4/29 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167
I was pro to ambivalent on the death penalty. I happened
across the link below and it makes a compelling argument against
it. Thought I should share. -saarp
\_ Measuring frequencies does not tell you cause and effect. I have
pointed this out many times before. -- ilyas
\_ I understand. However it seems like they have noticed this
same correlation in many places. Overall, I don't think you
can discount their point. -saarp
\_ I understand. However it seems like they have noticed this same
correlation in many places. Overall, I don't think you can
that death penalty does not cause higher crime rates. -- ilyas
discount their point. -saarp
\_ This does not convince me. There are people in this world who
deserves the death penalty and nothing less.
\_ Sure I can. I don't accept these as evidence that death
penalty is not a crime deterrent, because these do not show
that death penalty does not cause higher crime rates. In
fact, it seems quite intuitive that death penalty WOULD
serve as a deterrent, which is all the more reason to look
very carefully at how this data could come to be. -- ilyas
\_ The burden of proof is on those who want to execute
people. Your intuition is irrelevant, especially since
it is contradicted by all kinds of criminology research
about why people do or do not observe the laws (not
just relating to the death penalty).
\_ The burden of proof is on those who want to change
an existing law. You are implying that killing people
is always wrong, which is not a self-evident truth.
If you have some relevant research to share about
why death penalty is in fact not a cause for lower
crime rates, please do speak up, post links, etc.
Saarp's links are interesting, but don't qualify for
reasons I stated already.
-- ilyas
\_ That's funny. I'd have thought the burden of
proof would be on those who want to kill people.
\_ If you feel any killing is wrong, then you can
feel this way without contradiction. Otherwise
no, because killing in self-defense, for
instance, may be ok.
\_ The url that started this whole thread is on
precisely this issue. Maybe you should read it.
And I find it particularly mystifying that someone
who purports to believe in small government would
support such an expensive (not to mention morally
bankrupt) policy, with no evidence that it is
effective, just because it happens to be
"existing law."
\_ I believe in Old Testament morality, for things
like murder, rape of children, and so on.
It is true that the death penalty introduces a
dilemma alluded to below regarding innocents
dying vs guilty going free. Every law student is
quite familiar with it. I don't have a
satisfying argument to it, nor does anyone else.
If you believe no murderer should die for his
crimes, I claim your belief is immoral. If you
disagree, then we have a morality clash, and in
a democracy it is resolved by the majority.
If you don't like democracy, like me, help me
think of something better, otherwise buck up and
live with it. Regarding my libertarianism, I
don't think running prisons really needs to be
as expensive as it is. Also, unlike anarchists,
I am prepared to spend money to maintain human
\_ So on the question of evidence, you reject
copious evidence that the death penalty does
not act as a deterrent because it is not 100%
solid proof, while offering absolutely no
evidence of the contrary. And then you use the
"we're a democracy, so the majority rule"
cop out, which could just as easily be used
to avoid a rational debate of what is sensible
public policy on any other issue as well. I'll
have to remember that one.
rights, including enforcement. -- ilyas
\_ uh, old testament morality? you think we need
stoning? how about splatting goat blood around
and making pleasing barbequeues for the Lord?
\_ If executions were held publicly, I could buy that
the death penalty would seem quite intuitively to be
a deterrent. This is not the case at the moment.
\_ People aren't children. You don't need to see
something in front of your nose for it to be a
deterrent. -- ilyas
\_ Holy shit its saarp back from the dead!!!!111!
\_ Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated. -saarp
\_ Can someone give me a link to the information on how it's more
expensive to execute a prisoner than to keep them for 60 years?
\_ Keeping a prisoner is a small incremental cost added on to a
prison you already are running. Death penalty cases require
tons of extra police and legal work.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7
-tom
\_ It costs about $20k/year per prisoner in a non-death row situation
in CA. I'm guessing it costs more to hold someone on death row
but probably not too much more. If some clown is in prison for
50 years, thats 1 million bucks. It's likely that after multiple
appeals, court costs, etc, that executing someone is more costly.
However, I don't think justice should be based on raw bean counting.
If society has determined that death is the right punishment for
some crime *and* the trial, etc, was fair/just, then execution is
the correct punishment IMHO even if the raw dollar value cost is
higher to do so.
\_ I agree completely!!
\_ what do you say to the dozens of people for whom society
determined that "death is the right punishment," who later
were released from death row when they turned out to be
\_ No system is perfect.
\_ Exactly, and a system where that imperfection results in
innocent people being murdered should be avoided.
innocent? -tom
\_ I do think that some people need to be put down like mad dogs.
I just don't have faith in the system as it stands to try each
case fairly and with the greatest possible scrutiny. It would
help if the prosecution could go for the death penalty but then
have that turned down in favor of life w/o parole if the jury
so decided.
\_ I don't care that much about people who actually commited the
crimes they were convicted of. Executing murderers does not
bother me or give me the warm fuzzies. The problem is that there
is no way to make sure the person you're executing is actually
guilty, so it's inevitable you will execute innocent people. To
me, that is much worse, as it is a premeditated, state-sanctioned
murder. I think it's much better to let a thousand murderers
escape execution than for the state to murder one innocent
person. - dgies
\_ I see your point. To me, the need of the many
outweighs the needs of the few/one. To save the 1 that
may be wrongly executed, we run the risk of letting free
hundreds of committed murders who will not hesitate to
go out and murder more innocent lives. What do you say
to those people who will be killed by those convicted
murderers? Where's their justice? You can say they will
never get out, just like I can say we will never make a
mistake.
\_ Where did I say let them out? They should be sentenced to
life in prison. If they're guilty, they can rot there. If
they're innocent, they can work to exhonorate themselves
and in any case, jailing an innocent person is better than
killing them. -dgies
\_ dgies, you just fell for a classic straw man argument.
\_ Actually, he did a fine job of recognizing it and
disarming it.
\_ I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he might
have misread 'escape execution' as me saying let them
out. -dgies
\_ How about this, if someone tries to kill
you, and you kill him in self defense, it's
considered ok. But, if the person succeeds in
killing you, then too bad, even in the worst
scenario, he will still be able to eat, breath,
walk, and exercise, for the rest of his long
life while you decay into nothingness?
\_ That's right, there are no justice for
those who are dead. We don't care about
them. It's a tough world out there, you
shouldn't get yourself killed in the first
place. And you shouldn't trust the state to
do justice for you either. Don't get
yourself killed.
\_ I haven't read the link but even I'm moving away from
pro-death-penalty. The three reasons I am/was for it are:
1) Convict can't escape/be released from prison if he's dead
2) Family doesn't have to deal with media interviews in prison with
the convice if he's dead.
3) Prosecutors can get more info from defendant on a plea bargain
from death penalty to life in prison.
The poster-child for #1 is Robert Lee Massie. VH1's music behind
bars was part of #2, and there are various examples for #3.
However, with "life without parole" as an option, I can't really be
behind the death penalty anymore (with the exception for
terrorists, oh and mass murderers). -emarkp
\_ Terrorists? What makes them special?
\_ So how do we judge who to apply the death penalty to?
You are saying we abandon death penalty, except when we are
really pissed about someone, we make an exception. This is
not law, its lawlessness. If you support this, then you
actually do support the death penalty.
\_ Yeah, you're right. I guess I still support it. -emarkp
\_ I used to be 100% anti-death penalty, but I have decided
that in extreme cases where the very existence of the person
threatens civil order, I am for it. Saddam Hussein being a good
example. Pol Pot, if he had been captured alive would have
been another. I admire the Peruvians for not executing Guzman,
but I think they should have. -anon motd liberal
\_ Liberals are scary. -- ilyas
\_ WATCH OUT ILYAS, THE LIBUHRULS ARE COMING TO DRAG YOU BACK
TO SOVIET RUSSIA! FLEE, DOGGY, FLEE!
\_ How does Saddam's existence threaten Civil Order? That's a
pretty tenuous contention.
\_ Too many people want to kill him.
\_ I think he was talking about GWB
\_ I think it's a good policy. ML King threatened civil
order. So does Kerry, in a way. I think things would
be much more orderly under fascism. |
http://csua.com/feed/