Death Penalty

[Antony]

The evidence that the death penalty has a deterrent effect is slim to non-existent. There may even be evidence that it increases murder rates. Most evidence seems to show it has no effect. There are problems with sample size, as the number of executions (and, in most countries, murders) is so low. There's a good summary here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cassy-stubbs/the-death-penalty-deterre_b_52622.html

Well said. I find it striking in any debate on this subject how little attention is directed to what ought to be the central question: does the death penalty reduce crime?

 

[tomwaits]

Well said. I find it striking in any debate on this subject how little attention is directed to what ought to be the central question: does the death penalty reduce crime?

That's what I was getting at. The OP seemed to be producing counter-arguments to arguments against the death penalty, but really the debate should start with proponents giving specific, evidence-based reasons for why the death penalty is required in the first place. If the state is going to kill a person, there should be a reason for it. If there's no reason, then it should stop. Doesn't that seem logical?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

deterrent value versus odds of a miscarriage

Question: is there a practical (as opposed to moral) reason for having a death penalty, backed up by evidence supporting said reason? Does having a death penalty somehow help produce a more secure and healthy society than simply having life imprisonment?

It seems to me that a rational person would be dissuaded from murder by either the death penalty or by life in prison. I would listen to anyone who had evidence to the contrary, but it is my impression from reading this thread and elsewhere that a deterrent effect does not exist.

On the other hand, the chances of a miscarriage of justice seem to be not at all slim. Randall Dale Adams came within a few days of being executed, despite the existence of another, more plausible suspect ("The Thin Blue Line"). Cameron Todd Willingham was executed, despite seriously flawed forensic evidence, some of which was known at the time. IIRC since 1976 138 people were released from death row versus 1200 people who were executed.

 

[Lowpro]

Well said. I find it striking in any debate on this subject how little attention is directed to what ought to be the central question: does the death penalty reduce crime?

I doubt it reduces capital crime. I'm not even sure prison does. Id imagine the most effective way to reduce capital crime is reduced privacy and increased surveillance to deter acting on mens rea.

 

[JamesDillon]

The evidence that the death penalty has a deterrent effect is slim to non-existent. There may even be evidence that it increases murder rates. Most evidence seems to show it has no effect. There are problems with sample size, as the number of executions (and, in most countries, murders) is so low. There's a good summary here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cassy-stubbs/the-death-penalty-deterre_b_52622.html

That may be true for general deterrence, but I'm thinking of specific deterrence. I'm quite sure that, horror movies notwithstanding, no one has ever committed a murder after being executed.

 

[crimresearch]

That may be true for general deterrence, but I'm thinking of specific deterrence. I'm quite sure that, horror movies notwithstanding, no one has ever committed a murder after being executed.

That would be correct... if the right person is executed. If the wrong person is executed, then even that deterrence is imaginary.

What's the best estimate for the error rate these days? How many murders versus how many executions, minus what percent of wrongful convictions?

 

[GrandMasterFox]

What's the best estimate for the error rate these days? How many murders versus how many executions, minus what percent of wrongful convictions?

Isn't that more of a point to the judicial system than the penal system?

Let me put it this way, suppose we have a time machine. We can go back and witness the crime (but not alter it obviously) so we know for 100% sure if the person did it or not.

Not 99.999999999999% but 100%.

Would you still object to the death penalty in a situation like this?

 

[Lowpro]

The debate over if the death penalty reduces recidivism rates isn't academic. It is by its nature absolutely true.

I think the discussion should be moved away from practicality in that regard and focused on death penalty versus similar actions that yield similar if not exact results of reduction of recidivism, such as life imprisonment or positive rehabilitation.

Let's face it, the crime for which the death penalty is incurred has already been committed; any arguments for deterrence seem to have failed in the specific case. What do you do then when the crime has already been committed. And how do these actions measure against each other.

That would be a more interesting debate.

 

[JJM 777]

Question: is there a practical (as opposed to moral) reason for having a death penalty, backed up by evidence supporting said reason? Does having a death penalty somehow help produce a more secure and healthy society than simply having life imprisonment?

Inmates are a security problem to prison guards and other inmates, so executing a murderer improves safety of these. Plus safety of the society, in case there is a practice of either pardoning a convict or letting him to vacation from prison or a prisoner escaping.

Also costs of maintaining a prisoner could be seen as a "practical" issue.

 

[Megalodon]

The way I see it, I don't want a state to have the constitutional power to kill a citizen. Because once the possibility is established, the rest is bargaining... eventually someone will use that power to get rid of undesirables.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

The way I see it, I don't want a state to have the constitutional power to kill a citizen. Because once the possibility is established, the rest is bargaining... eventually someone will use that power to get rid of undesirables.

And imprisonment won't?

 

[oglommi]

If the evidence is very strong, just shoot them and we're rid of them.
But only for killing another humanbeing.

 

[let`s talk]

The countries with higher level of life usually don't have the capital punishment.

 

[crimresearch]

Isn't that more of a point to the judicial system than the penal system?

Let me put it this way, suppose we have a time machine. We can go back and witness the crime (but not alter it obviously) so we know for 100% sure if the person did it or not.

Not 99.999999999999% but 100%.

Would you still object to the death penalty in a situation like this?

I'd object to the time machine. They don't exist.

And its called the 'criminal justice' system... includes legislators, lobbyists, police, prosecution, defense attorneys, the judiciary, victims and 'clients'.

Finally, where did I say 'object to the death penalty'?

My objection is to wrongful convictions, and the cliche that 'they won't re-offend'.

Are you in favor of executing innocent people, and letting real murderers go free to kill again?

 

[oglommi]

Everybody dies. I don't see the fuzz about making the really bad people die prematurely

 

[COLONEL]

I have always said a 20 cent bullit, 5 dollars worth of electricity, 20 dollars worth of drugs or even a 19 dollar rope is a lot cheaper then spending 50-80 thousand a year to keep them in prison . the do gooders say keeping them in prison is a worse punishment then the death penalty, I say bull knowing that you can live out your life with 3 hots and a cot vs. being killed sounds good to me. Look at the ones that kill behind bars nothing happens to them other then they waste money on another trial and then put them in solitare for a while.I say if you have solid proof. and they are sentenced to death carry out the sentence as soon as possible and don't let them have 20-30 years of appeals.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

I'd object to the time machine. They don't exist.

No kidding Sherlock
I'm sorry, I just assumed I don't need to put a "hypothetical" sign up. Even Sheldon Cooper could see that one...

My objection is to wrongful convictions, and the cliche that 'they won't re-offend'.

Are you in favor of executing innocent people, and letting real murderers go free to kill again?

And now you are completely missing the point.
Again, try to answer the actual question:

Let's assume hypothetically just for the sake of argument
(Clear enough?)
That we have a time machine capable of assessing for 100% not even a shred of a chance that the person is innocent.

Do you have an objection to the death penalty in this case?

1) If you answer "yes", then clearly it has nothing to do with putting an innocent man to death since we said hypothetically that it can't happen. It means there are other reasons why you would object, which is perfectly fine, I just prefer to hear those rather than talk about irelavent issues.

2) If you answer "no", then it means that your problem is indeed more with the course of convicting innocent people. And that's perfectly okay, but my question to you would be, doesn't this seem to indicate that the problem is with the court system, it's method of operating and their standard of evidence?
Obviously putting a man to death for something he didn't do is wrong but is sentencing to say 60 years in prison all that better?
Both are wrong and should have been stopped at a much earlier point than sentencing.

 

[crimresearch]

No kidding Sherlock
I'm sorry, I just assumed I don't need to put a "hypothetical" sign up. Even Sheldon Cooper could see that one...


And now you are completely missing the point.
Again, try to answer the actual question:

Let's assume hypothetically just for the sake of argument
(Clear enough?)
That we have a time machine capable of assessing for 100% not even a shred of a chance that the person is innocent.

Do you have an objection to the death penalty in this case?

1) If you answer "yes", then clearly it has nothing to do with putting an innocent man to death since we said hypothetically that it can't happen. It means there are other reasons why you would object, which is perfectly fine, I just prefer to hear those rather than talk about irelavent issues.

2) If you answer "no", then it means that your problem is indeed more with the course of convicting innocent people. And that's perfectly okay, but my question to you would be, doesn't this seem to indicate that the problem is with the court system, it's method of operating and their standard of evidence?
Obviously putting a man to death for something he didn't do is wrong but is sentencing to say 60 years in prison all that better?
Both are wrong and should have been stopped at a much earlier point than sentencing.

No, you go ahead and assume those strawmen.

I refuse to, just as you refuse to address what I actually posted.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I have always said a 20 cent bullit, 5 dollars worth of electricity, 20 dollars worth of drugs or even a 19 dollar rope is a lot cheaper then spending 50-80 thousand a year to keep them in prison .

No one has objected to this.

Let's assume hypothetically just for the sake of argument
(Clear enough?)
That we have a time machine capable of assessing for 100% not even a shred of a chance that the person is innocent.

Do you have an objection to the death penalty in this case?

1) If you answer "yes", then clearly it has nothing to do with putting an innocent man to death since we said hypothetically that it can't happen.

...or it means that the risk of wrongful execution isn't the only argument against the death sentence. Oh, wait, you see this yourself:

It means there are other reasons why you would object, which is perfectly fine, I just prefer to hear those rather than talk about irelavent issues.

So because it's not the only counter-argument, it's "irrelevant"?

2) If you answer "no", then it means that your problem is indeed more with the course of convicting innocent people. And that's perfectly okay, but my question to you would be, doesn't this seem to indicate that the problem is with the court system, it's method of operating and their standard of evidence?

Can't speak for him/her, but in my eyes, no, it doesn't, because there willl always be wrongful executions.

Obviously putting a man to death for something he didn't do is wrong but is sentencing to say 60 years in prison all that better?

Er... yes?

 

[COLONEL]

Here is a hypothetical question seeing as everyone likes these . You come home find a family member bleeding say fram a stab wound, you call 911 and the police are on the way, when you hear a scream from another family member upstairs. You go to investigate along the way you grab your gun, you get up satirs and find a low life standing over your wife with a knife . Do you A. tell him to drop the knife and hold him at gun point until the police arrive or B. you say you're a dead mother and shoot him where he stands ? I know I would opt for B. No watse of tax payer money for a long drawn out trial. or the chance of him going free on a tecnicality .