[Cougar]

Well if I get chance to go home in the near future I'll try to dig out some statistics from my Uni days, but if I know one thing about this it's that the statistics are very difficult to use in any meaningful manner. As Toby says it's an indisputable fact that there is no correlation between states with the death penalty and lower rates of murder, in fact quite the reverse. However, as Obdi says is this a chicken and egg argument? Do the states simply have death penalties because the states have much higher rates of murder anyway? This is impossible to prove either way and leads to a question about why a state should be more disposed to murder above another introducing all sorts of social and economic arguments to cloud the debate. However, if I rack my brains I think that the Philipines reintroduced the death penalty in 1992 or 1993 after about 5 years without it only to get rid of it again a few years ago and although I struggle to remember much in the way of figures I believe the impact was deemed to be negligible. Someone might know a little more about this.

I feel that the the general idea that the severity of the punishment influences the likliehood of someone committing a crime to be totally spurious and contrary to logic anyway. Yes, the idea of consequences will deter the average man is correct, but does the chance of getting banned from driving stop everyone speeding; no it doesn't, does the chance of getting locked up for armed robbery effect the rates of armed robbery, no it doesn't. Where the severity of punishements have been increased there is a siginificant amount of evidence that shows crime rates do not fall. The point here is that in all cases criminals do not do crimes believing that they will get caught.

Bearing this in mind and arguing that a large number of murders can be considered to be committed by people who are not of sound mind (I don't mean unfit for trial or actually mentally ill) then I would argue that those committing the murders do not often (once again statisitcs are impossible to provide for this) consider the consequences of thier crimes. Where people are genuinely psycopaths, or mentally ill this argument is even stronger as they are definitley not considering the consequences of their actions.

In this case the argument for the death sentence effectively becomes about killing for vengance or to remove the person from society entirely which for me is not the role of the law. Vengance is not and should not be the domain of the law and if someone needs to be removed from society then why not just lock them up?

[HoosierDaddy]

Cougar, on Mar 18 2009, 04:51 AM, said:

Well if I get chance to go home in the near future I'll try to dig out some statistics from my Uni days, but if I know one thing about this it's that the statistics are very difficult to use in any meaningful manner. As Toby says it's an indisputable fact that there is no correlation between states with the death penalty and lower rates of murder, in fact quite the reverse. However, as Obdi says is this a chicken and egg argument? Do the states simply have death penalties because the states have much higher rates of murder anyway? This is impossible to prove either way and leads to a question about why a state should be more disposed to murder above another introducing all sorts of social and economic arguments to cloud the debate. However, if I rack my brains I think that the Philipines reintroduced the death penalty in 1992 or 1993 after about 5 years without it only to get rid of it again a few years ago and although I struggle to remember much in the way of figures I believe the impact was deemed to be negligible. Someone might know a little more about this.

I feel that the the general idea that the severity of the punishment influences the likliehood of someone committing a crime to be totally spurious and contrary to logic anyway. Yes, the idea of consequences will deter the average man is correct, but does the chance of getting banned from driving stop everyone speeding; no it doesn't, does the chance of getting locked up for armed robbery effect the rates of armed robbery, no it doesn't. Where the severity of punishements have been increased there is a siginificant amount of evidence that shows crime rates do not fall. The point here is that in all cases criminals do not do crimes believing that they will get caught.

I find this an extremely strange argument. Yes, while deterrents do not work completely, a person arguing on behalf of the lives of others should value those innocent people who are killed for no reason just as much as a murderer's life, if not more so.

Bearing this in mind and arguing that a large number of murders can be considered to be committed by people who are not of sound mind (I don't mean unfit for trial or actually mentally ill) then I would argue that those committing the murders do not often (once again statisitcs are impossible to provide for this) consider the consequences of thier crimes. Where people are genuinely psycopaths, or mentally ill this argument is even stronger as they are definitley not considering the consequences of their actions.

A person, in the heat of passion, is still in sound mind. Just because they do not recognize the results the crime might have on THEM, they most certainly recognize what the result of the crime has on the one it is committed against.

In this case the argument for the death sentence effectively becomes about killing for vengance or to remove the person from society entirely which for me is not the role of the law. Vengance is not and should not be the domain of the law and if someone needs to be removed from society then why not just lock them up?

Vengeance (which is a truly loaded word, the more apt word is punishment or retribution) despite what people might say, is a legitimate and necessary tool of "justice." Justice is ENTIRELY the domain of the law.

My thoughts in bold... this thread has grown massive... I might need to do a read over of all the posts to contribute a fully coherent and condensed response.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 18 March 2009 - 09:19 AM

[Hinter]

Just a brief one. This man spent 27 years in jail for murder, and it seems highly likely the verdict will be quashed today as DNA evidence was not in use in 1982. If we had a death penalty this man may have been hung twenty years ago and there would have been a miscarriage of justice. Thats why I'm against the death penalty. Hanging one innocent person is too many in my opinion.

Link here

[HoosierDaddy]

Hinter, on Mar 18 2009, 05:19 AM, said:

Just a brief one. This man spent 27 years in jail for murder, and it seems highly likely the verdict will be quashed today as DNA evidence was not in use in 1982. If we had a death penalty this man may have been hung twenty years ago and there would have been a miscarriage of justice. Thats why I'm against the death penalty. Hanging one innocent person is too many in my opinion.

Link here

Who the hell hangs anybody anymore? Besides Utah, and they are just weird.

Innocent people are convicted of crimes all the time. Where is the love for the ones who AREN'T on Death Row? At what point does misjustice becomes some crusading cause? 1 day? 1 year? 10 years? Don't blame the law, BLAME THE JURIES! They are the ones who actually CONVICT people. You know, people like you and me do this. Anyone with jury or trial experience knows that one of the most trying experiences in all of life is being a juror.

FYI: Not a big C.P. fan... but I can understand why some want it.

[Sindriss]

Which is why I am against juries. I mean, they are so easily influenced by both parties and it becomes more a matter of psychology than evidence and fact imo.

[Cougar]

HoosierDaddy, on Mar 18 2009, 09:11 AM, said:

1 I find this an extremely strange argument. Yes, while deterrents do not work completely, a person arguing on behalf of the lives of others should value those innocent people who are killed for no reason just as much as a murderer's life, if not more so.

2 A person, in the heat of passion, is still in sound mind. Just because they do not recognize the results the crime might have on THEM, they most certainly recognize what the result of the crime has on the one it is committed against.

3 Vengeance (which is a truly loaded word, the more apt word is punishment or retribution) despite what people might say, is a legitimate and necessary tool of "justice." Justice is ENTIRELY the domain of the law.

I've trimmed to keep the thread a reasonable size so apologies if I'm draining the continuity a bit:

1. You are presenting a rebuttal to my points here Hoosier but what you have said in 1 is absoloutely nothing to do with my point, I've not made a moral judgement about the value of a life, this point concerns the the simple argument that severity of punishment can not be shown to effect the likliehood of someone commiting a crime after a certain level of severity. Yes prison as opposed to no consequences will detter theft, but will 2 years as opposed to one be more of a detterent? Will increasing the punishment from 1year to losing your hands prevent it entirely - the answer is no and I suspect from your response and knowing your law background you know this yourself.

I am concerned with the value of all human life and I do not presume to weigh one against the other.

2. I agree, they are of sound mind, let me rephrase it; murders are in many cases committed by people who are not fully considering the consequences of their actions (I'm not talking about the difference between Manslaughter and Murder [I'll apologise here I don't know how you differentiate types of killing in US law] here) in a RATIONAL and CONSIDERED manner. They may have had a long time to think about it, it may be premeditated but they are not thinking entirely rationally. To get to the point where you are considering murder providing you are of sound mind (the strict legal definition) you have obviously got some issues. Although this does not proclude you being detered from murder because of the severity of the punishment, it does mean it is likely to be less of a consideration, especially, and this is the real key, if as most murderers do you believe yopu can get away with it. This lack of rational thought is a flaw and deserves to be punished as this individual can obviously not function within the rules deemed acceptable to society.

3. Punishment and vengance are not the same, retribution is close but still no cigar. It is absolutley necesary that justice should have all the available tools of punishment available to it as defined by the tollerance of the socitey we live in but this is not the issue. I have often seen it argued that the law must deliver closure etc for the relatives of the slain but this is not the purpose of the law. Law defines the rules of the society we live in, to do this it's judgements must be disspassionate and devoid of consideration both for the victim and the criminal. It must apportion what we call justice with an even hand, therefore ensuring vengance through an eye for an eye philospohy is not the job of the legal system. What it can do is punish people proportionately according to the magnitude of their crime (the proportianlity must be defined by what is acceptable in society as this evolves) and remove anyone who is a danger to society.

Once again my objection to the Death penalty is not because I morally object to killing someone who has wronged me, I'm sure if I caught an intruder in my house I could happily beat them to death if the law allowed, my objection is that it is inefficient and final, it allows for no uncertainty in a system where uncertainty is a factor in many judgements.

This post has been edited by Cougar: 18 March 2009 - 01:39 PM

[Hinter]

HoosierDaddy, on Mar 18 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Who the hell hangs anybody anymore? Besides Utah, and they are just weird.

Well the last execution in the UK was in 1964 when two convicted murderers were hung simultaneously (in different prisons) at 8am on August 13th.

HoosierDaddy, on Mar 18 2009, 09:38 AM, said:

Innocent people are convicted of crimes all the time. Where is the love for the ones who AREN'T on Death Row? At what point does misjustice becomes some crusading cause? 1 day? 1 year? 10 years? Don't blame the law, BLAME THE JURIES! They are the ones who actually CONVICT people. You know, people like you and me do this. Anyone with jury or trial experience knows that one of the most trying experiences in all of life is being a juror.

FYI: Not a big C.P. fan... but I can understand why some want it.

Sure, innocent people are convicted all the time, but if we then execute them its impossible to make reparation if they are subsequently found innocent. I just think how I would feel standing on the gallows, knowing I was innocent and there was sweet FA I could do about it. Hence I'm anti capital punishment.

[Mentalist]

Sindriss, on Mar 18 2009, 06:18 AM, said:

Which is why I am against juries. I mean, they are so easily influenced by both parties and it becomes more a matter of psychology than evidence and fact imo.

hence my suggestion of making unbiased machines do it.

[Mezla PigDog]

I just read this about Amnesty International's 2008 death penalty report: --> Link <--

It made for an interesting thought. In terms of capital punishment, it leaves the US standing in the same category as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iraq. I think most forum members have a roughly general (Western) consensus opinion on the politics and human rights process in those countries. So, how should the US feel about having something so drastic in common with Iran and China?

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Mezla PigDog, on Mar 24 2009, 03:16 AM, said:

I just read this about Amnesty International's 2008 death penalty report: --> Link <--

It made for an interesting thought. In terms of capital punishment, it leaves the US standing in the same category as China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iraq. I think most forum members have a roughly general (Western) consensus opinion on the politics and human rights process in those countries. So, how should the US feel about having something so drastic in common with Iran and China?

I don't really think you can compare those three countries. Yes, they all have capital punishment, but the ways and why's are extremely different.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I would love to see the US drop CP. It's a little embarrassing that we still do it. Hopefully as the political pendulum swings more towards the liberal side of things, the possibility of getting rid of it gets stronger.

[Obdigore]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Mar 24 2009, 01:06 PM, said:

I would love to see the US drop CP. It's a little embarrassing that we still do it. Hopefully as the political pendulum swings more towards the liberal side of things, the possibility of getting rid of it gets stronger.

And I would love a complete overhaul of the prison/jail system while still having the Death Penalty (CP is something else...).

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

What's the difference?

[Obdigore]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Mar 24 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

What's the difference?

You are pro-amnesty, I am pro-justice.

;P

/endthread
/handshake.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

No, I mean what's the difference between CP and the DP. I thought they were interchangeable terms.

[Obdigore]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Mar 24 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

No, I mean what's the difference between CP and the DP. I thought they were interchangeable terms.

Where I come from, (the same place you will find Apt and Illy), CP has no bearing on the death penalty, except that engaging in it should get you the DP.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

You aren't making any sense to me. Engaging in capital punishment will get you the death penalty? What is your definition of capital punishment? I use the same definition as wiki:

Capital punishment, the death penalty or execution, is the killing of a person by judicial process for retribution and incapacitation. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from Latin capitalis, literally "regarding the head" (Latin caput). Hence, a capital crime was originally one punished by the severing of the head

[Obdigore]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Mar 24 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

You aren't making any sense to me. Engaging in capital punishment will get you the death penalty? What is your definition of capital punishment? I use the same definition as wiki:

Capital punishment, the death penalty or execution, is the killing of a person by judicial process for retribution and incapacitation. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from Latin capitalis, literally "regarding the head" (Latin caput). Hence, a capital crime was originally one punished by the severing of the head

CP also stands for something besides Captial Punishment on the intarwebs. Something very very bad.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Oh, I see what you did there. So does DP, I suppose.

[Obdigore]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Mar 24 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

Oh, I see what you did there. So does DP, I suppose.

Proof that enviornment > genes.