I don't think it's a great deterrent and it's certainly not the best of rehabilitative schemes so the death penalty only really serves as a method of retribution. Which achieves nothing.
But it is a handy little money-saver.
Printable View
I don't think it's a great deterrent and it's certainly not the best of rehabilitative schemes so the death penalty only really serves as a method of retribution. Which achieves nothing.
But it is a handy little money-saver.
So if you realized committing a bad crime could get you the death penalty you wouldn't reconsider not killing? of course it acts as a great deterrent, slightly distorted views IMHO...Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
And yes it does achieve something, Probably reduce crime if applied enough.
“Undoubtedly lower crime levels”
When Death penalty was a deterrent: middle Ages, 18th or 19th Century? Were these period exempt of violence? Err. No, there were in fact the most violent periods in term of civil unrests. But they were hanging, decapitating, killing by thousand, on public places, exhibiting heads on piques, gathering thousands to watch the blood, and still, people were robbed, tortured for their money, attacked on the roads…
“A deterrent to other criminals”
Husband finds his wife with his best friend in bed in position which doesn’t allowed reasonable doubts: kill them both. Death penalty wasn’t a deterrent because act was done on impulse…
Paedophile/psycho adducts young boys and girls, rape them and kill them. It is part of a monster within him/her. Death penalty wasn’t a deterrent because act was done with force he/she can’t control.
Contract killer execute 300 men and women. Part of the plan was to escape the police. So death penalty wasn’t a deterrent,
“Saves money - Money can be reinvested in law system to improve it”
Does it save money?
If you look at the number of murders and killing, you will find that just a little number are in fact punishable by Death.
So, only if you are willing to extend the kind of cases punishable by death in order to make some profit, you will have to increase the case of misconduct of justice, or just kill people for what they’ve done, regardless of circumstances, mental or reason why.
So doesn’t save money.
“Justice for the Victim & Family, revenge”:
Depend of the victims, of course. To kill the paedophile will give what justice to the kids exactly? Please develop, as would have said my teachers…
Family Revenge: No doubts for this one. Provided of course that Blood feud is the kind of justice you would endorse in case of mistake…
“Lessens risk to the public & criminals escaping.”
Criminals will kill more in order to cover any tracks, and won’t surrender when chased by police. Kill hostages because they’re already dead anyway…
“Possibly seen as a mercy, relieving someone from countless years behind bars.” That is only if they’ve got the choice. But all the “pro-life” (anti-abortion) movement will demonstrate against this option.:beam:
“Case closed”: You were too hasty in this case…:smash:
-This isn't the 18th century, sorry to burden you with that. Media ensures knowledge with what happens in the world as a whole, it wasn't a deterrent because most criminals back then were criminals because they were desperate for food, they were punishable for much lesser crimes than I'm talking about. There is never a poverty crisis (poor but not homeless) in all major countries as there is always somewhere you can be accommodated, which is often at the core of crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
-Comparing serious crime with various irrelevant remarks, the the ones having an affair are killed for having an affair, then yes it would still be a deterrent to others obviously not for the ones murdered, but if they committed the act they deserve it, and I'm talking about killing which just so happens to be more serious than relationships. Using pedophiles and saying they can't control themselves is ridiculous & rather sickening if you can pass them off for what they do.
-What!? Why would killing someone mean having to kill loads of people to save money? Why so dramatic? If someone is killed straight off it saves all there upkeep whilst behind bars, but that is only applicable for terrible criminals, it just means it saves small amounts of money instead of giant amounts, either way it does save money in some proportion, simple as.
-Justice to everyone but the criminals victims, nothing can be done about the victims, but it is a justice for there victims in a way with the thought that there nightmares, there killers or injurers etc. have been removed, if a victim can watch from above after life, then who knows they could see it as a justice, I would.
-Or not be so brash in the first place, only massively skilled criminals could survive doing this leading to dwindling numbers of them.
-Don't follow, though I guess behind bars might be better seeing as they get more money spent on their meals than school children, they get xbox's too, soon prisoners will get ferrari F40's because there will be complaints prison life got boring.
-Case double closed?
Also the backroom intimidates me, I'm leaving before some rugby tackles me.
the latter two examples are precisely why i do support the death penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
i am not looking to rehabilitate them into society, i want to permanently remove them from society.
the first example is why you treat the ultimate sanction with care and responsibility, and certain not apply blanket verdicts against all examples of certain crimes.
Exactly :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
There has been studies down which shows no correlation among the death penalty and a decline in murder rates. I don't remember the name of the major study done but if you can find similar studies with Google.Quote:
-This isn't the 18th century, sorry to burden you with that. Media ensures knowledge with what happens in the world as a whole, it wasn't a deterrent because most criminals back then were criminals because they were desperate for food, they were punishable for much lesser crimes than I'm talking about. There is never a poverty crisis (poor but not homeless) in all major countries as there is always somewhere you can be accommodated, which is often at the core of crime.
I don't belive that his point was to justify the pedophiles act, but rather to state that they are beyond logic in their thought process.Quote:
-Comparing serious crime with various irrelevant remarks, the the ones having an affair are killed for having an affair, then yes it would still be a deterrent to others obviously not for the ones murdered, but if they committed the act they deserve it, and I'm talking about killing which just so happens to be more serious than relationships. Using pedophiles and saying they can't control themselves is ridiculous & rather sickening if you can pass them off for what they do.
.Quote:
-What!? Why would killing someone mean having to kill loads of people to save money? Why so dramatic? If someone is killed straight off it saves all there upkeep whilst behind bars, but that is only applicable for terrible criminals, it just means it saves small amounts of money instead of giant amounts, either way it does save money in some proportion, simple as
In the U.S. it's more expensive to execute someone then to imprison them. Furthermore, cost shouldn't be a factor when we're arguing about fundamental rights. We can save a ton of money by not having a police force, but at the same time we wouldn't be safe.
I won't say much on this besides that I disagree. Revenge is not justice, but if you think it is that's your right.Quote:
-Justice to everyone but the criminals victims, nothing can be done about the victims, but it is a justice for there victims in a way with the thought that there nightmares, there killers or injurers etc. have been removed, if a victim can watch from above after life, then who knows they could see it as a justice, I would.
Eugenics is a slippery slope which we shouldn't touch. It's a slippery slope which promotes social darwinism and injustice. Besides, life in prison already establishes this.Quote:
-Or not be so brash in the first place, only massively skilled criminals could survive doing this leading to dwindling numbers of them.
It's odd that we appear to be very happy to enact reverse darwinism on society - helping those that are genetically weaker live longer, and even reverse eugenics - throwing money at the "socially disadvantaged" so they can continue to have larger families earlier than their richer, cleverer peers. These are already massive injustices, but for some reason are socially acceptable.
It does cost more to execute than inprison in America. So what? That is the failings of the system. Compare the costs in China for example.
~:smoking:
So should we imprison them then? It's just a different form of punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
“This isn't the 18th century, sorry to burden you with that”: Er, irrelevant for the purpose to show that Death Penalty is a deterrent or not. The past centuries with heavy death sentences (even for collecting dead wood in forests) show as it is not.
“Using paedophiles and saying they can't control themselves is ridiculous & rather sickening if you can pass them off for what they do.” Two things: mad persons can’t control their impulse (and that why they have to be follow even after jail or psychiatric units. You don’t do that with “ordinary” criminals.), so dismissing this as ridiculous is not good enough.
I don’t intend to “pass off” for what they do, I just pointed out that in case Death penalty is not a deterrent as they have no choice in their madness.
“The ones having an affair are killed for having an affair, then yes it would still be a deterrent to others”: Er, do you means the killed lovers are a deterrent for the others who want to have an affair?
And no, it doesn’t work. Still a lot of people are engaged in affair…
“Why would killing someone mean having to kill loads of people to save money”; Er, it is one of your point in favour of Death Penalty. But due to the little percentage of people de facto due to die, if you want to save money you have to kill more people than the few hundred per years… Simple maths…
“Justice to everyone but the criminals victims, nothing can be done about the victims, but it is a justice for there victims in a way with the thought that there nightmares, there killers or injurers etc. have been removed, if a victim can watch from above after life, then who knows they could see it as a justice, I would.” Well, I do agree on your first point. The reparation of the victims is one part missing in the actual system.
However revenge is not justice.
Does a drunken driver should be executed if the survivors want his head because he killed one of their loved ones? According to this line of thought he should…
“they get more money spent on their meals than school children, they get xbox's too, soon prisoners will get ferrari F40's because there will be complaints prison life got boring.”
That is because politicians know they won’t go back to school but they are not sure about jail…:beam:
Joke apart, the sentence is privation of freedom, not something else. You can give me all the X boxes of the world I won’t like to be en cage.
The fact is my sister did work in jail as a nurse when temping. If your idea of 5 people in a cell on 4 or 5 square meter is your idea of paradise!!!!
“Case double closed?” Not at all. You answered to none of the objections:
Death Penalty is not a deterrent, doesn’t save money, give justice to families.
I have answered your objections, not to your liking clearly, but I have answered them.
The reason I don't visit the backroom often is because I'll only get involved in something that will not convince the opposite party, no matter how right it is in my own eyes.
So even if the thread isn't closed, your conversation with me is ~;)
Tell me about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thermal Mercury
heheQuote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
:balloon:
(you don't actually want me too do you? :grin: )
Yes, the point was that the death penalty will not do anything to prevent murders in someone who doesn't care about the consequences of their actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
“I have answered your objections, not to your liking clearly, but I have answered them.” Nope. You just added sentences not answering your own points.
“So even if the thread isn't closed, your conversation with me is”. Fair enough.:2thumbsup:
“no matter how right it is in my own eyes.” Frustrating, I know.:beam:
I get frustrated with the Backroom when I don't read anything new, or interesting. Or when two sides shout the same old rehashed points over the fence to one another. :snore:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thermal Mercury
In all other cases, a poster always succeeds in changing my mind. Not by me doing a 180 degree u-turn, but by enriching my knowledge, by questioning what I know, by providing new perspectives, by insight into the thoughts of others, etcetera.
Consequently, even when I state that '2+2=4, case closed!' I would be very disappointed if people would accept that as case/thread closed. (For a start, two and two really does not equal four, but that's for another thread...)
It shouldn't! :grouphug:Quote:
Also the backroom intimidates me
Just follow the three habits of Highly Succesful Posters:
- don't debate with imbeciles. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you from experience. :wall:
- don't challenge Brenus in matters of history. :skull:
- have a laff. It's just a smoke-filled backroom where a few pompous pisses bluff at one another. Gentlemen of all ages have spend their evenings playing a few games, followed by a retreat to the backroom to discuss world politics while enjoying a good cognac and cigar. :beam:
nvm
Ha! The goal isn't to convince the other person, it's to win the argument. If anyone says anything you don't know how to respond to, just say: "But that begs the question!" No one knows what that means, so you win. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thermal Mercury
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Thank you for your points sasaki and Louis the...fat...
:yes: