Main Question or Discussion Point
What do you think of death penalty? Is it fair or unfair? And could help to decrease the crime rate?
The whole idea of a prison system and "crimes" is about revenge. Steal my car? Revenge = going to jail. Lets face it, every jail sentence is revenge. Otherwise we'd be giving rapists a big ol hug and saying "go back to your job and normal life"KC9FVV said:I agree with selfAdjoint on both points. Politicians do seem to use revenge, which I think is entirely pointless. Also, even if there wasn't a death penalty, they would still get life.
I agree, it is simply another form of punishment. It is not revenge anymore then giving someone a fine or any type of legal retribution. People make mistakes, but there needs to be a punishment. People need to learn from there mistakes. There are also those that are opportunists that will take advantage of that attitude of forgive and forget. If there is no motivation to not do a crime, then crime will be rampant. Crime causes disorder and chaos and man can not physcologically live in such an environment. Capital punishment is simply the most dire method of punishment, after all, they took an innocent life. That cannot be returned. That person made no mistakes. And no they have no chance to do things different. For that person, their part in history was robbed and ended by another, what other punishment is suitable or that?Pengwuino said:The whole idea of a prison system and "crimes" is about revenge. Steal my car? Revenge = going to jail. Lets face it, every jail sentence is revenge. Otherwise we'd be giving rapists a big ol hug and saying "go back to your job and normal life"
Oh yeah, I totally forget about that. Thanks to mention.PerennialII said:The EU as a whole for starters.
Don't forget the information on their crime rates BEFORE they abolished the death penalty as well.Lisa! said:Oh yeah, I totally forget about that. Thanks to mention.
Now I think we should compare the crime rates in countries with death penalty and countries which's abolished death penalty.
I think the result wouldn't be in favor of death penalty!
Yah. Few decades ago, people were still getting the death penalty for.... well, crimes that don't call for it (i can't remember... but no one was even physically hurt in teh type of crime). It'll be easier to get state statistics in the US since a lot of states have somewhat recently switched from death penalty to life-only. If you can get them in fairly recent decades, you can rule out social changes as an externality.Lisa! said:Good point. And we should also notice the kind of crimes.
Should this be taken seriously or is this just a practical observation of sorts Doing good by subjecting people to more harm sure sounds like a handicapped approach.Pengwuino said:The whole idea of a prison system and "crimes" is about revenge. Steal my car? Revenge = going to jail. Lets face it, every jail sentence is revenge. Otherwise we'd be giving rapists a big ol hug and saying "go back to your job and normal life"
The legal system does not exist for the purpose of orderly revenge. The main point of it is to make it unprofitable for people to do bad things so that they don't do them. For many people, the reason they don't steal is that they consider it not to be worth it because of what would happen if they were caught. The other big reason to have a legal system that can put people in jail is that you can keep dangerous people off the street. The death penalty has been proven ineffective as a deterent. People who commit murder, it seems, either don't care about being caught, or believe that they will not. Putting people in jail for life under high security also keeps them off the streets. Revenge for the sake of revenge is purely destructive. It is harming people for harm's sake. If seeing someone else killed brings you joy, why should it be the job of the government to satisfy your sick desire?Pengwuino said:The whole idea of a prison system and "crimes" is about revenge. Steal my car? Revenge = going to jail. Lets face it, every jail sentence is revenge. Otherwise we'd be giving rapists a big ol hug and saying "go back to your job and normal life"
Yes, the death penalty is quite educational.WhiteWolf said:People need to learn from there mistakes.
The degree of evidence needed for a murder conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt". There really is no practical degree of evidence higher than this. If you go to "beyond any doubt", then no one will ever be convicted. A murder conviction requires proof of intent. How could you ever prove beyond any doubt what was going on in someone's mind? You can't, you can only prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no way to make a distinction between "guilty" and "really, really guilty".WhiteWolf said:First off, there needs to be an astronomical amount of evidence before someone can be sentanced the death penalty. It shouldnt just take a murder conviction, the courts need to be controlled on the level of evidence against someone before they can take their life.
What about deterrence?Pengwuino said:
Suppose you are thinking of stealing $1 million. There is a 50 percent chance that you'd be caught and sent to prison for Y years. You hate closed spaces, so you'd rather pay $100,000 than be prisoned for a year. Your expected profit is 0.5 ($1m) - 0.5 ($0.1Y) million = $0.5(1 - 0.1Y) million. If deterrence is the primary goal then Y has to be set > 10, anything less will not deter you. But if revenge is the primary goal, then Y could be anything, even zero. The point is that deterrence requires an ex-ante calculation, but revenge is ex-post.Pengwuino said:Who are we tryen to kid here. Revenge, deterence, same thing. What am I being detoured by? An act of revenge. What will the vengeful act be used for? Deterence.
This is just wordplay. If I rob a bank, i believe society will seek revenge on me by trying to lock me up. No matter how you slice it, I will commit a crime and society will decide in return, to act upon me in a negative way. This is A=B, B=A, no way around it.