Time To Get Rid Of The Death Penalty, Worldwide

[credoconsolans]

I am not sure how anyone can equate the following :

1) The law recognizes the use of lethal force as justified when an individual faces an imminent threat of harm or death.

2) An incarcerated convicted criminal is certainly not in any position to present an imminent threat of death or harm to society.


Once removed from society by the very condition of being incarcerated, what imminent threat of death or harm do you envision that incarcerated convicted criminal is to society to equate the death penalty to an act of self defense from society under the same justification the law relies on?

Because the heinous criminal is currently under guns and in chains. Put him alone with you in a dark alley and ask yourself if you think self-defense still isn't warranted.

To also quote DBT's remarks :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...enalty-Worldwide&p=29952&viewfull=1#post29952

There are some offenders who should never be released back into society. But the death penalty, if used by the state to rid society of its bad members, becomes a matter of expediency and not justice, and a bad example of how to deal with people who are a problem. A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society.

Any comments about this point?

What about the guards? They're still at risk.

Other people consider isolation to be cruel and unusual.

Any comments about these points?

A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society

They can't be isolated unless they have no guards. Then they're isolated. Please give us a way to do that.

 

[dystopian]

So, how does he get outside for exercise?

Who says he needs to go outside for exercise? Put a treadmill in there or something, geeze. And if he absolutely has to go outside for exercise, so what? Do you seriously think prisonguards are incompetent or something? They can escort someone without having to fear for their lives (the risks prison guards face do NOT come from those who have been isolated from the general population, it comes FROM the members of that general population who have the ability to smuggle shit into the prison. Someone physically isolated doesn't have that ability and need not pose a serious threat.)

How does he shower?

Presumably he uses the shower installed in his cell? What? We can do that, you know, give prisoners amenities that they might not currently have. Why are you asking me such dead-simple questions?

How is he examined for health checkups or when he's sick?

How exactly do they get those now? Oh right, they have doctors willing to give these 'dangerous' prisoners checkups even though it's supposedly so dangerous that I'm wondering how we even have any doctors left at all. Risk can be minimized through any number of ways if the prisoner is uncontrollable (you've heard of restraints and sedatives, I assume). Besides, the existence of some measure of risk is NOT an argument to kill people. A HIV patient is a risk to everyone around him by virtue of the fact that he could get an accident and bleed on someone, but that's no reason to just kill him and take away the risk to the rest of us.

The point being, what "everyone" thought, was wrong.

Yes, there's a trend of past beliefs turning out to be wrong.

...you know, like how people used to think the death penalty was a good thing.

No, you haven't established that.

Yes, we have.

You just ignored the guards and caretakers who care for these people,

Except you put them under the exact same risk when you imprison them while they await for their execution. In fact, you *increase* the risk because a prisoner who knows he'll be executed anyway then has nothing to lose anymore; why not kill the guard who looks at him funny, or even better, try to escape? The fact that these prisoners do not routinely kill or seriously hurt their guards and caretakers should suggest to you that we are perfectly capable of minimizing the risk.

then when I brought it up, you had to invent an entirely new way of housing

What? Nothing I have brought up represents 'an entirely new way of housing'. We can and already utilize facilities like this. Yes, obviously you'd have to replace some of the existing facilities, but so fucking what?

Except of course, the only reason this heinous killer is not currently killing you is because you have guns on him and he's in chains.

Don't be ridiculous. There are very few people subject to the deathpenalty who would indiscriminately kill everyone they come across. There's no reason to assert that the *only* reason someone isn't killing me right now is because he's in chains. I'm pretty sure for instance, that since I'm not a blonde prostitute I have nothing to fear from the deranged serial killer who only kills blonde prostitutes. Even the most heinous of murderers still needs a REASON to kill their victims, however fucked up that reason might be. Jason doesn't exist IRL, so let's not be melodramatic, okay?

Put yourself in a dark alley, alone with him and ask yourself if you still feel that he's perfectly harmless.

Who gives a shit? I'm not advocating releasing him into a dark alley, am I? I'm advocating to KEEP him chained up.

 

[Wiploc]

If you believe it's important to have the better lawyer, then you don't believe that courts do justice. In which case, you shouldn't believe in the death penalty.

 

[gmbteach]

If there is human contact, then you are risking the lives of the guards who care for this henious killer.

And yes, I do support the death penalty, that does not make me a barbarian or to have barbaric thoughts.

It does according to the citizens of most countries on this planet.

Most citizens used to believe the earth was flat. You're not falling to fallacy here, are you?

I don't agree that a man should undergo a trial one day, and executed the next. That does not allow for appropriate measures to be taken to ensure that the right perpetrator has been caught. However, once all avenues are exhausted and he is proven beyond all shadow of a doubt, or if the prisoner is aware of their guilt and wants to die, then I don't see a problem with it.

And that, is what makes your opinion barbaric. The fact that you 'don't see a problem' with ending a life. It is a pointless revenge driven mechanic that is both cruel and unnecessary. For a society to kill people when doing so isn't needed *is* barbaric, and so is the support thereof.

Do you consider people who kill others in self defense also barbaric?

The death penalty is society defending itself.

^^^^ Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks

Couldn't uprep you I am afraid..

 

[Sabine Grant]

Because the heinous criminal is currently under guns and in chains. Put him alone with you in a dark alley and ask yourself if you think self-defense still isn't warranted.

Let's be connected to existing realities, shall we? In the US, it usually takes a conviction on first degree murder for the found guilty party on the charge of 1st degree murder to become susceptible to be sentenced to the death penalty(that is the case in death penalty states like Florida) The alternative the Jury can rely on is life sentence. Which IMHO makes it quite impossible to envision your scenario of the same for life incarcerated individual to find himself with me in a dark alley. Due to the crime he/she committed, the threat of imminent death or harm on society has been now removed permanently.Somehow I cannot fathom finding myself in a dark alley while facing an imminent threat of death or harm from Charles Manson still currently incarcerated at the Corcoran California State Prison.

To also quote DBT's remarks :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...enalty-Worldwide&p=29952&viewfull=1#post29952

There are some offenders who should never be released back into society. But the death penalty, if used by the state to rid society of its bad members, becomes a matter of expediency and not justice, and a bad example of how to deal with people who are a problem. A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society.

Any comments about this point?

What about the guards? They're still at risk.

As if Staff on inmates violence and sexual abuse does not present a risk for convicted criminals. It appears that your sole argumentation here to support your self defense justification is....about guards. I hope you have come to the reality connected conclusion by now that society as a whole is certainly not facing an imminent threat of death or harm from an individual incarcerated for life.

Further, the death penalty is directly connected to the principles of the lex talionis which in no way relies on any notion of self defense rather "you take a life, we take yours".

Other people consider isolation to be cruel and unusual.

Any comments about these points?

It seems to me that the most concerned parties who can in fact justifiably evaluate whether "isolation is cruel and unusual" versus the death penalty would be the convicted parties themselves rather than anyone engaging in conclusions based on mind reading those convicted criminals who can either face a life sentence or the death penalty as the result of the specific criminal charges they were found guilty of. IOW giving them the option since they are the sole parties here who would suffer through any type of "unusual and cruel punishment" rather than society *thinking* that a retributive justice based on the lex talionis is motivated by self defense.

A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society

They can't be isolated unless they have no guards. Then they're isolated. Please give us a way to do that.

"but...but .. what about the guards" is your outcry to justify your misguided thinking that a retributive justice system founded on the lex talionis is about protecting prison Staff? The point DBT made is that incarcerated for life inmates are indeed isolated from general society. They cannot present any longer a threat of imminent death or harm to society in general. Claiming that society is then exercising self defense by terminating their lives makes no sense at all.

 

[DBT]

Because the heinous criminal is currently under guns and in chains. Put him alone with you in a dark alley and ask yourself if you think self-defense still isn't warranted.

To also quote DBT's remarks :

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...enalty-Worldwide&p=29952&viewfull=1#post29952

There are some offenders who should never be released back into society. But the death penalty, if used by the state to rid society of its bad members, becomes a matter of expediency and not justice, and a bad example of how to deal with people who are a problem. A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society.

Any comments about this point?

What about the guards? They're still at risk.

Prisons are set up to deal with potentially dangerous prisoners. Locked cells, handcuffs if necessary, there are procedures in place. Unlike the outside world with unsuspecting members of the public who do not know the motives of the people in their vicinity, prison guards are both trained and aware of the risks of their position

Other people consider isolation to be cruel and unusual.

But they are not entirely isolated. If they behave well, they are able to mix with the general prison population, they may be given work, provided with books, education, gym, tv, computer time, etc.

 

[credoconsolans]

Who says he needs to go outside for exercise?

Oh, so you believe in cruel and unusual punishment? Just leave them in a dungeon without daylight or fresh air?

Do you seriously think prisonguards are incompetent or something?

Did you do a google search on the murders that happen inside a prison?

How does he shower?

Presumably he uses the shower installed in his cell? What? We can do that, you know, give prisoners amenities that they might not currently have. Why are you asking me such dead-simple questions?

Have you ever SEEN death row? No, they don't have a shower inside their cell. So, you want to spend even MORE money on a heinous criminal.

How is he examined for health checkups or when he's sick?

How exactly do they get those now? Oh right, they have doctors willing to give these 'dangerous' prisoners checkups even though it's supposedly so dangerous that I'm wondering how we even have any doctors left at all.

Still doesn't detract from the doctors and guards risking their lives to treat these men. Did you google that 'murders in prisons' topic yet?

The point being, what "everyone" thought, was wrong.

Yes, there's a trend of past beliefs turning out to be wrong...you know, like how people used to think the death penalty was a good thing.

And vice-versa could easily be the case again.

No, you haven't established that.

Yes, we have.

You think you have. You didn't convince the rest of us.

You just ignored the guards and caretakers who care for these people,

Except you put them under the exact same risk when you imprison them while they await for their execution. In fact, you *increase* the risk because a prisoner who knows he'll be executed anyway then has nothing to lose anymore; why not kill the guard who looks at him funny, or even better, try to escape? The fact that these prisoners do not routinely kill or seriously hurt their guards and caretakers should suggest to you that we are perfectly capable of minimizing the risk.

Have you looked up 'murders in prisons' yet? And most of those are by people NOT on death row.

then when I brought it up, you had to invent an entirely new way of housing

What? Nothing I have brought up represents 'an entirely new way of housing'. We can and already utilize facilities like this. Yes, obviously you'd have to replace some of the existing facilities, but so fucking what?

So, you're wanting to spend even MORE money on heinous criminals.

Except of course, the only reason this heinous killer is not currently killing you is because you have guns on him and he's in chains.

Don't be ridiculous. There are very few people subject to the deathpenalty who would indiscriminately kill everyone they come across. There's no reason to assert that the *only* reason someone isn't killing me right now is because he's in chains. I'm pretty sure for instance, that since I'm not a blonde prostitute I have nothing to fear from the deranged serial killer who only kills blonde prostitutes. Even the most heinous of murderers still needs a REASON to kill their victims, however fucked up that reason might be. Jason doesn't exist IRL, so let's not be melodramatic, okay?

You have no idea what they may or may not do.

Put yourself in a dark alley, alone with him and ask yourself if you still feel that he's perfectly harmless.

Who gives a shit? I'm not advocating releasing him into a dark alley, am I? I'm advocating to KEEP him chained up.

I'm just asking you if you think he's still harmless.

 

[credoconsolans]

Let's be connected to existing realities, shall we? In the US, it usually takes a conviction on first degree murder for the found guilty party on the charge of 1st degree murder to become susceptible to be sentenced to the death penalty(that is the case in death penalty states like Florida) The alternative the Jury can rely on is life sentence. Which IMHO makes it quite impossible to envision your scenario of the same for life incarcerated individual to find himself with me in a dark alley.

So incredibly wrong, Sabine. Life in prison has varied lengths. I've read of some where the 'life in prison' sentence gave the prisoner a chance for parole in 7 years. And he got it.

I'm sure you've read of plenty of examples when states outlawed the death penalty and commuted their sentences to life, then failed to change the procedurals and heinous criminals who were never supposed to see the light of day again, actually got paroled.

And killed again.

the threat of imminent death or harm on society has been now removed permanently.Somehow I cannot fathom finding myself in a dark alley while facing an imminent threat of death or harm from Charles Manson still currently incarcerated at the Corcoran California State Prison.

But you might have met up with Kenneth McDuff. Some young women did back in the mid 1990s. I can't imagine how they could have considering...

McDuff received three death sentences [for the murders]. While incarcerated, McDuff was twice sent to the electric chair, but both times received last minute stays of execution.However, McDuff's death sentences were commuted to a life sentence. At that time, a life sentence in Texas meant serving a minimum of 10 years in prison before being paroled.

And he was paroled because the prisons were overcrowded.

So a few years after his heinous crimes, he was released. And tortured, raped and murdered a half dozen or so more young women before he was caught again and this time, rightfully executed.

There are some offenders who should never be released back into society. But the death penalty, if used by the state to rid society of its bad members, becomes a matter of expediency and not justice, and a bad example of how to deal with people who are a problem. A double standard of ethics where the state tells the general population that it is wrong to kill for any reason other than self defence and immediate threat to life, but carries out executions of prisoners who are no longer a threat to society, who are isolated from general society.

Their 'isolation' is relative.

What about the guards? They're still at risk.

As if Staff on inmates violence and sexual abuse does not present a risk for convicted criminals. It appears that your sole argumentation here to support your self defense justification is....about guards. I hope you have come to the reality connected conclusion by now that society as a whole is certainly not facing an imminent threat of death or harm from an individual incarcerated for life.

The guards are most certainly part of our society. They have families, wives, kids and parents. I can't believe you want to divorce them from our society.

Further, the death penalty is directly connected to the principles of the lex talionis which in no way relies on any notion of self defense rather "you take a life, we take yours".

[shrug] So you say. I don't agree.

They can't be isolated unless they have no guards. Then they're isolated. Please give us a way to do that.

"but...but .. what about the guards" is your outcry to justify your misguided thinking that a retributive justice system founded on the lex talionis is about protecting prison Staff? The point DBT made is that incarcerated for life inmates are indeed isolated from general society. They cannot present any longer a threat of imminent death or harm to society in general. Claiming that society is then exercising self defense by terminating their lives makes no sense at all.

Here you go again, assuming a relationship between the death penalty and lex talionis that I don't agree with and trying to basically say that the guards don't count.

Yeah, they do, Sabine.

 

[DBT]

So incredibly wrong, Sabine. Life in prison has varied lengths. I've read of some where the 'life in prison' sentence gave the prisoner a chance for parole in 7 years. And he got it.

In some cases there can be the option of 'never to be released.' If people aren't happy with early release of offenders they should talk with their local Parliamentarian. This is a different problem altogether.

 

[dystopian]

Oh, so you believe in cruel and unusual punishment? Just leave them in a dungeon without daylight or fresh air?

Did I fucking say anything of the sort? No. Stop setting up a strawman of my actual position.

Did you do a google search on the murders that happen inside a prison?

Yes, I am aware your American prisons have a problem with this sort of thing. I suppose it makes sense that you would therefore think prisonguards are incompetent, since it seems many of them over there *are*. However, even in the US, you're SAFER in prison than you are outside of it. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 2000 and 2010 the murder rate in prisons nation-wide was 3 out of 100,000 inmates; whereas in 2011, the average murder rate nation-wide was 4.7 per 100,000 people (and much much higher in certain cities). Finding statistics specifically on prison guard's being murdered is a lot harder (though it's possible that they are included in figure I listed); though there WAS a study last decade that established the rate of injury for prison guards to be 0.97/1000 anually versus 1.6/1000 anually for inmates. So yeah, the prisonguards are safer than the inmates, who are safer than the people outside prisons.

Have you ever SEEN death row? No, they don't have a shower inside their cell. So, you want to spend even MORE money on a heinous criminal.

Did you not understand what I was saying? I said we can *give* them these things. And yes, I'd spend more money on them. You can tell how civilized a society is by the way it treats its prisoners. Executing criminals because we arbitrarily decide that it costs too much to provide for a safer environment so we can keep them alive instead, THAT is itself a heinous crime.

Still doesn't detract from the doctors and guards risking their lives to treat these men. Did you google that 'murders in prisons' topic yet?

Yes, see above for how you're safer being outside a prison than in. Are you still going to stick to this line of argument?

And vice-versa could easily be the case again.

Yes! Just like how people can go back to believing the earth is flat again.

...you see what I'm saying, right?

You think you have. You didn't convince the rest of us.

You mean, I didn't convince *you* and Loren. The rest seem less inclined to argue we haven't established the facts.

Have you looked up 'murders in prisons' yet?

Yes; like I said, you're safer outside of prison than outside. You want to retract your argument?

And most of those are by people NOT on death row.

No shit, of course they aren't seeing as how death row inmates represent a minority of prisoners. If you want to argue that they are statistically less likely to cause injury to a guard then I'd like to see some numbers on that. However, even if true; that just goes to show that we CAN minimize the danger.

So, you're wanting to spend even MORE money on heinous criminals.

Yes. Because, as I said; executing people because keeping them alive is too 'expensive' is itself a heinous crime.

But hey, maybe you're the sort of heartless bastard who'd also argue that we should just let people starve to death if they can't buy their own food. After all, we wouldn't want to pay a few cents extra on our taxes just so that we can avoid collective responsibility for other people's deaths, would we?

You have no idea what they may or may not do.

Right, and neither do you. But unlike me, you seem perfectly willing to assert that the ONLY reason I'm not being killed is because there's chains on the killer.

I'm just asking you if you think he's still harmless.

The only people on this planet who are harmless are babies and quadraplegics; and I'm not sure about the babies. So fucking what? Why do you think it matters whether or not the killer is harmless? Do you imagine the non deathrow inmates are harmless? Should we go ahead and start executing them too because they're not harmless? You don't know what they're capable of after all. Just because they haven't killed someone yet (ignoring the fact that even in death penalty states, you can be a murderer without receiving the deathpenalty) doesn't mean they won't kill someone in the future! Let's just err on the safe side and kill everyone in prison. It's safer that way!

 

[PyramidHead]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

 

[+or-1]

Just my opinion but;

I think that there are crimes for which the death penalty is appropriate. That said, if there is any evidence that any innocent person has been mistakenly put to death (and I understand there is) then I don't think I understand how anyone can, in good conscience, support the death penalty.

Of course, we imprison our citizens at a horrifying rate as well.

 

[Jarhyn]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

Not necessarily. This assumes a thing on the pro-death side of things, namely that we actually think that punishment is a deterrent.

I do not think deterrence is a useful model or assumption. For rational people who support the death penelty, there is calculus that goes on. Namely, when you have isolated a persistant problem, the answer is to reshape it until it is either not persistant in trying to be where it is problematic, or so that it is no longer problematic when it gets there. If neither goal can be accomplished, you dispose of the problem instead. It has nothing to do with such silly things as 'fear' or 'deterrence', and everything to do with wanting to correct a known problem when it is identified.

 

[PyramidHead]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

Not necessarily. This assumes a thing on the pro-death side of things, namely that we actually think that punishment is a deterrent.

I do not think deterrence is a useful model or assumption. For rational people who support the death penelty, there is calculus that goes on. Namely, when you have isolated a persistant problem, the answer is to reshape it until it is either not persistant in trying to be where it is problematic, or so that it is no longer problematic when it gets there. If neither goal can be accomplished, you dispose of the problem instead. It has nothing to do with such silly things as 'fear' or 'deterrence', and everything to do with wanting to correct a known problem when it is identified.

So what is the empirically-measurable effect of having the death penalty versus not having it? "Problem-correcting"? What does that equate to, in terms of actual societal outcomes?

ETA: And what's wrong with deterrence, if it works? People are also animals, and the threat of bad consequences has its effects. I don't see why negatively incentivizing undesirable behaviors wouldn't be a legitimate form of reshaping a persistent problem.

 

[Togo]

Not necessarily. This assumes a thing on the pro-death side of things, namely that we actually think that punishment is a deterrent.

I do not think deterrence is a useful model or assumption. For rational people who support the death penelty, there is calculus that goes on. Namely, when you have isolated a persistant problem, the answer is to reshape it until it is either not persistant in trying to be where it is problematic, or so that it is no longer problematic when it gets there. If neither goal can be accomplished, you dispose of the problem instead. It has nothing to do with such silly things as 'fear' or 'deterrence', and everything to do with wanting to correct a known problem when it is identified.

I'm not sure how that reasoning distinguishes between killing someone, and locking them up so they can't hurt anyone. Can you explain?

 

[Jarhyn]

There is a problem in declaring that people are animals. We have meat suits like animals, and came from the same stuff, but processes can and do produce new things which don't rely on the old processes.

One of the biggest problem of punishment as a 'deterrent' is that it targets rational thought processes. It targets your logic: if crime, punishment. Punishment as a behavior modification tool only works when it is consistent, immediate, and previously applied. That's the way punishment works for animals. So if the problem is people letting their legacy animal bits control them, then they will do the thing, and punishment comes after every time. This model makes the assumption that the person doing the punishment accepts repetition of the behavior. Punishing an animal implies that you give them the opportunity to do it, and that actually allowing them to do it is not so bad. Deterrent is similar in that it assumes they will try at least once and not like the results. If a sufficiently intelligent critter thinks it can circumvent the deterrent, it will fail to be deterred.

Trying to use such simplistic means to prevent absolutely unacceptable behavior from even being attempted isn't going to work. The war on drugs failed. People still shoot up schools. Rapes continue to be a thing people do. The issue at hand isn't how to prevent crime; that just won't happen for as long as we have animals attached to our rational minds (and I honestly don't think it is possible to not have that situation). The issue is detecting when people's animals have too much say on how they act, AND (logical conjunction AND, not logical OR) their animal pushes them to be shits in society, and preventing ignorant people from being dangerous with their ignorance. It just happens that historically and even today, our 'punishments' are effective in removing really dangerous people, society is modeled in a way to provide less power to ignorant children, and we take measures to restrict access to sensitive areas by the uninitiated.

Our system only works accidentally to the stated reason of 'deterrence' because it is easy to deter them from killing innocent people with an insurmountable wall or fence, and constant vigilance in preventing circumvention. But we only do that after we have been convinced that they have already tried at least once. It can't be expected to even start addressing the goal of ending or reducing baseline unethical behavior. If you want to do THAT you have to focus on giving people the means and understanding necessary to control their impulses.

 

[PyramidHead]

I don't see much to disagree with there, except that punishment need not assume a person will do the thing that gets punished. We are animals, but also rational beings. We can picture what it would be like to receive punishment, and use that to deter us from a course of action.

Either way, the death penalty sucks as a deterrent in even that sense.

 

[credoconsolans]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

The correlation is actually between the rate of violent crime done by a perpetrator after they've been executed. Is there any?

 

[PyramidHead]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

The correlation is actually between the rate of violent crime done by a perpetrator after they've been executed. Is there any?

That should not be society's only concern. The certainty that a dead person will not commit any further crimes is, in practice, not much greater than the very low likelihood of a maximum-security inmate doing the same. So, what you gain by removing a perpetrator from existence is a small increase in security over removing him from society, inextricably coupled with the risk of mistakenly executing an innocent person and the high cost of making sure that happens only rarely. Taking your comment to an extreme, one could ask the same about simply exterminating all people with red hair, thereby eliminating the possibility of them ever committing a crime. Obviously, that's not the only factor, and unless you can show that prisoners are escaping maximum security and wreaking havok in society at an alarming rate in countries that have no death penalty, it's not even an important factor.

 

[Jarhyn]

Let's back off the vitriol a bit and see if there is anything empirical to what is being thrown around.

If the death penalty is necessary for justice, whatever that may mean, and is a means of "society protecting itself," then there should be some observable correlation between violent crime and the death penalty.

Look at the countries in the world with reliable statistics and enough resources to handle their law enforcement problems.

Does the correlation suggested by the proponents of the death penalty actually exist?

The correlation is actually between the rate of violent crime done by a perpetrator after they've been executed. Is there any?

That should not be society's only concern. The certainty that a dead person will not commit any further crimes is, in practice, not much greater than the very low likelihood of a maximum-security inmate doing the same. So, what you gain by removing a perpetrator from existence is a small increase in security over removing him from society, inextricably coupled with the risk of mistakenly executing an innocent person and the high cost of making sure that happens only rarely. Taking your comment to an extreme, one could ask the same about simply exterminating all people with red hair, thereby eliminating the possibility of them ever committing a crime. Obviously, that's not the only factor, and unless you can show that prisoners are escaping maximum security and wreaking havok in society at an alarming rate in countries that have no death penalty, it's not even an important factor.

The problem is the maximum security involved. I prefer making it much nicer than maximum security implies, letting them live without physical walls, and when they leave except through the front door with a bill of clean enough mental health and life skills to do a job, gun them down. We don't have time to incarcerate people, nor should we force them to suffer.