The Death Penalty is a Good Thing

[Don't Panic]

Not the only reason, but an effective one, you say capital punishment doesn't reduce crime rates, it certainly prevents the same person from committing that crime again, and the prisons are full of repeat offenders.

I don't care that you disagree with me, but no amount of education will alter a psychopathic or sociopathic personality.

Using the 'offenders' is pointless when discussing capital crimes. Are the prisons full of repeat murderers? I doubt that very much. You've pretty much ignored what I said about higher murder rates in practicing countries and I have explained that capital punishment costs more than imprisonment. Your argument is patent nonsense.

Capital punishment costs more than imprisonment when you allow endless appeals before finally executing the person. A bullet isn't all that expensive, and neither is paying the wages of the person to pull the trigger.

Why limit capital punishment to murder? Rapists, sex offenders, violent criminals, what benefit are any of these people to the rest of us?

[mistermack]

That's it!!! That's the answer!!!
You cryogenically freeze them, and if they later get found innocent, you just thaw them out. So they don't have to endure prison, if they were innocent.
Otherwise, you incinerate them after a hundred years.
.

[stripes4]

I am also not promoting that we educate or socialise psychopaths and sociopaths. I was married to one long enough to know this is impossible, but the other option - to kill them is at best, lazy and unimaginative.

What would you suggest we do with them? It may be lazy and unimaginative but it's a permanent solution, at a low expense and makes society safer.

I would certainly suggest that they are kept in a high security unit, and live their lives out in isolation from the rest of society, maybe working to produce things that would benefit others in society. They could exist and be deprived of their freedom. Every life is valid. Even the lives of what we would call 'evil' people. Who are we to judge that people should die? How do we know why anyone does anything? I am not suggesting a course of counselling and back through the prison doors on a reduced sentence, but killing people is wrong.

[Coito ergo sum]

The death penalty is a good thing. Why crowd the prison system and waste taxpayer money just so that you lock someone up for god so many years? Locking someone up for many years is a form of torture. It is much more humane to just kill them. All that you are doing is pro-longing the suffering by keeping them alive. There is nothing wrong with sentencing someone to death for serious crimes. They are a lost cause and it is highly illogical to confine them in small spaces for years on end instead of just giving them a quick injection or the guillotine.

"I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them."




In all seriousness, I am anti-death penalty. It is applied ineffectively, and is irreversible if imposed wrongly. It is not a deterrent to crime, statistically (a good example was the prevalence of pickpockets at the gallows in England, while pickpocketing was a capital offense...back in the day). I think, as a matter of state policy, it just doesn't work.

[Don't Panic]

I am also not promoting that we educate or socialise psychopaths and sociopaths. I was married to one long enough to know this is impossible, but the other option - to kill them is at best, lazy and unimaginative.

What would you suggest we do with them? It may be lazy and unimaginative but it's a permanent solution, at a low expense and makes society safer.

You've been told twice that it doesn't make society safer. Capital crime rates are higher in practicing countries.

This is the problem I have encountered without fail in every proponent of CP I have ever met. They make arguments that are long since debunked and flatly refuse to accept the harsh reality that their beloved idea simply does not work.

I accept that the current manner in which it is implemented may not be effective, that doesn't mean it couldn't be. Fear of punishment will reduce crime rates, you just need to make the risk/reward ratio unattractive.

[stripes4]

It isn't a deterrent. Most murders are crimes of passion and when people want to kill, if theyre nuts enough, they just go for it. The hang em high people, want it as a means to just 'remove' problems, not to provide a deterrent, I think?

[Hermit]

Fear of punishment will reduce crime rates, you just need to make the risk/reward ratio unattractive.

I think you missed Meeky's point. If capital punishment makes the risk/reward ratio unattractive, why is it that murder rates in the USA are higher than in most countries that don't kill murderers?

[stripes4]

I am also not promoting that we educate or socialise psychopaths and sociopaths. I was married to one long enough to know this is impossible, but the other option - to kill them is at best, lazy and unimaginative.

What would you suggest we do with them? It may be lazy and unimaginative but it's a permanent solution, at a low expense and makes society safer.

You've been told twice that it doesn't make society safer. Capital crime rates are higher in practicing countries.

This is the problem I have encountered without fail in every proponent of CP I have ever met. They make arguments that are long since debunked and flatly refuse to accept the harsh reality that their beloved idea simply does not work.

I accept that the current manner in which it is implemented may not be effective, that doesn't mean it couldn't be. Fear of punishment will reduce crime rates, you just need to make the risk/reward ratio unattractive.

Fear of punishment does NOT work!!! How many do you think weigh up 'hmm life time imprisonment isn't so bad. I think I'll go ahead with this murder' Come ON. Murders are done without consideration of consequence. Usually in fury and passion and anger, or by someone that isnt rational because they're ill!!! It's not something people usually weigh up and then go for a life sentence for - 'hey - off I go. I wouldn;t bother if it was capital punishment, but yippee - I can do life instead' stab stab etc.

[stripes4]

Fear of punishment will reduce crime rates, you just need to make the risk/reward ratio unattractive.

I think you missed Meeky's point. If capital punishment makes the risk/reward ratio unattractive, why is it that murder rates in the USA are higher than in most countries that don't kill murderers?

[Coito ergo sum]

Not the only reason, but an effective one, you say capital punishment doesn't reduce crime rates, it certainly prevents the same person from committing that crime again, and the prisons are full of repeat offenders.

I don't care that you disagree with me, but no amount of education will alter a psychopathic or sociopathic personality.

Using the 'offenders' is pointless when discussing capital crimes. Are the prisons full of repeat murderers? I doubt that very much. You've pretty much ignored what I said about higher murder rates in practicing countries and I have explained that capital punishment costs more than imprisonment. Your argument is patent nonsense.

Capital punishment costs more than imprisonment when you allow endless appeals before finally executing the person. A bullet isn't all that expensive, and neither is paying the wages of the person to pull the trigger.

Why limit capital punishment to murder? Rapists, sex offenders, violent criminals, what benefit are any of these people to the rest of us?

...be careful...there are a lot of things subsumed within "sex offense" that aren't of the extreme variety....

It doesn't matter, in the end, what you expand capital punishment to cover. In the 19th century and earlier, theft was a capital offense, and it didn't stop people from stealing.

The promise of a 25 year prison sentence is just as effective as the death penalty. Since the death penalty hasn't been shown to be more effective than a life sentence in prison at deterring crime, why would one support it? The only reason would be retributive justice. One is free to be of the view that retribution is a good enough reason to have a death penalty, but I don't think it is - not as a matter of state policy.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fear of punishment will reduce crime rates, you just need to make the risk/reward ratio unattractive.

I think you missed Meeky's point. If capital punishment makes the risk/reward ratio unattractive, why is it that murder rates in the USA are higher than in most countries that don't kill murderers?

FYI - for the record, approximately 15 of the 50 US States do not have a civilian death penalty.

And, comparing US states without the death penalty to those with the death penalty, those without the death penalty have consistently lower intentional homicide rates.

[FBM]

Killing is deeply regrettable, but sometimes advantageous for the general welfare when the offender is unrecalcitrant. I'm with DP. Why should we non-violent types spend the rest of our lives paying for the child-rapists'/serial killers'/etc cable TV, room and board, etc? People who are dead are dead. They neither suffer nor cause suffering thereafter. Contribute to the general welfare or at least stay out of the way. When you start diminishing the quality of life for the general public, get your shit returned to dirt. Better luck next time. Sorry if you're a victim, but that's the roll of the dice; it doesn't give you the right to fuck with the rest of us to your heart's deranged content. Sorry, truly sorry, I really am a compassionabut if you're deadset on fucking up other people's lives, you're just a problem to be solved. Killing sucks. Whether it's state-sanctioned or the result of a twisted physiology or upbringing. But the species must protect itself.

(The above is just a thought experiment. I have equally strong arguments that contradict that opinion. This is a major reason why I respect Pyrrhonian skepticism.)

[Coito ergo sum]

I am also not promoting that we educate or socialise psychopaths and sociopaths. I was married to one long enough to know this is impossible, but the other option - to kill them is at best, lazy and unimaginative.

What would you suggest we do with them? It may be lazy and unimaginative but it's a permanent solution, at a low expense and makes society safer.

You've been told twice that it doesn't make society safer. Capital crime rates are higher in practicing countries.

This is the problem I have encountered without fail in every proponent of CP I have ever met. They make arguments that are long since debunked and flatly refuse to accept the harsh reality that their beloved idea simply does not work.

I accept that the current manner in which it is implemented may not be effective, that doesn't mean it couldn't be. Fear of punishment will reduce crime rates, you just need to make the risk/reward ratio unattractive.

Fear of punishment does NOT work!!! How many do you think weigh up 'hmm life time imprisonment isn't so bad. I think I'll go ahead with this murder' Come ON. Murders are done without consideration of consequence. Usually in fury and passion and anger, or by someone that isnt rational because they're ill!!! It's not something people usually weigh up and then go for a life sentence for - 'hey - off I go. I wouldn;t bother if it was capital punishment, but yippee - I can do life instead' stab stab etc.

That's not exactly true. If criminal laws are enforced such that whatever punishment is imposed is imposed swiftly and surely, with a high probability that a perpetrator will suffer that punishment, then it does work to deter. The problem is when crimes have a low probability of any punishment ensuing.

Some murders are done without consideration of the consequences, that's true. Those murders will never be deterred by a death penalty or any other penalty. Other murders - of the premeditated and deliberated type - are often done with consideration of the consequences. That's where the certainty of punishment comes in. If the death penalty - or any penalty - is only imposed in a small percentage of the cases, then it won't be a deterrent.

[stripes4]

pfft.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not the only reason, but an effective one, you say capital punishment doesn't reduce crime rates, it certainly prevents the same person from committing that crime again, and the prisons are full of repeat offenders.

I don't care that you disagree with me, but no amount of education will alter a psychopathic or sociopathic personality.

Using the 'offenders' is pointless when discussing capital crimes. Are the prisons full of repeat murderers? I doubt that very much. You've pretty much ignored what I said about higher murder rates in practicing countries and I have explained that capital punishment costs more than imprisonment. Your argument is patent nonsense.

Recidivism is prevalent.

Of the 108,580 persons released from prisons in 11 States in 1983, representing more than half of all released State prisoners that year, an estimated 62.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.8% were reconvicted, and 41.4% returned to prison or jail. Before their release from prison, the prisoners had been arrested and charged with an average of more than 12 offenses each; nearly two-thirds had been arrested at least once in the past for a violent offense; and two-thirds had previously been in jail or prison. By yearend 1986 those prisoners who were rearrested averaged an additional 4.8 new charges. An estimated 22.7% of all prisoners were rearrested for a violent offense within 3 years of their release. These findings were based on a sample of more than 16,000 released prisoners, representing all those released from prison in 11 States during 1983. The 11 States in the sample included California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas. These States accounted for more than 57% of all State prisoners released in the Nation during the year. The amount of time served in prison did not systematically increase a prisoner's likelihood of rearrest. However, those prisoners who had served the longest, more than 5 years in prison, had lower rates of rearrest than other offenders during the followup period.

Released prisoners were often rearrested for the same type of crime for which they had served time in prison. Within 3 years, 31.9% of released burglars were rearrested for burglary; 24.8% of drug offenders were rearrested for a drug offense; and 19.6% of robbers were rearrested for robbery.

Released rapists were 10.5 times more likely than nonrapists to be rearrested for rape, and released murderers were about 5 times more likely than other offenders to be rearrested for homicide.

That's not an argument for the death penalty. Just some stats on recidivism. Murderers are more likely to commit another murder than the general population at large, or other kinds of criminals. They are 5 times more likely to be rearrested for another homicide than other folks.