Society & Culture Death Penalty

[demondavey]

For or Against? And reasons why?

 

[WALL-e]

Against, with notable exceptions being extreem cases, however the question is then asked what is extreem etc so it's more a personal opinion for me.

I don't think that people should be given a way out for their crimes like this, I also don't think it's the laws perogative to end a life when there's other options.

 

[jo172]

Against always

- There's no proof it works. Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty.

- The state should not take part in the organised systematic killing of people for the sole purpose of retribution, it sets the wrong message for the rest of society.

- The rate of wrongful convictions is staggering. You can always release someone who has been wrongly jailed, it's impossible to bring back someone wrongly executed from the dead.

- It's more expensive to keep someone on death row for the average amount of time than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.

- It would further clutter the Courts with appeals further slowing down the wheels of justice.

 

[vonn]

I'm against it completely.
Everyone is equal and no one should hold the power to determine who lives or dies. That makes them as bad as the offencer.

 

[Power King]

i wouldn't complain if we enforced it under extreme and rare circumstances.

why?

i want my tax dollars being well spent when it comes to those receiving free food and no bills whilst contributing nothing but shame to the country

 

[Saint KFC]

There's no proof it works. Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty.

Wow.

 

[jo172]

Wow.

Its amazing to compare the statistics of murder rates in states in America where there is a mortatorium on the death penalty to those where the death penalty is most actively used. They suggest there is virtually no deterrent effect.

That there is no deterrent effect is unsurprising considering the severity of the penalty of life imprisonment. Really if a person is willing to risk life imprisonment they're willing to risk execution.

 

[BarneyBent]

That there is no deterrent effect is unsurprising considering the severity of the penalty of life imprisonment. Really if a person is willing to risk life imprisonment they're willing to risk execution.

This. The only difference between the death penalty and life in jail is the revenge factor. Punishment for punishment's sake. Deterrents are fine, but life in jail is just as much of a deterrent, is irreversible, and is immoral.

It's ironic that in America, most of the capital punishment supporters are also pro-life and pro-gun. "We'll kill anything, as long as it's not conscious!".

 

[The Sultan]

i want my tax dollars being well spent when it comes to those receiving free food and no bills whilst contributing nothing but shame to the country

its actually cheaper to keep someone alive for life in jail rather than kill them...

 

[Caesar]

Against always

- There's no proof it works. Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty.

- The state should not take part in the organised systematic killing of people for the sole purpose of retribution, it sets the wrong message for the rest of society.

- The rate of wrongful convictions is staggering. You can always release someone who has been wrongly jailed, it's impossible to bring back someone wrongly executed from the dead.

- It's more expensive to keep someone on death row for the average amount of time than to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives.

- It would further clutter the Courts with appeals further slowing down the wheels of justice.

And there it is. There are also racial aspects in the US, with minorities convicted of capital crimes far more likely to receive the death penalty than whites.

The only real argument in favour is that it's more satisfying for the victim's / community's sense of vengeance. I don't agree with that argument, but even if I did I still think that rotting forgotten in prison is a worse punishment than a quick death.

 

[nylexbandit]

its actually cheaper to keep someone alive for life in jail rather than kill them...

Nah it's not. Court cases cost more, there's more appeal avenues, etc, etc.

I think Justice Callinan gave a pretty good speech on why the death penalty shouldn't be allowed (and I was slightly surprised due to his conservatism at times):

"The criminal justice system is fallible. Mistakes occur. Any system that retains the death penalty will inevitably, even if infrequently, cause an innocent person to die. It is not within our capability to avoid the possibility of error. In my experience, the phenomenon of human fallibility is irrefutable, and, in my view, must be accorded primacy when weighing the arguments in favour of, and against, the death penalty. Deterrence is a desirable aim of any criminal justice system and is cited, with retribution, as a justification for the death penalty. Although much ink has been spent on discrediting the deterrent theory (often convincingly), ultimately, as a theory, it is impossible either to prove or disprove. While logic and intuition tell us that the possible consequence of death should act as a deterrent upon the rational mind, we just cannot be certain of the effect, if any, that it has upon a murderous or irrational mind. We cannot know whether its possibility or likelihood crosses the mind of the murderer as he or she plunges the knife into the victim, or whether, on occasion, it may persuade that person to leave the knife at home. So long as the deterrent theory remains unable to be proved (or disproved) by empirical or scientific analysis, it is possible that it may, if only infrequently, dissuade murderous intent. There does seem to be little empirical data to suggest that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than imprisonment for life without parole. The fallibility of the criminal justice system, the inability to prove the deterrence theory, and my personal revulsion of state sponsored execution of human beings support the abolition of capital punishment."

 

[WALL-e]

Imagine the costs in setting up a legal system to cope with the death penalty though.

 

[clivewaterhousen]

against.

people who do crimes bad enough to warrant the death penalty dont deserve the soft way out

if someone gave me the option of spending the rest of my life in jail or death penalty, id take the death penalty every time

 

[Saint KFC]

Its amazing to compare the statistics of murder rates in states in America where there is a mortatorium on the death penalty to those where the death penalty is most actively used. They suggest there is virtually no deterrent effect.

That there is no deterrent effect is unsurprising considering the severity of the penalty of life imprisonment. Really if a person is willing to risk life imprisonment they're willing to risk execution.

All you're doing is forming a link between two potentially unrelated items and then using that as the crux of your argument.

"Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty."

Does this mean that the death penalty results in a higher violent crime rate? No, because correlation does not equal causation. Instead, I would hazard a guess that the reason that places without the death penalty have a lower violent crime rate, is because those places are civilized, non-third world countries.

Hypothetically, if all the countries with the death penalty in place removed the death penalty and all the countries without a death penalty in place implemented the death penalty, would the violent crime rate in the initially non-death penalty country overtake the violent crime rate in the initially death penalty country? In other words, if Australia implemented the death penalty and Jamaica removed the death penalty, would our violent crime rate then overtake theirs?

Not likely; and that's why your argument is flawed.

 

[BarneyBent]

All you're doing is forming a link between two potentially unrelated items and then using that as the crux of your argument.

"Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty."

Does this mean that the death penalty results in a higher violent crime rate? No, because correlation does not equal causation. Instead, I would hazard a guess that the reason that places without the death penalty have a lower violent crime rate, is because those places are civilized, non-third world countries.

Hypothetically, if all the countries with the death penalty in place removed the death penalty and all the countries without a death penalty in place implemented the death penalty, would the violent crime rate in the initially non-death penalty country overtake the violent crime rate in the initially death penalty country? In other words, if Australia implemented the death penalty and Jamaica removed the death penalty, would our violent crime rate then overtake theirs?

Not likely; and that's why your argument is flawed.

But what about comparing states in the US? The argument isn't so much that the death penalty causes violent crime, just that it doesn't act as a significant deterrent. And the similarity in violent crime levels in US states that are similar in many respects but their implementation or non-implementation of the death penalty suggests, far more strongly than comparison of Jamaica and Australia, that the death penalty is not a significantly stronger deterrent than life without parole.

I mean really, no murderer is going to think, "Oh wait, I could die? I just thought it was life in prison if I did this? Better not do it then." A strong deterrent is a strong deterrent, people are either going to accept them or ignore them, as shown by the willingness of people to commit crimes even when the death penalty applies to that crime.

 

[jo172]

All you're doing is forming a link between two potentially unrelated items and then using that as the crux of your argument.

"Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty."

Does this mean that the death penalty results in a higher violent crime rate? No, because correlation does not equal causation. Instead, I would hazard a guess that the reason that places without the death penalty have a lower violent crime rate, is because those places are civilized, non-third world countries.

Hypothetically, if all the countries with the death penalty in place removed the death penalty and all the countries without a death penalty in place implemented the death penalty, would the violent crime rate in the initially non-death penalty country overtake the violent crime rate in the initially death penalty country? In other words, if Australia implemented the death penalty and Jamaica removed the death penalty, would our violent crime rate then overtake theirs?

Not likely; and that's why your argument is flawed.

However I'm comparing relatively homogenous societies in different United States states.

Whilst they are undoubtedly culturally different, the differences between Texas and Illinois are not that between Jamaica and Australia.

EDIT - There's also the point that I'm not arguing there is a causitive effect between the death penalty and a violent society. I'm just arguing that there is no causitive or indeed, correlative effect between the death penalty and a less violent society which I assume to be the ultimate aim.

That's why your argument is flawed.

 

[Saint KFC]

Not sure what you're getting at? I'm merely employing the logic that you have used as justification and then providing a counter-example. Your lack of specificity; not mine.

Texas and Illinois both have the death penalty in place and have a similar rate of violent crime. How does this support your point? In terms of comparing states in the US, Michigan has no death penalty and a much higher rate of violent crime than both Texas and Illinois. Different side of the country, but there you go.

Your justification for the death penalty not being a detterant was that 'Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty.' Spin it however you want, it's still fallacious. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[jo172]

Not sure what you're getting at? I'm merely employing the logic that you have used as justification and then providing a counter-example. Your lack of specificity; not mine..

No, you stated that my argument was that the death penalty causes violent crime.

My argument was in fact that the death penalty does nothing to prevent or reduce violent crime.

The concepts are similar but not identical.

Texas and Illinois both have the death penalty in place and have a similar rate of violent crime. How does this support your point? In terms of comparing states in the US, Michigan has no death penalty and a much higher rate of violent crime than both Texas and Illinois. Different side of the country, but there you go...

It supports my point in that there is no correlative effect in the death penalty and reducing crime.

Your justification for the death penalty not being a detterant was that 'Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty.' Spin it however you want, it's still fallacious. Correlation does not equal causation.

And you don't understand the simple point.

If we're to assume that the death penalty deters crime we should assume that analogous paces with the death penalty should have smaller violent crime rates than places without the death penalty and this should occur consistantly.

The fact that correlation isn't causation is the exact proof of my point. That there is little correlative effect shows that the death penalty is **** all deterrent to violent crime. In fact we have small amounts of corrleative data to suggest that there is a correlation between violent crime and places with the death penalty. That this correlation is not a causitive effect, no matter how you choose to spin to make this the focus of your argument does not detract from the point that with no overall correlative effect the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent is fundamentally flawed.

Simply put: There is no correlative or causitive effect between the death penalty and a reduction in violent crime.

What you don't understand is that there is a huge difference between places with the death penalty having a higher violent crime rate and places with the death penalty having no causitive effect on the violent crime rate.

Never do I make a case suggesting that the death penalty increases the crime rate, only that it fails to reduce it.

They are simply different concepts.

 

[Saint KFC]

Sigh.

No, you stated that my argument was that the death penalty causes violent crime.

Well for a start, I'm saying that your argument against the death penalty is that there is no proof it works, indicated by places with the death penalty having a higher violent crime rate than places that don't; that is my argument because that's what you posted.

In further detail: you post that you are against the death penalty because there is no proof that it works. You then justify this by stating that "places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty." Word for word, direct quotation.

All I've stated is that there is no direct, causative link between the death penalty and violent crime rate; however your post indicates that the perceived correlation is indeed indicative of causation, and therefore is justification of the death penalty 'having no proof of success'. Hence, your justification is flawed.

I don't give a **** about what you actually meant because I'm going to write in response to what you've actually written every single time.

My argument was in fact that the death penalty does nothing to prevent or reduce violent crime.

If that is your argument, then you should have stated:

- There's no proof it works. There is no clear-cut, causative link between violent crime rate and implementation of the death penalty.

instead of:

- There's no proof it works. Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty.

 

[jo172]

Mate, you've gotten confused because you've overlooked the full stop.

- There's no proof it works. Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty.

There is no proof that it works.

Places with the death penalty do have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty.

Nowhere in this sentence does it suggest any causal link between the death penalty and higher crime, it's correlation if there ever was any.

Each above sentence is independently correct and there is a link between the two.

If you and others have read into it that I was trying to imply a causitive effect between the death penalty and higher crime you're correct in that it's just absurdity. With all statistics all we're ever going to be able to prove is a correlative effect naturally.

All this really begs the question is how can we make any assertions that the death penalty reduces violent crime even if statistics indicated a correlation.

 

[Saint KFC]

I saw the full stop; I didn't see a line break. I didn't see a new dot point.

Your fault; not mine.

 

[Caesar]

I saw the full stop; I didn't see a line break. I didn't see a new dot point.

Your fault; not mine.

WTF does it matter? He's explained what he meant and you're not his English teacher. Confusion cleared up, end of story.

 

[jo172]

WTF does it matter? He's explained what he meant and you're not his English teacher. Confusion cleared up, end of story.

I think the technical term is grasping at straws.

 

[Saint KFC]

Maybe I am his English teacher.

Maybe I am.

I think the technical term, ********, is that you ****ed up your post, so when people write in response to what you've actually written, don't claim that they're 'confused'.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Looked pretty clear to me. Places with the death penalty have a higher violent crime rate than places without the death penalty. The only implication I see in that is that having the death penalty doesn't reduce violent crime rates.