capital punishment is wrong

Zombrex

AngryBadger wrote:

But we still need some form of deterrant

There is very little evidence that capital punishment is any more of a deterrent than life imprisionment, and quite a bit of evidence and logic that it isn't any more of a deterrent.

If you think about it it makes sense that it wouldn't be. Who in their right mind goes "well I don't mind risking 20 years inside for murder, but I'm not risking a death sentence". People don't work like that. Something like 90% of murders committed in America are crimes of passion (you find your wife in bed with another man) or panic (a gang gun battle, a robbery gone wrong). Very few murders are premeditate, and even less by people who believe they actually run the risk of getting caught.

Studies in Texas, with its high rate of execution, have shown that captial punishment has no higher value as a deterrent over traditional sentencing.

AngryBadger

Freelancer wrote:

How on earth can offer proof of that?

What I can do cite the US a western country with capital punishment and high crime and murder rate.

You've offered no evidence that harsher sentences are a deterent for criminals.

I've offered plenty of evidence that harsher sentences aren't a deterent for criminals.

Instead of demanding I leap through ever more implausible and absurd hoops, how about you make a case, citing evidence, that capital punishment is a deterent.

So essentially you want me to do what you can't/won't......:rolleyes:

That's a great response, really put me in my box.

Might check out that "14 days" documentary.

Even if you could convince me that capital punishment doesn't act as a detterant, it does mean that some of those found guilty of certain especially heinous crimes are no longer free to perpetrate those crimes in the future, and you can't argue with that.

MrPudding

AngryBadger wrote:

So essentially you want me to do what you can't/won't......:rolleyes:

That's a great response, really put me in my box.

Might check out that "14 days" documentary.

Even if you could convince me that capital punishment doesn't act as a detterant, it does mean that some of those found guilty of certain especially heinous crimes are no longer free to perpetrate those crimes in the future, and you can't argue with that.

The fact that people are still being sentenced to death shows that it is not working as a deterrent. If it was working then no one would be sentenced.

Dudess forgot the best part of the 14 Days In May documentary. Two weeks after the guy was put to death a woman came forward and was able to prove conclusively that he was not guilty. She had tried to do this during the investigation but was either told to go away or wasn't called back. I can't remember the details but it was a long time ago when I watched it.

Angry Badger, you seem to be missing the point of Freelancers post. I do not know if this is intentional or not. You are say that capital punishment works a a deterrent. Freelancer has pointed out that in countries where it is used crime rates continue to rise. Any reasonable person would see this as an indication that it's value a deterrent is at best limited.

He has shown that the crimes rates are continuing to rise and therefore backed up his position. You on the other hand have repeatedly refused to do the same. Can you provide any evidence to support your firm belief that the threat of being put to death acts as a deterrent?

MrP

Freelancer

AngryBadger wrote:

So essentially you want me to do what you can't/won't......:rolleyes:

I'm sorry what?

You demanded that I;

angrybadger wrote:

Why don't you offer me some plausible alternative, or solid proof that if we removed capital punishment the world over crime levels wouldn't go up.

The world over? I mean do you have any idea how asisine a demand or suggestion that is? Like for example if we remove capital punishment in a corrupt dictatorship like Uzbekistan crime levels in cork won't go up?

You've not offered a single shred of proof that capital punishment is a deterrent, while I have offered plenty of proof that it is not. Meanwhile you're reduced to increasingly inane tactics in your attempts to refuse to acknowledge that.

That's a great response, really put me in my box.

I've proven with two countries the US and Saudi Arabia two countries with capital punishment and high violent crime and murder rates, clearly demonstrating capital punishment isn't a deterrent.

You're not even attempted to prove that capital punishment is a deterrent.

You claim that capital punishment will deter crime, why don't you show me a place were capital punishment was introduced and following this there was a drop in violent crime.

Even if you could convince me that capital punishment doesn't act as a detterant, it does mean that some of those found guilty of certain especially heinous crimes are no longer free to perpetrate those crimes in the future, and you can't argue with that.

Well yes on two points.

1) The criminal justice system is fallible, mistakes are made. If a miscarriage of justice is discovered after execution there is no remedy. How many innocent men are you comfortable executing?

2) Life can mean life. Moveover as Wicknight pointed out 90% of murders are crimes of passion, these aren't serial killers these are one off murders. Do you really think everyone convicted of murder aged thirty is going to go out 30 years later and commit another murder?

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

If you don't think that the fact that there is an illegal industry worth billion inside the US economy you need to get your head sorted. .

Explain please. I think you missed a word or two, so I can't get what you are trying to say

Freelancer wrote:

link please..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html

Freelancer wrote:

Link please..

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=28&did=176

This situation is still being debated.

Freelancer wrote:

And what difference does it make when you prove it, he was still sentenced to death when his IQ was that of a minor..

As was state law which made no exception, which led predictably to a legal challenge. Its how the system operates

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

Explain please. I think you missed a word or two, so I can't get what you are trying to say

:rolleyes:

You made some claim about cannibis growth not being a big deal (we'll add US crop exports, to gay relations, and sexual psychology to your growing list of expertise) I pointed out that the cannabis growth industry is worth $25 billion dollars in the US at time when penalties for doing such are increasingly stiffening, suggesting that your claim that harsher penalties reduce crime simply isn't true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html

Well done. Again what does this pedantic quibbling have to do with the point that the US executes more people than any other western country yet still has a massive and growing, prison population, and a high crime and murder rate. Aside from pedantic quibbling.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=28&did=176

This situation is still being debated.

So I was right in saying it in the first place grand so.

As was state law which made no exception, which led predictably to a legal challenge. Its how the system operates

:rolleyes:

Seriously firespinner what do you think all this tedious nitpicking brings to the table?

ali-queenb

death penalty is wrong no matter you do not really need to look at all the statistics to see that..!!!!! i just cant get why people cant get that !!!!!!a life is a life if you value life so much as you must with the victim and as you say you do, do u not value the person who did the crime as much life as the other...we are having the same debate in english some rtrd suggstions like what if they do it again????come on!!!

patzer117

Ok, Devil's Advocate approach here, what's wrong with beating the ****e out of convicted criminals and giving them a shorter sentence? It may not rehabilitate them or deter crime - but then as people have pointed out neither does prison. What's the matter with simply punishing people extremely harshly?

Patzer117

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/13/moussaoui.trial.ap/index.html

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (AP) -- An angry federal judge considered Monday whether to dismiss the government's death penalty case against confessed al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui after a federal attorney coached witnesses in violation of her rules.

The defendant had already pleaded guilty in April to conspiring with al Qaeda to hijack planes and to other crimes, and will almost certainly spend the rest of his life in prison.

Like I said before the moral issue about the rights and wrongs of the death penalty is irrelevant until other issues are sorted first. This case is a high profile one, very political and when you re-read the article it's scary. Even those who support capital punishment would have to agree that it should only be used in cases where the death penalty actually applies.

Brinkema warned the government at that point that it was treading on shaky legal ground because she knew of no case where a failure to act resulted in a death penalty as a matter of law.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Ok, Devil's Advocate approach here, what's wrong with beating the ****e out of convicted criminals and giving them a shorter sentence? It may not rehabilitate them or deter crime - but then as people have pointed out neither does prison. What's the matter with simply punishing people extremely harshly?

Patzer117

Um what? Seriously? What on earth is accomplished by this? What possible benefit do you see?

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

Um what? Seriously? What on earth is accomplished by this? What possible benefit do you see?

No, just as Devil's advocate. What's the benefit of prison? It's just a punishment too right? This is shorter and they don't learn new skills in prison and become more adept at criminality. This get's them back out into the open to lead a proper life after they have been rehabilitated safe in the knowledge that they've paid their dues for commiting a crime. Basically as an alternative to prison, what's the problem?

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

No, just as Devil's advocate. What's the benefit of prison? It's just a punishment too right? This is shorter and they don't learn new skills in prison and become more adept at criminality. This get's them back out into the open to lead a proper life after they have been rehabilitated safe in the knowledge that they've paid their dues for commiting a crime. Basically as an alternative to prison, what's the problem?

I swear I just dislocated my jaw, its on the floor. Prison isn't just supposed to be about punishment, this isn't Victorian England. Prisoners are supposed to learn new skills and we're supposed to make at least an attempt at rehablitation.

All you're suggesting is we now have a bunch of people who are now a burden on the health service, who've gained nothing except a new reason to hate the state.

If you're going to have the pretense of "playing devils adovcate" at least try and come up with a point of view which is grounded in reality.

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

Prison isn't just supposed to be about punishment, this isn't Victorian England. Prisoners are supposed to learn new skills and we're supposed to make at least an attempt at rehablitation.

If you're going to have the pretense of "playing devils adovcate" at least try and come up with a point of view which is grounded in reality.

Prison is all about punishment, otherwise we wouldn't have long prison sentences. People are there to be punished not to be rehabilitated, otherwise why have life sentences, or why not let people off if you feel they won't do it again - if they've learned from their mistake, with the proviso they see a shrink every week or something?

What is the problem with punishing someone and trying to rehabilitate them at the same time? Punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive. Instead of a long prison term use this. They aren't going to hate the system any more than they do just because they got a few beatings - many are probably getting beaten or raped in prison anyway

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

Prison is all about punishment, otherwise we wouldn't have long prison sentences.

Different degrees of crime determine different degrees of punishment. Punishment should be a significant aspect of prison it should not seen as the be all and end all?

People are there to be punished not to be rehabilitated, otherwise why have life sentences, or why not let people off if you feel they won't do it again - if they've learned from their mistake, with the proviso they see a shrink every week or something?

Are you just taking the piss now?

What is the problem with punishing someone and trying to rehabilitate them at the same time? Punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive.

Which is why we have prison to punish and rehabilitate them

Instead of a long prison term use this. They aren't going to hate the system any more than they do just because they got a few beatings - many are probably getting beaten or raped in prison anyway

You are just taking the piss, arent you?

So what you suggest is we beat the crap out of someone, trust them not to reoffend, and then send them to a shrink?

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

Different degrees of crime determine different degrees of punishment. Punishment should be a significant aspect of prison it should not seen as the be all and end all?




Which is why we have prison to punish and rehabilitate them



You are just taking the piss, arent you?

So what you suggest is we beat the crap out of someone, trust them not to reoffend, and then send them to a shrink?

Exactly, bit like prison today
I just like to see you wound up freelancer

CerebralCortex

patzer117 wrote:

Prison is all about punishment, otherwise we wouldn't have long prison sentences. People are there to be punished not to be rehabilitated, otherwise why have life sentences, or why not let people off if you feel they won't do it again - if they've learned from their mistake, with the proviso they see a shrink every week or something?

What is the problem with punishing someone and trying to rehabilitate them at the same time? Punishment and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive. Instead of a long prison term use this. They aren't going to hate the system any more than they do just because they got a few beatings - many are probably getting beaten or raped in prison anyway

You are joking right or your fantasising or something. People who commit crimes are people who failed when it came to fitting into society (God knows it isn't that hard to do). People who are in prison need help probably more than anyone else and a beating never served me.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

You made some claim about cannibis growth not being a big deal (we'll add US crop exports, to gay relations, and sexual psychology to your growing list of expertise) I pointed out that the cannabis growth industry is worth $25 billion dollars in the US at time when penalties for doing such are increasingly stiffening, suggesting that your claim that harsher penalties reduce crime simply isn't true.

My point was that since the US does not specialise in cash crops, made your point worthless. According to this it is only the fourth largest cash crophttp://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4444

Freelancer wrote:

Well done. Again what does this pedantic quibbling have to do with the point that the US executes more people than any other western country yet still has a massive and growing, prison population, and a high crime and murder rate. Aside from pedantic quibbling.

It proves you were using a falsehood

Freelancer wrote:

So I was right in saying it in the first place grand so.

No. Read it again.

Freelancer wrote:

Seriously firespinner what do you think all this tedious nitpicking brings to the table?

It think it undermines the distortions and lies that you use to supplement your point. I do not follow the death penalty issue closely, yet I knew that you claims were incorrect and inflammatory such as your claims that, minors were being executed.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

My point was that since the US does not specialise in cash crops, made your point worthless. According to this it is only the fourth largest cash crophttp://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4444

Again semantic quibbling, you don't face up to life imprisonment for growing the other three crops. The fact that cannabis is such a massive industry despite such serious penalties for it's growth, proves severe sentences aren't a deterent.

It proves you were using a falsehood

Answer this very carefully Firespinner, are you calling be a liar? Are you suggesting I was aware that this was untrue when I first said it?

No. Read it again.

Whatever.

It think it undermines the distortions and lies that you use to supplement your point. I do not follow the death penalty issue closely, yet I knew that you claims were incorrect and inflammatory such as your claims that, minors were being executed.

Minors were being executed. Thats changed.

The overall thrust of my point still stands despite your pedantry. The US is western country with the death penalty, and severe penatlies and sentences, depsite this the murder and crime rate is high and it's prison population growing, therefore claims that the death penalty and severe sentences act as a deterent are untrue.

bonkey

Freelancer wrote:

Minors were being executed. Thats changed.

Maybe I'm wrong but the way I understand it minors were not being executed.

Adults were being executed for crimes committed whilst minors.

The US is western country with the death penalty, and severe penatlies and sentences, depsite this the murder and crime rate is high and it's prison population growing, therefore claims that the death penalty and severe sentences act as a deterent are untrue.

It doesn't necessarily follow that a high incidence of crime indicates that the deterrance factor doesn't exist. If it did, one could equally argue that because crime rates in (say) Canada are lower than in the US, it "proves" that in actual fact the death-penalty acts as an incentive to commit crime.

Or one could cherry-pick other nations, and compare the crime rates in a nation like Japan (which has the death penalty) to some nation without it with a significantly worse crime rate.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing, especially when one takes individual nations in isolation to exaggerate the correlation.

However, one has to look at the issue from the correct perspective. The burden of proof should be on the side supporting an approach, not the side opposing it. Quoting from Amnesty:

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments.

From this, one can also conclude (safely) that there is no evidence that the replacement of the death penalty with an alternate strategy (life imprisonment, for example) would lead to an increase in crime rates.

Indeed, given that numerous countries have abolished the death penalty over the last 20-30 years, it can safely be argued that the absence of such evidence suggests the opposite. There is evidence that abolishing the death penalty does not lead to an increase, or there would be the convincing evidence thats lacking to support the deterrant argument.

jc

bonkey

patzer117 wrote:

Basically as an alternative to prison, what's the problem?

"He who fights with monsters ..." and all that.

rsynnott

AngryBadger wrote:

Given that America has a population of nearly 300 million people i think it's fair to say they're going to have more crim that most countries, and a larger prison population.
.

Highest in the world per capita (of any reporting nation. North Korea's is thought to be somewhat higher).

patzer117 wrote:

Ok, Devil's Advocate approach here, what's wrong with beating the ****e out of convicted criminals and giving them a shorter sentence? It may not rehabilitate them or deter crime - but then as people have pointed out neither does prison. What's the matter with simply punishing people extremely harshly?

Patzer117

It dehumanises us as a society, and would probably do no good. There is evidence that a well-run prison can work, especially for comparatively minor crimes.

The_Minister

bonkey wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong but the way I understand it minors were not being executed.
Adults were being executed for crimes committed whilst minors.

Correct. The basis for the decision was that their brains were not fully developed till older. The death sentence for minors was actually very rare when it was legal.

The_Minister

Freelancer wrote:

Again semantic quibbling, you don't face up to life imprisonment for growing the other three crops. The fact that cannabis is such a massive industry despite such serious penalties for it's growth, proves severe sentences aren't a deterent..

It proves that they consider the risks worth it. If a huge crack down occured with very harsh sentences being given most of 2007 crop would be dumped. You cannot threaten a man unafraid to die with the death penalty true, but I would argue that it is more the low chances of getting caught that encourage people to commit crime. We have high numbers of rape, because we catch few people. Our murder solving rate is high and so we have few murders. People must know that they will get caught before they fear the consequences.

Freelancer wrote:

Answer this very carefully Firespinner, are you calling be a liar? Are you suggesting I was aware that this was untrue when I first said it?.

Yes, I am. Without paying huge attention to the news I knew that they had ceased to execute minors. Since such acts would be unacceptable in todays society it is reasonable to assume that you would have checked such a fact. The same for cannabis being the US's largest crop: simple logic indicates that this would not be true as such a figure would generate a massive retaliation against growers. Thus the figure would be rendered untrue. Assuming that you have basic human cognitive function, it seems that the only option is that you knew the facts were false and used them anyway, hoping that shouting "pedantic" would hide your duplicidous nature

Freelancer wrote:

The overall thrust of my point still stands despite your pedantry. The US is western country with the death penalty, and severe penatlies and sentences, depsite this the murder and crime rate is high and it's prison population growing, therefore claims that the death penalty and severe sentences act as a deterent are untrue.

Did you ever thnk that maybe the rates would be higher without the death penelty? The US has a very individual orientated culture so I would expect high crime.

The_Minister

bonkey wrote:

"He who fights with monsters ..." and all that.

could you be clearer I amn't familiar with that reference.

Freelancer

Firespinner wrote:

It proves that they consider the risks worth it. If a huge crack down occured with very harsh sentences being given most of 2007 crop would be dumped.

Very harsh sentences occur at the moment. Many states in the US give life sentences for growing cannabis, and the the majority of people in the US in jail for drugs offences are for cannabis (source; reefer nation) suggesting that a crack down should occur, ignores that it is currently taking place.

Cannabis has become one of the most successful and profitable crops in the US despite these deterrents, ergo you cannot claim severe sentences are a deterrent.

You cannot threaten a man unafraid to die with the death penalty true, but I would argue that it is more the low chances of getting caught that encourage people to commit crime. We have high numbers of rape, because we catch few people. Our murder solving rate is high and so we have few murders. People must know that they will get caught before they fear the consequences.

Gibberish. And ignoring the facts. You're also admitting that our current legal system, without the death penalty, is enough of a deterrent to keep our murder rate down.

Yes, I am. Without paying huge attention to the news I knew that they had ceased to execute minors. Since such acts would be unacceptable in todays society it is reasonable to assume that you would have checked such a fact.

Well I'd assume someone who has so many friends among "the gays" would have checked his facts about paedophilia before spouting outright bigotry and lies, but hey we ended up giving you the benefit of the doubt.

The same for cannabis being the US's largest crop: simple logic indicates that this would not be true as such a figure would generate a massive retaliation against growers. Thus the figure would be rendered untrue.

Actually I was reading the excellent "reefer nation" which disputes your claim, the fact that you refuse to see that one of the largest crops in the US is grown in spite of stiff criminal penalties is your own problem.

Assuming that you have basic human cognitive function, it seems that the only option is that you knew the facts were false and used them anyway, hoping that shouting "pedantic" would hide your duplicidous nature

Whatever, the above is sheer pedantry, the US has stiff penalties for cannabis growth yet it is one of (or the, figures vary) the countries most profitable crops, the US has one of the toughest and most punitive death penalties yet a high murder and violent crime rate, therefore more severe sentences are not a deterrent.

Did you ever thnk that maybe the rates would be higher without the death penelty?

What evidence do you offer to support this assertion?

The US has a very individual orientated culture so I would expect high crime.

What does this pseudo psychological claptrap even mean?

could you be clearer I amn't familiar with that reference.

He's quoting Friedrich Nietzsche, we'll strike 19th Teutonic philosophers from your dazzling array of knowledge.

rsynnott

Firespinner wrote:

Did you ever thnk that maybe the rates would be higher without the death penelty? The US has a very individual orientated culture so I would expect high crime.

This is as opposed to Communist Europe, right? Goodness gracious...

Sand

Highest in the world per capita (of any reporting nation. North Korea's is thought to be somewhat higher).

May that be due to simply better detection, and higher conviction rates for longer sentences with less chance of parole? The U.S. system tends to be less orientated towards the crinimal with less in the way of suspended sentences, early release schemes and so on as far as I know. The 3 strikes law in California for example, or the zero tolerance approach to policing in New York. Let alone the death penalty itself.

In Irish terms its popular wisdom that prison is a revolving door, that its not worth reporting anything less than extremely serious crimes, and judges are seen as handing out ridiculously light sentences. Is that the perception of the US police/courts?

Prison isn't just supposed to be about punishment, this isn't Victorian England. Prisoners are supposed to learn new skills and we're supposed to make at least an attempt at rehablitation.

Ive been thinking about this. Prison should foremost, and above all else be for the protection of society from dangerous criminals. I was annoyed, like a lot of people today, to hear about the scum who abducted, tortured and raped two teenage girls before forcing one girl to watch whilst the other was butchered and then shooting her (sheer miracle she survived). Whats really incomprehensible is that 4 of the gang who committed this crime were enabled to do so by the British Parole Board.

They were released from their sentences thanks to a an misguided attempt to rehabilitate them in the community and a system that failed to accurately rate their chances of re-offending ( I doubt very much that the murder was the only crime they committed on their release) and failed to ensure even somewhat adequately that they were not a threat to the public. Simply, the parole officers let scum loose on the public and two families are forever destroyed by it. Their only oversight was a twice weekly meeting. Theres talk about "lessons learned" but nothing will be. Who knows, maybe theyll introduce a new self assessment form for the scum. Oh yippie, I feel safer already.

Im strongly of the opinion that parole/community sentences and so on need to be cut back in a major way. Above anything else society needs to be protected from these scumbags. They should serve their full sentences, and their sentences should be from the perspective of punishing the crime rather than protecting the criminal. Also multiple sentences need to run seqeuntially, not concurrently - otherwise youre only being punished for the most serious crime. The only use Id have for a sentence review board would be to evaluate if criminals at the end of their sentence still pose a threat to people. If they do, then their sentence should be extended.

I think its time to recognise that rehabilitation is not possible for career scumbags and the focus needs to go to minimising the damage they do. The very least that can be done is to locate the parole officer who worked the 4 cases above and sack them as incompetent. The families of the two victims should sue the British government for every penny it can claw out of them.

MrPudding

Sand wrote:

I think its time to recognise that rehabilitation is not possible for career scumbags and the focus needs to go to minimising the damage they do. The very least that can be done is to locate the parole officer who worked the 4 cases above and sack them as incompetent. The families of the two victims should sue the British government for every penny it can claw out of them.

This is possibly true. It may very well be too late for some. It could be argued that this is an indication of the failure of the system.

I am not sure what to do with these career criminals. I know we can right them off and this might be the easiest route but I am more worried about the system, by the nature of how it operates, creating more of them.

I think we need to be a bit more imaginative about how me deal with petty criminals or first time offenders. I also feel strongly that we need to look as the causes of crime in order to try to reduce it.

MrP