News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[skeptic2]

Im not an American, I live in EU where many politicians are too soft, and where they banished the death penalty

It depends on the circumstances of the murder. If I where a DA I may request a death penalty or not in such a case, but it would really depend on the circumstances of the armed robbery, and whatever or not I have a solid case.

Frankly, my view is that rehabilitation is another waste of tax-payers money. Someone who kills (murder 1 usually ) is accountable for his deed and must be punished. I am more interested in seeing him pay than rehabbing him. This is not an actor who has an occasional DUI and its ordered rehab, it's someone who premeditated took a life.

Given that many different cultures have many different concepts of justice, what is your concept of justice, something akin to the hammurabi code? How do you extract justice for a serial killer, Timothy McVeigh, or the 9/11 terrorists? Can you claim a moral basis for your concept of justice especially when whether or not a particular act, such as abortion, is a crime may be determined by which political party is in power?

 

[DanP]

Can you claim a moral basis for your concept of justice especially when whether or not a particular act, such as abortion, is a crime may be determined by which political party is in power?

Political support is all you need. To claim morality, or lack thereof, is just another human bias, "holier than you". It gets old after a while.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think that's a "yes" to the Code of Hammurabi. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html

 

[apeiron]

Political support is all you need. To claim morality, or lack thereof, is just another human bias, "holier than you". It gets old after a while.

I would be interested to see your argument in favour of a retributive model of justice instead of the utilitarian one.

The reason why retribution is a "simple-minded" model is that it lacks scale. The principle of an eye for an eye is like the kind of single scale symmetry breaking you get with positive and negative charge. The size of the crime determines the size of the punishment needed to cancel out the crimes existence. And in this way, the crime is "removed".

But a complex system such as a society is based on asymmetry - symmetry breaking across scale. Some things are local and short duration, others are global and of long duration. Harmony results from a proper balancing of the two.

Which is where we would prefer the utilitarian model. Crimes can't actually be erased, which is why retribution in itself is a little pointless. But societies as global wholes can have the valid goal of minimising crime (as opposed to a fictitious cancelling out). And minimising crime is the decision societies come to, when they are allowed to think about it collectively.

You say that you are not interested in a safer society, just cold justice. But if you desire civilisation and value complexity, then the ability to think about how things work across scale becomes essential.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Which is where we would prefer the utilitarian model. Crimes can't actually be erased, which is why retribution in itself is a little pointless. But societies as global wholes can have the valid goal of minimising crime (as opposed to a fictitious cancelling out). And minimising crime is the decision societies come to, when they are allowed to think about it collectively.

You say that you are not interested in a safer society, just cold justice. But if you desire civilisation and value complexity, then the ability to think about how things work across scale becomes essential.

I'm not DanP, and I'm actually in favor of a utilitarian view here, but I don't think I buy your argument.

It seems entirely plausible, and quite possibly true, that there are a wide variety of degrees of punishment which would have similar societal effects. There is some ("weak on crime", at least to those like DanP) utilitarian maximum which is best in terms of rehabilitating criminals while still punishing them sufficiently to discourage others from following their path. But there is presumably some other point which is nearly as good on those desiderata, but which also punishes criminals heavily ("tough on crime"). If there is societal benefit to this, it could be a reasonable solution even though it doesn't maximize societal gain excepting that benefit.

Now I don't know how far you could take this -- how heavily you could punish criminals without giving up much benefit. (I really don't know -- it could even be at a level harsher than at present for all I know.) Further, I can't speak to the benefit of the retributive stance; I don't even know if it is (as the argument would require) positive.

But I do think this should be considered, rather than dismissed out-of-hand.

 

[apeiron]

But I do think this should be considered, rather than dismissed out-of-hand.

Yes, let's consider the various utilitarian possibilities. But you will have to give a more convincing sketch of the other settings you have in mind.

My initial reaction would be that the guiding principle here would be to maximise the engagement in the social system. So if we are talking about a mixed deterrence/rehabilitation and prevention strategy, I would want to crank the deterrence setting down as low as possible on the grounds it would keep the most people engaged.

When young and minor offenders come up against a hard-arse system, they are going to be dis-engaged - feel like victims of an unfair system and seeing no point in joining it.

So you want to say society gets other benefits out of harsh deterrence. Can you spell out what you have in mind apart from a DanP style joy at others getting what he thinks they deserve.

The confusion to avoid here is the other utilitarian response of time-out. People who cannot for some reason work towards being engaged with society - through mental illness, psychopathy, etc - ought to be removed from contact with society. So you might want to lock them up a long time, or execute them swiftly. I am not arguing against that.

So focusing just on deterrence, what utilitarian reason is there for cranking the dial up rather than cranking it down? Retribution is not on the table (it is not a utilitarian good). Social engagement would seem to be the primary cost of being more excluding rather than more including.

You are arguing that there is a simple ratio in which deterrence can be traded off against prevention/rehabilitation so that hi/lo = lo/hi = $$$. I am instead arguing that there is instead something we actually want to maximise with our justice settings - productive engagement in society.

And terrorising people into obedience does not sound like the modern approach (though it may have been a great utilitarian solution back in the days of slaves and serfs, the reason for the Code of Hammurabi and all that).

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yes, let's consider the various utilitarian possibilities. But you will have to give a more convincing sketch of the other settings you have in mind.

I'm somewhat wary of continuing the argument here, for fear of misrepresenting it. As I have stated, I'm essentially a utilitarian here. But I'll do my best.

My initial reaction would be that the guiding principle here would be to maximise the engagement in the social system. So if we are talking about a mixed deterrence/rehabilitation and prevention strategy, I would want to crank the deterrence setting down as low as possible on the grounds it would keep the most people engaged.

I don't know what engagement in the social system is or why it's desirable. I was arguing that a typical utilitarian scheme, e.g. maximizing

change in productivity of imprisoned vs. free criminals + cost of crimes that would have been committed but are not due to imprisonment + cost of crimes that would have been committed but are not due to deterrence* - cost to imprison criminals​

*could* be modified to a retributionist-utilitarian

change in productivity of imprisoned vs. free criminals + cost of crimes that would have been committed but are not due to imprisonment + cost of crimes that would have been committed but are not due to deterrence* - cost to imprison criminals + imputed societal gain of imprisonment​

I can't really comment on this point further without clarification.

* Technical point: this should actually be the net change in the cost of crime due to deterrence: not just the crimes that aren't committed at that 'punishment' level due to fear of 'punishment', but that less the cost of crimes that would not have been committed but are due to the 'punishment' level. If we execute thieves, and a thief decides to murder a witness for fear of being executed, this reduces the item.

When young and minor offenders come up against a hard-arse system, they are going to be dis-engaged - feel like victims of an unfair system and seeing no point in joining it.

It might be that the optimal retributionist-utilitarian system would punish minor offenders little or no more than under your utilitarian system for that reason. I'm certainly not supporting (and I'm sure DanP doesn;t support) a system which naively increases current punishments by a fixed percentage. Even under the 'harsh' system, some punishments might be reduced (though on average they would of course increase).

So you want to say society gets other benefits out of harsh deterrence. Can you spell out what you have in mind apart from a DanP style joy at others getting what he thinks they deserve.

I think that 'joy' is precisely what is being discussed, the other factors being subsumed into the utilitarian model.

So focusing just on deterrence, what utilitarian reason is there for cranking the dial up rather than cranking it down? Retribution is not on the table (it is not a utilitarian good). Social engagement would seem to be the primary cost of being more excluding rather than more including.

Your argument "retributionist-utilitarians are not merely utilitarians" doesn't work. I repeat my plea here for a definition of engagement: I feel that I'm missing a substantial part of your point through lack of understanding.

You are arguing that there is a simple ratio in which deterrence can be traded off against prevention/rehabilitation so that hi/lo = lo/hi = $$$. I am instead arguing that there is instead something we actually want to maximise with our justice settings - productive engagement in society.

I am certainly not arguing that there is a simple ratio; the problem is a complex high-dimensional optimization problem. This stands regardless of which precise position is taken.

The underlying point is that whatever you want to maximize (utility, "engagement", or whatever) there are likely near-optimal points that increase any given factor, in this case punishment.

And terrorising people into obedience does not sound like the modern approach (though it may have been a great utilitarian solution back in the days of slaves and serfs, the reason for the Code of Hammurabi and all that).

Historically speaking that's actually quite inaccurate! But I'll forgo discussion here since it's not relevant to matters at hand.

 

[apeiron]

I don't know what engagement in the social system is or why it's desirable.

If you are engaged in something, you want to be an active and productive part of it. Take a simple example like getting caned at school. Our whole class was caned once because a few boys jumped in the swimming pool before the gym teacher turned up. After that, it was hard not to be disaffected with the entire school system and enjoy finding ways to undermine it. Engagement is the difference between actively belonging and quietly resisting.

It seems too self-evident to need further explanation.

imputed societal gain of imprisonment

Again what is this apart from DanP's satisfaction in seeing a tit for tat? How is this a social gain rather than a private gratification?

I think that 'joy' is precisely what is being discussed, the other factors being subsumed into the utilitarian model.

Well, joy would have to properly costed. The whole argument is that any fleeting gratification from seeing some sin properly punished has to be balanced against the more general misery of worsening crime, the increasing costs of incarceration, and a growing social dis-engagement.

Unless there is some intrinsic reason why crime has to be matched by an equal quantity of retribution - such as god commands it - then we are just taking about the maximisation of joy, and long term, most people seem to enjoy being forgiving more than they do being punitive.

The underlying point is that whatever you want to maximize (utility, "engagement", or whatever) there are likely near-optimal points that increase any given factor, in this case punishment

.

You are confusing things here. Utilitarianism is the approach, not the goal. So what is the goal?

Is it maximising joy within a society? Yes, but that is a little vague. Is it maximising safety? People would often say that as crime is about harm. You have narrowed the argument to deterrence - should it be strong or weak? I have responded by saying the key dimension now is social engagement as that is what you most risk losing from imposing harsher than necessary punishment.

Deterrence is more likely to create resentment and resistance than obedience and engagement, even in those who are just witnesses to it.

Your argument seems to boil down to wanting to get as much retribution into the scheme of things as possible, with the belief this could be done at no cost in terms of an overall utilitarian "best outcome".

I don't see that retribution can do anything else but create resentment and resistance. It must always have this cost attached.

 

[DanP]

I would be interested to see your argument in favour of a retributive model of justice instead of the utilitarian one.

The punishment system has very little utilitarian value. Much more important factors in crime prevention are education, good social services, homogenization of society.

You gave the example of Finland. But you assign causality to low crime rates to their punishment system. Correlation doe not mean causation. So this is a mistake. You should search the explanation for their low crime rates in the structure of their society, not in the punishment systems. They are a result of the society they have built, not the cause of it.

The reason why retribution is a "simple-minded" model is that it lacks scale. The principle of an eye for an eye is like the kind of single scale symmetry breaking you get with positive and negative charge. The size of the crime determines the size of the punishment needed to cancel out the crimes existence. And in this way, the crime is "removed".

I am not buying this. First and foremost, retributive systems are not "retribution". Second,
the fact that the punishment is in direct relation with the crime is a basic principle of the criminal law anywhere in this world. Third, retributive model comes in at least 3 shapes,
weak, medium, and hard, with serious differences in how the maximum extent for the punishment is determined. Forth, a crime can never be removed. How can you even utter those words ?

But a complex system such as a society is based on asymmetry - symmetry breaking across scale. Some things are local and short duration, others are global and of long duration. Harmony results from a proper balancing of the two.
Which is where we would prefer the utilitarian model. Crimes can't actually be erased, which is why retribution in itself is a little pointless. But societies as global wholes can have the valid goal of minimising crime (as opposed to a fictitious cancelling out). And minimising crime is the decision societies come to, when they are allowed to think about it collectively.

It seems to me that you believe that punishment systems are important determinants of crime rates. They are not. Social systems at large, are. Punishment systems are but a little insignificant part.

If you are bent in creating a better society, you should tackle other problems first, which are much more important in crime prevention. Education for example.

You say that you are not interested in a safer society, just cold justice. But if you desire civilisation and value complexity, then the ability to think about how things work across scale becomes essential.

I value simplicity. Complexity is a total failure. You claim that utilitarian models work better on scale. Actually I claim they do not have any advantage over retributive models.
A criminal who wishes to rehabilitate himself will doit irrespective of the model in which the judge who convicts him believes him. Furthermore ,some criminals do not deserve a chance to rehabilitation.

In the end this is and will always be a political battle. Thank god there are enough which think like I do to prevent the punishment systems and prisons to become asylums and rehab clinics.

 

[DanP]

Unless there is some intrinsic reason why crime has to be matched by an equal quantity of retribution - such as god commands it - then we are just taking about the maximisation of joy, and long term, most people seem to enjoy being forgiving more than they do being punitive.

Sure, most ppl are weak on crime. They believe in kindergarden stories about how moral humans are, and how even the most hardened criminals deserve redemption and other non-sense. They'll enjoy being more forgiving until they get stricken by the dark side themselves. A wife raped, a children killed. Cures naivety fast.

 

[Raven1972]

There are a number of issues at stake here to my mind:
1) Do you want a prison system that tries to treat or punish (and then forget about)
2) Societal values have a huge part to play. For the example of Finland you could say that they have a different social structure than the US. The US system is predicated on taking what you want with scant regard for the consequences (thence the huge negative reaction to the introduction of state provided health care) You could argue that this creates people who, with a little psychological push, take someone's life without much afterthought
3) Do you really believe the judicial system to be infallible (OJ as a prime example) and if not, how many innocent people are you prepared to kill to make sure you get all the guilty ones. Do you want to work on a percentage basis? ie as long as 99% of the people executed are guilty we'll be happy with the deaths of the 1% innocent
4) The death penalty is a headline grabber...but most of these people could have been identified and stopped at some earlier point in their criminal careers. Do you want to resource the police properly or again just wait for an appalling act before then giving the death penalty?
5) For people with untreatable illness's such as Psychopathy. Are you willing to execute them just on the word of a shrink before they commit a crime or do you want to wait until they kill before taking action? Or will you incarcerate them for their lives without ever committing a crime?

 

[Ken Natton]

I don’t know, perhaps I have already stated my viewpoint clearly enough and I don’t really need to state it again. I’m certainly on a completely different wavelength than the discussion between apeiron and CRGreathouse. I hate to assume too much, but I take a hint, CRGreathouse that you are someone who has made some degree of serious study of criminology. I certainly have not and I have to bear that in mind in any challenge I make to what you say. But it seems clear enough to me that all the evidence has to tell you that if deterrence is any part of the function of a system of criminal justice then, in that regard at least, it is a complete failure.

In all that was said in those last few posts, the one thing that had serious resonance for me was your anecdote, apeiron about the events in gym class at school. I went to school in 1970s Britain when teachers handed out casual injustice as easily as they handed out exercise books. Like you, I was witness to the effect it had. Some years ago, during a spell I had working in Tasmania, I was fortunate enough to get the time to visit Port Arthur, which is one of Australia’s most historic sites. It was a penal colony, and because of its position on the end of a peninsula surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean with only a narrow, easily protected connection to the main part of the island, it was where a lot of the most desperate criminals of the day ended up. In the early days of its operation, they kept records of the number of lashes of the whip handed out to each prisoner, and it was in the order of hundreds of lashes per prisoner, per year. Then the records reflect the fact that, quite suddenly, they stopped using the lash all together. That they did so certainly had nothing whatever to do with bleeding heart liberalism. It was because they had learned, 170 years ago, this basic point. As a deterrent, it was utterly ineffective. All it served to do was to make the prisoners that much harder, that much more brutalised, and that much more utterly uncontrollable. I should be honest and admit that they did not simply cease to use the lash. They replaced it with another punishment, actually no less barbaric, but much more effective in controlling the prisoners – a system of solitary confinement somewhat harsher than that generally practiced today. But the point remains that the logic of harsh punishment acting as deterrence is just not supported by actual experience.

 

[DanP]

But the point remains that the logic of harsh punishment acting as deterrence is just not supported by actual experience.

Have you any evidence whatsoever that soft punishments are any more effective ? I hardly think so.

 

[apeiron]

Sure, most ppl are weak on crime. They believe in kindergarden stories about how moral humans are, and how even the most hardened criminals deserve redemption and other non-sense. They'll enjoy being more forgiving until they get stricken by the dark side themselves. A wife raped, a children killed. Cures naivety fast.

I can't keep up. One minute everyone thinks like you, the next they are all soft on rapists.

If you can offer any research - and there is a ton of it - that would be nice. But at the moment you are just expressing an opinion.

 

[DanP]

I can't keep up. One minute everyone thinks like you, the next they are all soft on rapists.

I said that "there are enough ppl thinking like me" not everybody. Read carefully :P:

If you can offer any research - and there is a ton of it - that would be nice. But at the moment you are just expressing an opinion.

All you did in this thread is the same. Your opinions. You are unable to produce even the slightest research to support your opinions. Nothing but philosophy so far from you.

 

[apeiron]

The punitive US approach to justice is in fact getting plenty of international attention because it is so out of line...

Justice is harsher in America than in any other rich country. Between 2.3m and 2.4m Americans are behind bars, roughly one in every 100 adults. If those on parole or probation are included, one adult in 31 is under “correctional” supervision. As a proportion of its total population, America incarcerates five times more people than Britain, nine times more than Germany and 12 times more than Japan. Overcrowding is the norm. Federal prisons house 60% more inmates than they were designed for. State lock-ups are only slightly less stuffed.

The system has three big flaws, say criminologists. First, it puts too many people away for too long. Second, it criminalises acts that need not be criminalised. Third, it is unpredictable. Many laws, especially federal ones, are so vaguely written that people cannot easily tell whether they have broken them.

Jim Felman, a defence lawyer in Tampa, Florida, says America is conducting “an experiment in imprisoning first-time non-violent offenders for periods of time previously reserved only for those who had killed someone”. One of Mr Felman’s clients, a fraudster called Sholam Weiss, was sentenced to 845 years.

“You can serve federal time for interstate transport of water hyacinths, trafficking in unlicensed dentures, or misappropriating the likeness of Woodsy Owl.”

In Washington state, for example, each dollar invested in new prison places in 1980 averted more than nine dollars of criminal harm (using a somewhat arbitrary scale to assign a value to not being beaten up). By 2001, as the emphasis shifted from violent criminals to drug-dealers and thieves, the cost-benefit ratio reversed. Each new dollar spent on prisons averted only 37 cents’ worth of harm.

Sooner or later American voters will realize that their incarceration policies are unjust and inefficient

http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

http://www.economist.com/node/16640389

 

[apeiron]

All you did in this thread is the same. Your opinions. You are unable to produce even the slightest research to support your opinions. Nothing but philosophy so far from you.

A couple of review articles for you...

http://cjonline.uc.edu/the-twelve-people-who-saved-rehabilitation-how-the-science-of-criminology-made-a-difference

http://learn.uci.edu/media/SP06/99015/Assess%20Rehab%20Cullen%2003d.pdf

 

[Raven1972]

For some crimes, it seems the death penalty is not punishment enough. I am for the death penalty in cases, such as this, where there is no question of guilt. But I also agree that in these cases, the death penalty should be carried out immediately after sentencing

Would you agree or disagree with the death penalty in a case such as this?

I suppose it comes back to my argument of how certain can you be? I don't deny that heinous crimes like this are appalling but as the old saying goes...hard cases make bad law..You say "where there is no question of guilt", well in my mind, in a judicial system where the quality of your lawyer determines whether you're found guilty or not. The rich and intelligent would still get off or have diminished sentences due to the quality of their advocates...
So, what you really will do is just ensure the poor uneducated are executed...hmmm...now where was that last done??...oh yeah, Nazi Germany...
To bring in a idealised concept as no guilt, you could qualify it and say, where the person admits their guilt. Now you would be on safe ground. However, those unrepentant people who would do it again will never admit their guilt. Those who would are most likely to have already started the process of atoning for their actions by realising and admitting them. So do you really want to execute those people when they show genuine contrition?
It is a proven fact in the US that more black americans of poor background are executed than any other section of the population...doesn't that make you think?

 

[Char. Limit]

I suppose it comes back to my argument of how certain can you be? I don't deny that heinous crimes like this are appalling but as the old saying goes...hard cases make bad law..You say "where there is no question of guilt", well in my mind, in a judicial system where the quality of your lawyer determines whether you're found guilty or not. The rich and intelligent would still get off or have diminished sentences due to the quality of their advocates...

Right here, you're making some sense. It's true that guilt is hard to determine with absolute certainty, and I believe that absolute certainty is impossible to achieve.

So, what you really will do is just ensure the poor uneducated are executed...hmmm...now where was that last done??...oh yeah, Nazi Germany...

However, here is where the agreement ends. Last I heard, Reductio ad Hitlerum is not a logical argument, and in fact simply poisons your argument, perhaps irreparably. I'm not very willing to listen to someone who invokes the Nazis in their arguments, and right here is where I stopped liking your argument. Please, refrain from breaking Godwin's Law in the future.

To bring in a idealised concept as no guilt, you could qualify it and say, where the person admits their guilt. Now you would be on safe ground. However, those unrepentant people who would do it again will never admit their guilt. Those who would are most likely to have already started the process of atoning for their actions by realising and admitting them. So do you really want to execute those people when they show genuine contrition?
It is a proven fact in the US that more black americans of poor background are executed than any other section of the population...doesn't that make you think?

And now you play the race card, without citing this info, so it's hardly a "proven fact" as you state. If you find a valid citation, then I'll believe you, but as this, it's just unsubstantiated rumor. Also, argument by implication is hardly a better way to argue than argumentum ad Hitlerum. What you're implying is that our justice system is racist. I'd like to see some concrete proof of that before I'll believe in it. A citation of such from a peer-reviewed journal would be nice.

 

[Raven1972]

In reply to CHAR LIMIT:

Actualy I'm glad you pulled me up on that as when I researched it I found I was indeed wrong:

"African Americans made up 41% of death row inmates while making up only 12% of the general population. (They have made up 34% of those actually executed since 1976.)[84] However, that number is lower than that of prison inmates, which is 47%[85] U.S. Department of Justice statistics show that African-Americans constituted 48 percent of adults charged with homicide, but only 41 percent of those sentenced of death. Once arrested for murder, African-Americans are less likely to receive a capital sentence than are White Americans.[86][unreliable source?]

Academic studies indicate that the single greatest predictor of whether a death sentence is given, however, is not the race of the defendant, but the race of the victim. According to a 2003 Amnesty International report, Africans and Europeans were the victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 80% of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders involving white victims.[84] But, others say intra-racial murders, most likely between persons who know one another are circumstances often viewed as inappropriate for the death penalty. Because those sentenced to death often don't know their victims (e.g., killing during rape or robbery), their victim is likely to be European.[86][unreliable source?][dubious – discuss]

Among convicts, half of the ten inmates on Connecticut's death row, all races included, have been condemned for the murders of minorities, and five of the 37 inmates executed in South Carolina were Caucasian men convicted of murdering Blacks. In October 2000, a study[87] of La Griffe du Lion, an anonymous scholar accused on Internet forums of "scientifical fraud"[88], based on the difference between homicide ratio among races and death row inmates' races, concludes that distribution of death sentences is biased in Southern states against Non-Hispanic Whites, where most of the executions take place, biased against Blacks in Pennsylvania, and neutral in the other states of Midwest and West."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Among_races

I guess I confused myself when remembering it...

 

[mugaliens]

I should be honest and admit that they did not simply cease to use the lash. They replaced it with another punishment, actually no less barbaric, but much more effective in controlling the prisoners – a system of solitary confinement somewhat harsher than that generally practiced today. But the point remains that the logic of harsh punishment acting as deterrence is just not supported by actual experience.

Most of us have a strong drive to be social. It's one of our most important needs. When the opportunity to socialize is removed, it's indeed a strong deterrent.

 

[Ken Natton]

Most of us have a strong drive to be social. It's one of our most important needs. When the opportunity to socialize is removed, it's indeed a strong deterrent.

Huh. No, mugaliens, that's not how it worked. Prisoners were locked in a cell that was utterly dark and left there for a few weeks. When they came out they were usually deeply mentally disturbed, but utterly compliant. Deterrence had nothing to do with it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Huh. No, mugaliens, that's not how it worked. Prisoners were locked in a cell that was utterly dark and left there for a few weeks. When they came out they were usually deeply mentally disturbed, but utterly compliant. Deterrence had nothing to do with it.

The issue isn't the severity of the punishment or in the case of radical sensory deprivation, torture... the issue is that most often people who commit a crime do so in the belief that they will not be caught and punished.

 

[mugaliens]

Huh. No, mugaliens, that's not how it worked. Prisoners were locked in a cell that was utterly dark and left there for a few weeks. When they came out they were usually deeply mentally disturbed, but utterly compliant. Deterrence had nothing to do with it.

If you have to do this to all the prisoners to get them to be compliant, it's neither an effective nor efficient means of control.

If you do this only to those who cross the line, while the others who see them go in also see them when they come out, it's a deterrent.

 

[DanP]

A couple of review articles for you...

http://cjonline.uc.edu/the-twelve-people-who-saved-rehabilitation-how-the-science-of-criminology-made-a-difference

http://learn.uci.edu/media/SP06/99015/Assess%20Rehab%20Cullen%2003d.pdf

Rehabilitation. This is what those "studies" mainly talk about. None of those "studies" point even remotely to a "safer world" created through the imprisonment system. As in preventing crimes in the first places, and not deal only with the recidivism. You will have to agree with me that putting a bullet into somebody's head will make him much much more unlikely to commit any further crimes then any "rehabbed, and turned law abiding citizen". Also, you have to consider that for the crimes which where the subject of this thread the punishment will be more likely life in prison , in a society which do not resort on death penalty. So rehabilitation is mighty irrelevant anyway. Who cares he is sorry ?

And then again, Why would anyone rehabilitate a children raper ? Someone who kills a family of law abiding, innocent beings ? The right way to deal with those animals is through execution.

 

[Ken Natton]

The issue isn't the severity of the punishment or in the case of radical sensory deprivation, torture... the issue is that most often people who commit a crime do so in the belief that they will not be caught and punished.

Absolutely. And the second main factor is what the individual has at stake. If they have a great deal to lose, and they have reason to believe that the risks of being found out are high, then even quite lenient punishments will be perfectly effective. If, as is generally the case, the individual has reasonably good reason to believe that they might get away with it, or the individual sees little cause to be overly concerned about the consequences, then punishments that step well beyond the bounds of civilised behaviour are unlikely to have significant effect.

If you have to do this to all the prisoners to get them to be compliant, it's neither an effective nor efficient means of control.

If you do this only to those who cross the line, while the others who see them go in also see them when they come out, it's a deterrent.

I don’t think that they ever subjected every prisoner to this treatment. Even at a place like Port Arthur, there will have been some prisoners who just stuck to the rules, and some that were somewhat shrewder at playing the system and manipulating things to their own advantage. But the extent of the practice I have described will become clear if I tell you that in what was always a small settlement – I’m afraid I don’t remember what its population was but it constituted no more than a couple of dozen buildings at most – one of the most substantial and prominent buildings of the settlement was a hospital for the mentally disturbed that they were forced to build. As part of a guided tour around the ruins that stand there today, we were each given a chance to go into one of the solitary confinement cells and have the door closed behind us, and each of us responded in the same way – we immediately wanted to come out again. In any case, the history of Port Arthur is openly available to investigation for anyone sufficiently interested. My point in mentioning it is the lessons that it has to teach modern systems of criminal justice, lessons that were learned, as I said, between 150 and 200 years ago, and lessons that many modern systems of criminal justice, including some of those operated by States of the Union, signally continue to fail to learn.

 

[apeiron]

You will have to agree with me that putting a bullet into somebody's head will make him much much more unlikely to commit any further crimes then any "rehabbed, and turned law abiding citizen".

Why would I have to agree with such a reductionist, one dimensional view of reality?

Your comments as usual sound more about projecting some chosen image of yourself than a rational representation of the world I observe.

Can you name a society which has actually been organised along the principles you favour? Perhaps then we can judge whether it would seem a better place to live.

 

[DanP]

Why would I have to agree with such a reductionist, one dimensional view of reality?

Because it represents a truth which is axiomatic. A dead person cannot perpetuate further criminal behavior. I.e it cannot rape children anymore, it cannot kill mothers under their children eyes, it cannot dismember victims and hide their body parts :P

On the other hand, your view of the reality is flawed. You cannot guarantee any degree of success on a rehabilitation program. You cannot guarantee that your subjects, once granted parole by a much too lenient system, will not kill again.

 

[DanP]

Your comments as usual sound more about projecting some chosen image of yourself than a rational representation of the world I observe.

Yeah, but its exactly the same thing as you do :P Lot of philosophy, of beliefs, no proofs whatsoever :p

 

[apeiron]

Yeah, but its exactly the same thing as you do :P Lot of philosophy, of beliefs, no proofs whatsoever :p

So you haven't even got an example of a successful society run along the lines you advocate? All you can offer is further posturing?

 

[DanP]

So you haven't even got an example of a successful society run along the lines you advocate? All you can offer is further posturing?

So you haven't even got an example of a society run on the lines *you* advocate ? All you can offer is further posturing ?

 

[apeiron]

So you haven't even got an example of a society run on the lines *you* advocate ? All you can offer is further posturing ?

Err, I mentioned the specific example of Finland - not as a perfect society, but one that made a change in policy and so is a good case to examine.

But certainly, I would say Scandinavian nations in general. Canada. France. Anywhere where the focus is on "what works" and there is a general attempt to understand rather than a rush to punish.

So now your turn...

 

[DanP]

Err, I mentioned the specific example of Finland - not as a perfect society, but one that made a change in policy and so is a good case to examine.

The problem with your example of Finland is that you try to build a causality relation between lower crime rates and their punitive system. This fact is unproved.

The law crime rates can exist even despite their punishment system, due to other , much more important social conditions. Such as society homogeneity, levels of education, level of social protection offered to humans which live to the border of society and so on.The focus on what works is great, but what does work in the case of Finland ? Their punishment system, or their extremely well built democracy and social systems ?

If you claim a causality relation between punishment and low crime rates in their society, you have to prove it, which you did not.

Second, even if you prove that causality relation in the case of Finland, you have to prove
that the system will be of any use whatsoever in the case of a different society, such as USA or Russia for example.

Until such time, all one has is personal opinions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, but its exactly the same thing as you do :P Lot of philosophy, of beliefs, no proofs whatsoever :p

With all due respect DanP, apeiron provides sources to back his claims, which are also founded in well respected views of philosophy, social science, and psychology. You offer your own opinion, which I'm not belittling, but it is just one man's opinion. It isn't fair to say that you're operating in the same fashion.

 

[DanP]

With all due respect DanP, apeiron provides sources to back his claims, which are also founded in well respected views of philosophy, social science, and psychology. You offer your own opinion, which I'm not belittling, but it is just one man's opinion. It isn't fair to say that you're operating in the same fashion.

his links cover rehab of criminal mainly, not his claims of a better society with a lenient legal systems. Save for offering proof of the claims, all he has is philosophy.

 

[nismaratwork]

his links cover rehab of criminal mainly, not his claims of a better society with a lenient legal systems. Save for offering proof of the claims, all he has is philosophy.

I disagree, but I won't belabor the point... I just wanted to offer my view. You're no dummy DanP, but you're very closed-minded around this issue, and since our views do coincide in some areas of the debate, I suppose I wish that you'd be a little more open to a broader set of ideas in this particular area. Let's say, for the sake of argument that apeiron is JUST dealing in philosophy... so what? I find much of it compelling, and in line with modern psychology, neurology, and social sciences. I think he brings more to the table than philosophy, but even if that's it, you seem to have little or no respect for it, and I wonder why?

 

[DanP]

I find much of it compelling, and in line with modern psychology, neurology, and social sciences. I think he brings more to the table than philosophy, but even if that's it, you seem to have little or no respect for it, and I wonder why?

Compelling and in line doesn't mean much. What can convince me is clear proof of causality.

Proof that Finland has lower crime rates because it's imprisonment system, not because the way their society is structured at large, for example. Same for other norther countries, they are the foremost democracies on this planet, with extremely strong social programs and very good education systems.

 

[Proton Soup]

in the US, the incarceration rate has increased, while the crime rate decreased. so, it's not likely you're going to convince the public that lenient sentencing would make things better for them.

also, isn't Singapore known for having a pretty low crime rate while being fairly heavy-handed?

 

[DanP]

also, isn't Singapore known for having a pretty low crime rate while being fairly heavy-handed?

It is claimed to be one of the lowest incidence of violent crimes in the world, while the criminal law is pretty harsh. And best to my knowledge, they do retain death penalty.

Anyway, I am looking forward to see a lenient criminal law dealing with organized crime, for example Cosa nostra in Italy. They would just laugh in the face of law, they doit even now.
When you can do incomes in excess of 100 billion USD / year , too few things scare you.

Im really sure that with lenient criminal laws, organized crime in US, Russia, Italy, Japan , the drug traffic from South America and some Asian countires will just magically cease to exist :P

 

[DanP]

I think he brings more to the table than philosophy, but even if that's it, you seem to have little or no respect for it, and I wonder why?

You asked me what I have with philosophy. this:

Philosophy doesn't save humans lives. Philosophers are not law enforcement officers having to deal to with crime on the streets, they are not DAs and prosecutors, they are not judges shoot by organized crime, they are not kids dependent of drugs because of the enormous trafic we have to deal with nowadays.

In a word, I consider philosophy of crime a hobby done by smart ppl living in safe harbors, with too much time on their hands. It has no practical uses whatsoever. I consider most of the philosophy (but not all) a terrific waste of time and mental energy which could be used more productively in other ways.

 

[apeiron]

in the US, the incarceration rate has increased, while the crime rate decreased. so, it's not likely you're going to convince the public that lenient sentencing would make things better for them.

also, isn't Singapore known for having a pretty low crime rate while being fairly heavy-handed?

If you want real answers on the issue, you have to consider what the experts actually say. And for example, crime rates have gone down everywhere with a greying population and better home security.

So if you want to measure a deterrence effect, you have to be prepared to do some careful analysis, not just cite bald statistics.

I used to live in Singapore and have visited many times since. Yes, it is strict in many ways.

But their incarceration rate is 267 per 100,000 while the USA is the world leader at 760 per 100,000.

How do you explain that?

Either the US is more draconian than everyone else or produces more criminals than anywhere else. Neither seems to denote a healty social system.

 

[apeiron]

If you claim a causality relation between punishment and low crime rates in their society, you have to prove it, which you did not...Until such time, all one has is personal opinions.

These are not my claims but what I have learned from talking to criminologists and reading the literature. In fact I've also talked to many criminals too (mostly rehabilitated and reformed - including a criminologist who has done time).

So my point is that this is a well studied subject and you can't get away with just saying your opinion is valid without reference to any evidence.

It seems a simple question. What country most closely resembles your ideal when it comes to retributive justice? Do you like the "eye for an eye" approach of some Middle Eastern countries for example?

What would a society look like run along DanP principles? Can you articulate a vision?

 

[apeiron]

Im really sure that with lenient criminal laws, organized crime in US, Russia, Italy, Japan , the drug traffic from South America and some Asian countires will just magically cease to exist :P

If the issue is what works, rather than let's make ourselves feel better by handing out retribution, then yes, organised crime might have to be tackled differently from the disorganised kind.

For example, turning drugs into a health issue rather than a justice issue is one way to tackle the roots of organised crime. Having economic policies that favour social equality rather than inequality is another.

Both also are ways to tackle disorganised crime as well of course.

A bullet in the head should kinda be the last resort for a thinking society.

 

[nismaratwork]

You asked me what I have with philosophy. this:

Philosophy doesn't save humans lives. Philosophers are not law enforcement officers having to deal to with crime on the streets, they are not DAs and prosecutors, they are not judges shoot by organized crime, they are not kids dependent of drugs because of the enormous trafic we have to deal with nowadays.

In a word, I consider philosophy of crime a hobby done by smart ppl living in safe harbors, with too much time on their hands. It has no practical uses whatsoever. I consider most of the philosophy (but not all) a terrific waste of time and mental energy which could be used more productively in other ways.

One of the greatest philosophers of all time took poison at the order of the state, so I'm not sure that they are all in safe harbors. As for practicality, this is a bit like arguing whether or not art is practical, because like it or not, we seem unable to live without it emerging in some form.

To the Singapore example, they're quite harsh, but then, Japan has a low crime rate and they don't have to cane anyone to achieve it. On the books, Saudi Arabia is insanely harsh, but they have quite a bit of crime, and then you have Pakistan, which on the books is also harsh, but quite chaotic.

Singapore and Japan are both very ordered societies, both small (Singapore is a bit like a violent Finland, and in your estimation then, it should be invalidated), and both control crime by making corruption endemic to the system. In Japan, the Yakuza is essentially one third of their government, dealing heavily in construction, graft, and many rackets. The crimes don't go on the books, because it's only when they step out of line, culturally, that it's even called a crime.

In the US, we took great pains to stamp out the kind of mafioso entanglements in construction (with some success), and other areas. So, we have more of that crime, given that it's not institutionalized. Ignoring criminal penalties, in Japanese society, you also have the horrendous stigma of being even a petty criminal which can (due to the size and nature of the country) and does follow you for life. A societal deterrent is at work that keeps the penal system busy with a different class of criminal.

In the US, it's hard to get a job as a felon, and many may judge you for your past, but it's easy to escape it and plenty of people will give you a chance. In that sense, committing petty crimes doesn't carry the threat of ostracism, only misdemeanor charges. Now, Japan has a huge problem with the abuse of Methamphetamine ("shabu"), but unless someone commits crimes to obtain it, or as a result, it's just... their problem. Here, if you're cranked to the gills good luck working in an office environment, or construction; in Japan, that's the norm in many cases.

Maybe social science and philosophy can't solve these problems, but can you not see how they can help you understand what you're looking at? I think you're fooling yourself into believing that harsh penalties, and a certain kind of justice saves lives, and you believe that because you're failing to use all of the potential tools at your disposal to examine the situation.

For instance, our prisons are breeding grounds for petty crooks and drug addicts to move up through a kind of Darwinian process. Far from rehabilitation, we make them better at being crooks, and unfamiliar and often unable to be anything else. We release them, and they return again and again, a problem that countries with equally horrible prison systems also suffer. Without the ability or willingness to understand how the means by which we punish and cage our criminals, without regard to what they've done beyond a certain point, you miss much of the root of how crime is perpetuated. We're not saving lives by putting people in a position to work their way up from theft, to assault, and murder... and the solution isn't only to cage anyone who pisses on the sidewalk forever.

This is a complex issue, and to simplify it does favors to no one, including potential victims whom you seem concerned for.

 

[Proton Soup]

If you want real answers on the issue, you have to consider what the experts actually say. And for example, crime rates have gone down everywhere with a greying population and better home security.

So if you want to measure a deterrence effect, you have to be prepared to do some careful analysis, not just cite bald statistics.

I used to live in Singapore and have visited many times since. Yes, it is strict in many ways.

But their incarceration rate is 267 per 100,000 while the USA is the world leader at 760 per 100,000.

How do you explain that?

Either the US is more draconian than everyone else or produces more criminals than anywhere else. Neither seems to denote a healty social system.

maybe we need to legalize caning.

 

[dudleysharp]

If you have to do this to all the prisoners to get them to be compliant, it's neither an effective nor efficient means of control.

If you do this only to those who cross the line, while the others who see them go in also see them when they come out, it's a deterrent.

It is also very likely a deterrent to many of those who were in solitary. Being deeply disturbed and compliant do not, at all, necessarily go together. Certainly, many of those, now, compliant prisoners, became compliant because they did not wish to repeat isolation. That is also deterrence.

 

[dudleysharp]

deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. There is no exceptiom.

Understanding Deterrence & the Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp

Many wrongly believe that gross murder rates are the manner in which we detect deterrence. It isn't, nor can it be, even though many use that barometer.

For example, there are high, low and medium crime rates in different jurisdictions, throughout the world. Crime rates are constantly fluctuating through decades and centuries, throughout the world.

In all of those jurisdictions, and through all times, there will always be some who are deterred from entering criminal activity, based upon the fear of getting caught and the sanction to follow.

It is the same with the death penalty, as it is with all sanctions.

With the recent 25 USA studies finding for deterrence, they range in the deterrent effect preventing from about 90-900 murders per year, nationwide, or about 0.5%-5% of the total of all murders. For me, that is a huge number of lives saved, yet, it represents a very small fraction of the murder rate.

While no one can rationally or honestly say that the death penalty does not deter some, there will also never be any agreement on the measurement of the degree of that deterrence.

Some say that the burden of proof is with those supporting the deterrence hypothesis. Clearly, it is not. All prospects of a negative outcome deter some.

The burden of proof is with those who say that the most sever sanction - execution - is the only negative outcome that deters none. Rationally, as with history's measure, it is a claim that cannot be defended.

Of course the death penalty deters.

The only questions, which will never be answered to anyone's satisfaction, is "How much does it deter?"

Based upon the recent studies, deterrence has very little effect on net or gross murder rates, but that "little effect" represents saving 90-900 lives per year in the USA. Huge.

As Prof. Robert Blecker states:

"We support execution as a just and appropriate forfeiture of lives which deserve to be taken. We also support execution as a just and appropriate method to save lives which deserve to be saved. "

Please review:

Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

deterrence #2

Would crime rise if there was no sanction for crime?

Deterrence & The Death Penalty

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

No matter the level of violent crime, be it high or low, legal sanctions deter some from committing crimes (1).

Based upon some recent deterrence studies, even "heat of the moment" murders can be prevented by deterrence (2). No matter how excited or enraged, most of us bring ourselves back from that abyss, to a more sensible approach. One reason for that is deterrence, either thoughtful or instinctive.

Most criminals do think about things. That is why, before their crimes, the usually choose locations other than police stations to commit them. Criminals nearly always use some form of stealth before and during the crime, to avoid witnesses and to lower the probability of being caught, just as they use such stealth to withdraw after the crime.

We know this to be true.

Such is based upon a fear of being apprehended. There is no fear of being caught unless there is a fear of sanction. Only sanction can put fear into being caught.

There are those who argue the death penalty is no greater a deterrent than a life sentence.

Even if the death penalty is only equal in value as a life sentence, as a deterrent, then the death penalty is an important deterrent.

There are several major tiebreakers in this "equality".

First, look at murderers not deterred. About 99.9% of all of those murderers who face the death penalty either plea bargain to a life or lesser sentence, go to trial seeking a life sentence, not death, in the punishment phase of their trials and fight a, seemingly, never ending appellate battle to stay alive while they are on death row.

Reason tells us that if 99.9% of a less rational group, those who commit murders, fear death more than life, that there must be some, more rational folks, those potential murderers who chose not to murder because they feared death more than life.

Do the experts denouncing deterrence say "the death penalty deters no one? Of course not. They can't.

There are a number of real life stories of potential murderers who have stated that it was the death penalty that prevented them from committing murder. This is known as the individual deterrent effect. In these cases, the death penalty was an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence. Meaning these were cases whereby the potential murders were deterred from murdering because of the death penalty, who would not, otherwise, have been deterred by a lesser sanction. (3)

In addition, individual, enhanced deterrence cannot exist without general, enhanced deterrence. Therefore, there is a general, enhanced deterrent, because individual deterrence could not exist without the general deterrent effect. (3)

If we are unsure about deterrence, there is no "equality" in the results of our choices.

If there is deterrence and we execute, we save innocent lives via deterrence and by preventing murderers from ever harming again. If there is deterrence and we fail to execute, we sacrifice more innocent lives by reduced deterrence and, additionally, we put more innocents at risk, because living murderers are always more likely to harm again, than are executed ones. If there is no deterrence and we execute, we protect more innocents because of enhanced incapacitation. If there is no deterrence and we don't execute, more innocents are at risk because the murderers are still alive. (3)

I repeat my position that it is irrational to say that none are deterred by the death penalty.

The weight of the evidence is that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence and any deterrence is significant in that it spares innocent lives.

If unsure about execution deterrence, the "risk" is saving innocent lives by the deterrence of execution vs the "risk" of not saving innocent lives and choosing not to execute. The risk to take is to execute, to save innocent lives that deserve to be saved. (4)

We do not execute or impose other sanctions based upon deterrence. We must base sanctions on them being a just and appropriate response to the crimes committed, the same foundation of support used for all criminal sanctions.

The reason for sanction is justice. Deterrence is a secondary reason for and a beneficial by-product of all sanctions, inclusive of the death penalty.

(1) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

(2) 25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

(3) This is a bit out of date, but corrects an number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
"Death Penalty and Deterrence"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent--confirmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx

(4) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx


Other Links:

"A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

"The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)

 

[DanP]

So my point is that this is a well studied subject and you can't get away with just saying your opinion is valid without reference to any evidence.

Sure, I agree with you. Please provide proof of causality between a lenient criminal system and a safe society. One which is conclusive, and excludes (or at least undoubtedly marks a lenient criminal system as the major contributor) all other factors, such as homogeneity of society, the educational and social programs.

 

[DanP]

If the issue is what works, rather than let's make ourselves feel better by handing out retribution, then yes, organised crime might have to be tackled differently from the disorganised kind.

Retribution is required. You took a life, you raped a child, you have to pay for it. I am sorry if this ruins anyone's idea that Earth is a paradise, but the reality is that we, humans, kill, that we rape, that we sodomize children.

The whole idea that retribution is based on the a "feeling which makes us better" is flawed to the bone. Retributive principles are based on accountability. You have to pay for the wrongs you've done.

Others may prefer to let children raper free after a while, with the hope that he won't do it again. I do not. I believe if as few as 1 of the released children rapers rapes again, we have failed in our duty to protect the society.

For example, turning drugs into a health issue rather than a justice issue is one way to tackle the roots of organised crime. Having economic policies that favour social equality rather than inequality is another.

Both also are ways to tackle disorganised crime as well of course.

I agree with you. But those are social changes in other areas than creating a lenient criminal system. Those are the main determinant of what I believe would create a better society. Education, social support, homogeneity and others.

Rather than being the determinant of the safety of a society , a lenient criminal system may very well be the result of root social changes.

A bullet in the head should kinda be the last resort for a thinking society.

Sure. Maybe one day it will not be required. Today, if I would ever end working like a DA,
I prefer to go in the front of families of the victims, in the front of their relatives, of their friends, and neighbors and honestly say about someone who killed , who raped kids

"Yes ma'am, he/she was hold accountable for its deeds. He will never hurt anyone else again, with 100% certainty."

It is only then I could feel I did my duty to justice, to the community, and to the victims and their social circle.