[Slow Ben]

That makes good sense. I wasnt thinking about the whole picture i guess.
So the argument that its cheaper doesnt hold water...interesting.

It doesnt change the fact that i'm pro death penalty but its interesting to know.
Thanks TT.

[masan's saddle]

Grimhilde, on Mar 13 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

Thelomen Toblerone, on Mar 13 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

Grimhilde, on Mar 12 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

Yes, the fear factor is important. Where I come from people aren't scared of the consequences of their actions, they do not fear going to jail at all. Does this contribute to the level of crime in this country? I believe so.

But statistics indicate that the death penalty has very little if any effect at all on demonstrable crime rates as a deterrent. Look at murder rates in the US for an easy example. Wisconsin doesnt have the death penalty, Texas does. Texas' murder rate is twice that of Wisconsin's, regardless. The US has the death penalty, the UK doesnt. The murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain. Texas and Oklahoma both have the death penalty, both have seen increased murder rates, and have rates higher than the national average. In none of these cases is there an enormous public culture gap, and in any case you are basing your argument upon each human being rational enough to view the death penlty as a deterrent. The very fact they murder someone in the first place should, in most cases, indicate they lack a completely rational outlook. Thus, the death penalty is hugely unlikely to act as a deterrent in any case.

If we subtract the argument that it is a detterent and will stop crime, then all you're left with is essentially having it for revenge. Someone kills someone else, lex talionis and retributive punishment says they must be killed. Why? What does it achieve? It costs the state more to execute someone, so we've seen there's no benefit there. We know it is possible that we falsely convict someone, so it's no better there either.

Ultimately, if you knew that the murderer of your friend would be kept in solitary confinement, unable to enjoy any of the pleasures of life and forced to stitch mailbags until the day they died, would you want the death penalty? I cant see why you possibly would. If we're saying killing is wrong, how can you justify the claim that we must kill a murderer to compensate the crime? It's bizarre, it's essentially state sanctioning of the act. Especially when there are no forseeable benefits, it seems completely incoherent.

To me, people that support the death penalty are merely unhappy with the system of incarceration and sentencing, something I agree fully with. But what's the better alternative, to reform the penal system and make it truly a punishment and have better sentencing, or to fry everyone we think has committed a crime, just because?

I believe that if you read any of my previous posts you'll have your questions answered.

And how can it possibly be more expensive to execute someone than keeping them with "room and board" for several decades? I have a hard time believing that. But it can be fixed. Just do away with all the fancy stuff and just shoot them. Bullets don't cost that much.

I can justify it by the simple fact that it isn't murder when the state/government does it. When a country decides to send its troops to war, do we then charge the soldiers with murder when they get back? No, of course not. Because their actions were sanctioned by the government.
We cannot view the government as an individual like you and me, it doesn't work that way. We do not execute the criminal, it does.

But you have to and it does !

In a democracy, the government is elected by us, represents us and acts for us. When it acts, in this case by executing someone, it is doing it in our name. You cannot seperate the actions of a government from the people it represents in such a selective way.

Also a distinction needs to be made between the legislature and the judiciary. In the UK, as opposed to the US for example, High Court judges are not elected/chosen by the legislature. It is not a perfect system and arguably nepotistic however it does free them from politicisation, thus maintaining a very important seperation of power within the machinery of the state.
History has shown us that a politicised judiciary is a recipe for disaster. I agree with you that the sentencing guidelines in many countries are flawed and need serious work, however this should be done by an independent judiciary not a political party with an agenda.
With reference to your point, when a population distances itself from any form of (sic) " government sanctioned death"
things will only get worse.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Menandore, on Mar 13 2009, 04:47 PM, said:

Grimhilde, on Mar 13 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

I can justify it by the simple fact that it isn't murder when the state/government does it. When a country decides to send its troops to war, do we then charge the soldiers with murder when they get back? No, of course not. Because their actions were sanctioned by the government.
We cannot view the government as an individual like you and me, it doesn't work that way. We do not execute the criminal, it does.

Are you serious? So when the german government decided it was a good idea to slaughter people because they were jewish that was ok and justified because it was the government that decided it? Just because the government are the ones doing the killing does not mean it is justified or right.

Are you serious? Are you really comparing capital punishment with the Holocaust? Those two cases are not really comparable,IMO.

Thelomen Toblerone, on Mar 13 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

But it costs on average $2million per person to execute them. So it's still half as cheap to incarcerate for life, thus nullifying your point.

@ Grim: GA hit the nail squarely on the head. The government CANNOT be above the law if you in any way wish to value individual freedoms and liberties. It's hardly as if they're infallible as it is, governments continually make mistakes. "do away with all the fancy stuff" is a quite frankly mind-boggling and incredulous statement. You want to abolish due process and fair trials just to be able to save abit of cash?! I may have misunderstood your point, but if that is what you're claiming (very little of the expense comes in the actual act of execution, so I can only assume it is), then I don't think we'll be able to reach agreement.

If you'd read any of the previous posts you'd see that Morgoth brought up the issue of cost. Morgoth, who is anti-death, made the argument that death penalty is much more expensive than a life sentence. So I simply made a suggestion that if money is the reason you're against capital punishment, why not make it cheaper? If you'd read my long (really long) post, you'd see that money is not an issue for me. It's not about the money. But it obviously is to the anti-death guys...

masan's saddle, on Mar 14 2009, 03:49 AM, said:

Grimhilde, on Mar 13 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

Thelomen Toblerone, on Mar 13 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

Grimhilde, on Mar 12 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

Yes, the fear factor is important. Where I come from people aren't scared of the consequences of their actions, they do not fear going to jail at all. Does this contribute to the level of crime in this country? I believe so.

But statistics indicate that the death penalty has very little if any effect at all on demonstrable crime rates as a deterrent. Look at murder rates in the US for an easy example. Wisconsin doesnt have the death penalty, Texas does. Texas' murder rate is twice that of Wisconsin's, regardless. The US has the death penalty, the UK doesnt. The murder rate in the US is 6 times that of Britain. Texas and Oklahoma both have the death penalty, both have seen increased murder rates, and have rates higher than the national average. In none of these cases is there an enormous public culture gap, and in any case you are basing your argument upon each human being rational enough to view the death penlty as a deterrent. The very fact they murder someone in the first place should, in most cases, indicate they lack a completely rational outlook. Thus, the death penalty is hugely unlikely to act as a deterrent in any case.

If we subtract the argument that it is a detterent and will stop crime, then all you're left with is essentially having it for revenge. Someone kills someone else, lex talionis and retributive punishment says they must be killed. Why? What does it achieve? It costs the state more to execute someone, so we've seen there's no benefit there. We know it is possible that we falsely convict someone, so it's no better there either.

Ultimately, if you knew that the murderer of your friend would be kept in solitary confinement, unable to enjoy any of the pleasures of life and forced to stitch mailbags until the day they died, would you want the death penalty? I cant see why you possibly would. If we're saying killing is wrong, how can you justify the claim that we must kill a murderer to compensate the crime? It's bizarre, it's essentially state sanctioning of the act. Especially when there are no forseeable benefits, it seems completely incoherent.

To me, people that support the death penalty are merely unhappy with the system of incarceration and sentencing, something I agree fully with. But what's the better alternative, to reform the penal system and make it truly a punishment and have better sentencing, or to fry everyone we think has committed a crime, just because?

I believe that if you read any of my previous posts you'll have your questions answered.

And how can it possibly be more expensive to execute someone than keeping them with "room and board" for several decades? I have a hard time believing that. But it can be fixed. Just do away with all the fancy stuff and just shoot them. Bullets don't cost that much.

I can justify it by the simple fact that it isn't murder when the state/government does it. When a country decides to send its troops to war, do we then charge the soldiers with murder when they get back? No, of course not. Because their actions were sanctioned by the government.
We cannot view the government as an individual like you and me, it doesn't work that way. We do not execute the criminal, it does.

But you have to and it does !

In a democracy, the government is elected by us, represents us and acts for us. When it acts, in this case by executing someone, it is doing it in our name. You cannot seperate the actions of a government from the people it represents in such a selective way.

Also a distinction needs to be made between the legislature and the judiciary. In the UK, as opposed to the US for example, High Court judges are not elected/chosen by the legislature. It is not a perfect system and arguably nepotistic however it does free them from politicisation, thus maintaining a very important seperation of power within the machinery of the state.
History has shown us that a politicised judiciary is a recipe for disaster. I agree with you that the sentencing guidelines in many countries are flawed and need serious work, however this should be done by an independent judiciary not a political party with an agenda.
With reference to your point, when a population distances itself from any form of (sic) " government sanctioned death"
things will only get worse.

So because we can't distance ourselves from our government all Americans went to war with Iraq? The Bush government went to war with Iraq in all American's name and they have to be ok with that because some of them voted for Bush? What are you saying exactly?

Worse how?

As for the rest of your post (the things in the middle), I agree.


Here's my closing statement (for this post at least):

You anti-death guys seem to think that we pro-death guys want to execute every criminal convicted of murder and whatnot. That's not what we're saying. IMO, death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst, the Fritzls, Mansons and Bundys of the world. What baffles me, is that you anti-death people are so adamant about protecting the rights of these people. People who wouldn't care a bit about your rights. Why do you insist on protecting the rights of a man like Josef Fritzl? Because it's the noble and PC thing to do? There's nothing noble about it. It only makes it seem like anti-death people care more about the criminals than the victims they leave in their wake. And those attitudes will lead to a society were criminals have more rights than their victims, and regular law-abiding citizens.

Don't believe a word I'm saying? Come to Norway and see for yourself.

Edit:

A thought just occured to me...Where do you anti-death people stand on abortion?

This post has been edited by Grimhilde: 16 March 2009 - 10:48 AM

[Morgoth]

this being just a quick breakfast visite I won't post anything big right now. I do wish to present a site which shows murder by capita for the countries of the world.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...ders-per-capita

Norway is #56 ... there are only three western countries beneath us.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_...apes-per-capita

Rape statistics are not as pleasant, norway being #18. Still, we're below most western countries. Rape is a growing problem in the western world, but capital punishment for rape is legaly impossible. The level of proof needed is just not atainable. Other solutions are necessary to fix that problem I believe.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_...ries-per-capita

here we're #40

So the claim that Norway has a criminal problem compared to other countries is a load of nonsense. Sure, we're struggling with an increase in crime, just like the rest of the western world and we need to find ways to deal with that, but obviously capital punishment is not helping those countries that use it.

It's also interesting to note that internationaly, in cases with a jury the jury wants a lower penalty than the judge in most cases. Perhaps when you get the legal facts it's not so easy to throw out death and judgment.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Besides which, on all counts, Norway has less problems than both death penalty countries (like the US) and non death penalty countries, like the UK. So clearly it's not the punishment that is responsible for affecting crime levels. Have a look at crime prisoner statistics, I know in the UK it's something ridiculous like 95% of inmates can't read. When you consider the massively high literacy rates, surely it becomes apparent that social problems are the root for the most part?

An interesting thing for us to keep an eye on will be Jamaica. They have a huge murder rate, fuelled by drug wars. They're talking about reinstating the death penalty, so it'll be interesting to see a) if they do and if it has any effect.

[Cougar]

Grimhilde, on Mar 16 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

So because we can't distance ourselves from our government all Americans went to war with Iraq? The Bush government went to war with Iraq in all American's name and they have to be ok with that because some of them voted for Bush? What are you saying exactly?

Yes that's an inarguable fact, not an opinion. By being a member of the nation, by endorsing the democratic process whether you vote for or against the government you are putting your weight behind their decisions. By using the roads they build, paying the taxes they levy or being protected by the police and army they maintain we automatically become responsible en masse for the actions of our government. If you want to fight against the government via the political process then you can't complain when they do things you don't like and disavow responsibility for what you don't like.

Only way you can distance yourself entirely is to completely opt out of society (no taxes, no service no facilities etc not just not voting) and push for systemic change through a complete replacement of the existing order or move to a country where you agree with the government.

Don't get me wrong there is nothing unpatriotic or wrong about not supporting the actions of the government, but by trying to replace the rulers rather than the system you tacitly endorse the actions of whom ever is the ruling party or president.

This post has been edited by Cougar: 16 March 2009 - 12:30 PM

[Tapper]

Disclaimer: I don't have any legal training/background/experience, but well, many of us here don't.

From all the statistics shown here, I think that death penalty in itself is not a deterrent. For some, the pay-off of crime outwaits the disadvantages, and it will always be like that, no matter how draconian the laws - especially if their motives are thoroughly irrational. As such, I believe the frequency of occurance of a certain brand of crime lies much more in social circumstances, social awareness and adeptness to the 'system'. But TTs examples show that a lot clearer than my words.

There are nations with an active secret service that infiltrates into the private life and makes people disappear, or where you will be convicted of a crime if they can even make it appear you committed it. Do they have more law abiding citizens than other countries? I doubt the crime rate in Eastern Germany was lower just because the Stasi was around. They were pretty thorough when they got their hands on you, though.

Lastly, Grimhilde, with your statement that executions should be made cheaper, you forego the fact that the execution itself isn't that costly, it's the number of appeals. Lessen the thoroughliness of the legal system that should prevent mistakes, ironically, making sure that only more mistakes are going to be made, and that more innocents die.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 16 March 2009 - 12:41 PM

[Menandore]

Grimhilde, on Mar 16 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

Menandore, on Mar 13 2009, 04:47 PM, said:

Grimhilde, on Mar 13 2009, 11:10 AM, said:

I can justify it by the simple fact that it isn't murder when the state/government does it. When a country decides to send its troops to war, do we then charge the soldiers with murder when they get back? No, of course not. Because their actions were sanctioned by the government.
We cannot view the government as an individual like you and me, it doesn't work that way. We do not execute the criminal, it does.

Are you serious? So when the german government decided it was a good idea to slaughter people because they were jewish that was ok and justified because it was the government that decided it? Just because the government are the ones doing the killing does not mean it is justified or right.

Are you serious? Are you really comparing capital punishment with the Holocaust? Those two cases are not really comparable,IMO.

Oh yes, I'm quite serious. You seem to think a soldier killing an enemy at war is comparable so why not the holocaust? Later in your post you went on to a nice little rant about what will happen to the country if criminals are given too many rights. Well, I'm just reminding you what happens when people think government sanctioned killing is justified "by the simple fact that it isn't murder when the state/government does it". Do you understand my point now?

Quote

Here's my closing statement (for this post at least):

You anti-death guys seem to think that we pro-death guys want to execute every criminal convicted of murder and whatnot. That's not what we're saying. IMO, death penalty should be reserved for the worst of the worst, the Fritzls, Mansons and Bundys of the world. What baffles me, is that you anti-death people are so adamant about protecting the rights of these people. People who wouldn't care a bit about your rights. Why do you insist on protecting the rights of a man like Josef Fritzl? Because it's the noble and PC thing to do? There's nothing noble about it. It only makes it seem like anti-death people care more about the criminals than the victims they leave in their wake. And those attitudes will lead to a society were criminals have more rights than their victims, and regular law-abiding citizens.

Don't believe a word I'm saying? Come to Norway and see for yourself.

No, I don't think you want to execute every criminal that gets caught, that would be as absurd as your suggestion that anyone arguing agaisnt capital punishment want to protect the rights of people like Josef Fritzl because it's noble and PC. The thing is, you don't seem to acknowledge the fact that not wanting the death penalty does not necessarily mean we want softer sentences. I'm all for life meaning life. I think people like Fritzl should never see the light of day again. But I want that so that the public are protected from him, not to have revenge. I also think prisons should be low on luxuries and high on work and education for people who can be rehabilitated.

I agree that prison sentences are too short and too much money is spent on things like sky TV and the latest games console but the solution to that is to improve the justice system. It has nothing to do with whether or not we have capital punishment. I'm against capital punishment because, as I've said before, the risk of killing an innocent victim outweighs the need for revenge.

Quote

A thought just occured to me...Where do you anti-death people stand on abortion?

If you want to have a discussion on this then feel free to open another thread. All I'll say in this one is that I think it's better to terminate a pregnancy than to bring an unwanted child into the world. I also think there should be a limit on how far along you are when you have an abortion (ie. like the UK laws).

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Seems like I’m trying to explain something that can’t really be explained rationally. Don’t even know why I’m trying to explain myself. My opinion is my opinion. Anyway, some things need to be clarified.
Why I want capital punishment:

1.Revenge – Yes. If someone hurt me or the people I love I would want them dead. And wouldn’t it be better if the government too care of that for me, than me taking care of it myself? Ithink so.

2.Closure- The victim won’t have to worry about the criminal escaping, being released or anything like that. No fear.

3. Ensuring the safety of prison guards and other inmates who have committed less horibble crimes than the criminal in question.

That's it. That's all there is to it, for me at least.

Now, these reasons seem reasonable to me, but not to you. We're just gonna have to agree to disagree or this will go on forever. This is a touchy subject after all.


Menandore: Maybe I should. The idea of someone being against killing dangerous criminals and for killing innocent children does warrant a discussion.

I think I am done repeating myself now. See you all in another thread.

[masan's saddle]

Cougar, on Mar 16 2009, 12:29 PM, said:

Grimhilde, on Mar 16 2009, 08:50 AM, said:

So because we can't distance ourselves from our government all Americans went to war with Iraq? The Bush government went to war with Iraq in all American's name and they have to be ok with that because some of them voted for Bush? What are you saying exactly?

Yes that's an inarguable fact, not an opinion. By being a member of the nation, by endorsing the democratic process whether you vote for or against the government you are putting your weight behind their decisions. By using the roads they build, paying the taxes they levy or being protected by the police and army they maintain we automatically become responsible en masse for the actions of our government. If you want to fight against the government via the political process then you can't complain when they do things you don't like and disavow responsibility for what you don't like.

Only way you can distance yourself entirely is to completely opt out of society (no taxes, no service no facilities etc not just not voting) and push for systemic change through a complete replacement of the existing order or move to a country where you agree with the government.

Don't get me wrong there is nothing unpatriotic or wrong about not supporting the actions of the government, but by trying to replace the rulers rather than the system you tacitly endorse the actions of whom ever is the ruling party or president.

@ Grimhilde. Sorry, i'd just re-read what I'd written earlier and it wasn't very clear and I was about to clarify. Then along comes Cougar and does it for me !

Menandore and Tapper make excellent points also concerning my point about "..things will only get worse."
We are living in incredibly apathetic times and your faith in the state where sanctioning murder is concerned is what worried me.
Any situation where a govt wants to flex it's muscles needs to be questioned thoroughly, otherwise you end up with extaordinary rendition, illegal killings (murder), democratically elected govts lying, going to war in OUR name and thousands of INNOCENT people getting killed.

Hang on a minute.......... !

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Grimhilde, on Mar 16 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

Menandore: Maybe I should. The idea of someone being against killing dangerous criminals and for killing innocent children does warrant a discussion.

I'm not sure it necessarily does, as the two issues are entirely seperate. I'm pro-abortion (obviously I mean when the woman decides and it's within a certain timeframe, obviously Im not advocating mandatory abortion ) and anti-death penalty, and the two are not inconsistent beliefs to hold. I wont go into it deeply, that's for another thread, but the status of the unborn child to me has a large part in calling it murder - a foetus before a certain point is to me not a human and thus no more immoral to kill than a chicken or suchlike, as unpleasant or distasteful as the comparison may be, and also the fact the foetus is essentially parasitic can provide strong grounds for abortion. But as has been said, a controversial argument to be had elsewhere, methinks.

[Cougar]

By jove Toby I agree with you; the difference between abortion and execution for me is the question of sentience - to my mind a foetus until a certain age is not sentient and therefore not murdered.

I've nothing morally against execution - I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who had done something as trivial as assult or rob me if I knew I could get away with it. The issue I have is that it's a waste of effort, it has no significant effect on the crime rates and is irreversible, at least you can release people from prison and compensate them.

[Battalion]

OOOoooohhh, you're so hard.

[Obdigore]

The Article I asked for earlier that Mentalist sent to me has this to say:

Quote

In fact, the empirical analysis suggests that on the average the tradeoff between the execution of an offender and the lives of potential victims it might have saved was of the order of magnitude of 1 for 8 in the period of 1933-67 in the United States

So where are you guys getting this 'it isn't a deterrant' argument you use?

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 17 March 2009 - 02:06 PM

[Cougar]

Battalion, on Mar 17 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

OOOoooohhh, you're so hard.

Thanks for the input you're really adding a lot to the discussion. Anymore trolling can be done in the Inn, please keep out of the discussion forum if you can't make at least an attempt at a contribution

This post has been edited by Cougar: 17 March 2009 - 05:11 PM

[Menandore]

Obdigore, on Mar 17 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

The Article I asked for earlier that Mentalist sent to me has this to say:

Quote

In fact, the empirical analysis suggests that on the average the tradeoff between the execution of an offender and the lives of potential victims it might have saved was of the order of magnitude of 1 for 8 in the period of 1933-67 in the United States

So where are you guys getting this 'it isn't a deterrant' argument you use?

I don't really feel that this segment is particularly meaningful without being put into context. Would you mind forwarding me the article in full? I'd appreciate it and would be happy to discuss the figure further after reading it

[Obdigore]

PM me your email.

[Sindriss]

I don't think we should get into a abortion contra death punishment, as it would derail the thread and it is a subject substancial enough for a new thread.

Regarding the article, how do they evaluate whether capital punishment is a deterrent to do crime?

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Obdigore, on Mar 17 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

The Article I asked for earlier that Mentalist sent to me has this to say:

Quote

In fact, the empirical analysis suggests that on the average the tradeoff between the execution of an offender and the lives of potential victims it might have saved was of the order of magnitude of 1 for 8 in the period of 1933-67 in the United States

So where are you guys getting this 'it isn't a deterrant' argument you use?

Firstly, there's empirical evidence from mere observation - the fact we have to debate whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent shows that, at best, it's impact is probably minimal. Further, looking at US states alone, the murder rate in death penalty states is consistently higher than in non death penalty states, which would also suggest its inefficiency. Since the abolition of the death penalty in Britain, murder rates have not soared, as you would expect. Also, the reports which suggest it is a deterrent generally always use suspect data and generalisations, and no relaible or valid proofs can be drawn from these reports as discussed here http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion...errence-studies

[Obdigore]

Thelomen Toblerone, on Mar 17 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

Obdigore, on Mar 17 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

The Article I asked for earlier that Mentalist sent to me has this to say:

Quote

In fact, the empirical analysis suggests that on the average the tradeoff between the execution of an offender and the lives of potential victims it might have saved was of the order of magnitude of 1 for 8 in the period of 1933-67 in the United States

So where are you guys getting this 'it isn't a deterrant' argument you use?

Firstly, there's empirical evidence from mere observation - the fact we have to debate whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent shows that, at best, it's impact is probably minimal. Further, looking at US states alone, the murder rate in death penalty states is consistently higher than in non death penalty states, which would also suggest its inefficiency. Since the abolition of the death penalty in Britain, murder rates have not soared, as you would expect. Also, the reports which suggest it is a deterrent generally always use suspect data and generalisations, and no relaible or valid proofs can be drawn from these reports as discussed here http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion...errence-studies

Unless your cause and effect are backwards. Having a high murder rate and having the death penalty does not mean that the death penalty has no impact.

Conversely I argue that the death penalty should and is instituted in states that do have high murder rates, curbing the rise of per capita murders.

I have seen no reports that claim it is not a deterrant that do not use 'suspect data', many do not even try to stand on their own but proclaim that other reports are wrong. Doing this does not an argument make, rather it looks like feeble attacks upon the factual base of one side, by the other. If you are following, I just said that the anti death penalty side has no factual base to say that the death penalty is not a deterant, and spends all their time attempting to shout down the pro death penalty sides factual basis.