Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    If you read the literature (I provided a handy list a few pages back), or even read the Shepherd study Christocracy is talking about, you would see that there needs to be a threshold level of executions before the deterrent effect kicks in. Your graph completely ignores that. I mean what's the point in a death penalty if you're going to execute 1 person in 40 years? Clearly it's not going to have a deterrent effect if you're not going to use it.

    Moreover, what's to say Texas wouldn't have an even higher murder rate without the death penalty?
    How does this even work?

    Also, what happens if you can't reach the threshold level for any number of reasons? You end up with a brutalisation effect that does more harm than good.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    If you read the literature (I provided a handy list a few pages back), or even read the Shepherd study Christocracy is talking about, you would see that there needs to be a threshold level of executions before the deterrent effect kicks in. Your graph completely ignores that. I mean what's the point in a death penalty if you're going to execute 1 person in 40 years? Clearly it's not going to have a deterrent effect if you're not going to use it.

    Moreover, what's to say Texas wouldn't have an even higher murder rate without the death penalty?
    I'm sure Hudud amputation has proven to be a nifty deterrent for theft in Saudi Arabia too. That doesn't mean we should do it tho!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    How does this even work?

    Also, what happens if you can't reach the threshold level for any number of reasons? You end up with a brutalisation effect that does more harm than good.
    It makes sense if you think about it. How can something act as a deterrent if it only rarely happens? Potential murderers would simply think that it's unlikely they'd ever be executed.

    If a state finds that it really can't execute the threshold number I would say it should take the option of capital punishment off the table.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    I'm sure Hudud amputation has proven to be a nifty deterrent for theft in Saudi Arabia too. That doesn't mean we should do it tho!
    So we've switched from "it's not a deterrent" to "we still shouldn't do it"?

    Is this an admission that you were wrong in your assertions? Boy I didn't expect that one; usually people just disappear when proved wrong.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    How does this even work?

    Also, what happens if you can't reach the threshold level for any number of reasons? You end up with a brutalisation effect that does more harm than good.
    look at my previous post; I have just explained why this threshold is ridiculously easy to meet
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    It makes sense if you think about it. How can something act as a deterrent if it only rarely happens? Potential murderers would simply think that it's unlikely they'd ever be executed.

    If a state finds that it really can't execute the threshold number I would say it should take the option of capital punishment off the table.
    I doubt potential murderers keep count of the number of murderers who have been executed in their state. Most of these murderers would not be familiar with the intricate workings of the judicial system; how would they know they wouldn't be executed?

    Even if the point about threshold number is assumed to be valid, the burden of proof required for a death penalty conviction would be so high, it would be very difficult to maintain the execution count consistently across the states.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    look at my previous post; I have just explained why this threshold is ridiculously easy to meet
    If it's so ridiculously easy to meet, why was it not met in those states, where the brutalisation effect was observed instead?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I doubt potential murderers keep count of the number of murderers who have been executed in their state. Most of these murderers would not be familiar with the intricate workings of the judicial system; how would they know they wouldn't be executed?

    Even if the point about threshold number is assumed to be valid, the burden of proof required for a death penalty conviction would be so high, it would be very difficult to maintain the execution count consistently across the states.
    I imagine most Americans have some idea about people getting executed even if it's very rough. The media is generally quite good at reporting.

    If you read christocracy's posts giving number of death row etc, you would see it's pretty easy to meet this threshold with the current process.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I doubt potential murderers keep count of the number of murderers who have been executed in their state. Most of these murderers would not be familiar with the intricate workings of the judicial system; how would they know they wouldn't be executed?

    Even if the point about threshold number is assumed to be valid, the burden of proof required for a death penalty conviction would be so high, it would be very difficult to maintain the execution count consistently. across the states.
    It will. You vastly underestimate the number of prisoners on life terms ( some 160,000 ) and the threshold required (only some 200+).

    This just means that as long as 0.1-0.3% of convictions were safe, the threshold is met
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    So we've switched from "it's not a deterrent" to "we still shouldn't do it"?

    Is this an admission that you were wrong in your assertions? Boy I didn't expect that one; usually people just disappear when proved wrong.
    If you actually read my 1st few posts, my stance was always "we shouldn't do it"

    So, pumpkin. Seeing as amputation is apparently a successful deterrent for theft, do you think we should incorporate that into our legislation? Deterrence at all costs right!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    If it's so ridiculously easy to meet, why was it not met in those states, where the brutalisation effect was observed instead?
    Because those states execute less than 100, due to political heckling and interferences from pro-lifers, such as yourself. Unfortunately, most people, as evidenced by the responses here, are very passionate about the issue but really lack knowledge about it. Sadly, politics reflect this and hence the very sad outcomes we have
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    If you actually read my 1st few posts, my stance was always "we shouldn't do it"

    So, pumpkin. Seeing as amputation is apparently a successful deterrent for theft, do you think we should incorporate that into our legislation? Deterrence at all costs right!
    Theft is a property offense. Amputation is a violent punishment. This is what you call disproportionate.

    Killing a murderer is at worst an eye for an eye. It is not disproportionate. It is an equal trade.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sabertooth)
    I imagine most Americans have some idea about people getting executed even if it's very rough. The media is generally quite good at reporting.

    If you read christocracy's posts giving number of death row etc, you would see it's pretty easy to meet this threshold with the current process.
    Are executions really reported in a manner such that everyone in the whole damn state would know about them?

    Okay, I'll take a look at those numbers.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    If you actually read my 1st few posts, my stance was always "we shouldn't do it"

    So, pumpkin. Seeing as amputation is apparently a successful deterrent for theft, do you think we should incorporate that into our legislation? Deterrence at all costs right!
    Theft is clearly not as serious as murder, it doesn't have the same effect on the community; it would be totally disproportionate. However, I do support some three strikes laws so, yes, I guess you could say I support deterrence measures for some thefts too.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    Theft is a property offense. Amputation is a violent punishment. This is what you call disproportionate.

    Killing a murderer is at worst an eye for an eye. It is not disproportionate. It is an equal trade.
    An eye for an eye and the world will go blind right? You call it "equal trade". But let's just call it what it is - Revenge. Stolen property can be returned, you can not restore life by taking another. Thieves can be rehabilitated, you can not rehabilitate someone by executing them. And if an innocent person is excecuted, you can not restore that life either. Countries with these brutal governments are some the most ugly places to live in. Meanwhile people are a lot happier and safer in countries like Switerzerland with less bloodthirsty castigating doctrine, other societies should follow their lead!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    It will. You vastly underestimate the number of prisoners on life terms ( some 160,000 ) and the threshold required (only some 200+).

    This just means that as long as 0.1-0.3% of convictions were safe, the threshold is met
    Well technically, only 64% of those sentenced to life in prison were convicted of homicide, but that's a minor point. I still think there must be more to this deterrent effect than a mere threshold.

    What factors, if any, affect the threshold figure? Why is 200, as opposed to something else?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    Because you can definitely definitely conclude that from someone who identifies as a muslim.

    Besides, doesn't that lower your thinking to that of someone willing to permanently maim hundreds of people. Also, was it necessarily jihad?

    You keep getting better and better to be honest.
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    You aren't being serious, are you?
    (Original post by Gunnarsunn)
    Firstly an appeal will be made completely void by the Supreme Court of Justice. Those who tend to be acquitted are minor criminals who commit assault, not 4 counts of 1st degree murder with the intent to cause extra harm and the destruction through means of treason and terrorism. He will not be let out on parole, it is not reasonably proportionate and within the bounds of judicial sentencing for such a thing to occur. I do not think 'good behavior' will let him leave, after what he just did.

    He has not mitigated his action at all, little remorse and in fact he had been a terror suspect and listed by the FBI prior to the bombings, this aggravates it. Due to factors such as populist demands and correlation and proportionality of sentencing; his death sentence cannot be repealed to a life sentence, an appeal will not be allowed due to the severity and seriousness of the act which he has caused - legally speaking it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' that he has committed such an offence.
    Ok.
    Here's the thing, guys:

    I don't give a **** about the guy or Islam or his death sentence or the death sentence, at all, for that matter. Thanks anyway for the comments
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    Theft is a property offense. Amputation is a violent punishment. This is what you call disproportionate.

    Killing a murderer is at worst an eye for an eye. It is not disproportionate. It is an equal trade.
    There ya go :yy:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    An eye for an eye and the world will go blind right? You call it "equal trade". But let's just call it what it is - Revenge. Stolen property can be returned, you can not restore life by taking another. Thieves can be rehabilitated, you can not rehabilitate someone by executing them. And if an innocent person is excecuted, you can not restore that life either. Countries with these brutal governments are some the most ugly places to live in. Meanwhile people are a lot happier and safer in countries like Switerzerland with less bloodthirsty castigating doctrine, other societies should follow their lead!
    No, because:

    1) Not everybody goes around poking others in the eye. Not many do it. In fact, people who do poke others in the eye number as a very small minority. So if I do blind them, the whole world hardly goes blind.

    2)Not all stolen property can be returned. What if a thief steals a priceless Rembrandt and irreparably damages it in the process?

    Also, it is true that taking a life does not return one, but this in itself is insufficient reason not to impose it. Imprisoning a kidnapper will not make up the time a kidnapped victim loses while being kidnapped; yet it is perfectly just to imprison the kidnapper and take away his time. Ticketing a person speeding also does not make him 'unspeed' as you cannot go back in time to reverse his act of speeding, but we fine him for it nontheless.

    3) Luckily for me and unluckily for you, the case study of Singapore exists.

    Singapore is a country with extremely harsh punishments, bordering on what some consider brutal. It is also a strong advocate of capital punishment. Yet, Singapore consistently ranks #1 in overall safety, as well as personal safety. Some studies might rank is as #2, but it has always fallen within the #3, usually #1.

    So what you just said is factually inaccurate.

    However, it is also true that most european countries are safe without capital punishment, but here you are, missing the point again. The point is not that capital punishment is a must to keep states safe. The point is that capital punishment keeps states even safer.

    To draw an example: A state without capital punishment has 1 case of homicide for 500,000 citizens (very good)
    But a state with capital punishment has only 1 case for every 5,000,000 citizens.

    This is an extreme example, but it makes the point perfectly: in the state with capital punishment, 9 more lives are saved, despite them both being very safe countries.

    To compare US and Singapore, US is a case where implementation of a good thing (capital punishment) is badly done: needlessly long and complicated appeals, executions happening below the brutalization threshold-thereby causing all the problems Professor Shepard has listed.

    Singapore however, is the perfect example of capital punishment done right - a very efficient yet just criminal system, with executions well above the brutalization threshold.

    End result? Extremely low crime, extremely low rates of miscarriages of justice (one of the lowest in the world)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Well technically, only 64% of those sentenced to life in prison were convicted of homicide, but that's a minor point. I still think there must be more to this deterrent effect than a mere threshold.

    What factors, if any, affect the threshold figure? Why is 200, as opposed to something else?

    That is just a statistical finding, and Im afraid I cannot offer more on that point. But the logic is rather simple-if the execution rate is too low, then people will murder anyway as they believe they would not get caught, or that if they do, they would escape the death penalty. Or, they might be encouraged to murder as they view state-sanctioned killings as an implicit acknowledgement that murder is a solution.


    Thus, there rate of executions must be sufficiently high as to strike fear into the hearts of potential criminals; so much so that they reconsider their plans to murder. Statistically, this amount just happens to land in the region of 200-300. Perhaps it is because this rate averages out to be 1 or 2 such reports every other day (thus keeping the ultimate penalty fresh in the minds of criminals?)
 
 
 

3,162

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.