If the death penalty is a deterrent....

[CFLarsen]

I can see two reasons for the death penalty: Justice and deterrent. Now, there have been a lot of discussions on just how much justice there is in taking a life for a life, or sometimes not even for a life, and I really don't think anyone will be able to sway the other party to a measurable degree. So, this thread is not about that.

What I'm curious about is this: If you think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, why not have public executions?

This is certainly not the case today: In fact, it has long since been illegal to photograph or record anything from an execution. People want to see criminals dead, but they don't want to watch them die.

If the death penalty is a deterrent, wouldn't it be more effective as a deterrent, if people could actually see what went on? If you want to scare people into not committing crimes - which is what a deterrent is - then why not go all the way?

Which, of course, leads to the next, logical step: Why not have the execution methods as gruesome as possible?

Drawing and quartering. The Virgin of Nuremberg. The garotte. The Guillotine. And so on.

 

[Matabiri]

What I'm curious about is this: If you think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, why not have public executions?

They are, aren't they - at least to some extent? I thought the victim's/victims' relatives - and some news reporters - could watch, if they wanted to.

 

[Ian Osborne]

A guy in Iran has just been flogged and hanged in public for child murder.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: If the death penalty is a deterrent....

They are, aren't they - at least to some extent? I thought the victim's/victims' relatives - and some news reporters - could watch, if they wanted to.

Could be. But I don't see where the deterrent comes in. That's the justice part.

 

[CFLarsen]

A guy in Iran has just been flogged and hanged in public for child murder.

Yes, I saw the pictures as well.

That's what triggered this thread. Pun intended.

 

[Matabiri]

Re: Re: Re: If the death penalty is a deterrent....

Could be. But I don't see where the deterrent comes in. That's the justice part.

See what you mean. It's common knowledge though that there is a death penalty (at least in some, uncivilised countries) and regular news reports on them being carried out - isn't that public enough for deterrence?

 

[HarryKeogh]

does anyone still honestly think the death penalty, at least in relation to other punishment such as life in prison, is a deterrent? the facts seem to say no or at best it is marginally better than long prison terms.

I think most people support it out of a sense of revenge. Although I am strongly against the death penalty there is a part of me, that ugly, dark part of me that also thinks the theme song from "9 to 5" is a catchy tune, that is glad to see the sickest crimes be punished brutally (like that man in Iran who raped and killed 15+ kids. I think to torture someone like that is wrong but I'm also not shedding any tears for him).

As for making the executions as gruesomes as possible, I'm sure in most countries it goes against their constitution (at least here it does) and even in Iran there were Iranian bystanders who were embarassed at the gruesomeness and spectacle of it all. That may reduce crime slightly (I say slightly because I think most criminals don't think they will be caught...they tend to be stupid, thankfully) as would making prison conditions as uncomfortable as possible but I think most societies realize maintaining our humanity is more important and beneficial to society than any small reduction in crime this would provide.

And let's face it, if you're a sick enough bastard to kill 15 kids I don't think any threat of punishment would make you stop.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: If the death penalty is a deterrent....

See what you mean. It's common knowledge though that there is a death penalty (at least in some, uncivilised countries) and regular news reports on them being carried out - isn't that public enough for deterrence?

That's what I am asking. Seeing is believing, right? If you want to scare people, you have to show them what will happen if they fall out of line.

You can't just threaten with something. The threat has to be real.

Or, that's how the theory goes...

 

[Zep]

If you are looking for purely a revenge motive, better to keep the convict alive and subject them to punishment then. To kill them simply releases them from punishment.

But to stick to the intended topic, without looking for the stats somewhere I saw them before, the death penalty, in and of itself, is no real deterrent to the crimes it is punishment for. Even the threat (and carrying out) of public punishment and execution did not seem to have deterred the Iranian chap from any of his henious crimes.

Even if the crims even bother to take stock of the consequences while committing the crimes, they will rationalise their actions with the "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" thinking. That is, if stealing gets you executed as does murder, why not just kill people to make the stealing easier.

 

[CFLarsen]

does anyone still honestly think the death penalty, at least in relation to other punishment such as life in prison, is a deterrent? the facts seem to say no or at best it is marginally better than long prison terms.

I am asking those who do think the death penalty is a deterrent.

I think most people support it out of a sense of revenge.

That's another discussion: How much does revenge enter the concept of justice?

And let's face it, if you're a sick enough bastard to kill 15 kids I don't think any threat of punishment would make you stop.

So, I take it you are of the opinion that this won't act as a deterrent. I am interested to hear from those who do think the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

 

[CFLarsen]

If you are looking for purely a revenge motive, better to keep the convict alive and subject them to punishment then. To kill them simply releases them from punishment.

Yes, that's my standpoint as well.

But to stick to the intended topic, without looking for the stats somewhere I saw them before, the death penalty, in and of itself, is no real deterrent to the crimes it is punishment for. Even the threat (and carrying out) of public punishment and execution did not seem to have deterred the Iranian chap from any of his henious crimes.

OK, but that's not sticking to the intended topic. I am looking for people who think it does act as a deterrent.

Even if the crims even bother to take stock of the consequences while committing the crimes, they will rationalise their actions with the "might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" thinking. That is, if stealing gets you executed as does murder, why not just kill people to make the stealing easier.

English does have the weirdest aphorisms....

 

[HarryKeogh]

So, I take it you are of the opinion that this won't act as a deterrent. I am interested to hear from those who do think the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

I'm glad to see that you like to open up your threads for healthy debate.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm glad to see that you like to open up your threads for healthy debate.

Thank you!

 

[Ed]

It seems to me that if one is deterrable there are numerous reasons to be deterred and the promise of a horrible death, while nice, will not add to the deterrance arsenal appreciably.

There was an interesting book on executions in England (whose name, as so much else, escapes me) which pointed out that given the ubiquity of hanging as a punishment there was never any shortage of candidates.

While I am against executions, per se. there is a certain something that attends having a really evil person put away. I guess that it is basically revenge but also a reflection of outrage that a life sentence cannot assuage. Didn't we have this conversation recently? And Claus, didn't you have some nutsy contention about these malfactors wanting to commit suicide or something along those lines?

 

[BPSCG]

I can see two reasons for the death penalty: Justice and deterrent.

You left one out: Irreparable breach of the social contract.

This amounts to a derail, since it goes off in another direction from the OP, but I think it's important to consider.

Torts and most crimes are not punishable by death because the damage done to the individual (in the case of a tort) or to society (in the case of a crime) is not so severe that it justifies imposing a disproportionate punishment. We don't impose the death penalty for robbing a bank for the same reason we don't jail people for double-parking: the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. Justice is not served when punishment is too harsh, nor when it is too light.

We, as society, recognize this intuitively, if not intellectually, whenever we hear of a drunk driver killing a pedestrian and getting off with a fine and a suspended sentence, or of someone being caught with a few ounces of marijuana and being sent to prison for life under a "three-strikes-and-out" law. We recognize that justice has not been served in either case, because the punishment is ridiculously light or ridiculously harsh.

We object to these abuses because we intuitively, if not intellectually, understand and agree to the concept of the social contract - that we give up certain liberties in exchange for receiving the benefits of living in civilized society. We also expect that when we transgress that contract, we will be treated fairly - not receiving punishment that is too harsh or too light.

But what do we do when someone irreparably breaches the social contract? What happens when someone demonstrates that he is too wilfully dangerous to be allowed in our midst? We lock him up, of course - not just as punishment, not just as deterrent, but for our own protection.

But are not some crimes so heinous that society is justified in concluding that the criminal has irreparably breached the social contract? That the criminal, by his actions, has notified society he has no intention of being bound by any of its restrictions, and if allowed to roam free in our midst, would continue to repeatedly and grievously harm society?

What does society owe this kind of criminal? Why is it obligated to keep him alive?

What I'm curious about is this: If you think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, why not have public executions?

Because, while there's no question it is a deterrent, nobody knows how much of a deterrent it is. Murderers serving life sentences only because their state has no death penalty have been known to kill again; if the murderer had been executed after his first murder, the odds are overwhelming that he would not have committed the second (the recidivism rate among executed murderers is zero).

Beyond that, though, how much of a deterrent is the death penalty? I don't know, and I don't think anybody knows. Hence, I am opposed to this...

...because it unjustifiably frightens the children.

Which, I guess, is a deterrent...

 

[CFLarsen]

And Claus, didn't you have some nutsy contention about these malfactors wanting to commit suicide or something along those lines?

I don't recall having nutsy contentions.

 

[Thanz]

Re: Re: If the death penalty is a deterrent....

You left one out: Irreparable breach of the social contract.

[snip]

But what do we do when someone irreparably breaches the social contract? What happens when someone demonstrates that he is too wilfully dangerous to be allowed in our midst? We lock him up, of course - not just as punishment, not just as deterrent, but for our own protection.

But are not some crimes so heinous that society is justified in concluding that the criminal has irreparably breached the social contract? That the criminal, by his actions, has notified society he has no intention of being bound by any of its restrictions, and if allowed to roam free in our midst, would continue to repeatedly and grievously harm society?

How is this not covered under the broad category of "Justice"? You can call it whatever you like, but you are saying that it is not just to allow some people to live.

What does society owe this kind of criminal? Why is it obligated to keep him alive?

Because it is wrong to kill people.

Because, while there's no question it is a deterrent, nobody knows how much of a deterrent it is.

I disagree. how many potential murderers do you think sit and say, "well, I think I'll kill that dude because I'll only do life in prison. If there were the death penalty..." I think that murders come down to two broad categories: Murders that are done in the heat of the moment, where considerations of punishment are not in the killers mind at all; and murders that are planned in which the killer does not think they will get caught. I don't think that the death penalty acts as a deterrent in either case.

Murderers serving life sentences only because their state has no death penalty have been known to kill again; if the murderer had been executed after his first murder, the odds are overwhelming that he would not have committed the second (the recidivism rate among executed murderers is zero).

Recidivism and deterrence are 2 separate issues. The odds are also overwhelming that if the same person was kept in high security prison without parole that he wouldn't kill again either.

 

[Ed]

Re: Re: Re: If the death penalty is a deterrent....

Because it is wrong to kill people.[

No, it is not wrong, per se. It is the circumstances that can make it wrong. We kill people regularly, much of this activity goes unnoticed, I am afraid.

 

[CFLarsen]

What does society owe this kind of criminal? Why is it obligated to keep him alive?

Those questions fall under the category "Does a society have the right to take a person's life". That's not the question I asked.

...because it unjustifiably frightens the children.

Why "unjustifiably"? Get'em while they're young?

 

[IllegalArgument]

I'm against the death penalty only on the principal that we could accidently put an innocent person to death.