This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

We need capital punishment back.

Scroll to see replies

I love how my post showing that capital punishment clearly isn't a very good deterrant has been ignored now... There is a clear correlation where the 10 countries with the lowest intentional homicide rates almost all have no capital punishment.

Reply 121

The Marshall

Since this country suffers crime every day, give me an alternate view of how it could be lessened down in this country.

Reply 122

Armaghgeddon1988

Disagree comletely.

Just because we are on the side of the angels, dosen't mean we should use the methods of the devil.

I do think that those who are able and in prison should have to do hard labour and pay their way in prison. They get everything easy and they are a drain on the economy.

Reply 123

Emaemmaemily

Sure, post them up if you know where they are. The whole deterrent thing is just clearly wrong.

Reply 124

stefl14

Original post by The Marshall

What you are basically saying is crime should be needed. That way, we get more police! Who asked you idiot? The death penalty didn't drain anything back if you look at it in history. Economics only have a small role in providing the system. Thats it.

The OP said that his reason for wanting the death penalty is that it would save the government money, thus it should be used. I was simply saying that this is mostly wrong, which it is. The death penalty probably didn't lose the government any money, but it certainly hasn't saved us any substantial amount in the past either. I'm not saying that crime is needed at all, I'm just pointing out that implementing the death penalty wouldn't make an economic difference. I don't know why that isn't clear. Obviously I agree that the world would be a better place without crime and not once have I said it is needed and my arguments were not supposed to give the impression that I think it is needed. You have misinterpreted my points.

Reply 125

DorianGrayism

Original post by Sabertooth

See my previous post.

Personally, without having read that one in particular, I would be unable to comment in detail. However, I gave it a brief look and note that they haven't actually given details of what they changed, they haven't included the econometric methods or any details at all. :dontknow:

That is not a published paper, I've concentrated my research on papers which are actually peer reviewed and published not someone's brief notes which do, I should add, say: "Their evidence does not prove that the death penalty is no added deterrent to murder, nor could it. It does show, I believe, that any "deterrent" effect is very small in magnitude, and it might go in either direction." It also uses articles entirely from the 80's, which is why I think you should read the Dezhbakhsh study as it uses more modern techniques of analysis.

Great find. :congrats:

I have read all your posts. I don't know what you want me to look at.

As I said, they used the same model as Ehrlich but applied it to a different time period. I am sure you know of the other critic's of his work like in the Yale Law Journal. So what is wrong with them?

I didn't say that there was no deterrent effect to the Death Penalty. I was questioning you specifically on a paper that you used to support your point.

Reply 126

Mister Dead

If there is one thing that I have learned the hard way, it's that you'll rarely change the mind of someone that wants to see the death penalty re-introduced as a deterrent. Even in the face of evidence that it is economically wasteful and unsound as a deterrent, they plough on with the same argument. I've come to the conclusion that mostly they simply cannot avoid anger and to some degree, sadism, from contaminating their thinking. What other conclusion can you draw.

Reply 127

321zero

The state killing people to show the public that killing is immoral.

I'll have packed my bags and left long before that goes through the HOC.

Reply 128

LittleBunny

Original post by dj1015

I was against it until very recently for many of the same reasons most people oppose it. But it is time for a serious rethink in the UK. The justice system as well all know is soft on crime, and 30 years for murder is not enough.

These people are sick individuals. If an animal is sick and we cant afford the vet bills, its get put down. Time to apply the same logic to these terrible people.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1584745_stockport-headless-body-trial-anthony-and-joseph-jenkins-jailed-for-life-for-murder-of-john-grainger

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9431941/Kiaran-Stapleton-jailed-for-30-years-for-murdering-student.html

I am not in favour of it because I think it will deter people from committing terrible crimes, because it wont. I am not in favour of it because it I believe in the eye for and eye theory. I am looking at this from the economics of the situation.

If capital punishment can be brought back. It could be introduced in a manner that is quick, and cost efficient to the British tax payer. No need for mutlipul costly appeals as one is enough, and only a short stay on death row. Thus saving money on the cost of a whole life sentence. Humane methods could also be used such as Nitrogen asphyxiation.

If you’re going to cite a few individual cases of ‘terrible people’ who deserve to be ‘put down’ it’s just as easy to list those who were sentenced to death over the years for crimes they didn’t commit: from Amy Duny and Rose Cullender to Kennedy Brewer and Michael Blair. The justice system has never been 100% infallible and never will be, especially if ‘costly appeals’ are to be scrapped.

But the idea of operating a justice system from a purely economic perspective is ridiculous. We simply cannot scrap appeals for being too costly, it’s as silly as suggesting we halve jury size to lower court costs, or hire lesser qualified magistrates willing to accept lower wages.

To parallel this to saving money on veterinary bills is just as bizarre. If we take ‘sick’ in the literal sense, are you suggesting we ‘put down’ cancer patients for being uneconomically viable, or disabled people unable to directly contribute to the economy? Because really those who commit these crimes are just a product of their own mental make-up (take the case of Charles Whitman, for example, should he be considered culpable, or just quite literally ‘sick’?). I would argue that to commit such a heinous crime there must be something wrong with the make-up of the person, whether that be in the genes they inherited (an additional Y chromosome, an inability to relate to others due to inhibition in the brain, e.g.) or because of issues in development (parental problems, bullying as a child, e.g.). None of which the accused can control. So, to me, in any civilised society, the justice system should be focused on rehabilitation and reintegration, rather than on retribution and retaliation, which capital punishment simply does not allow for.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 129

greatmonte

Original post by dj1015

My favorite thing (in a sad way) about your post is your major quip with the installation of capital punishment is not ensuring justice is carried out correctly but cost efficiency for tax payers. With you being willing to take away apeals to save money (which could save the life of a wrongly accused innocent. As long as the people who speak out for capital punishment are that as retarded as yours truly ill refuse to take its proposal seriously.

Reply 130

The Marshall

You know , in Iraq, Baghdad was one of the most safest cities, and you know why? Because everyone was scared of the prisons.

Reply 131

Mister Dead

Original post by The Marshall

You know , in Iraq, Baghdad was one of the most safest cities, and you know why? Because everyone was scared of the prisons.

Iraq there, with their unquestionably reliable crime stats

lol

Reply 132

philistine

I agree. I would further advocate the spectation of said executions, preferably in the middle of Grassmarket or facsimile arena.

Reply 133

Silkysam

Original post by Sabertooth

A good number of US studies show that capital punishment does have a deterrent effect so I'm not sure why you would discount that argument from the start.

As for executing an innocent person, you could set the bar higher than the US. But also, let's use Ehrlich's study, by executing 10 guilty people you've saved 80 lives. You then execute 1 innocent person, well that's too bad but you're still 79 innocent lives up. :dontknow:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

And in case you accuse that of being biased here's the USA census info: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf
And the states without the death penalty are:
Alaska
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
North Dakota
Rhode Island
Vermont
West Virginia
Wisconsin
(New Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2009 and the next year saw a drop in the homicide rate of 3)

You look at the information yourself and decide if the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

We shouldn't even be talking about whether the death penalty is a deterrent anyway, what give's us the right to take the life of someone (even if they have taken a life of another)?

Original post by gazzagoalie

Also, think about this; if someone murdered a member of your family, would you be happy to pay for them to have a warm comfortable bed, 3 hot meals a day, sculpture lessons or whatever else they do in prison? Would you be happy to then pay for them to recieve every benefit under the sun when they are released after 10 years?

I would definatly want to pay for them to be rehabilitated (and certainly wouldn't want them to be put to death, infact I wouldn't prosecute if I knew thet were going to be put to death at the end of it). I would like to see every possible effort taken to re-educate the inmate and hopefully by the end of it he/she could become a functioning member of society.

Reply 134

The Marshall

Aggressiveness, aggressiveness, and yet aggressiveness. More than that, I would call this bullying.

Let me give you an example of a nation- India.

Corrupt Police force- bribed by the Ministers and Government,

Nasty Prisons- seriously? Yes.

Hell, no one wants to go into an Indian prison. I'll tell you this. You ever go in there? No, I don't think so.

Reply 135

Mister Dead

Original post by The Marshall

I don't want to go to any prison, so explain that please.

lol

You have no evidence and just keep trotting out anecdotes without support, so you don't have a leg to stand on. Give up and stop embarassing yourself. Everyone can see what you are doing and sticking your fingers in your ears and going NANANANANANANANANANANANANANNANANANAN doesn't make it any less so.

EVERYONE CAN SEE YOU HAVE NOTHING and your attempt to suggest the poster is aggresive or bullying for picking the faults in your (non existent) reasoning is hilarious and makes me thing you might acutally be unwell or something. Seriously, are you ok?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 136

The Marshall

Original post by Mister Dead

So far, you've been dancing in front of me.

Reply 137

Mister Dead

Original post by The Marshall

So far, you've been dancing in front of me.

Is this what you have reduced yourself to

Why don't you stand your ground. NYU2012 is asking you to provide evidence that what you claim is true. You have skirted around this.

Reply 138

Carter78

Original post by The Marshall

So far, you've been dancing in front of me.

You're convincing no one, the other posters here are very measured and methodical in their arguments. What stats are you prepared to bring to the table here?

If you are for the death penalty then you should also feel happy to carry out the sentence yourself.

Reply 139

Carter78

Original post by Mister Dead

Why don't you stand your ground. NYU2012 is asking you to provide evidence that what you claim is true. You have skirted around this.

It might be rude to point out, but this Marshall character is a cohort of ChristianLady. I'm not out to start a witch-hunt, but there is an alarmingly similarity in their approach to debate.