Death Sentence Vs Life Imprisonment [Archive]

arildno

Jul5-06, 02:56 PM

Some people deserve to swing from the gallows.
Really? By the long or short rope?
Or is frying more humane?

As I see it, the punitive element in the societal reaction towards crime is largely irrational, obscuring the perfectly rational motive of getting some dangerous person off the streets (this, of course, given any type of crime, is most effectively done by killing the person)

One of the primary problems with the whole punishment idea is that the punishment must "fit" the crime, it can't be larger or less.
This means, for example, that a petty crime drug addict must get a "small" punishment if any, instead of being forcibly retained until we may be comfortably certain the guy can be released and do no further offenses.

On the other scale, since "taking a life" is said to be such a horrifying act, a woman finally rebelling after years of abuse by taking her husband's life must be consigned a long prison term (or execution), even though there is just the minutest risk she'll ever do something like that again.

On the death vs. life imprisonment issue, I voted life imprisonment only, since "undecided" wasn't an option.

Pengwuino

Jul5-06, 02:59 PM

But how often is a housewife given the death penalty for killing her abusive husband?

MeJennifer

Jul5-06, 02:59 PM

The reason I am against the death penalty particularly for murder is that its such a contradictory penalty. You say that killing somebody is wrong and that it is one of the most awful crimes one can comit yet you condone the killing of the murderer afterwards. Doesn't make sense to me. Taking a life is either wrong or it isn't.
Depends on the person you ask.

Some have those morals while others do not.

Some consider it simply an effective deterrent for others.
"Here, look! This is what's going to happen to you if you do not obey the law!". The criminal is used as an example and warning for others.

Tom Mattson

Jul5-06, 03:02 PM

Really? By the long or short rope?
Or is frying more humane?

It was just an expression. I don't mean that we should use the literal gallows. I think that the lethal injection should be used. Actually, I think that's a lot more humane than life in a maximum security US prison, where the local gang of nothing-to-lose, AIDS-ridden convicts would be happy to offer a new convict a lethal injection of an entirely different sort.

Kurdt

Jul5-06, 03:03 PM

arildno: I concur with this point of view but perhaps go further to say that a lot of petty crimes are born from social factors which largely need to be resolved in society. Beyond that some serious crimes are performed by people whom I imagine have some sort of mental illness. WE agree that anybody in their right mind would not comit murder but we fail to recognise even in this era that mental illnesses are a very broad spectrum indeed. The fact that somebody killed is indeed terrible but if they are fond to be of unsound mind then they deserve the chance to be treated and live a normal life.

This is similar to arildno's beaten wife argument, One could say environmental conditions have pushed her to the edge of sanity and in one brief moment she lashed out and murdered her abuser. With the correct councelling that woan could be freed into society with no danger to anybody else. Of course it depends on whether you believe society should be survival of the fittest type or a one in which we all look out for each other.

siddharth

Jul5-06, 03:11 PM

and this means.....

Notice how i said nothing as to the merits of the death penalty...

What I mean is that, I think that every person including the criminal has a right to life.

"Here, look! This is what's going to happen to you if you do not obey the law!". The criminal is used as an example and warning for others.

There's a lot of conflicting studies done on the effect of capital punishment as a detterent. If I remember, some studies even showed that there were higher murder rates in countries with the death penalty. In fact, I don't think that statistical studies can prove that the death penalty actually causes the murder rate to drop, they can at best only show correlation.

MeJennifer

Jul5-06, 03:16 PM

Beyond that some serious crimes are performed by people whom I imagine have some sort of mental illness. WE agree that anybody in their right mind would not comit murder but we fail to recognise even in this era that mental illnesses are a very broad spectrum indeed.
Were does this notion come from that murder must be some kind of mental illness? :confused:
Perhaps from the absurd idea that since "humans must be good and if that is contradicted by the facts then they must 'obviously' be mentally ill, by definition"?

What a few thousand year of history has shown us is that humans murder for all kind of reasons, ranging from pleasure to self defense. Murder is simply a human activity, which by the way is not uncommon in the animal world either. :smile:

I wonder if you would call a lion mentally ill as well? :wink:

Jimmy Snyder

Jul5-06, 03:33 PM

Kurdt

Jul5-06, 03:37 PM

The mind is not an object that runs by a specific set of rules. Mental illnesses are a spectral disorder many exponentially more severe than others. I'm just saying that the psychological makeup of a murderer is going to be different than that of somebody who does not comit murder. There has to be some trigger. If you believe that murder is a human activity then that suggests that you would quite happily live in a lawless world where anything that occurs is considered just human activity. What I am in favour of is a greater understanding of environmental and genetic makeup of the populaton as a whole and I strongly believe in the spectral nature of mental problems. Perhaps illness was too harsh a word to use.

I would not call a lion mantally ill because a lions survival depends on it eating other animals. A human's survival does not depend on taking the life of another except possibly in matters of self defence.

bomba923

Jul5-06, 03:37 PM

Regarding the death vs. life imprisonment,
why not just let that be the criminal's choice?

(whenever there is doubt in sentencing to either death or life imprisonment)

MeJennifer

Jul5-06, 03:46 PM

If you believe that murder is a human activity then that suggests that you would quite happily live in a lawless world where anything that occurs is considered just human activity.
I would be highly interested how you make such a conclusion. :confused:
I think it would say much more about you than about me. :smile:

That murder is a human activity is simply a fact. Hiding this fact, or "explaining" it with people being "mentally ill" are simply means to show one does not like this fact.
Whether one likes or dislikes such a fact does in no way imply on how one desires how a society should be run.

Evo

Jul5-06, 03:50 PM

This is similar to arildno's beaten wife argument, One could say environmental conditions have pushed her to the edge of sanity and in one brief moment she lashed out and murdered her abuser. With the correct councelling that woan could be freed into society with no danger to anybody else. Of course it depends on whether you believe society should be survival of the fittest type or a one in which we all look out for each other.That is how it is in America, there are varying degrees of "murder", it can be ruled "involuntary manslaughter" which means there was no criminal intention to kill and carries a very light sentence, to murder in the first degree, which can carry the death penalty in states where it is allowed. There isn't "one sentence fits all". If someone is found to be mentally incompetant, then they are sent to a mental hospital for treatment.

Killing someone can also be considered "self defense" and the charges will be dropped altogether. This would apply to someone breaking into your home and trying to kill you, and you kill them in self defense.

Pengwuino

Jul5-06, 03:53 PM

What I mean is that, I think that every person including the criminal has a right to life.

But life in prison is living... why should the murderer get to walk the streets a free man (as i was saying)?

Pengwuino

Jul5-06, 03:56 PM

Regarding the death vs. life imprisonment,
why not just let that be the criminal's choice?

(whenever there is doubt in sentencing to either death or life imprisonment)

Let the criminal have the choice? Why not ask the criminal if he prefers jail or a non-extradition country.

Kurdt

Jul5-06, 04:15 PM

I understand there are different degrees of murder my point is that a lot of people who are just convicted of I suppose the pre-meditated kind could be considered as havin a mild mental instabilities and should be treated thats all.

With regards to human activity; if you consider this a fact and do no research into why it happens then perhaps that says more about you than me.

Cyrus

Jul5-06, 04:17 PM

Kill them.

meteor

Jul5-06, 04:23 PM

I imagine myself convicted to die in the electric chair. It must be horrible and i don't want that feeling for any other person
The cliche "some people are intrinsically evil and deserve to die" is wrong. There're no evil people and there're no good people. Some people commit crimes, and we must ask ourselves the reason of that. Is the criminal really "evil"? Or were his/her acts conditioned by education/environment/abuse? It's too easy to destroy what seems dangerous and non profitable, even if it's a human life

i've read in a webpage that USA is the developed country with more murders per capita. Are americans "eviler" than the rest, or is that fact caused by the environment, e.g. free possession of guns

MeJennifer

Jul5-06, 04:24 PM

With regards to human activity; if you consider this a fact and do no research into why it happens then perhaps that says more about you than me.
Ok? :confused: :confused:

Research into why humans are as they are?
Ever heared of evolution? Or is that perhaps an ugly word.

Do you think that by "explaining" the goodness of humans by blaming "exceptions" on mental illness, the environment, society and other excuses is going to change one thing about the fact the we are who we are due to millions of years of evolution?

Pengwuino

Jul5-06, 04:29 PM

i've read in a webpage that USA is the developed country with more murders per capita. Are americans "eviler" than the rest, or is that fact caused by the environment, e.g. free possession of guns

So the very fact that you own a gun makes you evil? I had no idea guns had such magic powers! (you'll also want to actually do some research and look at how many murders there are in areas of the US whos gun laws resemble 'progressive' nations in Europe) You're simply excusing all criminals for what they do. People do things because they want to be satisfied. Some people will do a little more. Look at something simple like getting music. Some people will work hard and earn their money to buy music. Some will just download it for free (which is another form of stealing anyhow). Some steal right out of the store. Is the criminal who does such a thing mentally ill? Or did he just want to get something for nothing like most people do...

meteor

Jul5-06, 04:39 PM

Some steal right out of the store. Is the criminal who does such a thing mentally ill? Or did he just want to get something for nothing like most people do...

There are a lot of factors there.. Education is most important, an educated person will behave in a social manner and will try not to steal (there are exceptions, Winona Ryder comes to mind). Then again, a person educated in a criminal environment will tend to behave criminally

Cyrus

Jul5-06, 04:41 PM

There are a lot of factors there.. Education is most important, an educated person will behave in a social manner and will try not to steal (there are exceptions, Winona Ryder comes to mind). Then again, a person educated in a criminal environment will tend to behave criminally

:rofl: That is way, way wrong. White collar crime results in the loss of more property and money than crime by the poor.

MeJennifer

Jul5-06, 04:44 PM

:rofl: That is way, way wrong. White collar crime results in the most loss of property and money.
Not so much wrong, but ludicrous.

"...an educated person will behave in a social manner and will try not to steal "

My oh my, I am stunned to see that there are actually people who believe such things. Don't get me wrong they should have to right to believe it and express it but come on.

Moonbear

Jul5-06, 04:50 PM

I voted for both, depending on the crime. I think it's something that should be very rarely used, and even for the vast majority of murderers, is too extreme, but there is the rare person who is so incorrigible and commits such heinous crimes and who cannot be reformed, and if they ever escaped, would go right back to killing, such that the concept of rehabilitation is lost with them. Those rare few, who we could do little else with other than leave to rot in solitary confinement the rest of their life, they are the ones I would still say the death penalty is appropriate for.

Kazza_765

Jul5-06, 08:14 PM

I do not trust the government enough to let them ban guns so of course I don't trust it enough to allow it to kill its own citizens. I don't trust it to decide who is and who is not a human being either. Our experience with another government that allowed itself that prerogative was negative.

Agreed. I'm not against the death penalty per se, I believe there are some people that deserve death. However, I don't believe that any government should ever have the right to take the life of its citizens.

Cyrus

Jul5-06, 08:16 PM

Your statement is a direct contradiction of itself Kazaa.

wolram

Jul5-06, 08:55 PM

For 1st degree murder.
I think it would be best to ship them out to some deserted island, may be put a mine field around it, and let them fend for them selfs.

Cyrus

Jul5-06, 09:01 PM

You mean send them to Australia again?

Kurdt

Jul5-06, 09:03 PM

Do you think that by "explaining" the goodness of humans by blaming "exceptions" on mental illness, the environment, society and other excuses is going to change one thing about the fact the we are who we are due to millions of years of evolution?

The attitude that we are who we are is pretty negative. To me it says there is no point trying to change because we are this way anyway. the point I'm making is that if there is a reason for someone to murder be it mental instability or whatever (this is pre-meditated and not self defence stuff) then perhaps that person can be helped like anyone else who has a psychological problem.

The problem also with evolution is its not perfect, thats why there are genetic diseases and faulty genes. The fact is that in this modern era we can do something about it and not just leave people to rot saying well its your fault because we evolved with a certain percentage of murderers in our society and you happen to be one of them.

wolram

Jul5-06, 09:05 PM

You mean send them to Australia again?

No that is way big, just a small island.

MeJennifer

Jul5-06, 09:13 PM

The attitude that we are who we are is pretty negative.

To me this has nothing to do with attitude Kurdt. Something is either true or false, regardless whether it is negative, positive, beautiful, Utopian etc.
My attitude in this matter is frankly rather one of indifference. Which is usually the best approach in assessing something objectively. Too much subjectivity guarantees a distorted view wouldn't you say? :smile:

To me it says there is no point trying to change because we are this way anyway.

Well look at history and see what happens when some people are trying to change others, "for the good" of course. Ideologies that require people to start thinking differently usually lead to brutal suppression of thought and expression.

The problem also with evolution is its not perfect, thats why there are genetic diseases and faulty genes. The fact is that in this modern era we can do something about it and not just leave people to rot saying well its your fault because we evolved with a certain percentage of murderers in our society and you happen to be one of them.

And you would not consider that statement arrogant? The attitude of "we humans can do better than nature"? We are the product of nature, what is wrong in finding some pride in that? Are you saying that that what created us (evolution) is wrong?

Don't get me wrong I respect and understand exactly what you are saying.
And no snideness or ill-will intended on my side! :smile:

Kurdt

Jul6-06, 05:57 AM

I don't think that attempting to do something about the problem of murderers in a society is arrogant at all. In fact that is part of our nature as far as I am concerned. We have opposing points of view and could argue forever so I'll just leave it at that.

J77

Jul6-06, 06:00 AM

Of course the death penalty should be abolished!

Mistakes can be and are made with "lifers" - it's a good job they're still around to be freed.

Anttech

Jul6-06, 06:15 AM

Have we not debated this one to death already (pun intended).

Anyway my 2 eurocents:

The death penalty as a behavior corrective measure does not work obviously, because there isnt much to correct once you are dead.

The death penalty as a deterrent does not work also IMHO, as if it did Murder rates, Rapes would happen far less frequently than they do.

The death penalty as a way to keep criminals of the streets does work, however with Maximum security prisons as safe as they are, could be argued as just as effective.

So the only description I can think of that the death penalty really does outweigh life imprisonment is for Revenge purposes.

I for one dont think the government should sponsor Revenge through the courts, it brings them to the same level as gangsters revenging the loss of one of their 'family'

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul6-06, 06:53 AM

States which have the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those who abolished it. Also those who reinstituted it saw no drop in murder rates.

The money it costs to keep a criminal on death row (legal bills) is greater than keeping them incarcerated for life.

Interestingly the law on this comes from the Old testaments, eye for an eye law, the Jews had one punishment that warranted the death sentence and that was murder. This draconic legal system was it is purported the inspiration for Americas laws. By the way Israel no longer has a death sentence, meaning they are more progressive than perhaps those of a fundementalist leaning, if you get my drift.

How do you judge a man as being incorrigable, is there a standard evaluation test that predicts sixty years of the rest of someone's life, who are you to play God?

How can a man atone for his crimes if he's dead? How do we know that he may never give anything back to society, serve as an example of a repentant man, lead others not to make his mistakes, we don't he's dead, darn :frown:

Revenge does not bring contentment in the famillies in question, it does not bring back the lost familly member and it is in the long term of no real consolation.

Quite apart from the fact that it's old fashoined and somewhat barbaric, The US I think will follow Europes lead in the end and fewer and fewer states will use it. I've yet to see anyone convince me that it does anything except waste money end life and increase murder rates.

arildno

Jul6-06, 07:33 AM

J77

Jul6-06, 07:40 AM

This is one of the main reasons why I voted for life imprisonment only; death penalty does not "work" (in a generally preventive way), as it is practised in Western countries today.You mean, as practised by the US: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

arunbg

Jul6-06, 08:11 AM

In most of the recent cases of death penalty in the US that I have come across, the punishment is carried out at leat 10-15 years after the crime has been committed .What's the use of that? How do you know the criminal is not a changed man ?
Right to life is fundamental and no court or state has the authority to take anybody's life, period.

Jimmy Snyder

Jul6-06, 08:17 AM

By the way Israel no longer has a death sentence.
Israel did have a death penalty on the books at one time. Adolph Eichmann was the only person executed under that law. So far, I haven't found any information on the web indicating that the law had changed.

MeJennifer

Jul6-06, 08:24 AM

Right to life is fundamental and no court or state has the authority to take anybody's life, period.
Feel free how "right to life is fundamental".
It is clearly your prerogative to have an opinion about death penalty. But to present it as some universal law, is just a sofist way of promoting your idealism.

Anttech

Jul6-06, 08:28 AM

:confused: :confused: :confused:

So he is free to have an opinion, but not express that opinion??

You totally lost me, seems like "doublespeak" or whatever they call it

PRDan4th

Jul6-06, 08:36 AM

The best argument against the death penalty is that convictions can be in error! Executions cannot be reversed.

Pengwuino

Jul6-06, 08:40 AM

States which have the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those who abolished it. Also those who reinstituted it saw no drop in murder rates.

Since very few states don't have the death penalty, thats a statistically rediculous statement as theres no data no real way of comparing how effective it is or isn't.

Revenge does not bring contentment in the famillies in question, it does not bring back the lost familly member and it is in the long term of no real consolation.

I assume you speak for all families of murder victims?

arildno

Jul6-06, 08:44 AM

Were does this notion come from that murder must be some kind of mental illness? :confused:
Perhaps from the absurd idea that since "humans must be good and if that is contradicted by the facts then they must 'obviously' be mentally ill, by definition"?

What a few thousand year of history has shown us is that humans murder for all kind of reasons, ranging from pleasure to self defense. Murder is simply a human activity, which by the way is not uncommon in the animal world either. :smile:
Culture is also natural to humans, including the formation and upholding of norms.

If we assume that there exist a core set of naturally given personalities each of which can develop in its own ways in different directions due to cultural influences, then it is consistent with this that different cultures will/may produce different outsiders/criminal types.

Once a developed personality type differs markedly from the average ones, then the term "mentally ill" may well be appropriate.

With the state monopolization of violence, it was imperative to regulate the subjects' behaviour, for example by new forms of child raising techniques.

Our aversion towards exerting violence is certainly culturally induced, and
any Roman (slave, poor or free) would, for example, be appalled by our submissiveness towards, say, verbal insults, in particular by our reluctance to punch the offender in the face.

MeJennifer

Jul6-06, 08:46 AM

:confused: :confused: :confused:

So he is free to have an opinion, but not express that opinion??

You totally lost me, seems like "doublespeak" or whatever they call it
No read what I write, he is free to have it and free to express it as far as I am concerned.

However he is making an extraordinary claim that "right to life is fundamental" and above any judicial system.
So I call him on it and ask him to support that claim.
That's all. :smile:

Anttech

Jul6-06, 09:32 AM

I have read your post 10 times now, and it still doesnt make any sence for me. Your most recent post does more so, however you are still calling upon someone to support an opinion, that you dont mind him to have, yet you are asking him to support his opinion like you would support facts, No?

is it not like me saying, In my opinion the sky is Red with green dots, in that picture and you asking me to support this...

Anyway :smile: let me get this straight, you are saying that the life and being allowed to live is not a fundemental right of humans?

Pengwuino

Jul6-06, 09:33 AM

Raise your hand if anyone thinks anyone else is going to be convinced of the opposite viewpoint through this thread.

MeJennifer

Jul6-06, 09:41 AM

Anyway :smile: let me get this straight, you are saying that the life and being allowed to live is not a fundamental right of humans?
Only a judicial system can declare something a fundamental right.
If his opinion is that country XYZ should instantiate a law that makes the "right to life" a fundamental right then that is clearly an opinion that one either agrees or disagrees with. :smile:

But that is not what was claimed, what was claimed was:
Right to life is fundamental and no court or state has the authority to take anybody's life, period.

In other words, his poses a fundamental right that apparently stands above any judicial system.
That appears to be simply a form sophism.
:smile:

MeJennifer

Jul6-06, 09:46 AM

If we assume that there exist a core set of naturally given personalities each of which can develop in its own ways in different directions due to cultural influences, then it is consistent with this that different cultures will/may produce different outsiders/criminal types.

Once a developed personality type differs markedly from the average ones, then the term "mentally ill" may well be appropriate.

So in your line of thinking you do not consider mental illness as only a medical condition, but it also applies to people who do not fit in ?

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul6-06, 09:52 AM

Since very few states don't have the death penalty, thats a statistically rediculous statement as theres no data no real way of comparing how effective it is or isn't.

Aw come now it proves that it isn't a deterent since it makes no difference to murder rates when you reinstate it, your not being reasonable, you could say that the states that have a death penalty are inherently the most violent too therefore they always would of had higher murder rates, but you'd have a hard time proving it, it at least indicates that there is no correlatory effect of a death sentence being a deterrent, and if this is the case is there really any point in throwing money at it, since it fails to achieve anything?

I assume you speak for all families of murder victims?

Actually I'm speaking about people who told me about the situation so it's anecdotal, but you'd have to be a pretty vindictive person to think the death of the perpatrator is going to bring you any comfort in the long run. I'll warrant some people may be like that, but it's not healthy to bear that sort of grudge surely?

Israel did have a death penalty on the books at one time. Adolph Eichmann was the only person executed under that law. So far, I haven't found any information on the web indicating that the law had changed.

Yes so did the Early Jews, right up until they reformed there country. It's an ancient law, perhaps I never made that clear and one they didn't want to reinstate in a progressive penal system that they have in Israel.

Raise your hand if anyone thinks anyone else is going to be convinced of the opposite viewpoint through this thread.

Give me a list of pros and I'll be convinced, this is a commonly occuring thread and I've yet to see anyone produce a convincing counter argument to the anti position, it seems to me that the only reason to keep these laws is conservatism, ie it's always been that way why change it?

Anttech

Jul6-06, 10:02 AM

In other words, his poses a fundamental right that apparently stands above any judicial system.
That appears to be simply a form sofism.

Is it really a sofism? Care to enlighten me on what Islamic mysticism has to do with the opinion that life is a fundemental right?

Sofism \So"fism\, n.
Same as Sufism.
[1913 Webster]

Sufism \Su"fism\, n.
A refined mysticism among certain classes of Mohammedans,
particularly in Persia, who hold to a kind of pantheism and
practice extreme asceticism in their lives. [Written also
sofism.]:smile:

Tom Mattson

Jul6-06, 10:10 AM

It seems obvious enough to me that MeJennifer is talking about sophism, or if you prefer, sophistry.

Evo

Jul6-06, 10:14 AM

Sophism: 1 : an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive

Anttech, this is the correct definition.

Anttech

Jul6-06, 10:16 AM

It really wasnt obvious to me, thus the question. Glad you cleared it up, because I was having a hard time understand what that was all about.

MeJennifer

Jul6-06, 10:17 AM

Again just for the good order, I am not arguing against someone's opinion.

Whether something is a right is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact. Rights are granted under a legal system. They exist or they do not. :smile:

To state that such and such is a universal right above any legal system is simply nonsense, technically incorrect.
That was my point.

Pengwuino

Jul6-06, 10:30 AM

Aw come now it proves that it isn't a deterent since it makes no difference to murder rates when you reinstate it, your not being reasonable, you could say that the states that have a death penalty are inherently the most violent too therefore they always would of had higher murder rates, but you'd have a hard time proving it, it at least indicates that there is no correlatory effect of a death sentence being a deterrent, and if this is the case is there really any point in throwing money at it, since it fails to achieve anything?

Now you'll need to provide a source....

Give me a list of pros and I'll be convinced, this is a commonly occuring thread and I've yet to see anyone produce a convincing counter argument to the anti position, it seems to me that the only reason to keep these laws is conservatism, ie it's always been that way why change it?

It comes down to being a moral issue no matter how many excuses people make up for either side. Every argument ive seen is pretty much total BS when you pull the argument out of a vacuum and apply it to the real world and the rest of the judicial system. Think about your argument when applied to other judicial punishments. Doesn't work does it? Ahh shucks.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul6-06, 10:35 AM

It's been a while since I read all this stuff, in other words give me some time and I'll find the original thread I linked, in a thread a long time ago :D

Don't wait up but I'll get something, I don't make a habbit of making baseless accusations. Although some web sites are patently biased IIRC so it's a wheat from the chaff deal.

Kurdt

Jul6-06, 12:44 PM

So in your line of thinking you do not consider mental illness as only a medical condition, but it also applies to people who do not fit in ?

I think the point he was making here as I have been, is that through natural processes a culture develops a normal behaviour pattern in which most people in that culture adhere to. Somebody who significantly deviates from this behaviour could be classified as having a particular mental imbalance be it genetic or environmental/social. The old notion of distinct mental illness and the classic image of the raving loony in a mental institution is now being replaced these days with an understanding that an individual may display mild traits of a particular recognised disorder while not actually having the full range of traits classicly ascribed to such individuals. This is known as a mental spectrum disorder. The spectrum term indicating that characteristics can range from minute traces to the full range of mental disfunction.

My original point when I brought this up was inreference to somebody who goes out and murders in a pre-meditative manner. I was merely suggesting that these individuals display behaviour far from the norm in todays society that could be ascribed to a mild inbalance. Just a theory thats all :smile:

arildno

Jul6-06, 12:56 PM

Note that personalities we would call raving loonys today could be well-integrated, and indeed, respected individuals in other cultures (like shamans)

The fact that we now withdraw from such persons, and truth to tell, look down upon them, significantly reduces their life quality (and their ability to function), and they are, for example, left in a void of loneliness&self-loathing never experienced by their previous "personality relatives".

So yes, mental illness does have some contingent, historical features attached to it.

As for the "strictly medical" condition, such criteria don't as yet exist when it comes to mental afflictions; the most objective one can do is a careful evaluation of the extent to which the individual has the ability to function on his own. But, as stated, an individual's ability to function is dependent upon which society he is expected to function in..

arildno

Jul6-06, 02:44 PM

arildno: I concur with this point of view but perhaps go further to say that a lot of petty crimes are born from social factors which largely need to be resolved in society. Beyond that some serious crimes are performed by people whom I imagine have some sort of mental illness. .... The fact that somebody killed is indeed terrible but if they are fond to be of unsound mind then they deserve the chance to be treated and live a normal life.

Certainly, I agree with much of this. As for my term "forcibly retained", this is readily open for the misinterpretation "staying in jail as is done today".
There is a whole lot of other supervision forms and liberty-restrictive arrangements that might be far more efficient than letting some people rot in a jail cell, with an hour or so a day outside.

However, as long as those that have been damaged by unfortunate societal factors exist, some form of efficient dealing with these individuals must also be present.

Gokul43201

Jul6-06, 03:29 PM

Notice how i said nothing as to the merits of the death penalty...This seems to be the pattern among those (40% of respondents) in support of the death penalty.

The only specific claim of merit raised in this thread is here:
Some consider it simply an effective deterrent for others.
"Here, look! This is what's going to happen to you if you do not obey the law!". The criminal is used as an example and warning for others.Is there any statistical support for that? I'd like to see it.

Someone did raise the possibility of having a dangerous criminal escape from captivity. Again, do we have statistics on the number of jailbreaks from high security prisons?

The only other "merit" talked about indirectly is the achievement of revenge.

This really isn't a debate if the voters in support don't support their vote.

russ_watters

Jul6-06, 04:30 PM

Don't wait up but I'll get something, I don't make a habbit of making baseless accusations. Although some web sites are patently biased IIRC so it's a wheat from the chaff deal. Fine, but could you clear up what to me seems like a fair number of contradictions between statements of yours: States which have the death penalty have higher rates of murder than those who abolished it. Also those who reinstituted it saw no drop in murder rates. Don't those two statements contradict each other? If reinstituting it means no drop, then doesn't that mean states have the same rate with it as without it - not a higher rate as in your first sentence?

And then we have: I've yet to see anyone convince me that it does anything except waste money end life and increase murder rates. and: ...it makes no difference to murder rates when you reinstate it...If the death penalty increased murder rates, then re-instituting it should increase it. But you just said "no drop" and "no difference".

And there is a logical fallicy here of assuming a causal link: unless it can be shown that instituting or abolishing it has an effect on the murder rate, then it cannot be concluded that just because states that have always had it have higher murder rates, it is because of the death penalty, as your second last sentence said. The cause-effect relationship could be the other way around: the death penalty could exist in those states because of a high historical murder rate. Or there could be no causal link at all.

There is another issue as well. The money thing. I don't think money should be an issue in a question of rights, but if the money is that important, there is another obvious solution: streamline the process. And that *may* have the added benefit of increasing the deterrence effect, if people see that a death sentence really is a death sentence, not just 20 years in and out of courtrooms.

arunbg

Jul7-06, 11:29 AM

To state that such and such is a universal right above any legal system is simply nonsense, technically incorrect.
That was my point.
Why do you seem to grab on to technical flaws while diverting from the original spirit of the discussion ?
Right to life should be a universal right .Happy now ?:smile:

Of course most knew what I actually meant.
Still I would like to hear your opinion about mine.

russ_watters

Jul7-06, 12:01 PM

Why do you seem to grab on to technical flaws while diverting from the original spirit of the discussion ?
Right to life should be a universal right .Happy now ?:smile: Technical or theoretical, same question: should it be? Why?

How would you deal, for example, with a scenario where two people's rights to life interfere with each other. For example, conjoined twins: say they will likely (but not guaranteed) die if they are no separated, but if they are separated, one will likely live and the other will certainly die. Doesn't protecting an absolute individual right to life require that you not separate then?

For crime: self defence. If the right to life is universal, then self defense should not be allowed.

MeJennifer

Jul7-06, 12:56 PM

This whole rights issue is in currently fashion.
People want rights for just about everybody and everything.
Special rights for this group, for that minority, etc.

But often it seems that they fail to see that every new right granted is taking away freedom from others.
Rights is a zero sum game.

arunbg

Jul7-06, 12:58 PM

How would you deal, for example, with a scenario where two people's rights to life interfere with each other. For example, conjoined twins: say they will likely (but not guaranteed) die if they are no separated, but if they are separated, one will likely live and the other will certainly die. Doesn't protecting an absolute individual right to life require that you not separate then?
Good point there russ.
The same argument can also be extended to any risky operation(kidney transplant eg),where a person can be killed during surgery or have a longer lifespan as compared to an artificial kidney. How would you implement right to life there ?
In these cases I think it is best for the individual himself to be able to revoke his right to life (as is done even today) as and when he likes.

For crime: self defence. If the right to life is universal, then self defense should not be allowed.
I don't quite follow. Could you explain how you came to this conclusion ?

Cheers
Arun

russ_watters

Jul7-06, 01:24 PM

The same argument can also be extended to any risky operation(kidney transplant eg),where a person can be killed during surgery or have a longer lifespan as compared to an artificial kidney. How would you implement right to life there ? There is no right to life issue there: the person getting the transplant makes the choice.
In these cases I think it is best for the individual himself to be able to revoke his right to life (as is done even today) as and when he likes. That really isn't the way rights work. Rights simply give you the choice - you can't revoke your own rights. Ie, you don't revoke your own right to live (or speak), you simply choose not to live (or speak). The difference, though, is that once you make the choice about life, you can never go back - whereas with speech, you can always change your mind because you still have the right. I don't quite follow. Could you explain how you came to this conclusion ? Sure. If right to life is utterly absolute, then it is always murder to purposefully take someone else's life from them. And that includes if someone pulls a gun on you and starts firing, but you manage to kill him before he kills you. In today's courts, your attacker has forfeited his right to life by jepoardizing yours and you are justified in killing him. If the right to life is total, then no justification is allowed and you would be convicted of murder.

russ_watters

Jul7-06, 01:35 PM

The general death penalty debate is a matter of logical reasoning for the penalty. Why or why not put someone to death. There are four main resonings behind every penalty, that I can think of:

1. Punishment
2. Rehabilitation
3. Removal from society
4. Deterrence

Punishment is obvious. If someone kills someone, you "make the punishment fit the crime" as others have put it. But is that reasonable? Right to life may not be absolute, but it is generally considered to be the most absolute of any of the rights because, as I said in my last post, it is essentially the only one that can be permanently revoked by a single act. That means that great care has to be taken in revoking it, if it is done at all. Wheter or not it should be is the primary matter for opinion on this subject.

For rehabilitation, one of the standards for the death penalty is that rehabilitation has to be judged to be impossible. Repeat offenses are generally a reason for that. So this issue does not apply, though that does take a judgement call.

For removal from society is the same for death penalty and for life imprisonment without parole, so it would not be used as a justification for the death penalty.

Deterrence is a tricky one ethically. Whether or not it works, deterrence is essentially punishing one person for the possible future crimes of another and because of that it is a sticky issue for the courts.

People have mentioned money and cruelty as other lines of reasoning. I don't think money should apply to such important questions (it certainly didn't help defending against the Pinto lawsuits) and cruelty is covered by #1.

arunbg

Jul7-06, 02:00 PM

Russ, thank you for making your position clear.
Perhaps what is required is a universal right to choice of life, that rests with the individual only.That way you don't "revoke" your right to life in the cases above, as you pointed out.

There is no right to life issue there: the person getting the transplant makes the choice.
Well, don't the conjoined twins make the choice too ?:wink:

Sure. If right to life is utterly absolute, then it is always murder to purposefully take someone else's life from them. And that includes if someone pulls a gun on you and starts firing, but you manage to kill him before he kills you. In today's courts, your attacker has forfeited his right to life by jepoardizing yours and you are justified in killing him. If the right to life is total, then no justification is allowed and you would be convicted of murder.
Of course you will be convicted for murder.Of course you have violated the right but so what ? It's still murder for self defence. Note that granting the right to choice of life does not in anyway affect the way in which a criminal is punished, apart from saving him from death penalty, if it comes to that. In this case the crime will be treated just like any other.

Cheers
Arun

MeJennifer

Jul7-06, 02:12 PM

The general death penalty debate is a matter of logical reasoning for the penalty.
I disagree, it is simply a matter of opinion.
One is either for it, against it or has no opinion.
But there is absolutely no necessity to provide "logical reasoning" (whatever that means) in order to justify one's opinion.

Punishment is obvious. If someone kills someone, you "make the punishment fit the crime" as others have put it. But is that reasonable?

Well you tell us, do you think it is reasonable.
I suspect you will say, no it is not?
My response question would be on what ground do you base that assertion?

Right to life may not be absolute, but it is generally considered to be the most absolute of any of the rights because, as I said in my last post, it is essentially the only one that can be permanently revoked by a single act.

"Generally considered a right"?
So basically what you claim is that most people think it ought to be a right. We all know it is currently not, just look at the law to verify that. On what data do you base that claim? Are there any available polls that people generally consider the right to life a universal right? And what would you consider generally, say 80% of the population?

For removal from society is the same for death penalty and for life imprisonment without parole, so it would not be used as a justification for the death penalty.

Oh really why not? :confused:
For instance from an economical standpoint it could be a lot cheaper than put people in prison for life.
As soon as the judge declares the death penalty it could be done within 24 hours!
Personally I have no opinion about the death penalty but if it is instituted I have a strong opinion about the time it takes from sentencing to the execution. Sometimes it takes years! I find that first of all ineffective and second I find it cruel towards the sentenced. Get it over with quickly!

Deterrence is a tricky one ethically. Whether or not it works, deterrence is essentially punishing one person for the possible future crimes of another and because of that it is a sticky issue for the courts.

What's tricky about it? :confused:
In my view deterrence is the main reason that societies have penalties. :smile:

People have mentioned money and cruelty as other lines of reasoning. I don't think money should apply to such important questions (it certainly didn't help defending against the Pinto lawsuits) and cruelty is covered by #1.

You don't think it should apply? Well of course you are entitled to your opinion!
However, you were going to use reason and logic, you fail to convince me it cannot be reasoned or that it is in any way illogical to use money, or in broader sense economics, as an argument.

russ_watters

Jul7-06, 02:18 PM

Of course you will be convicted for murder.Of course you have violated the right but so what ? It's still murder for self defence. I was talking about how our legal system actually works. The way our legal system currently works, it is not murder. Murder, by definition, is illegal/unlawful killing. Self defense is considered a reasonable justification and therefore is not illegal/unlawful.

BobG

Jul7-06, 06:18 PM

Kurdt

Jul7-06, 06:41 PM

I don't think I could ever feel secure in a society that seems inherently hypocrytical. Is it ok to kill for one reason but not another? In my view murder is either right or wrong. Personal assurance seems a rather cheap and easy way out of the complete moral dilema altogether.

durt

Jul7-06, 07:19 PM

Execution is not murder - it's justice.

Kurdt

Jul7-06, 07:32 PM

Execution is not murder - it's justice.
Then justify it.

arunbg

Jul8-06, 03:10 AM

I was talking about how our legal system actually works. The way our legal system currently works, it is not murder.
I was merely referring to the fact that you don't get a heavier sentence owing to the fact that your killing was justified( of course you need to prove it).It will just be considered as a violation of right, and will be tried as is done even today.Of course, willful murder is also violation of right, but can invite a heavy sentence (life imprisonment) but not the death penalty itself.

The one reason you left out is to provide a feeling of security for the general population.
I think russ covered that in removal from society.:wink:

Executing serial killers, repeat child molesters who finally kill one of their victims, and those that kill with a shocking amount of cruelty should be executed if for no other reason than to give the average person some assurance that society will punish evil and protect those that follow the rules
Such people are quite rare (as can be seen from the lower no. of executions these days ) and it would not be quite a Herculean task to keep society safe from these few, would it ?
Multiple terms can also be meted out to such individuals, and with the right to choice of life, they can even choose between death and these terms.I'd say 99% would choose the latter. Society still remains safe.

I disagree, it is simply a matter of opinion.
One is either for it, against it or has no opinion.
But there is absolutely no necessity to provide "logical reasoning" (whatever that means) in order to justify one's opinion
You mean to say that the opinion is a mere whim ?
You can support death or life imprisonment, with absolutely no logical reason whatsoever ? Then why the debate ? Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.
From what I have seen from the debate, I am yet to see any solid argument in favour of death penalty.

Oh really why not?
For instance from an economical standpoint it could be a lot cheaper than put people in prison for life.
Are you trying to justify the killing of a person for economical reasons ?!Dear me.

What's tricky about it?
In my view deterrence is the main reason that societies have penalties
Sure it is, the tricky part only comes when dealing with the fact that death penalty is a deterrant.Although I haven't seen statistical proof, many previous posters have implied that sometimes life imprisonment is a better deterrant.

Personally I have no opinion about the death penalty but if it is instituted I have a strong opinion about the time it takes from sentencing to the execution. Sometimes it takes years! I find that first of all ineffective and second I find it cruel towards the sentenced. Get it over with quickly
Where death penalty is indeed instituted, I couldn't agree more.
Though, enough time should be given to the convicted to appeal to the highest court, which is mostly where the problem of time delay lies.

"Generally considered a right"?
So basically what you claim is that most people think it ought to be a right. We all know it is currently not, just look at the law to verify that

Well there has to be something of the sort shouldn't there, otherwise murders would be legal !
Again, I reiterate it is right to choice of life left only to the individual himself that should be made universal, and that is only my opinion.

Soilwork

Jul8-06, 06:01 AM

I've only read the first couple of posts of this thread so I'm basing some of my post on those comments.

I also want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to insult people for their views and if it comes across that way it is only because I have an innate ability of choosing my words poorly.

I personally believe that the dealth penalty is indeed necessary in some circumstances. These circumstances are extreme circumstances where the deed was committed unprovoked and where the evidence presented is absolutely incriminating. Rape and murder are serious crimes that I think the dealth penalty is necessary for. I'm sure that the death penalty may be no more effective than the imprisonment option in acting as a deterrent, but in those cases I think that it should be used to completely remove the problem from society.

I often hear the argument that the death penalty is barbaric and that everyone has the 'right' to live their life and that they have the 'right' to be given a second chance. I've never really understood this stance at all because once a person has made a conscious decision to take an innocent person's life through rape or murder they have forfeited all their rights. If we choose to be apart of a society then we choose to abide by the rules/values of that society, ergo our 'rights' are determined by the society we are living in. I don't know though...I think that if somebody murdered/raped a loved one of yours for no particular reason then you might change your mind. If you still stick to your guns then you must be a truly forgiving and trusting saint!

Unfortunately as I've been told many times before, I'd be no better than the criminals, I'm a barbarian and I'm a poor excuse for a human being. While I don't particularly appreciate these labelings for having more traditional/conservative values on this subject I understand that it's said in an attempt to make me re-evaluate my position on the subject. But it's just one of those areas in which my position will never change.

I just want to reiterate that I think the death penalty should be applied to extreme cases of unprovoked murder and rape with the evidence aboslutely incriminating the suspect. This is because I'm quite aware that there are grey areas in some cases of murder and rape.

MeJennifer

Jul8-06, 11:14 AM

You mean to say that the opinion is a mere whim ?
You can support death or life imprisonment, with absolutely no logical reason whatsoever ? Then why the debate ? Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.

No, what I saying is that a political opinion without logic or reason is just as valid as one that claims it is all logical or reasonable. Has it ever occured to you that for the person holding the opinion it is most often completely logical and reasonable?
Basically applying logic and reason to something like a political opinion is asking too much from logic and reason.

Are you trying to justify the killing of a person for economical reasons ?!Dear me.

I suggest you read what I write.
Since you like to use logic and reason for debating this perhaps you could explain the logic and reason of "dear me".

Sure it is, the tricky part only comes when dealing with the fact that death penalty is a deterrant.

Sure it is? :confused:
I was asking what is tricky about it, you did not answer that at all.
Again what is tricky here?

Though, enough time should be given to the convicted to appeal to the highest court, which is mostly where the problem of time delay lies.

You don't think that the highest court has better things to do that judging clear cut cases. If someone if found guilty and sentenced by the judge, who is correctly applying the law, then why have a big dog and pony show about it all the way to the high court?

arunbg

Jul8-06, 01:48 PM

No, what I saying is that a political opinion without logic or reason is just as valid as one that claims it is all logical or reasonable. Has it ever occured to you that for the person holding the opinion it is most often completely logical and reasonable?
Basically applying logic and reason to something like a political opinion is asking too much from logic and reason.
What do you actually mean by a "political opinion" and why do you consider this a political issue ?
And what is your definition of logic and reason ? Are you referring to mathematical logic ?!
This thread is for people to express their opinion on this issue, and how they back or support their opinion through valid arguments.
For instance from an economical standpoint it could be a lot cheaper than put people in prison for life.
As soon as the judge declares the death penalty it could be done within 24 hours!
Are you trying to justify the killing of a person for economical reasons ?!
I suggest you read what I write.

What else did you mean? Is there something in invisible text or something?:confused:
What is tricky here?
It is tricky because it seems to be a misconception that the death penalty acts as a deterrant.It is obviously tricky to those(like you)
who feel that the death penalty is a deterrant.
In my view deterrence is the main reason that societies have penalties

You don't think that the highest court has better things to do that judging clear cut cases. If someone if found guilty and sentenced by the judge, who is correctly applying the law, then why have a big dog and pony show about it all the way to the high court?
Unfortunately, humans are not computers and are prone to making mistakes. How many times have we seen the verdict made by a lower court be changed following an appeal to a higher court ?
Why do you think this is so ?
Also how do you decide whether a case is clear cut or not ?
Obviously to all judges issuing a verdict, the case has to be clear cut.
And yet verdicts change.

Do you agree that there seems to be virtually no clear cut "reasoning"
for the implementation of death penalty ?

I don't hold anything against anyone, so please don't feel so.

Cheers
Arun

MeJennifer

Jul8-06, 02:22 PM

What do you actually mean by a "political opinion" and why do you consider this a political issue ?

Deciding if something should be a law and the punishment associated with violating it clearly a political matter.
To think that that is a matter that can be decided by applying reason and logic is simply nonsense. It is similar with abortion, it is a political issue.

Logic and reason cannot determine whether things like the death penalty should be instated or abortion should be allowed. These issues are primarily matters of morals and economics.

It is tricky because it seems to be a misconception that the death penalty acts as a deterrant. It is obviously tricky to those(like you)
who feel that the death penalty is a deterrant.

Of course it is a deterrant.
Really now, don't you believe that some people do not kill because there will be some form of punishment if they got caught?
So then it just becomes a matter as to what society decides to be an appropriate deterrent.
Incarceration or execution.
How do you determine what is more appropriate. Well again, simply a mixture of morals and economics.
If you hold on to the "killing is bad" morality then you would likely be against it.

Unfortunately, humans are not computers and are prone to making mistakes. How many times have we seen the verdict made by a lower court be changed following an appeal to a higher court ?
Why do you think this is so ?

Well human life, all life has its share of tragedy.
Nothing is perfect.

Do you agree that there seems to be virtually no clear cut "reasoning" for the implementation of death penalty ?

As I said before to me this is simply a political opinion.

Consider the question: What kind of punishment so you think a serial killer deserves, incarceration for a long time or execution?
Line up a group of people and they voice have different opinions. :smile:
To assert that one opinion is more valid, logical, reasonable than the other is simply nonsense. Most people who do that simply try to push their own moral values onto others under the pretense of logic and reason.

I don't hold anything against anyone, so please don't feel so.

:confused:

arildno

Jul8-06, 02:32 PM

"Consider the question: What kind of punishment so you think a serial killer deserves"

Even more basic:
Why do you think he "deserves" a "punishment? :confused:

In particular, why is it necessary to inflict any further "punishment" on a person other than to take those measures towards him that we are entitled to due to considerations for our own safety?

arunbg

Jul8-06, 03:03 PM

Deciding if something should be a law and the punishment associated with violating it clearly a political matter.
To think that that is a matter that can be decided by applying reason and logic is simply nonsense. It is similar with abortion, it is a political issue.
I think you are viewing the issue too objectively.
If people were to always accept popular opinion, there would be no debates, and the world would be stagnant.Popular opinion changes.

Indeed, it is a question of morals, but how are morals formed in the first place? There should be some logical basis, shouldn't there ?

MeJennifer

Jul8-06, 03:08 PM

"Consider the question: What kind of punishment so you think a serial killer deserves"

Even more basic:
Why do you think he "deserves" a "punishment? :confused:

Well many people find satisfaction in seeing others punished for violating something that is against the law. Some find revenge a sweet thing.

In particular, why is it necessary to inflict any further "punishment" on a person other than to take those measures towards him that we are entitled to due to considerations for our own safety?
Well I can think of a few reasons. One is as a deterrent or as a form of revenge.

MeJennifer

Jul8-06, 03:10 PM

I think you are viewing the issue too objectively.

Well I consider that a compliment!

If people were to always accept popular opinion, there would be no debates, and the world would be stagnant.Popular opinion changes.

So are you in favor of democracy, or should a comittee of "wise" men who reason everything decide on things?

Indeed, it is a question of morals, but how are morals formed in the first place? There should be some logical basis, shouldn't there ?
Not neccesarily.

arildno

Jul8-06, 03:40 PM

Well many people find satisfaction in seeing others punished for violating something that is against the law. Some find revenge a sweet thing.
Yeah, let's base our society on our eagerness to inflict misery upon others.
Hope you'll be happy there.

MeJennifer

Jul8-06, 03:44 PM

Yeah, let's base our society on our eagerness to inflict misery upon others.
Well also that is a human emotion.
We did not evolve from angels you know.

You ask me why, I answer and now you do not like that answer. :biggrin:

Tom Mattson

Jul8-06, 03:45 PM

MeJennifer

Jul8-06, 03:49 PM

arildno

Jul8-06, 03:51 PM

MeJennifer

Jul8-06, 03:55 PM

True enough, and MeJennifer has chosen to build her society upon her eagerness to inflict misery.
Yeah I must be a barbarian! :rolleyes:

arildno

Jul8-06, 03:55 PM

Just stating a fact. :smile:

Tom Mattson

Jul8-06, 04:15 PM

It may or may not be a fact, but it is certainly not deducible from anything that's been posted here. You're just jumping to conclusions. Some people (such as myself) who support the death penalty for sufficiently heinous crmies, sincerely hope that it never needs to be used. There is no logical inconsistency in holding the view that brutal murder should be met with execution and not being eager to mete out such a terrible punishment.

arildno

Jul8-06, 04:22 PM

I haven't said that meting out death penalty per se need reflect an eagerness to inflict misery.

What I have said (and I stand by that) is that to punish, to do someting out a desire to revenge something, does, indeed, show an eagerness to inflict misery.

Nor have I said there don't exist cases in which actions born out of a revenge wish might be defensible.

Tom Mattson

Jul8-06, 04:30 PM

What I have said (and I stand by that) is that to punish, to do someting out a desire to revenge something, does, indeed, show an eagerness to inflict misery.

You're still jumping to conclusions. The concept of revenge has not one whit to do with the concept of eagerness to inflict misery. There is nothing inconsistent with holding the conviction that brutal murders should be avenged with capital punishment, and being filled with dread at the prospect of carrying out that punishment.

arildno

Jul8-06, 04:53 PM

..brutal murders should be avenged with capital punishment, .
Why? :confused:

selfAdjoint

Jul8-06, 04:55 PM

There is nothing inconsistent with holding the conviction that brutal murders should be avenged with capital punishment, and being filled with dread at the prospect of carrying out that punishment

Nothing purely logically, no, but that doesn't mean it's coherent. If you truly believe that some prisoners should be killed, then to hope they will not be killed is to be sure very human, but not very coherent. Do you feel guilty about your dread, since according to you the punishment is righteous?

arildno

Jul8-06, 05:29 PM

There is nothing inconsistent with holding the conviction that brutal murders SHOULD be avenged with capital punishment, .
Just a further clarification needed:

Do you mean we have a moral DUTY to murder someone by means of execution, and that thus US alone among Western countries is to be considered a moral country?
(The others failing in their murder duty, that is..)

That execution of some criminal may be a DEFENSIBLE reaction (along others), and hence, that we may be entitled to choose that particular reaction is something quite different from saying we SHOULD execute someone.

In my opinion, there certainly exist situations in which someone may be said to have a DUTY to kill somebody else (for example, a police officer facing a hostage situation might, in the aftermath, be criticized for not killing the kidnapper).
I cannot, however, see, any reason why it there should exist a duty for someone to kill a locked up criminal.

zikezx

Jul8-06, 05:38 PM

for me both..depending on the crimes they have..but must be the exact suspect..there should be enough evidence to show the prsoner is realy guilty.....

_______________________________________________

Nutritone Microsizer (http://www.healthxp.com/nutritone-microsizer-p-156.html)
www.healthxp.com (http://www.healthxp.com)
Experience the Benefits of Health Innovations

meteor

Jul8-06, 05:55 PM

Leaving aside all the possible reasons that can be taken into account: deterrent, revenge, economic factors, ... my main reason for choosing no is my peace of conscience. I couldn't kill another person (even a murderer) if somebody offered me a fortune.. How could I kill an intelligent person created by Mother Nature...?

arildno

Jul8-06, 06:00 PM

How could I kill an intelligent person created by Mother Nature...?
What about a loved one asking to be released from his/her pains?

meteor

Jul8-06, 06:02 PM

What about a loved one asking to be released from his/her pains?

I expressed in another thread that i'm anti-euthanasia. But that's a totally different subject

pallidin

Jul8-06, 06:04 PM

I believe that, with execution, we lose opportunities to really study the psyche of the extremely deviant/disturbed convict. Yet, perhaps enough has been done on that level that it is not really neccessary. I don't know.

Executions, by and large, have always been about sending a message to society, versus sending a message to the condemned.
To be expected, though, is the potential for a profound transformation in the condemned psyche's mind when given a date-for-death, and most especially as that date draws nearer.

Several months ago I found it somehow interesting to read the "last statements" of condemned prisoners through various Dept. of Correction links on the web.

Some would say "Let's go, Warden, I'm ready"
Others would recite religious teachings.
And others would express remorse or sorrow for their crime(s); usually directed specifically at surviving victims families or to their own families for having "gone wrong"

An interesting read if you have the time.

arildno

Jul8-06, 06:07 PM

I believe that, with execution, we lose opportunities to really study the psyche of the extremely deviant/disturbed convict. Yet, perhaps enough has been done on that level that it is not really neccessary. I don't know.
A good point.
Today's psychiatry is on the level of renaissance/early modern age (1600s) physics.
There's a lot to learn yet.

MeJennifer

Jul8-06, 06:40 PM

my main reason for choosing no is my peace of conscience. I couldn't kill another person (even a murderer) if somebody offered me a fortune..

Ok, no problem with that argument.

How could I kill an intelligent person created by Mother Nature...?
Well, while I accept and respect your personal choices in this matter your argument seems a bit odd to say the least since mother (?) nature's common theme is killing.

And what is up with this notion that murder must be some mentally ill kind of behavior? What ever happened to the crime passional, or the codes of honor? The husband who murders the wife's admirer or the son who vows to kill the rapist of his sister.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying such crimes should go unpunished, but I certainly understand the motivations.

And would we really argue against the notion that such acts are not closer to living life fuller than those ascetic positions of "I could not kill anything because I would harm mother nature's creatures"?

meteor

Jul8-06, 07:00 PM

since mother (?) nature's common theme is killing...

Yes, that's true as life. However it seems to me that more Intelligent creatures tend to avoid murder, for example I don't know of any physicist or mathematician ever accused of murder (though maybe some case can exist). So, if we consider physicists and mathematicians as the pinnacle of Intelligence, then if want to be Intelligent ourselves we must follow their steps (i.e. avoid murder)

arildno

Jul8-06, 07:03 PM

Hmm..ever heard of the UNA-bomber, meteor?
He was a trained (and fairly good) mathematician.

MeJennifer

Jul8-06, 07:12 PM

Yes, that's true as life. However it seems to me that more Intelligent creatures tend to avoid murder, for example I don't know of any physicist or mathematician ever accused of murder (though maybe some case can exist). So, if we consider physicists and mathematicians as the pinnacle of Intelligence, then if want to be Intelligent ourselves we must follow their steps (i.e. avoid murder)
Flawed reasoning: to become intelligent one mimicks the behavior of intelligent people. :smile:

Gagan A

Jul9-06, 02:36 AM

I don't wanna repeat what has been said over and over again but I think this short story by Anton Chekhov voices what arunbg started this thread for (Maybe he too read it in his high school, as I did).
The Bet (http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Bet.shtml) by Anton Chekhov :approve:

arunbg

Jul9-06, 02:41 AM

Logic is just a mechanical decision procedure that enables us to determine whether an inference is valid or not. It does not come equipped with a way to assign truth values to statements about the real world such as, "The death penalty is morally wrong." The only way to assign a truth value to that statement is to first adopt a system of morals, any one of which can not be anything but arbitrary.
That was exactly what I had in mind.There is I believe , a system of morals already in place, no ? All laws I believe are derived by applying logic to these morals.
For eg, you can't argue from logic why we should preserve human life, we might as well go about killing each other.
But once you state human life is essential, then it becomes a moral and applying reasoning and logic, we find that murder is illegal .

MeJennifer, if you always like to go with popular opinion (democracy), can you explain why popular opinion changes ? Certainly, you have to say that an opinion in minority once, becomes a majority. Why this change ?
Why do you think people realised that their opinion was flawed, even with the great no. supporting it ? Is it probably because a few "wise men" while remaining within the moral framework of society, reasoned that the opinion was flawed and more and more people accepted their reasoning ?

The only valid reason for death penalty as I see it, in view of accepted morals, is deterrance. But now, if statistics claim otherwise, I would accept it as enough logic and reasoning to look for an alternative.

Arun

PS: Oh yeah, sure I read that story Gagan, but it doesn't provide anything by way of an answer, don't you think .

Gagan A

Jul9-06, 04:03 AM

It does not answer our question, but it does tell that if you live alone for 15 years alone in a cell you have the time to become all knowladge-able
Then there was another story that I read in my school. I have forgotten it's name, though. It was about an executioneer who takes up the job to make money because he needed it badly. He does his job considering he has to execute a 'number' and not a 'criminal/person'. And once his son has to be executed and he sees the watch he gave to his son ( a unique watch), but he still has to execute him.
It was really touching, although it was just a story. But I think death penalty should be abolished. But it is also justifiable in some cases. Who would not want that Osama be executed?

Kurdt

Jul9-06, 08:26 AM

Maybe the death sentence does not have any logical conflict but it may have a moral conflict (of course this depends on you view). If you set up a society and create laws designed to uphold a societal morality you have to define punishments for anyone who breaks those laws. If somebody is found guilty of breaking a law then we must assume that certain freedoms as a member of that society have been forfeited otherwise there is no real punishment.

Most western punishments comprise of restricting the freedom of the individual either by tagging and setting curfews or imprisonment depending on the crime they have comitted. For a petty offense such as theft probably a financial punishment such as a fine and compensation to the victim.

The gripe that many have with the death sentence is varied. Some people believe that if there is a miscarriage of justice then the accidental death of an innocent man is too much of a risk to take. Others believe it shows a particularly barbaric and ugly side to humanity that should not have a place in a judicial system that forms part of a society as it sends out the wrong messages to people. Others believe that a valuable oppourtunity is lost to learn something about what made that person do that and try and change their world for the better.

Now throughout this thread I have heard claims of we are who we are through a course of years of evolution. I simply ask this. Can a society evolve any further if they simply accept their situation and do nothing to attempt to learn about their mistakes and change it? Fair enough a species can evolve through genetic mutations and survival of the fittest genes technique but a society is something comprised of shared ideas and ideas do not evolve if people do not study their situation learn from them and propose new ideas for improvement. This is why I can not justify the death penalty because it provides no oppourtunity to study the individuals involved in the most horrific of crimes and thus no oppourtunity to improve in areas of society that have failed them or in areas of health care or anything else that may have caused an individual to comit that crime

Also it seem rather hypocritical to me to say that killing someone is one of the most horrific crimes then set it as a punishment. I do realise that a different set of values and freedoms has to be set for these people who break laws but death is just a step too far. I thiknk we've sufficiently gone forward from the eye for an eye business as a society and that kind of vengeful act certainly does not give me or any of the people I know any pleasure.

MeJennifer

Jul9-06, 12:53 PM

Now throughout this thread I have heard claims of we are who we are through a course of years of evolution. I simply ask this. Can a society evolve any further if they simply accept their situation and do nothing to attempt to learn about their mistakes and change it?

What mistakes are you talking about?
I think what you are missing understanding this is that you fail to see that you are judging this whole thing through the colored glasses of your morality.

no oppourtunity to improve in areas of society that have failed them or in areas of health care or anything else that may have caused an individual to comit that crime

So in your view society is at fault not the murderer?

Let me guess, your idea is that if we can build the perfect society all the grass will be green and everything is beautiful and loving and no crimes will exist. We just need to make everything equal and fair and educate everybody about this beautifull thing called society that we can build for the good of humankind. Man is basically good but society corrupts them. Am I right?

arunbg

Jul9-06, 01:11 PM

Here's a detailed site with statistics on death penalty.
Indeed statistics show that death penalty does have deterrant effects, which I feel is the single most important argument for death penalty.
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter

Here are a few excerpts

The most striking protection of innocent life has been seen in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 -- a 72 percent decrease.

"From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "

It looks like life imprisonment is losing the contest.:frown: :grumpy:

Kurdt

Jul9-06, 01:43 PM

What mistakes are you talking about?
I think what you are missing understanding this is that you fail to see that you are judging this whole thing through the colored glasses of your morality.

I'm talking about mistakes like perhaps situations that may have driven someone to comit crimes that can be put right or detecting that person before they comit the crime by recognising specific traits. I'm not saying there will be any but it is highly unlikely there won't. You seem to be driven by your particular view that everyone is responsible for themselves and themselves only. If I did not judge it through my morality how could I form an opinion? I do not think that my particular view has unduly tainted the question. Do you not think we live in a society? Perhaps stating "their mistakes" upset you because of your personal view.

So in your view society is at fault not the murderer?

Let me guess, your idea is that if we can build the perfect society all the grass will be green and everything is beautiful and loving and no crimes will exist. We just need to make everything equal and fair and educate everybody about this beautifull thing called society that we can build for the good of humankind. Man is basically good but society corrupts them. Am I right?

No I believe there could be blame on both sides but if you kill the perpetraitor then what I am saying is you lose the oppourtunity to find out if there were societal factors that led to the crime.

You think I believe in an idealistic society which I say why not? It'll never happen but we can always make improvements. You would say some people are born cleverer than others so lets not have any education system and those that can figure things our for themselves then great but otherwise then it doesn't matter. The idealism is that everyone is educated to the same standard which will never happen either because not everyone is academic but you can give everyone education to a base level determined by whatever the majority thinks is correct which makes the society as a whole stronger.

Society corrupts some people yes but not all. The point is at least striving for these ideals will make us stronger as a whole even if we never reach them. If your view is different to this then fair enough I just don't see the point in lying back and thinking it will all sort itself out.

MeJennifer

Jul9-06, 01:47 PM

The point is at least striving for these ideals will make us stronger as a whole even if we never reach them.
I disagree, striving for ideals will make people weaker.

Kurdt

Jul9-06, 02:25 PM

It may make certain individuals weaker but many more stronger.

Edit: It would be interesting to see the geographical relation to the results of this poll.

MeJennifer

Jul9-06, 02:35 PM

It may make certain individuals weaker but many more stronger.

Feel free to demonstrate that that is the case?

People get stronger when they are prepared to deal with, and face up to the challenges of life, not when they are dwelling on ideal fantasyworlds.

People with ideals prefer to replace reality with a "better" view, they put their heads in the sand. They deny truth for a better truth, a truth they can find either in religion or in the platonic truths of metaphysics. Their motivations are merely based on hope, they think Pandora's box is a threasured gift to them, the thing to strive for. No do not face reality, shy away from it, here look, how beautiful these ideals are, see now we don't have to face the ugly truth and we can be happy in our little fantasy world. And that kind of an attitude is supposed to make a person stronger?

Kurdt

Jul9-06, 03:02 PM

Feel free to demonstrate that that is the case?

People get stronger when they are prepared to deal with, and face up to the challenges of life, not when they are dwelling on ideal fantasyworlds.

People with ideals prefer to replace reality with a "better" view, they put their heads in the sand. They deny truth for a better truth, a truth they can find either in religion or in the platonic truths of metaphysics. Their motivations are merely based on hope, Pandora's box is a threasured gift to them, the thing to strive for. No do not face reality, shy away from it, here look, how beautiful these ideals are, see now we don't have to face the ugly truth and we can be happy in our little fantasy world.

Feel free to demonstrate this is the case?

I most certainly do not bury my head in the sand. I like to work out problems and find solutions and there is certainly nothing wrong with hope. The time when hope becomes a problem is if that is all anyone has and they expect it to be realised by dreaming. I expect to achieve things through hard work. I say the ideal is nice but it will never be the case (feel free to check my previous posts) which means I know they never will be reality. I know people murder but I'd like to find out if there is a reason or reasons why someone murders rather than just say it happens and remain an ignoramous as to the reasons (if any) why.

You say "People get stronger when they are prepared to deal with, and face up to the challenges of life". I agree but the way in which we disagree is how to go about it and you have assumed that I like to live in a fantasy world and deny the facts of existence. I have never denied any facts. I have presented my opinions on different matters but I have not denied that murder exists nor have I denied your view that some people have evolved to have the capacity of murder. What I have done is expressed a desire to find the resons why people murder. Is it just genetic is there some sort of mental impairment we do not yet know of? Is their an underlying societal factor that links all murderers? I ask these questions to see if there is a better way of dealing with these people rather than just killing them. What is wrong with that?

SpaceTiger

Jul9-06, 04:21 PM

Is death more humane as compared to almost 15 years of rigorous confinement ?

I think that depends on the person. I have no problem with the state executing criminals who prefer it to life imprisonment.

Do you think some criminals actually deserve the ultimate punishment ?

I think that's the wrong question to be asking. I don't like it when the justice system is used to exact revenge for something that we view as "awful" or "despicable". Laws and punishments should be designed to protect our citizens, not pander to their emotions. If the death penalty is a deterrent, then there's a good case to be made for keeping it, but I don't find any of the statistics particularly convincing (it's very easy to cherry-pick, especially in sociology). If it is not a deterrent, then it should be abolished. The risk of executing an innocent person, however small, constitutes a threat to the law-abiding members of our society.

selfAdjoint

Jul9-06, 04:30 PM

Dawguard

Jul9-06, 09:20 PM

Should capital punishment be abolished and replaced with life imprisonment ? Is death more humane as compared to almost 15 years of rigorous confinement ? Do you think some criminals actually deserve the ultimate punishment ?

I feel death penalty should indeed be abolished .It doesn't make the judges any different from the convicts themselves. Every man has a right to live his life to the fullest. It is not reasonable to take what you cannot give back. Sure there may be people who are rotten to the core and are a threat to society, but even they ought to be given a second chance, while taking necessary precasutions of course.

Arun
In responce to the original question and poll, I think there should be both the death penalty and life imprisonment.

My position is based on two simple factors: deterance and abrigation. The first one is self-explanatory. I want people to be afraid of punishments. I want them to stop and tremble at the idea of being caught. What better deterence can you find? While this concept can be taken the extreme, the basic premise is valid. If a potential criminal is afraid of going to jail, or being sentenced to death, then they are a lot less likely to risk themselves.

Secondly, abrigation. You said that every man has a right to life, and that we cannot take what is not ours. But do we not make thieves pay resitution, fines and go to prison. They didn't lock their victims up, why should we lock them up? Why should they be forced to pay more money then they stole? What right do we have to do this? Simple: they loose their rights. If you steal from someone, you loose rights equal to that which you stole. Ergo, you pay it all back, and since your action harmed society, you get punished by them by being locked up. You abrigated your rights.
The same is true of a murderer. They took someone's life and by so doing abrigated any right they have to their own life. It's a very simple principle, and one without which we really have no justification for any punishment. And how can you possibly say that the judge is just as bad as the murderer? Suppose a serial killer is captured, someone who kidnapped and raped ten people. He is sentenced to death, and you claim that by removing him completely from society, the judge is just as evil as he is? It doesn't take a genius to see how ludicrous that is.

arunbg

Jul10-06, 06:24 AM

You said that every man has a right to life, and that we cannot take what is not ours. But do we not make thieves pay resitution, fines and go to prison. They didn't lock their victims up, why should we lock them up? Why should they be forced to pay more money then they stole? What right do we have to do this? Simple: they loose their rights. If you steal from someone, you loose rights equal to that which you stole. Ergo, you pay it all back, and since your action harmed society, you get punished by them by being locked up. You abrigated your rights.
This reasoning is flawed. You kill 10 people and so you get killed 10 times ?
Also a person rapes someone, he gets raped himself ?:confused:
:biggrin:
Also, there are many cases where the thief is asked to pay much less than what he has stolen(sometimes nothing). As said earlier, society has advanced far beyond morally from the tit for tat or an eye for an eye principle. Is it not a paradox, that the very heinous crime of murder that we accuse him of committing, is what we give him as a sentence ?
In my books that is evil.
As I said earlier, deterrance seems to be the only logical basis for upholding the death penalty.

Arun

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul10-06, 06:50 AM

About 3 million years ago give or take a decade, Pengwuino asked me top show any links that agreed with my assertian that there is no correlation between the deterent effect and the death sentence. Or that abolishing it in fact increases murder rates, I know this most people know this but not everyone, so here a link and some, I think, reliable evidence, I will say this though, this stuff is incredibly easy to find on the internet, it all seems to say the same thing too. The death sentence is not beneficial, least of all the poor chump you just iced for revenge. I like the fact that in Canada when it was abolished murder rates fell, so what in all truth is the reason to keep it, abolish it and who knows you may save lives:smile: .

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGACT500062006

7. The Deterrence Argument
Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: "… it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)

8. Effect of Abolition on Crime Rates

Reviewing the evidence on the relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and crime rates, a study conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002 stated: "The fact that all the evidence continues to point in the same direction is persuasive a priori evidence that countries need not fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce their reliance upon the death penalty".

Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2003, 27 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.73 per 100,000 population, 44 per cent lower than in 1975 and the lowest rate in three decades.

(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 214)

In responce to the original question and poll, I think there should be both the death penalty and life imprisonment.

My position is based on two simple factors: deterance and abrigation. The first one is self-explanatory. I want people to be afraid of punishments. I want them to stop and tremble at the idea of being caught. What better deterence can you find? While this concept can be taken the extreme, the basic premise is valid. If a potential criminal is afraid of going to jail, or being sentenced to death, then they are a lot less likely to risk themselves.

Indeed problem is criminals obviously don't quake with fear. the failure of the deterrent argument and the extra cost incurred(from internment and retrials) by this are alone enough to warrant abolishing it, throw in the positive effects in abolishing it and to my mind you don't have to be a genius to see that the the argument for the death penalty is a straw man.

daveb

Jul10-06, 07:57 AM

People get stronger when they are prepared to deal with, and face up to the challenges of life, not when they are dwelling on ideal fantasyworlds.
But, maddest of all, to see life as it is — and not as it ought to be!
- Man of La Mancha

arunbg

Jul10-06, 09:09 AM

Schrodinger's Dog (:D), did the study give any particular reasons(s) as to why death penalty did not show much deterrance as compared to life imprisonment ?
The only explanations that I can come up with are :

1)There is some unknown facet or trait in the minds of the murderers, that kicks in when they commit the crime, and later vanishes.
It is not because they don't fear death or anything, otherwise, why would they fear a policeman's gun while being arrested or prefer appeals in courts ?

2) The statistics are wrong, biased or inconclusive .
Long ago I read a careful and fascinating article in the Statistics Journal. The authors took a commonly used data set of death penalty statistics and made up eight artificial positions ranging form bleeding heart to kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out. They then showed that by using very plausible transformatioons, that nobody but a highly trained statistician would spot, they could skew the numbers to support any one of the eight positions. Since nobody does statistics on this issue unless they have a dog in the fight, I can't see why I should trust them.
That should explain the contradictory statistics.:grumpy:

Eight countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime – China, Congo (Democratic Republic), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA and Yemen. China, Pakistan and Yemen have raised the minimum age to 18 in law. The USA executed more child offenders than any other country (19 between 1990 and 2003) before the US Supreme Court ruled in March 2005 that the execution of children under the age of 18 was unconstitutional.
How can developed countries like USA and China execute children ???!!!!
I hope nonbody's going to justify that.
This just makes me sick.

Arun

daveb

Jul10-06, 09:37 AM

I don't remember where I had heard this (I believe it was a 60 Minutes episode), and it was quite a while ago (mid 1980's I think), but there were interviews with inmates on death row who had been sentenced after the Supreme Court reinstated the ability to impose the death penalty. When asked if the thought of being executed was a deterrent, an overwhelming majority stated they didn't think they would get caught, so no it wasn't. Granted, this proves nothing since this doesn't take into account those who didn't want to take that much of a chance (and hence didn't commit the crime). The same program also examined the psychology of serial killers and found a large number of them actually wanted to get caught (according to their psychological profiles). Again, this proves nothing since I imagine the sample population was small. However, these could be another reason why the statistics still show nothing.

Aether

Jul10-06, 09:49 AM

I haven't heard a compelling argument here either for or against the DP. However, this discussion has raised two red flags for me: 1) The role of DP as a means for satisfying the people's thirst for revenge is interesting...is the DP really the best way to deal with that? 2) I am wary of those on the anti-DP side who would equate justifiable homicide (e.g., self defense, DP, war, etc.) with premeditated murder...the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

BobG

Jul10-06, 10:15 AM

Here's a detailed site with statistics on death penalty.
Indeed statistics show that death penalty does have deterrant effects, which I feel is the single most important argument for death penalty.
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter

It looks like life imprisonment is losing the contest.:frown: :grumpy:
There's too many variables to isolate the death penalty as the most important factor. In fact, I would tend to think it is a deterrant for a very small percentage of potential murders. At best, it might reduce the number of premeditated murders where a person entrenched in society has time to consider the chances of success or failure.

I don't think the death penalty is a practical means of dealing with normal crime. The ability to make all members of a population feel they belong to the overall society will have a greater impact on making individuals accept certain norms than the actual tools used, hence the slant of some crimes being blamed on society's failures vs. individual failures. If an individual feels detached from society or has joined the local sub-culture instead of the greater society, the behavioral norms of society won't have as much affect in spite of the punishment for violating the norms.

It's more effective as a statement of which crimes society finds too abhorrent to accept. As a statement, it could help socialize individuals within the society to find the act equally abhorrent, making those types of crimes less likely. It surely wouldn't do that if the death penalty were the only thing expressing how despicable some crimes were viewed by society. In fact, it's probably only capable of adding support to other means of expressing which crimes are totally abhorrent to society, even if it is a very strong statement.

Schrodinger's Dog

Jul10-06, 10:28 AM

Schrodinger's Dog (:D), did the study give any particular reasons(s) as to why death penalty did not show much deterrance as compared to life imprisonment ?
The only explanations that I can come up with are :

1)There is some unknown facet or trait in the minds of the murderers, that kicks in when they commit the crime, and later vanishes.
It is not because they don't fear death or anything, otherwise, why would they fear a policeman's gun while being arrested or prefer appeals in courts ?

2) The statistics are wrong, biased or inconclusive .

That should explain the contradictory statistics.:grumpy:

The post aludes to the fact that the UN did a study which took into account all the previous studies on this issue, none of which found a deterant effect, whilst I'm still willing to say the statistics could be wrong or the conclusions based on the stats, I find it unlikely that all previous scientific studies were biased or inconclusive. They could all be wrong that is not in question, but until someone puts up something to the effect claiming the opposite, I'm still going with this evidence, I wish I had access to that particular book mentioned in the link, I suspect it would be much more revealing than the short excerpts here.

Also Arun, there is no comparison on your linked web site to what happens in states where the death penalty has been abolished, do they fall by more than other states? The same? Higher. This information is pretty non correlative, because it is devoid of a comparison with life imprisonment. There has been a gradual slide in most developed countries in murder rates in the last 20 years, most don't have the death penalty, so what exactly is the point here? The best country for comparisson is yours where they have not unilateraly abolished the death penalty, it should be possible to compare states where the death penalty has been abolished to states where it still exists to see if there is greater decrease in death rates in death penalty states. I'll try and dig something up, but like I said before don't wait up, should be pre next ice age with a bit of luck :smile:

arunbg

Jul10-06, 11:12 AM

The best country for comparisson is yours where they have not unilateraly abolished the death penalty, it should be possible to compare states where the death penalty has been abolished to states where it still exists to see if there is greater decrease in death rates in death penalty states
It is a sad fact, but in India the death penalty has not been abolished in any state so far :frown:
I would say I would find few sympathisers with me here to support life imprisonment over DP . But it is nice to see that Amnesty Intl. has taken up the fight:smile:

I haven't heard a compelling argument here either for or against the DP.
If after over a 100 posts, there is no argument for or against DP, that itself is an argument for LI :wink: