Death Sentence Vs Life Imprisonment

[quantumdude]

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]

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 something 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.

 

[quantumdude]

What I have said (and I stand by that) is that to punish, to do something 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]

..brutal murders should be avenged with capital punishment, .

Why?

 

[selfAdjoint]

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]

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]

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 really guilty...

_______________________________________________

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

 

[meteor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MeJennifer]

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.

 

[Gagan A]

I don't want to 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).
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/Bet.shtml" by Anton Chekhov

 

[arunbg]

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, anyone 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 realized 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]

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]

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 realize 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]

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]

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.

 

[Kurdt]

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 let's 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 realized 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]

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]

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





It looks like life imprisonment is losing the contest.

I long ago stopped believing anybody's statsistics on DP.

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.

 

[Dawguard]

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]

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 ?

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]

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 .

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]

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]

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 anyone 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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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 website 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

 

[arunbg]

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
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

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

 

[Aether]

If after over a 100 posts, there is no argument for or against DP, that itself is an argument for LI

"Declare the past, diagnose the present, foretell the future; practice these acts. As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm." -- Epidemics, Bk. I, Sect. XI