Capital Punishment

[Addy]

Originally Posted by undecided cat

C'mon lads nay fisty cuffs on my forum ta!!

I take the earlier point that isn't executing someone for a crime such as say, murder letting them off easy?!?! There is a moral contradiction to state execution - the US government doesn't condone its citizens to kill each other yet they themselves execute people and also commit mass genocide in other countries themselves......confusing messages perhaps?

The execution of a dozen people = a dozen dead.
Genocide = thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of dead.

Let us please not make comparisons between the two.

[undecided cat]

Originally Posted by Caissa's_DeathAngel

The execution of a dozen people = a dozen dead.
Genocide = thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of dead.

Let us please not make comparisons between the two.

WE aren't making comparisons - and neither was I (singular) I was mentioning the fact that America has killed thousands of people in other countries (the genocide bit) while at the same time performed executions which are considered legal and not murder by the state. There is an inherent contradiction there.

[ashbash]

Originally Posted by Tommy

You cant just go kill folk, you become what you hate which is stupid.

Here endeth the debate for me.

100% against it.

[darth_haggis]

What happens if "God's voice" tell you to do it?

[undecided cat]

Originally Posted by ashbash

Here endeth the debate for me.

100% against it.

Fair do's chum. i think the lot of us should look at two points though -

That our opinions might change if say, someone close to us was ever murdered.

That the death penalty isn't stopping crime and there can be an argument that it isn't acting as a deterrant either.

[Addy]

Originally Posted by undecided cat

there can be an argument that it isn't acting as a deterrant either.

Care to explain the logic?

All murder statistics show is how many people were not deterred - it is impossible to know how many people decided not to because of the death penalty.

[ashbash]

Originally Posted by undecided cat

Fair do's chum. i think the lot of us should look at two points though -

That our opinions might change if say, someone close to us was ever murdered.

That the death penalty isn't stopping crime and there can be an argument that it isn't acting as a deterrant either.

I do obviously have a lot more to my argument than that. I just feel that the main points have been raised already in the thread and I don't see the point in going round in circles.

[undecided cat]

Originally Posted by Caissa's_DeathAngel

Care to explain the logic?

All murder statistics show is how many people were not deterred - it is impossible to know how many people decided not to because of the death penalty.

I agree, but it would require rationality or sensibility to not kill someone due to the deterrance that is the death sentence - most people would murder someone then think about it or deny it after the event. But i do agree that the number of people that it has deterred is unmeasurable, and I don't doubt for a second that it has. This is all my own silly speculation though mostly - I wonder what the murder statistics are like in U.S.A and the Far East countries that use the death sentence compared to the U.K and other countries without it? And if those statistics are even accurate!!

[Addy]

Originally Posted by undecided cat

I agree, but it would require rationality or sensibility to not kill someone due to the deterrance that is the death sentence - most people would murder someone then think about it or deny it after the event. But i do agree that the number of people that it has deterred is unmeasurable, and I don't doubt for a second that it has. This is all my own silly speculation though mostly - I wonder what the murder statistics are like in U.S.A and the Far East countries that use the death sentence compared to the U.K and other countries without it? And if those statistics are even accurate!!

I'll just clarify for the unsure.

Deterrence refers to persuading people not to commit crimes. This can be achieved by various means. However, it cannot be measured. Crime statistics are frequently used as a means of "proving" that the death penalty does not deter, by means of opponents pointing out that crime rates do not fall, and in some cases even rise.

However, this logic is deeply flawed. Crime rates include those with mental health difficulties who would still kill if you chained them to a bed and hung the Sword of Damocles above their heads. They do not include those who decided not to kill because the death penalty was a punishment they could not afford to risk.

Note that I do not believe there is any proof that it does deter either; using the exact same logic I will shout down those who claim that it does using crime stats from some other country. The other point here is that there is no way of determining whether or not the death penalty affects crime rates without isolating it as the sole variable. To do this a time machine would be required, in order to keep everything else in society the same during a certain time period except the presence/absence of the death penalty. As this is not physically possible, there is no way to confirm/deny the deterrence effects of the capital punishment.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by undecided cat

There is a moral contradiction to state execution - the US government doesn't condone its citizens to kill each other yet they themselves execute people

the US government does it on behalf of its people. 'the law' is generally determined and carried out by governments

[undecided cat]

Originally Posted by Caissa's_DeathAngel

I'll just clarify for the unsure.

Deterrence refers to persuading people not to commit crimes. This can be achieved by various means. However, it cannot be measured. Crime statistics are frequently used as a means of "proving" that the death penalty does not deter, by means of opponents pointing out that crime rates do not fall, and in some cases even rise.

However, this logic is deeply flawed. Crime rates include those with mental health difficulties who would still kill if you chained them to a bed and hung the Sword of Damocles above their heads. They do not include those who decided not to kill because the death penalty was a punishment they could not afford to risk.

Note that I do not believe there is any proof that it does deter either; using the exact same logic I will shout down those who claim that it does using crime stats from some other country. The other point here is that there is no way of determining whether or not the death penalty affects crime rates without isolating it as the sole variable. To do this a time machine would be required, in order to keep everything else in society the same during a certain time period except the presence/absence of the death penalty. As this is not physically possible, there is no way to confirm/deny the deterrence effects of the capital punishment.

Concise, intelligent posting. I'm away to build a time machine......

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Caissa's DeathAngel

I think it does deter, but statistics can't prove deterrence effects either way (all they show is the numbers not deterres, including those who would kill if you chained them down and held the Sword of Damocles above their head).

Crimes which we know nothing about show a shocking increase...

Originally Posted by Caissa's DeathAngel

I'll just clarify for the unsure.

Deterrence refers to persuading people not to commit crimes. This can be achieved by various means. However, it cannot be measured. Crime statistics are frequently used as a means of "proving" that the death penalty does not deter, by means of opponents pointing out that crime rates do not fall, and in some cases even rise.

There is no other way to do so - although surely if crime rates for murder increase after the death penalty is introduced thats an indicator that its not a good enought deterrent.

Saying some people are going to kill regardless of the punishment is a pretty poor arguement to sanction executing people.

However, this logic is deeply flawed. Crime rates include those with mental health difficulties who would still kill if you chained them to a bed and hung the Sword of Damocles above their heads. They do not include those who decided not to kill because the death penalty was a punishment they could not afford to risk.

So do we kill the people with mental health problems?

People are more deterred not to kill people by the social norm being to, you know, not kill people and that its far from the norm to kill someone. (Soldiers have to be trained not to shoot to miss - as the majority of ammunition fired in WW2 was estimated not to be aimed at its intended target.) A bigger deterrent then the death penalty is the simple fact that human beings don't actually want to run around killing each other. A fact born out (IMO) by the dehumanising that generally occurs of an enemy in wartime or a potential murder victum.

Note that I do not believe there is any proof that it does deter either; using the exact same logic I will shout down those who claim that it does using crime stats from some other country. The other point here is that there is no way of determining whether or not the death penalty affects crime rates without isolating it as the sole variable. To do this a time machine would be required, in order to keep everything else in society the same during a certain time period except the presence/absence of the death penalty. As this is not physically possible, there is no way to confirm/deny the deterrence effects of the capital punishment.

How about crime stats from a country with the death penalty? (source:http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-NGA)

In September 2000, the United States daily newspaper, The New York Times, published a study that compared the crime rate in different states of the American federation and concluded that, during the last 20 years, the number of crimes committed in states that maintained the death penalty was greater than in the states that have abolished the death penalty.

and also

In Africa, it has also been observed that the facts do not demonstrate the supposedly deterrent effect of the death penalty. Moreover, some studies have indicated that the death penalty has not prevented an increase in the number of murders. For example, in Nigeria, a law and criminology professor conducted a comparative study of the statistics on murders and executions between 1967 and 1985, and observed that "the number of murders had regularly increased during most of this period", even though murder was punishable by the death penalty. The professor concluded that the studies conducted in Nigeria "had clearly demonstrated that the use of the death penalty was not effective" for murder and armed robbery.

[Semprini]

Thread necromancy!

[undecided cat]

Originally Posted by Semprini

Thread necromancy!

(voice of the thread)





........WHY.........HAVE YOU.......RISEN ME......FROM THE DEAD........!

[I'm Your God Now]

Hang everyone.


Punishment-5!