How would you cope if your son was due to be executed by lethal injection?

No, they don't prevent people from offending in the first place. That is not the role of the justice system. Preventing people from offending in the first place is of critical importance, much more important than reforming the justice system. The problem, obviously, is that it's incredibly difficult to do. As long as you've got a society with a significant rich-poor divide, you're going to have this alienated sub-group within your society. The issue is that as long as we've got a capitalist system, nothing is going to change regarding this. Additionally, as we can see in this thread, there are a lot of people who are convinced that all criminals are 100% responsible for their actions because they're too arrogant and unemphatic to understand what it's like to be destitute.

Why do you think it is not the role of the justice system to prevent (or at least deter) people from offending in the first place, when you say that it is of critical importance to do so? Whose role is it?

I agree that society has an alienated sub-group that is more inclined towards criminal activity, whether it's because they're uneducated or destitute etc. But don't you think it is a positive thing, if such people were deterred from committing crimes by the high risk to themselves that it would bring (knowing that not everyone will be responsive to education geared towards abiding by the law)?

But as I've said already, there is no evidence that terrible punishments prohibit people. Yes, it might prohibit the tiny minority who are educated, but the vast majority who already have a terrible life will not be particularly intimidated by the threat of death.

The US has the death penalty and they have one of the highest violent crime rates in the developed world.

Which option would you say is more humane though? It's a question I struggle with. I certainly know that I would rather be killed on the spot than sent to prison for the literal rest of my life. I think I would even prefer to be killed as an innocent person (miscarriage of justice) than be sent to prison for years as an innocent prisoner.

If you're alive there's always hope though, plus people can still make lives for themselves inside of prison. ..

Posted from TSR Mobile

Personally I'd disagree with this. Other than people who are for some reason suicidal, the risk of death is a major factor in putting people off certain types of activity. Of the people you mentioned who have a terrible life, a lot of them are willing to commit crimes, far fewer are willing to jump off tall buildings. People seek to do what is advantageous rather than disadvantageous to themselves.



One could just as easily point out that Japan uses the death penalty, and Mexico doesn't. Mexico has significantly higher rates of violent crime than Japan.

Statements like this don't really say very much in themselves. It's potentially a bit like saying "hospitals are full of doctors, yet they have the highest concentration of sick people than anywhere else", in an attempt to suggest that doctors are ineffective, when the reality is that without doctors, those people would be even more sick than they are now. Perhaps the US would also have an even higher rate of violent crime if it abolished the death penalty?

In order to have a fair illustration of whether or not the death penalty is an effective deterrent, you need to compare like with like - e.g. a country immediately before and immediately after it introduces/abolishes the death penalty. This shows the effect of the death penalty, all other things being equal (as far as possible).

Come on, there is no hope if you're in without possibility of parole. And involuntary custody is no life.

You clearly haven't seen the Shawshank Redemption.

Come on, there is no hope if you're in without possibility of parole. And involuntary custody is no life.

I'd rather have a life, no matter how minute, than none.

I do however think they should be allowed to top themselves if they want.

There should always be possibility of parole/reviw and what if the person is innocent better be in for 5 years then evidence found that you are than be dead for a crime you didn't commit.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You clearly haven't seen the Shawshank Redemption.

While is it certainly not conclusive, the high violence rate in the USA does highlight that the death penalty may not be a great deterrent.

You have said that you think it is, but have not given evidence for it being so.

I don't think it highlights this in any way at all. As I said earlier - if it does highlight this, then what is indicated by the fact that Japan uses the death penalty, Mexico doesn't but violent crime rates are significantly higher than Mexico?

Not only are statements like these inconclusive, they're not even indicative of the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. They provide no way of deciding whether the US's violent crime rate is as low as it is due to the death penalty, or as high as it is in spite of it.

My reason for believing that the death penalty is a deterrent (just how effective, I don't know), isn't based on some set of statistics I've seen or anything like that. As I said earlier, it's just based on what we know of human nature - namely that people tend to seek to benefit rather than harm themselves, and that people tend not to want to die. The risk of death is an effective deterrent against lots of things, so why should it not be for crimes?

My reason for believing that the death penalty is a deterrent (just how effective, I don't know), isn't based on some set of statistics I've seen or anything like that. As I said earlier, it's just based on what we know of human nature - namely that people tend to seek to benefit rather than harm themselves, and that people tend not to want to die. The risk of death is an effective deterrent against lots of things, so why should it not be for crimes?

What about if that person who is on death row killed someone? How do you think the victim's mother felt when her child died?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Why does that matter? It's too late to save the victim. It's not as if killing the murderer will get that person back.

no but I imagine that a lot of parents would want to avenge their child's death.

There is no evidence to suggest that killing the murderer makes the family feel any better.

And don't you think it's a bit extreme to kill someone to make a few people feel better about something that happened years ago?