why not death penalty?

**Busyman** · 04-12-2005, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by bigboab

The wrath of God is not a deterrent to murder. But the promise of the wrath of God is.

IMO if you compared 1 million god fearing, religious people with 1 million non-religious people(Excluding fanatics from both sides) I think the murder rate would be higher in the secular million.

I think this would be extremely difficult to prove or disprove.

You can't prove everything with stats, especially with that method.

Just think about it. It's very simple.

Does the threat of punishment deter crime? Can it?

Of course.

If I tell someone that they won't get a speeding ticket for driving too fast, hmmm they juuuuust might speed.

Some may do it even with this threat of punishment. Those people aren't deterred.

Up the fine (like what's being done in a certain corridor in Virginia) and more may be deterred. (they have up to a $2000 fine due to too many accident on a certain stretch of highway).

**MCHeshPants420** · 04-12-2005, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Busyman

Whts teh sgnificance fo yrsou?

Shit you aren't even the person that was being asked?

Bandwagoning...

Seems like you are dense.

I was just reading the thread and wondering what you were going on about*, surely I'm allowed to ask? I don't really consider that "bandwagoning", though I could point the finger at you and accuse you of cheerleading in this very thread.

*You don't seem to have the ability to make yourself very clear when posting, usually resorting to smilies and the same tired phrases you spew out everywhere.

**Busyman** · 04-12-2005, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by JPaul

My point is that I do not think it is a deterrent, however even if it were it would not change my position that it (the death penalty) is wrong.

It (deterrence) is therefore irrelevant when formulating a decision on whether the death penalty should exist. As the answer to the question (re any detterrent effect) has no bearing on the decision making process.

I think that is clear enough.

The bottom line, as anyone can see, is that it is society's revenge on the offender. It is pandering to the masses and the state demonstrating that it is "tough on crime".

My country, I am glad to say does not do this.

I already knew that you think whether it was deterrent was irrelevant in relation to it's wrongness.

However, you simply making the point that it wasn't a deterrent made it up for discussion and therefore not irrelevant. (Why would you make irrelevant points?

)

No one is trying to get you to change your position man. It ain't ignorant to stick to those guns but is admirable.

**Busyman** · 04-12-2005, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by MCHeshPants420

I was just reading the thread and wondering what you were going on about*, surely I'm allowed to ask? I don't really consider that "bandwagoning", though I could point the finger at you and accuse you of cheerleading in this very thread.

*You don't seem to have the ability to make yourself very clear when posting, usually resorting to smilies and the same tired phrases you spew out everywhere.

Then read next time. (I obviously hadn't gotten there yet

)

I couldn't give a shit about your finger pointing. (same tired phrase + smiley)

**JPaul** · 04-12-2005, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Busyman

I already knew that you think whether it was deterrent was irrelevant in relation to it's wrongness.

However, you simply making the point that it wasn't a deterrent made it up for discussion and therefore not irrelevant. (Why would you make irrelevant points?

)

No one is trying to get you to change your position man. It ain't ignorant to stick to those guns but is admirable.

I see the confusion. Maybe.

Please read my last again. I think it is irrelevant in the decision making process. Other people obviously do not. they think that the deterrent effect (which they believe exists) justifies the killing.

It is therefore relevant to this discussion, however (to me) it is irrelevant in deciding on whether there should be a death penalty, as whether it is a deterrent is neither here nor there.

**clocker** · 04-12-2005, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by JPaul

The bottom line, as anyone can see, is that it is society's revenge on the offender. It is pandering to the masses and the state demonstrating that it is "tough on crime".

Well, not anyone.
I can't, for instance.

Your use of the words "revenge" and "pandering" attaches emotional and moral facets to the argument that I feel are irrelevant ( just as the deterrent defence, IMO).

In essence, the death penalty is simply a reasonable and logical* societal response to those whose behaviour is so irredeemable that there is no place in the society for them.

What constitutes "irredeemable" is certainly open for debate, but I think that the lack of the ultimate, irreversable punishment renders all lesser disciplines illogical*.
How can you justify the same sentence for Adolph Eichmann and Lisl Auman for instance?

*Channeling Spock, apparently.

**JPaul** · 04-12-2005, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by clocker

In essence, the death penalty is simply a reasonable and logical* societal response to those whose behaviour is so irredeemable that there is no place in the society for them.

As indeed is locking them up and throwing away the key.

However that does not involve society killing people.