killed while in this kind of micro-society, it was their choice.

Pretty spot on for me except #5 doesn't really enter into my thinking. Repped.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, using re-phrasing the same sentiment to avoid using a word you don't like is the definition of semantic games.

I simply pointed out that you made the deterrence argument under new wording.

I did no such thing.

Deterrence means, "oh look, they kill people who commit heinous crimes so I won't commit one." (though people continue to do so)

Respect for the law means, "we are a nation of laws, the laws are something we value highly."

 

[magnifier661]

People "knowing the law has teeth" matters so that they respect the law. If people commit crimes, they're not respecting the law. So a law "having teeth" has to mean it's deterring crime.

And anyone with "common sense" would understand that.

When I was speeding, and yes I still speed, I would always worry about a cop pulling me over. Why? Why would I slow down if I suspect a cop is nearby? It's because I didn't want to get a ticket. I was deterred to speed in fear of the punishment.

Does it stop everyone from speeding? Absolutely not! But imagine if there was a cop every mile on a freeway? How many people would be speeding?

 

[Minstrel]

Deterrence means, "oh look, they kill people who commit heinous crimes so I won't commit one." (though people continue to do so)

Respect for the law means, "we are a nation of laws, the laws are something we value highly."

If you really don't think they're the same, your view is incoherent. If it has no deterrence effect, then the law isn't respected, because the law doesn't change behavior.

 

[Denny Crane]

If you really don't think they're the same, your view is incoherent. If it has no deterrence effect, then the law isn't respected, because the law doesn't change behavior.

They're not the same thing.

It's not Saddam killing his political enemies under the guise of the law here. It's our legal system that we trust and respect that is doing it and we can be assured that the laws are (or should be) carried out without prejudice and otherwise fairly.

If there were widely no respect for the law, nobody would follow any of the laws.

 

[Further]

Denny, the two reasons, punishment and deterrence aren't mutually exclusive. One can argue the punishment is needed to punish these beasts, while also making the point that the ultimate punishment nay deter other criminals from doing these heinous crimes.

 

[magnifier661]

I did no such thing.

Deterrence means, "oh look, they kill people who commit heinous crimes so I won't commit one." (though people continue to do so)

Respect for the law means, "we are a nation of laws, the laws are something we value highly."

How about we rephrase it will something less punitive?

"Oh look, they give people tickets for speeding so I won't speed"

But we do speed right?

In your explanation, you make it seem like people don't commit murder not because of the punishment, but because it's the law. You think of them as saying.

"The law says not to speed, so I will not speed".

How many do you think don't speed because they want to follow the law or not pay the fine for getting caught speeding?

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, the two reasons, punishment and deterrence aren't mutually exclusive. One can argue the punishment is needed to punish these beasts, while also making the point that the ultimate punishment nay deter other criminals from doing these heinous crimes.

Nobody ever made any deterrence argument until the political left made it an issue while trying to do away with the death penalty.

 

[Denny Crane]

How about we rephrase it will something less punitive?

"Oh look, they give people tickets for speeding so I won't speed"

But we do speed right?

In your explanation, you make it seem like people don't commit murder not because of the punishment, but because it's the law. You think of them as saying.

"The law says not to speed, so I will not speed".

How many do you think don't speed because they want to follow the law or not pay the fine for getting caught speeding?

What I'm saying if you speed and get busted, you pay the fine or go to jail or whatever the penalty is. The penalty fits the crime.

If you murder, you do the time or get the death penalty as the justice system sees fit. The penalty fits the crime.

 

[magnifier661]

Or if we go on angle two with your debate....

The government doesn't care if you speed. You will just be punished for breaking the law. And if you do it enough we take that privilege away so you can't speed again

And in some cases, that is right. But why would the government post speed radars, unmanned without someone enforcing the ones that are speeding? It's because they want you to know how fast you are going and deter you from breaking the law through fear that you could get caught

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, the two reasons, punishment and deterrence aren't mutually exclusive. One can argue the punishment is needed to punish these beasts, while also making the point that the ultimate punishment nay deter other criminals from doing these heinous crimes.

Sure but deterrence has never been the reason we've had a death penalty. Retribution is.

 

[Denny Crane]

Or if we go on angle two with your debate....

The government doesn't care if you speed. You will just be punished for breaking the law. And if you do it enough we take that privilege away so you can't speed again

And in some cases, that is right. But why would the government post speed radars, unmanned without someone enforcing the ones that are speeding? It's because they want you to know how fast you are going and deter you from breaking the law through fear that you could get caught

What are you reaching for here?

 

[Further]

Nobody ever made any deterrence argument until the political left made it an issue while trying to do away with the death penalty.

Your postings say nothing except that some people agree the death penalty should be used to punish. They never say that deterrence is not a reason. And not every advocate uses every argument. I'm not even saying that the anti-DP didn't also use the same argument except saying it wouldn't work. Both sides have.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your postings say nothing except that some people agree the death penalty should be used to punish. They never say that deterrence is not a reason. And not every advocate uses every argument. I'm not even saying that the anti-DP didn't also use the same argument except saying it wouldn't work. Both sides have.

If deterrence was the reason, wouldn't they be talking about deterrence?



I never ever considered deterrence a reason to support the death penalty. It never crossed my mind even. The bottom line is it's the penalty for committing heinous crimes. Society has good reason to just do away with the scum.

 

[Further]

In Gregg v Georgia, back in 1976

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_6257/

Moreover, the Court was not prepared to overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most serious offenders.

 

[Further]

Look at (e)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=153

 

[Denny Crane]

Look at (e)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=428&invol=153

Retribution and... What? Read it to me, please.

 

[Further]

First, the Georgia legislature had argued that the DP could be a deterrent, and then the Supreme Court stated they didn't want go overrule that argument. Simple for you Denny, the argument was made by those seeking the death penalty all the way back to the 1976 case that kicked this whole thing off.