View Poll Results: reinstate death penalty?
yes
21
46.67%
i do not care
1
2.22%
no
23
51.11%
Voters: 45. You may not vote on this poll
Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Mar 18th 2014, 12:21 pm
#46
Yo
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Sorry, I didnt think saying that killing in the name of the law was wrong under any circumstances offered any ambiguity.
The whole point of this discussion is whether it is wrong or not. So this is a circular argument.
I dont see how you can talk about anti-CP people as a collective mass any more than it makes sense to paint all pro-CP people as the same. People come at this from different viewpoints, some would argue for instance that the death penalty is an easy cop out for someone who would otherwise face the prospect of spending every day of the rest of their life behind bars. Thats perhaps what a life sentence should mean in most cases, but thats not the case (in the US) because of all the stupid mandatory drug convictions filling the jails with mandatory sentences with no option of parole, even for 1st time offenders. That has led to crowding, which has led to early release for many killers as they are eligible for parole in most cases. I read somewhere that 6 years time spent is about the average, and that aint right, but I wonder how many of those deemed rehabilitated go on to reoffend anyway? Outside of gangs very few is my guess.
There is a status quo evidenced by your first statement above which is held by the majority of persons. As a short hand, I referred to it as anti-CP, although as you point out, each collective has a range of opinions. I suppose what I object to is that many people that consider themselves "anti-CP" do so on the basis of received wisdom, that "mistakes happen" that there is "no deterrent" and leave it at that without considering whether we have the means now to differentiate between types of crime and, in particular, risk of injustice.
Statistics regarding large populations generally do not lie. CP is not an effective deterrent. In fact there is a theory that crimes of passion escalate on the grounds that they can only kill you once so you may as well take out as many people as you can if you are going to be caught.
Statistic never lie, they are just descriptions. You know that. It may not always be an effective deterrent, but surely you would concede that in some cases, some circumstances, it would be a deterrent. Some individuals would choose not to risk their own life for a crime, would that not? Answer please.
Society has many limits on what its willing /capable of. I dont see how there is a connection between CP and medicines for the needy any more than there is to military spending to pick just one low hanging fruit. As an argument goes its a bit pointless, if you are worried about healthcare spending for the needy why not just mandate a slightly higher tax rate to pay for it. Besides the current system of CP in the states is very expensive, and cheaper models elsewhere in the world with less legal room for manouever are not exactly models for judicial rectitude.
Clouding the issue again. Two wrongs don't make a right. The connection is that scarce resources are selected to preserve the life of the worst killers rather than preserve the lives of good citizens. A distinction can be made. A distinction should be made. Cost effective execution would be a worthwhile aim too.
Bear in mind I am not advocating widespread CP, I am advocating special category CP for the worst of society.
Now, Euthanasia may be a different kettle of fish.
Nice ending. Can only deal with one kettle at a time.
The whole point of this discussion is whether it is wrong or not. So this is a circular argument.
I dont see how you can talk about anti-CP people as a collective mass any more than it makes sense to paint all pro-CP people as the same. People come at this from different viewpoints, some would argue for instance that the death penalty is an easy cop out for someone who would otherwise face the prospect of spending every day of the rest of their life behind bars. Thats perhaps what a life sentence should mean in most cases, but thats not the case (in the US) because of all the stupid mandatory drug convictions filling the jails with mandatory sentences with no option of parole, even for 1st time offenders. That has led to crowding, which has led to early release for many killers as they are eligible for parole in most cases. I read somewhere that 6 years time spent is about the average, and that aint right, but I wonder how many of those deemed rehabilitated go on to reoffend anyway? Outside of gangs very few is my guess.
There is a status quo evidenced by your first statement above which is held by the majority of persons. As a short hand, I referred to it as anti-CP, although as you point out, each collective has a range of opinions. I suppose what I object to is that many people that consider themselves "anti-CP" do so on the basis of received wisdom, that "mistakes happen" that there is "no deterrent" and leave it at that without considering whether we have the means now to differentiate between types of crime and, in particular, risk of injustice.
Statistics regarding large populations generally do not lie. CP is not an effective deterrent. In fact there is a theory that crimes of passion escalate on the grounds that they can only kill you once so you may as well take out as many people as you can if you are going to be caught.
Statistic never lie, they are just descriptions. You know that. It may not always be an effective deterrent, but surely you would concede that in some cases, some circumstances, it would be a deterrent. Some individuals would choose not to risk their own life for a crime, would that not? Answer please.
Society has many limits on what its willing /capable of. I dont see how there is a connection between CP and medicines for the needy any more than there is to military spending to pick just one low hanging fruit. As an argument goes its a bit pointless, if you are worried about healthcare spending for the needy why not just mandate a slightly higher tax rate to pay for it. Besides the current system of CP in the states is very expensive, and cheaper models elsewhere in the world with less legal room for manouever are not exactly models for judicial rectitude.
Clouding the issue again. Two wrongs don't make a right. The connection is that scarce resources are selected to preserve the life of the worst killers rather than preserve the lives of good citizens. A distinction can be made. A distinction should be made. Cost effective execution would be a worthwhile aim too.
Bear in mind I am not advocating widespread CP, I am advocating special category CP for the worst of society.
Now, Euthanasia may be a different kettle of fish.
Nice ending. Can only deal with one kettle at a time.
Mar 18th 2014, 1:15 pm
#47
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 466
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Is the massacre of children any worse than the murder of an elderly person in their own home? How do you rationalise that?
Mar 18th 2014, 1:18 pm
#48
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 466
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Sorry, I didnt think saying that killing in the name of the law was wrong under any circumstances offered any ambiguity.
The whole point of this discussion is whether it is wrong or not. So this is a circular argument.
I dont see how you can talk about anti-CP people as a collective mass any more than it makes sense to paint all pro-CP people as the same. People come at this from different viewpoints, some would argue for instance that the death penalty is an easy cop out for someone who would otherwise face the prospect of spending every day of the rest of their life behind bars. Thats perhaps what a life sentence should mean in most cases, but thats not the case (in the US) because of all the stupid mandatory drug convictions filling the jails with mandatory sentences with no option of parole, even for 1st time offenders. That has led to crowding, which has led to early release for many killers as they are eligible for parole in most cases. I read somewhere that 6 years time spent is about the average, and that aint right, but I wonder how many of those deemed rehabilitated go on to reoffend anyway? Outside of gangs very few is my guess.
There is a status quo evidenced by your first statement above which is held by the majority of persons. As a short hand, I referred to it as anti-CP, although as you point out, each collective has a range of opinions. I suppose what I object to is that many people that consider themselves "anti-CP" do so on the basis of received wisdom, that "mistakes happen" that there is "no deterrent" and leave it at that without considering whether we have the means now to differentiate between types of crime and, in particular, risk of injustice.
Statistics regarding large populations generally do not lie. CP is not an effective deterrent. In fact there is a theory that crimes of passion escalate on the grounds that they can only kill you once so you may as well take out as many people as you can if you are going to be caught.
Statistic never lie, they are just descriptions. You know that. It may not always be an effective deterrent, but surely you would concede that in some cases, some circumstances, it would be a deterrent. Some individuals would choose not to risk their own life for a crime, would that not? Answer please.
Society has many limits on what its willing /capable of. I dont see how there is a connection between CP and medicines for the needy any more than there is to military spending to pick just one low hanging fruit. As an argument goes its a bit pointless, if you are worried about healthcare spending for the needy why not just mandate a slightly higher tax rate to pay for it. Besides the current system of CP in the states is very expensive, and cheaper models elsewhere in the world with less legal room for manouever are not exactly models for judicial rectitude.
Clouding the issue again. Two wrongs don't make a right. The connection is that scarce resources are selected to preserve the life of the worst killers rather than preserve the lives of good citizens. A distinction can be made. A distinction should be made. Cost effective execution would be a worthwhile aim too.
Bear in mind I am not advocating widespread CP, I am advocating special category CP for the worst of society.
Now, Euthanasia may be a different kettle of fish.
Nice ending. Can only deal with one kettle at a time.
The whole point of this discussion is whether it is wrong or not. So this is a circular argument.
I dont see how you can talk about anti-CP people as a collective mass any more than it makes sense to paint all pro-CP people as the same. People come at this from different viewpoints, some would argue for instance that the death penalty is an easy cop out for someone who would otherwise face the prospect of spending every day of the rest of their life behind bars. Thats perhaps what a life sentence should mean in most cases, but thats not the case (in the US) because of all the stupid mandatory drug convictions filling the jails with mandatory sentences with no option of parole, even for 1st time offenders. That has led to crowding, which has led to early release for many killers as they are eligible for parole in most cases. I read somewhere that 6 years time spent is about the average, and that aint right, but I wonder how many of those deemed rehabilitated go on to reoffend anyway? Outside of gangs very few is my guess.
There is a status quo evidenced by your first statement above which is held by the majority of persons. As a short hand, I referred to it as anti-CP, although as you point out, each collective has a range of opinions. I suppose what I object to is that many people that consider themselves "anti-CP" do so on the basis of received wisdom, that "mistakes happen" that there is "no deterrent" and leave it at that without considering whether we have the means now to differentiate between types of crime and, in particular, risk of injustice.
Statistics regarding large populations generally do not lie. CP is not an effective deterrent. In fact there is a theory that crimes of passion escalate on the grounds that they can only kill you once so you may as well take out as many people as you can if you are going to be caught.
Statistic never lie, they are just descriptions. You know that. It may not always be an effective deterrent, but surely you would concede that in some cases, some circumstances, it would be a deterrent. Some individuals would choose not to risk their own life for a crime, would that not? Answer please.
Society has many limits on what its willing /capable of. I dont see how there is a connection between CP and medicines for the needy any more than there is to military spending to pick just one low hanging fruit. As an argument goes its a bit pointless, if you are worried about healthcare spending for the needy why not just mandate a slightly higher tax rate to pay for it. Besides the current system of CP in the states is very expensive, and cheaper models elsewhere in the world with less legal room for manouever are not exactly models for judicial rectitude.
Clouding the issue again. Two wrongs don't make a right. The connection is that scarce resources are selected to preserve the life of the worst killers rather than preserve the lives of good citizens. A distinction can be made. A distinction should be made. Cost effective execution would be a worthwhile aim too.
Bear in mind I am not advocating widespread CP, I am advocating special category CP for the worst of society.
Now, Euthanasia may be a different kettle of fish.
Nice ending. Can only deal with one kettle at a time.
Mar 18th 2014, 1:18 pm
#49
Yo
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Mar 18th 2014, 1:28 pm
#50
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,768
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Also, you cannot have a low cost execution in a society that actually cares about not committing miscarriages of justice. As pointed out by others, once executed there is no way to correct an injustice, so all avenues must be available, and ultimately that is never going to be cheap. There are countries where summary executions and an absence of due process occur, and in all cases there are serious Human Rights concerns.
Last edited by iaink; Mar 18th 2014 at 1:36 pm.
Mar 18th 2014, 1:37 pm
#51
Yo
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
For the sake of argument, if the statistics were to show the opposite (namely that CP deters heinous crime) would you favour CP?
Mar 18th 2014, 1:39 pm
#52
Yo
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Also, you cannot have a low cost execution in a society that actually cares about not committing miscarriages of justice. As pointed out by others, once executed there is no way to correct an injustice, so all avenues must be available, and ultimately that is never going to be cheap. There are countries where summary executions and an absence of due process occur, and in all cases there are serious Human Rights concerns.
Mar 18th 2014, 1:48 pm
#53
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,019
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Mar 18th 2014, 1:54 pm
#55
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,768
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Assuming society didn't change over time, that technology didn't change, that demographics didn't change, possibly. Society does change. Human nature is complex. The stats are unreliable.
For the sake of argument, if the statistics were to show the opposite (namely that CP deters heinous crime) would you favour CP?
For the sake of argument, if the statistics were to show the opposite (namely that CP deters heinous crime) would you favour CP?
If the death penalty was this great deterrent then there would be evidence in the data.
If the stats showed it to be a deterrent then I would still object for the simple reasons I outlined earlier. But at least the occasional miscarriage would at least be somewhat justified by the "greater good" argument of lower murder rates etc. As it is, there is no justification.
Mar 18th 2014, 1:54 pm
#56
Magnificently Withering
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Oakville, ON
Posts: 6,891
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Capital punishment has not, ever, anywhere, been shown to have an effective deterrent effect on reduction of capital crime. Indeed, there is limited evidence to show the opposite, especially in instances where some sort of religious zealotry and/or desire for martyrdom is in play.
You seem to acknowledge that the possibility of miscarriage of justice would make it difficult to justify capital punishment in all but the most obvious cases (an identified culprit caught red handed with no doubt as to identity or the sequence of events).
If capital punishment were limited to such cases, that provides a two tier justice system, which is patently not fair.
If capital punishment were not limited to such cases, that provides a possibility that innocent people would be executed, which is patently not fair.
Therefore, in either circumstance, capital punishment does not provide a fair, equitable and unbiased system of punishment, and should not be contemplated as a form of justice in any civilised country. Ever. Anywhere. Under any circumstances.
What "current model" is it that opponents of capital punishment can't see past? How would you propose to overcome the inherent ridiculousness of a system that punishes the terminally stupid or unlucky (or those who set out to be caught deliberately, for whatever reason) in a harsher way than it punishes the smarter or luckier killers?
Mar 18th 2014, 2:00 pm
#57
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,768
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
Even where people have confessed, its been proven that they were not the perpetrators.
You appear to be advocating a legal system where available verdicts in murder trials of not guilty, guilty or really guilty.
What possible benefit do you see given that its never going to be cheaper and there is no evidence at all to show that its a deterrent?
Mar 18th 2014, 2:14 pm
#58
Yo
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,474
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
[QUOTE=Oakvillian;11178442]
Capital punishment has not, ever, anywhere, been shown to have an effective deterrent effect on reduction of capital crime. Indeed, there is limited evidence to show the opposite, especially in instances where some sort of religious zealotry and/or desire for martyrdom is in play.
It may never have been shown, but it is human nature that some will take into account the nature of punishment when considering criminal activity. And some will choose not to commit the crime. You're not disputing that I hope?
On deterrence, it is not I that is proposing it as a justification. I am only refuting Iaink's assertion that it has no deterrence effect. I have doubts about the statistics, but in any event it would not likely impact on the kind of cases I am suggesting would fit CP. So deterrence really is a non-issue here.
If capital punishment were limited to such cases, that provides a two tier justice system, which is patently not fair.
Why is two tier justice not fair? We already have tiers relating to punishment? Incidentally, the tier would relate to the gravity of the crime.
If capital punishment were not limited to such cases, that provides a possibility that innocent people would be executed, which is patently not fair.
Non-issue. I have am suggesting CP only in cases where there is zero (or to avoid the nit-pickers, arbitrarily close to zero) chance of mistaken identity. Unless of course you want to dispute the metaphysics of identity.
Therefore, in either circumstance, capital punishment does not provide a fair, equitable and unbiased system of punishment, and should not be contemplated as a form of justice in any civilised country. Ever. Anywhere. Under any circumstances.
You have failed to consider a different system and are relying on a position of policy.
[I]What "current model" is it that opponents of capital punishment can't see past? How would you propose to overcome the inherent ridiculousness of a system that punishes the terminally stupid or unlucky (or those who set out to be caught deliberately, for whatever reason) in a harsher way than it punishes the smarter or luckier killers?
Protections to be put in place for the terminally stupid. As for the lucky/unlucky it doesn't really matter:
- if the crime is severe and horrific enough (society decides this, although
school massacres would be a good starting point)
- and if there is zero risk of mistaken identity
The malignant human gets destroyed. Simple as that. Not all human life is of the same value to society.
Capital punishment has not, ever, anywhere, been shown to have an effective deterrent effect on reduction of capital crime. Indeed, there is limited evidence to show the opposite, especially in instances where some sort of religious zealotry and/or desire for martyrdom is in play.
It may never have been shown, but it is human nature that some will take into account the nature of punishment when considering criminal activity. And some will choose not to commit the crime. You're not disputing that I hope?
On deterrence, it is not I that is proposing it as a justification. I am only refuting Iaink's assertion that it has no deterrence effect. I have doubts about the statistics, but in any event it would not likely impact on the kind of cases I am suggesting would fit CP. So deterrence really is a non-issue here.
If capital punishment were limited to such cases, that provides a two tier justice system, which is patently not fair.
Why is two tier justice not fair? We already have tiers relating to punishment? Incidentally, the tier would relate to the gravity of the crime.
If capital punishment were not limited to such cases, that provides a possibility that innocent people would be executed, which is patently not fair.
Non-issue. I have am suggesting CP only in cases where there is zero (or to avoid the nit-pickers, arbitrarily close to zero) chance of mistaken identity. Unless of course you want to dispute the metaphysics of identity.
Therefore, in either circumstance, capital punishment does not provide a fair, equitable and unbiased system of punishment, and should not be contemplated as a form of justice in any civilised country. Ever. Anywhere. Under any circumstances.
You have failed to consider a different system and are relying on a position of policy.
[I]What "current model" is it that opponents of capital punishment can't see past? How would you propose to overcome the inherent ridiculousness of a system that punishes the terminally stupid or unlucky (or those who set out to be caught deliberately, for whatever reason) in a harsher way than it punishes the smarter or luckier killers?
Protections to be put in place for the terminally stupid. As for the lucky/unlucky it doesn't really matter:
- if the crime is severe and horrific enough (society decides this, although
school massacres would be a good starting point)
- and if there is zero risk of mistaken identity
The malignant human gets destroyed. Simple as that. Not all human life is of the same value to society.
Mar 18th 2014, 2:20 pm
#59
Moderαtor Emeritus
Joined: Sep 2003
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Posts: 30,768
Re: Should capital punishment be reinstated right here?
[QUOTE=Shard;11178477]
I am disputing that there is any evidence that capital punishment results in a lower crime rate.
Capital punishment may in some cases increase the murder rates as you can only be executed once, and some religous nutters seek death in order to become a glorious martyr, so yes, I guess I am disputing the overall benefit.
I am disputing that there is any evidence that capital punishment results in a lower crime rate.
Capital punishment may in some cases increase the murder rates as you can only be executed once, and some religous nutters seek death in order to become a glorious martyr, so yes, I guess I am disputing the overall benefit.