Are you against the death penalty?
0
Reaperzwei wrote...
Nyara❤ wrote...
Reaperzwei wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
I did some research back in college, and states that don't have the death penalty have less murder rates than states that support itThat doesn't refute a deterrent effect.
It does because it tell us that nobody wants to pass all their live in the jail. Those who does death penalty eligible crimes always expect to never get caught, or they don't care about living anymore, so they suicide after certain point. If you really want to improve the deterrent then you have to improve police, detective and prosecution's job along reducing suicide rates. The only thing I've see that death penalty is actually useful is in using it as an extortion tool to make the criminal talk about corpses places and crime details, as their lives is all they have to lose after got caught. Sometimes it saves a whole trial in an agreement with the prosecution, too.
So....... the people who commit murder are committing suicide?....... Huh?
Motives who may make someone seriously consider a murder:
Group 1. You feel you don't have anything to lose as you don't care about your life anymore. All you can do here is to reduce suicide rates, as less people will feel they don't give a fuck about life anymore. This is a lot more common you can think so, specially on those who murder a massive amount of people. For example we have recorded five pilots whose suicided involved shutting down a full passenger plane with them (summing over 900 victims!).
Group 2. You feel the punishment you will receive in exchange is weak enough so murdering dat person is worthy after all. Believe me, nobody, and with nobody I mean NOBODY, thinks it's worthy to spend all life in prison for a murder. Thus death sentence deterrent is not superior to life imprisonment deterrent. This only applies to countries where murdering is punished with short imprisonment. Take in account I'm for life imprisonment over death penalty. There is a massive difference in the criminal's though when talking about a temporal imprisonment and a permanent one.
Group 3. You feel that you can avoid getting caught for the murder, so it's a win-win scenario. On this case, the criminal also thinks about the possibility of getting caught, but after a certain cut point, the situation becomes "if I got caught, everything ends", you don't even need a life imprisonment deterrent to archive that cut point.
Group 4. Your emotions, craziness and instability makes you to not out-thought your actions and/or it's consequences (in the other and yourself). Basically you are insane by your passion, or drugs, or mental disorders. Deterrent does not apply if you don't thought them at all.
In the unique circumstance that death penalty is different to life imprisonment is when the criminal got caught already. If they were part of the second, third or fourth group, then they have something more to lose, so some (just a small part) of them accept lawyers agreements to tell corpses places, tell murder's intention and execution details, and in very exceptional cases, accepting guilty without a trial. If your legal system does not allow lawyers agreements, then it is even more pointless outside revenge!
Note: So, if you want less murders...
1. Give people less motives to kill someone. (10%)
2. Make laws easier to apply and harder to abuse or avoid. (20%)
3. Give it a decent length to the imprisonment so group 2 does not apply. (20%)
4. Improve police, investigation and prosecution works. (50%)
PLUS: Lessening access to firearms will reduces successful murders and amount of victims from group 1 and 4.
PLUS: Lessening suicide rates will reduce the sheer amount of group 1.
PLUS: Cold-minded cultures reduces a lot group 4.
PLUS: Cultures with higher respect for life reduces a lot group 2.
(Of course that having current civil wars, anarchy, corruption and unstable states skyrockets group 3).
Proof: Spain does have 8 times less murders than U.S (states with death penalty) without death penalty. Spain is top 5 (ignoring Vatican and such) in low murders per capita.
0
I think we should put all people given the death penalty in their own seperate prison, and at the end of the year, they release them all within the prison with weapons (excluding guns) and let the murderers kill themselves. The rules: only one person may live, but must endure the hardships again at the end of the next year. What good is having a death penalty if your just gonna let the convicts live for another 10 years before you do anything.
0
Nyara❤ wrote...
Reaperzwei wrote...
Nyara❤ wrote...
Reaperzwei wrote...
FinalBoss wrote...
I did some research back in college, and states that don't have the death penalty have less murder rates than states that support itThat doesn't refute a deterrent effect.
It does because it tell us that nobody wants to pass all their live in the jail. Those who does death penalty eligible crimes always expect to never get caught, or they don't care about living anymore, so they suicide after certain point. If you really want to improve the deterrent then you have to improve police, detective and prosecution's job along reducing suicide rates. The only thing I've see that death penalty is actually useful is in using it as an extortion tool to make the criminal talk about corpses places and crime details, as their lives is all they have to lose after got caught. Sometimes it saves a whole trial in an agreement with the prosecution, too.
So....... the people who commit murder are committing suicide?....... Huh?
Motives who may make someone seriously consider a murder:
Group 1. You feel you don't have anything to lose as you don't care about your life anymore. All you can do here is to reduce suicide rates, as less people will feel they don't give a fuck about life anymore. This is a lot more common you can think so, specially on those who murder a massive amount of people. For example we have recorded five pilots whose suicided involved shutting down a full passenger plane with them (summing over 900 victims!).
Group 2. You feel the punishment you will receive in exchange is weak enough so murdering dat person is worthy after all. Believe me, nobody, and with nobody I mean NOBODY, thinks it's worthy to spend all life in prison for a murder. Thus death sentence deterrent is not superior to life imprisonment deterrent. This only applies to countries where murdering is punished with short imprisonment. Take in account I'm for life imprisonment over death penalty. There is a massive difference in the criminal's though when talking about a temporal imprisonment and a permanent one.
Group 3. You feel that you can avoid getting caught for the murder, so it's a win-win scenario. On this case, the criminal also thinks about the possibility of getting caught, but after a certain cut point, the situation becomes "if I got caught, everything ends", you don't even need a life imprisonment deterrent to archive that cut point.
Group 4. Your emotions, craziness and instability makes you to not out-thought your actions and/or it's consequences (in the other and yourself). Basically you are insane by your passion, or drugs, or mental disorders. Deterrent does not apply if you don't thought them at all.
In the unique circumstance that death penalty is different to life imprisonment is when the criminal got caught already. If they were part of the second, third or fourth group, then they have something more to lose, so some (just a small part) of them accept lawyers agreements to tell corpses places, tell murder's intention and execution details, and in very exceptional cases, accepting guilty without a trial. If your legal system does not allow lawyers agreements, then it is even more pointless outside revenge!
Note: So, if you want less murders...
1. Give people less motives to kill someone. (10%)
2. Make laws easier to apply and harder to abuse or avoid. (20%)
3. Give it a decent length to the imprisonment so group 2 does not apply. (20%)
4. Improve police, investigation and prosecution works. (50%)
PLUS: Lessening access to firearms will reduces successful murders and amount of victims from group 1 and 4.
PLUS: Lessening suicide rates will reduce the sheer amount of group 1.
PLUS: Cold-minded cultures reduces a lot group 4.
PLUS: Cultures with higher respect for life reduces a lot group 2.
(Of course that having current civil wars, anarchy, corruption and unstable states skyrockets group 3).
Proof: Spain does have 8 times less murders than U.S (states with death penalty) without death penalty. Spain is top 5 (ignoring Vatican and such) in low murders per capita.
OK people that commit crimes are obviously undeterred by current laws and police presence. There will always be those that are undeterred by current or future laws and police presence. Deterrence isn't about deterring those people since they have proven themselves undeterrable.
I'm not trying to suggest that the death penalty if there is a deterrent effect is the only way to deter criminals or that it would be the best way. Just that if it does have a deterrent effect which it may then we should use it depending on how big that effect is. Also your comparison with Spain is misguided. It suggests that the only reason Spain has less murders is that they don't have the death penalty which I doubt given all the other differences in laws and culture between the US and Spain. Which is why such comparisons don't work because they don't take into account the many other reasons for differences.
Lets also keep in mind that people are not being executed by the hundreds. In 2013 less than 50 people were executed in the US.
0
Reaperzwei wrote...
...My point is that once you are having less than 1 in 100.000 persons dying of murder, you pretty much deterred everything. Only 0.8 in 100.000 of people in Spain will die from murder and it keeps decreasing. The unique countries with lower murders per capita are all countries with cold-minded cultures, so Group 4 murders are almost non-existent. For example Hong Kong with only 0.4 in 100.000, and let's remember Hong Kong does not use Death Penalty since 1964 (abolishing it on 1993).
Sorry, but I don't think a Death Penalty is a stronger deterrent that already passing all your frikking life on prison, and it looks like every single murderer agrees. You may know, but Death Penalty was legal in most the world until 40 years ago, with some countries abolishing it now. There were perceived not difference in the previous and after murder per capita outside a quite stable and predicted with detail curve of reduction (that was unaltered).
Once your deterrent is strong enough to avoid Group 2 murderers and to put in a "all or nothing" situation the Group 3, that is as far as you can go. Well, not exactly, improve police, investigation and prosecution and stop wasting various million $USD on each execution that you can actually spend on that! (Life imprisonment is about ten times less costly). Improving culture and lastly making laws easier to apply and harder to abuse.
To be honest it has been investigated by the UN that maybe you don't even need a life imprisonment as the maximum deterrent at all. Some countries with very low murder per capita possess low imprisonment times for murdering for example. Life imprisonment is practical more on the effects of avoiding to release someone dangerous to society and thus letting it kill again than anything. But the fact of already being caught has proven to be an excellent deterrent for most to do not kill again, though I still prefer life imprisonment for very dangerous people.
There are not practical reasons for Death Penalty (in fact, there are practical reasons, starting by costs, to don't use it). The unique reason to agree with it's use is for a different point of view of what is fairness, being fair by those who agree with "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Along those who feels they must have the right to revenge with everything, even if they seen that as unfair already, but they still wishes it. So it's a topic about morale, justice concepts, fairness and so rather practical.
0
Nyara❤ wrote...
My point is that once you are having less than 1 in 100.000 persons dying of murder, you pretty much deterred everything. Only 0.8 in 100.000 of people in Spain will die from murder and it keeps decreasing. The unique countries with lower murders per capita are all countries with cold-minded cultures, so Group 4 murders are almost non-existent. For example Hong Kong with only 0.4 in 100.000, and let's remember Hong Kong does not use Death Penalty since 1964 (abolishing it on 1993).Sorry, but I don't think a Death Penalty is a stronger deterrent that already passing all your frikking life on prison, and it looks like every single murderer agrees. You may know, but Death Penalty was legal in most the world until 40 years ago, with some countries abolishing it now. There were perceived not difference in the previous and after murder per capita outside a quite stable and predicted with detail curve of reduction (that was unaltered).
Once your deterrent is strong enough to avoid Group 2 murderers and to put in a "all or nothing" situation the Group 3, that is as far as you can go. Well, not exactly, improve police, investigation and prosecution and stop wasting various million $USD on each execution that you can actually spend on that! (Life imprisonment is about ten times less costly). Improving culture and lastly making laws easier to apply and harder to abuse.
To be honest it has been investigated by the UN that maybe you don't even need a life imprisonment as the maximum deterrent at all. Some countries with very low murder per capita possess low imprisonment times for murdering for example. Life imprisonment is practical more on the effects of avoiding to release someone dangerous to society and thus letting it kill again than anything. But the fact of already being caught has proven to be an excellent deterrent for most to do not kill again, though I still prefer life imprisonment for very dangerous people.
There are not practical reasons for Death Penalty (in fact, there are practical reasons, starting by costs, to don't use it). The unique reason to agree with it's use is for a different point of view of what is fairness, being fair by those who agree with "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Along those who feels they must have the right to revenge with everything, even if they seen that as unfair already, but they still wishes it. So it's a topic about morale, justice concepts, fairness and so rather practical.
If there is a deterrent effect of the death penalty I don't doubt that the effect would vary from place to place. So in places that have low murder rates the effect may be too minimal to warrant it. As for life in prison being a bigger deterrent I don't doubt that it is, but its not as if you have to use one or the other. Keep in mind that there may be people that life in prison alone wont deter.
I don't think murder rates depend on weather or not a place supports the death penalty. In the US the murder rates have been on the decline as well even in the states that allow the death penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha
Also while you can say that murder rates have gone down since the death penalty was abolished in many areas of the world, that isn't the same as saying it is the cause.
If there is a deterrent effect to the death penalty then that is a practical reason for it regardless of the cost. Revenge is not a reason for it nor is Hammurabi's code regardless of anyone's feeling on it. Now if there isn't a deterrent effect or if the effect turns out to be very little then I would agree that it is not practical.
0
Spoiler:
Death penalty has never been since common and civil law creations*, a decision taken for practical results or added deterrent. In fact, on all the latests 15 years polls on countries where it's still on use, over two thirds of people (or on the lowest scenarios I've seen, 56%) who agrees with death penalty seems it as useless for practical effects or even negative. Criminologists, police, detectives and lawyers opinion is a overwhelming 91% believing it is actually negative to practical effects, is it does nothing and moves a lot of attention, money and human capital outside the real solutions. Not surprise, even Indonesia and China have admitted they don't use it for deterrent and/or other practical effects, as their intern studies have found not effect.
Death penalty is used because differing points of view toward morality, right of the family to retaliate harder (legal revenge), fairness, attempts to approach justice to mirror back the crimes to the criminal, or (and most common) just because the state inherited a law system allowing it and for different political reasons it has not been changed, yet. Basically it is to back says like "dude, that guy is SO monstrous that he must punished with DEATH!" that I guess a lot of us have felt at least once, even if it weren't a that serious thought.
* That happened around 150 years ago. On the past, death penalties were carried in a "on the ground" basis, or in other words, you were killed ASAP without a trial, or with an obviously unfair quick trial. In that case, yeah, you save the cost of imprisonment without adding another cost. This is also because death penalty was something applied for minor crimes (such as robbery) all the time, so of course there were an added deterrent to those crimes whose in the present are not even punished with imprisonment.
Note: If U.S execution rates are so low now it's because...
Spoiler:
0
You get the best deterrent effect from the improvement of society, not from harsher penalties. If we could somehow improve the well being in all areas of the society and every society, everything bad would go down (faster, all of the 'bad' things are slowly going down currently in almost every place). The better off the whole of society is, the less there is crime.
0
Holoofyoistu
The Messenger
light those fuckers up, i am all for it. the argument against is stupid. "What if you put an innocent man to death?" to that i say good. its worked in the past, back me up christians.
0
I strongly believe in it. Whats the way you stop a rabid dog? You have to put it down. I live in America and i believe the whole court systems are to leneant. Example: I read that once a guy was charged for 25+ years for manslaughter for being DUI and hitting a little girl by accident. Then this other guy raped his stepdaughter for years and then killed her when she was 16 years old...he got 9. Only 9 YEARS! And like i said the only way to deal with an animal is to put it down. I mean we shouldn't just go left and right with the death penalty but we definitely need capital punishment for those who deserve it. Rapists, molesters, murderers, and the other really bad crimes. Whats "2 life terms and 5 years" going to do? They need to be used as examples saying "This is what happens to you if you do this!"
1
I'm not against it at all. However, the death penalty is an outdated form of capital punishment that is completely reaction based. Someone does some horribly unspeakable thing, and then he/she gets put to death. The focus here shouldn't be on what the person did, it should be what drove that person to do the things they did. Increase the value of society, make life better for people and they won't have to resort to crime or unspeakable acts. What i'm saying may sound completely NAIVE and idealistic (young dumb cynical me from years ago would agree) but it's working in countries where the quality of life is so much higher than others.
-1
I think we give too many people too much time before we actually put them to death. The original trial takes a year plus now. I mean my friend was killed in May 2012 and the murderer was sentenced in October 2014... Let alone some murderers are not getting life in prison and instead gets 25 years. I guess I believe if they find you killed a person then you can have your one attempt to reduce your sentence and if that fails then off to the guillotine.
0
AlphaGamer343 wrote...
I strongly believe in it. Whats the way you stop a rabid dog? You have to put it down. I live in America and i believe the whole court systems are to leneant. Example: I read that once a guy was charged for 25+ years for manslaughter for being DUI and hitting a little girl by accident. Then this other guy raped his stepdaughter for years and then killed her when she was 16 years old...he got 9. Only 9 YEARS! And like i said the only way to deal with an animal is to put it down. I mean we shouldn't just go left and right with the death penalty but we definitely need capital punishment for those who deserve it. Rapists, molesters, murderers, and the other really bad crimes. Whats "2 life terms and 5 years" going to do? They need to be used as examples saying "This is what happens to you if you do this!"The fault is not in the punishments, the fault is the justice system. The entire system is based on whose side can debate better, argue better for their client. Obviously when there is indisputable evidence the case is clear that the bad guy is going to get punished, but even then if he/she has very good lawyers, his/her sentence is going to get reduced because they know not only how to argue against laws, but how to manipulate the jury.
I am not from America, so of coarse my knowledge of it is pretty limited, but from what i have seen and read (and i don't talk about movies, books and tv shows) that is the way the system pretty much works.
-1
I am a strong believer in Consequentialism so I would be in total support for such a program. Sure maybe a few people might have been innocent. However a lot more guilty would be killed.
This is probably because I live in California and the people here are idiotic with the way the prison system is run. I am paying money from my pocket to house murderers and give them nice comfy beds, televisions, and food that is better than what they serve at schools. Oh and they don't have to pay a single penny.
Also with the California Court System it is a lot more likely to let a guilty person go free rather than convicting an innocent person so that whole argument is almost null and void.
This is probably because I live in California and the people here are idiotic with the way the prison system is run. I am paying money from my pocket to house murderers and give them nice comfy beds, televisions, and food that is better than what they serve at schools. Oh and they don't have to pay a single penny.
Also with the California Court System it is a lot more likely to let a guilty person go free rather than convicting an innocent person so that whole argument is almost null and void.
0
Hi, I finally decided to talk here. I am not inciting rage, only exposing my opinion.
Death Penalty should be for mentally-ill people that have murdered, raped or things like that. They can't do anything about it, it's not their fault.
Killing/Putting them in a cage (psy hospital) is the only thing to do.
It may be a bad idea, but not worse than having a free unstable person on the street.
Mentally sane people, who did it for pleasure/just because they wanted to should be used as test subjects in laboratories (if they would get DP, else simple prison).
Monkeys are fine but not perfect (1.5% DNA difference is 1.5% too much to be sure of the effects), and having human test subjects would led to more tested vaccines, drugs, medicine. Even new surgery techniques! Bacteriophages!
Human test subjects are needed, but there are not a lot of volunteers, and side effects can be deadly. But we don't care if we used prisoners, because they would have received DP otherwise!
It's one good point: free test subjects.
Second good point: less money wasted. Death Penalty costs A LOT of money. Not killing them means more money to use on useful things (roads, hospital, public services).
Sorry for text brick and bad english!
Death Penalty should be for mentally-ill people that have murdered, raped or things like that. They can't do anything about it, it's not their fault.
Killing/Putting them in a cage (psy hospital) is the only thing to do.
It may be a bad idea, but not worse than having a free unstable person on the street.
Mentally sane people, who did it for pleasure/just because they wanted to should be used as test subjects in laboratories (if they would get DP, else simple prison).
Monkeys are fine but not perfect (1.5% DNA difference is 1.5% too much to be sure of the effects), and having human test subjects would led to more tested vaccines, drugs, medicine. Even new surgery techniques! Bacteriophages!
Human test subjects are needed, but there are not a lot of volunteers, and side effects can be deadly. But we don't care if we used prisoners, because they would have received DP otherwise!
It's one good point: free test subjects.
Second good point: less money wasted. Death Penalty costs A LOT of money. Not killing them means more money to use on useful things (roads, hospital, public services).
Sorry for text brick and bad english!
0
Umbre0n wrote...
Mentally sane people, who did it for pleasure/just because they wanted to should be used as test subjects in laboratories (if they would get DP, else simple prison).Monkeys are fine but not perfect (1.5% DNA difference is 1.5% too much to be sure of the effects), and having human test subjects would led to more tested vaccines, drugs, medicine. Even new surgery techniques! Bacteriophages!
Human test subjects are needed, but there are not a lot of volunteers, and side effects can be deadly. But we don't care if we used prisoners, because they would have received DP otherwise!
It's one good point: free test subjects.
Second good point: less money wasted. Death Penalty costs A LOT of money. Not killing them means more money to use on useful things (roads, hospital, public services).
Sorry for text brick and bad english!
What a sore and simpleton "suggestion" if not worst. Completely contradicting the human's rights. Even criminals and disabled people are humans, should you be too young/immature to handle that very fact.
As for testing in laboratories, you're way too slow on reality. Fortunately biotechnologies nowadays provide us really accurate genetically modified animals models, as well human tissues cultures (ex : toxicity test kits, with in vitro human skins) and maybe soon some entire organs through 3D-tissue-"printing". All to say, there is fewer and fewer cases where testing on humans need living "sacrificed" persons.
Above all and to make things even clearer : should you used unvolunteer human sacrifices, you would go through the powerful nocebo effect. What a shame to ignore such major bias about medical tests.
Well, it is said "Hell is paved with good intentions", but it's still Hell. Taking away the human dignity from any person is, in my eyes, unforgivable -- and worst than any death or life imprisonment penalties.
Now let' imagine, go to the very end of the reasoning...
Spoiler:
All to say : stop jumping the gun when you have an idea. Before having "ideas", think/reflect a very lot...
1
Maxiart wrote...
Yeah, the death penalty has its uses. If you have no regard for human life, why must others have regard for yours?But then again, instead of death there should be some kind of torture penalty. For some, death is simply too light a sentence...
Ethics
0
Death Penalty?
Heavens no. Death penalty is a thing in the past.
The only reason the death penalty exists because the majority of people feels criminals should be executed, not because it's necessary. It's not rational. I'm not saying criminals have their rights and should have second chance (which they do) but death penalty will have such a negative impact on the society, it will undermine their judgment and tip the balance of justice system.
We need to look into alternative and that alternative is education, we're not animals anymore.
Heavens no. Death penalty is a thing in the past.
The only reason the death penalty exists because the majority of people feels criminals should be executed, not because it's necessary. It's not rational. I'm not saying criminals have their rights and should have second chance (which they do) but death penalty will have such a negative impact on the society, it will undermine their judgment and tip the balance of justice system.
We need to look into alternative and that alternative is education, we're not animals anymore.
0
KozWanderer wrote...
Maxiart wrote...
Yeah, the death penalty has its uses. If you have no regard for human life, why must others have regard for yours?But then again, instead of death there should be some kind of torture penalty. For some, death is simply too light a sentence...
Ethics
Whose ethics ? Yours ? Mine ?
