Barbaric

spikepipsqueak said:

Human life is either sacrosanct or it isn't.

Click to expand...

Human life is sacrosanct but that is not the same as saying all killing is wrong.

DBT said:

None of that justifies killing people because they have killed people. That a government reserves the right to execute people, making it legal for the authorities, does nothing to make it moral. Vengeance, retribution or vendetta are not a part of our legal system.

Click to expand...

We (reluctantly) allow killing in time of war, self-defence, defence of others etc. That is the recognition that we must do all we can to preserve life but sometimes ultimate measures are necessary.

spikepipsqueak said:

You are advocating killing someone for killing someone.

Click to expand...

Yes. To protect all members of society including your good self.

DBT said:

None of that justifies killing people because they have killed people. That a government reserves the right to execute people, making it legal for the authorities, does nothing to make it moral. Vengeance, retribution or vendetta are not a part of our legal system.

Click to expand...

Why is locking up for life not considered by you to be vengance, retribution, vendetta? Why is locking them up more moral than executing them?

So much for deterrence:

"States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates — A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% — 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00)"

DBT said:

So much for deterrence:

"States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates — A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% — 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00)"

Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States | Death Penalty Information Center

(Data for each year taken from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Murder rates calculated by dividing the total number of murders by the total population in…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

Click to expand...

I cannot ever recall saying that the death penalty is solely for deterrence. It might do so, it might not.

Sentencing to jail is not a deterrence either.

Tigers! said:

Human life is sacrosanct but that is not the same as saying all killing is wrong.

Click to expand...

Every single part of that statement is untrue.

Tigers! said:

Sentencing to jail is not a deterrence either.

Click to expand...

That's not true either.

All punishments have some deterrent effect; No punishment seems to have very much. Which is unsurprising, as most crimes are either unplanned, or are planned by people whose plan includes not getting caught. Neither of those is capable of being deterred by any kind of penalty.

The fact in this case is that capital punishment is no greater deterrent than other existing penalties, and appears to be actually less of a deterrent than jail time, despite what one might naïvely assume.

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

So much for deterrence:

"States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates — A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% — 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00)"

Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States | Death Penalty Information Center

(Data for each year taken from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Murder rates calculated by dividing the total number of murders by the total population in…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

Click to expand...

I cannot ever recall saying that the death penalty is solely for deterrence. It might do so, it might not.

Sentencing to jail is not a deterrence either.

Click to expand...

You are not the only one supporting the death penalty, it was your current ally aupmanyav who invoked deterrence when the evidence does not support it.

And whether jail is or isn't a deterrence has no bearing on the moral issues of the execution of prisoners by the state.

DBT said:

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

So much for deterrence:

"States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates — A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% — 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00)"

Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States | Death Penalty Information Center

(Data for each year taken from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Murder rates calculated by dividing the total number of murders by the total population in…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

Click to expand...

I cannot ever recall saying that the death penalty is solely for deterrence. It might do so, it might not.

Sentencing to jail is not a deterrence either.

Click to expand...

You are not the only one supporting the death penalty, it was your current ally aupmanyav who invoked deterrence when the evidence does not support it.

And whether jail is or isn't a deterrence has no bearing on the moral issues of the execution of prisoners by the state.

Click to expand...

Well they have to be in jail before they can be executed by the state. It would be wonderful if either jailing or execution had some deterrence value. Unfortunately its value is limited.

(I am not talking of extra-judical killings by the state in case any wish to tar me with that brush)

bilby said:

Tigers! said:

Human life is sacrosanct but that is not the same as saying all killing is wrong.

Click to expand...

Every single part of that statement is untrue.

Click to expand...

It was pipsqueak who said that human life is sacrosanct. I was agreeing with him.

You are saying some killing is right?

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

So much for deterrence:

"States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates — A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% — 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00)"

Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States | Death Penalty Information Center

(Data for each year taken from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Murder rates calculated by dividing the total number of murders by the total population in…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

Click to expand...

I cannot ever recall saying that the death penalty is solely for deterrence. It might do so, it might not.

Sentencing to jail is not a deterrence either.

Click to expand...

You are not the only one supporting the death penalty, it was your current ally aupmanyav who invoked deterrence when the evidence does not support it.

And whether jail is or isn't a deterrence has no bearing on the moral issues of the execution of prisoners by the state.

Click to expand...

Well they have to be in jail before they can be executed by the state. It would be wonderful if either jailing or execution had some deterrence value. Unfortunately its value is limited.

(I am not talking of extra-judical killings by the state in case any wish to tar me with that brush)

Click to expand...

The average citizen probably does not want to be locked up, and the point is to separate those that are a threat to society and - ideally - work on reform, teach them to be better people. The death penalty is no more effective, for the given reasons, than the prospect of being locked up.

So according to the research, capital punishment does not significantly deter offenders over and above incarceration.

A civilised society should not be in the business killing people people when it serves no purpose in terms of safety or justice, brutalises society and sets a bad example - basically - ''it's wrong to kill, but it's ok for the government because they reserve the right to execute offenders.''

DBT said:

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

So much for deterrence:

"States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates — A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% — 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00)"

Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States | Death Penalty Information Center

(Data for each year taken from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Murder rates calculated by dividing the total number of murders by the total population in…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

Click to expand...

I cannot ever recall saying that the death penalty is solely for deterrence. It might do so, it might not.

Sentencing to jail is not a deterrence either.

Click to expand...

You are not the only one supporting the death penalty, it was your current ally aupmanyav who invoked deterrence when the evidence does not support it.

And whether jail is or isn't a deterrence has no bearing on the moral issues of the execution of prisoners by the state.

Click to expand...

Well they have to be in jail before they can be executed by the state. It would be wonderful if either jailing or execution had some deterrence value. Unfortunately its value is limited.

(I am not talking of extra-judical killings by the state in case any wish to tar me with that brush)

Click to expand...

The average citizen probably does not want to be locked up, and the point is to separate those that are a threat to society and - ideally - work on reform, teach them to be better people. The death penalty is no more effective, for the given reasons, than the prospect of being locked up.

Click to expand...

How can you teach a murderer, rapist, paedophile to be a 'better' person? And what would 'better' look like? You could never really trust them as we already know of what they are capable.

DBT said:

So according to the research, capital punishment does not significantly deter offenders over and above incarceration.

Click to expand...

I am glad you agree. I have never claimed otherwise. Capital punishment may, or may not, have a deterrence effect. That is not its primary purpose. It's primary purpose is justice.

DBT said:

A civilised society should not be in the business killing people people when it serves no purpose in terms of safety or justice, brutalises society and sets a bad example - basically - ''it's wrong to kill, but it's ok for the government because they reserve the right to execute offenders.''

Click to expand...

How does keeping them locked up serve safety? They could escape, be foolishly released.
How does keeping them locked up serve justice? There is always some clown who say that the poor ducky has been in jail for > 30 years and deserves to be released? Where is the compassion for the victims?
Brutalises society? You do need to turn on your telly and watch the news. We are already far too brutal.
Sets a bad example? The criminal started that ball rolling with their own bad example of self-centredness, greed, whatever? They had a choice. Their victims did not.
One of the government's functions to to protect and look after their society. Sometimes that will involve hard, messy decisions. Ignoring them will not make it go away.

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

So much for deterrence:

"States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates — A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% — 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” said the state’s governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846. “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we don’t have the death penalty.” (New York Times, 9/22/00)"

Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States | Death Penalty Information Center

(Data for each year taken from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Murder rates calculated by dividing the total number of murders by the total population in…

deathpenaltyinfo.org

Click to expand...

I cannot ever recall saying that the death penalty is solely for deterrence. It might do so, it might not.

Sentencing to jail is not a deterrence either.

Click to expand...

You are not the only one supporting the death penalty, it was your current ally aupmanyav who invoked deterrence when the evidence does not support it.

And whether jail is or isn't a deterrence has no bearing on the moral issues of the execution of prisoners by the state.

Click to expand...

Well they have to be in jail before they can be executed by the state. It would be wonderful if either jailing or execution had some deterrence value. Unfortunately its value is limited.

(I am not talking of extra-judical killings by the state in case any wish to tar me with that brush)

Click to expand...

The average citizen probably does not want to be locked up, and the point is to separate those that are a threat to society and - ideally - work on reform, teach them to be better people. The death penalty is no more effective, for the given reasons, than the prospect of being locked up.

Click to expand...

How can you teach a murderer, rapist, paedophile to be a 'better' person? And what would 'better' look like? You could never really trust them as we already know of what they are capable.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that everyone can be reformed. I said 'work on reform.' Just because not all can be reformed doesn't mean reform doesn't work for anyone.

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

So according to the research, capital punishment does not significantly deter offenders over and above incarceration.

Click to expand...

I am glad you agree. I have never claimed otherwise. Capital punishment may, or may not, have a deterrence effect. That is not its primary purpose. It's primary purpose is justice.

Click to expand...

Yet it has been shown that the death penalty is not justice.

For example;
“Somehow, we have the image in the United States that doing justice means that we will punish you, cause you pain, and separate you from the human family. That’s not justice,” she said. Prejean is a Catholic nun and human rights defender who has been advocating for the abolition of the death penalty for more than 30 years in the United States of America.

The average waiting time for a death sentence to be carried out – from sentencing to execution – is 17 years, Prejean said. It is a long wait for justice to be done for murder victims’ families.

In many cases, the families of victims feel retraumatized by another killing related to their case, said Andrés Pérez, death penalty focal point with the Rule of Law and Democracy Section in UN Human Rights.

“It's essential for the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights, that we continue to build a global culture that moves away from violence and death as a supposed measure of justice,” he said''.

Tigers! said:

DBT said:

A civilised society should not be in the business killing people people when it serves no purpose in terms of safety or justice, brutalises society and sets a bad example - basically - ''it's wrong to kill, but it's ok for the government because they reserve the right to execute offenders.''

Click to expand...

How does keeping them locked up serve safety? They could escape, be foolishly released.
How does keeping them locked up serve justice? There is always some clown who say that the poor ducky has been in jail for > 30 years and deserves to be released? Where is the compassion for the victims?
Brutalises society? You do need to turn on your telly and watch the news. We are already far too brutal.
Sets a bad example? The criminal started that ball rolling with their own bad example of self-centredness, greed, whatever? They had a choice. Their victims did not.
One of the government's functions to to protect and look after their society. Sometimes that will involve hard, messy decisions. Ignoring them will not make it go away.

Click to expand...

How many escapes happen? How many death row convicts have escaped? Are you suggesting that violent prisoners should be executed because they could escape?

Toni said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Which does nothing to address the issue. Where are the studies that check if race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status?

Click to expand...

Why do you think there is a difference in socioeconomic status, on average?

Click to expand...

Because socioeconomic status is to a large degree passed culturally from parent to child. And to some degree genetically passed.

Look at Poland after WWII. The whole educational system had been destroyed in the war, Russia basically had a greenfield situation to build the fairest system they could. Still a big correlation between the skill of the parent's jobs and the skill of the children's jobs.

One's handling of money is a large part of socioeconomic status. And that's learned from parents and community, it's not from schools.

No matter how much you jam the discriminate-against-the-successful button it doesn't do much of anything for the very ones you're trying to help. It just makes it easy for those who resemble the ones you're trying to help.

Loren Pechtel said:

Toni said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Which does nothing to address the issue. Where are the studies that check if race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status?

Click to expand...

Why do you think there is a difference in socioeconomic status, on average?

Click to expand...

Because socioeconomic status is to a large degree passed culturally from parent to child. And to some degree genetically passed.

Look at Poland after WWII. The whole educational system had been destroyed in the war, Russia basically had a greenfield situation to build the fairest system they could. Still a big correlation between the skill of the parent's jobs and the skill of the children's jobs.

One's handling of money is a large part of socioeconomic status. And that's learned from parents and community, it's not from schools.

No matter how much you jam the discriminate-against-the-successful button it doesn't do much of anything for the very ones you're trying to help. It just makes it easy for those who resemble the ones you're trying to help.

Click to expand...

And yet Abraham Lincoln became president, Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire, my dad wore a suit and tie to work for decades, abd so on. The world is replete with examples of people who achieved far more than their humble beginnings and limited opportunities offered them.

We don’t hear as much about the offspring of well educated, well to do families who manage to not get a decent education nor career nor even support themselves in any meaningful way.

Politesse said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Which does nothing to address the issue. Where are the studies that check if race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status?

Click to expand...

What kind of data would prove that "race is a proxy for socioeconomic status"?

Click to expand...

It's basic statistics if you have enough data. Once again, I suggest reading Freakonomics.

You look for likely variables. You build a model that produces the best fit for your data. Note the correlation. Now, do the same thing omitting one variable at a time. If you can omit a variable and get as good a prediction of the result as you did with the variable it's a proxy.

Toni said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Toni said:

Loren Pechtel said:

Which does nothing to address the issue. Where are the studies that check if race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status?

Click to expand...

Why do you think there is a difference in socioeconomic status, on average?

Click to expand...

Because socioeconomic status is to a large degree passed culturally from parent to child. And to some degree genetically passed.

Look at Poland after WWII. The whole educational system had been destroyed in the war, Russia basically had a greenfield situation to build the fairest system they could. Still a big correlation between the skill of the parent's jobs and the skill of the children's jobs.

One's handling of money is a large part of socioeconomic status. And that's learned from parents and community, it's not from schools.

No matter how much you jam the discriminate-against-the-successful button it doesn't do much of anything for the very ones you're trying to help. It just makes it easy for those who resemble the ones you're trying to help.

Click to expand...

And yet Abraham Lincoln became president, Oprah Winfrey is a billionaire, my dad wore a suit and tie to work for decades, abd so on. The world is replete with examples of people who achieved far more than their humble beginnings and limited opportunities offered them.

We don’t hear as much about the offspring of well educated, well to do families who manage to not get a decent education nor career nor even support themselves in any meaningful way.

Click to expand...

Richard Feynman said, "Never confuse education with intelligence; you can have a PhD and still be an idiot."

I thought it was Mark Twain who said, "Intelligence is what gets you through life without an education; education is what gets you through life without intelligence.", but I can't find it...

Finally, my favorite Zappa quote: "If you want to get laid, go to college; if you want an education, go to a library."

DBT said:

There is no case to be made for capital punishment;

Brutalization Effect Studies: Research published in legal and criminological journals (such as work examining state-by-state impacts) suggests that executions may actually increase murder rates in certain states through a "brutalization effect" rather than reducing them. [1]

Deterrence versus Brutalization: Capital Punishment's Differing Impacts among States

Recent empirical studies by economists have shown, without exception, that capital punishment deters crime. Using large data sets that combine information from all fifty states over many years, the studies show that, on average, an additional execution deters many murders. The studies have...

scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu

Meta-Analyses: Broad reviews spanning hundreds of capital punishment studies find zero empirical evidence of unique homicide deterrence compared to long-term imprisonment or life without parole. [1]

Click to expand...

Most cases, certainly not.

But I think it has value in cases where no other meaningful punishment exists. If somebody is doing life without parole and escapes they have absolutely no reason not to do whatever they want if there is no death penalty.

What I would favor is the death penalty is not a sentence in court. Rather, a life without parole sentence for acts while already on a life without parole sentence gets promoted to death. Also, count the actions of those who are attempting to free such a prisoner.

If violent offenders or death row prisoners are escaping, should prison security not be looked at?

aupmanyav said:

Jarhyn said:

Or maybe they are just as sloppy, corrupt, and self+motivated to maintain that perception of (not reality of) prestige.
Do you ever get tired exchanging shillings for rupees (or perhaps nothing)?

Click to expand...

I have nothing to do with the currency of a small European island growing at the rate of 1.5% where as India's growth is around 6.8% in 2026.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, having a 6.8% growth rate actually says you have a problem.

Developed societies do not have 6.8% growth rates. Growth rates like that exist only in the developing world where you can import better and better tech. Once you approach developed world standards your growth rate will slow. The only question is whether your government manages it gently, or does like China has and damn the torpedoes--kept building when there wasn't the demand, and now they have a bunch of stuff sitting idle and a huge financial mess because that building was done with loans.

aupmanyav said:

Wrong conviction is not possible in India.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a system that can't produce an error. Nor should there be because the only way to truly guarantee no errors is to do nothing. All you can actually do is make the error rate acceptably low--there comes a point where trying to increase accuracy diverts effort away from areas where it could have been of more benefit. And note that it's not a one size fits all, either--the more other sources of problems there are the lower the priority of dealing with any given case.

Even within a society the situation can change. Do any procedure that involves anesthesia and they're extremely strict about you having an empty stomach--stomach contents getting into the lungs is a very bad thing and no perfect protection exists short of having no stomach contents. But does that mean a trauma patient doesn't get treatment because their stomach isn't empty? Of course not--stopping bleeding takes priority, they do what they can to protect the lungs but the risks go way up.