- #1
Lisa!
Gold Member
- 649
- 98
What do you think of death penalty? Is it fair or unfair? And could help to decrease the crime rate?
Lisa! said:Which countries abolish the death penalty? UK?
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.
Pengwuino said:The whole idea of a prison system and "crimes" is about revenge. Steal my car? Revenge = going to jail. Let's 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.
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!
Good point. And we should also notice the kind of crimes.Pengwuino said:Don't forget the information on their crime rates BEFORE they abolished the death penalty as well.
Lisa! said:Good point. And we should also notice the kind of crimes.
Pengwuino said:The whole idea of a prison system and "crimes" is about revenge. Steal my car? Revenge = going to jail. Let's 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. Let's 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 shouldn't 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:The whole idea of a prison system and "crimes" is about revenge. Steal my car? Revenge = going to jail. Let's 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"
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.
loseyourname said:It's not just deterrence, either. Part of the point of locking people away is to keep them from committing any further crimes, at least against non-inmates.
I am not saying that the current situation resembles the idealized example that I posted. If the system had been planned for deterrence and worked perfectly, all prisons would have been empty. If the system had been planned for revenge and victims were strictly rational, all prisons would still be empty. Since prisons are far from being empty, the system must be far from perfect and/or victims far from rational.Pengwuino said:Hmm... guess i didn't understand the math behind our criminal justice system...
The fairness of the death penalty as a punishment is a highly debated topic. Some argue that it is fair as it serves as a deterrent for potential criminals and provides justice for the victims and their families. Others argue that it is inherently unfair as it disproportionately affects marginalized and minority groups and there is a risk of innocent individuals being wrongfully sentenced to death.
The main arguments for the death penalty include its potential as a deterrent for crime, its ability to provide closure and justice for victims and their families, and the cost savings compared to life imprisonment. On the other hand, arguments against the death penalty include the possibility of wrongful convictions, the lack of evidence to support its effectiveness as a deterrent, and ethical concerns about state-sanctioned killing.
There are several alternatives to the death penalty that are used in different countries, such as life imprisonment without parole, rehabilitation programs, and restorative justice. These alternatives aim to provide punishment and accountability for the crime while also focusing on rehabilitation and reducing the risk of recidivism.
There is evidence to suggest that the death penalty is racially biased, with individuals from minority groups being disproportionately sentenced to death. Factors such as socioeconomic status, access to adequate legal representation, and implicit bias can contribute to this disparity.
Currently, over two-thirds of countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. However, it is still used in some countries, primarily in the United States, China, and Iran. There is a growing movement towards abolition globally, with the United Nations and human rights organizations advocating for the elimination of the death penalty as a form of punishment.