-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
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. :dry:
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).
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Whts teh sgnificance fo yrsou?
Shit you aren't even the person that was being asked?
Bandwagoning... :dry:
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. :dry:
*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.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
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? :blink: )
No one is trying to get you to change your position man. It ain't ignorant to stick to those guns but is admirable.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
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. :dry:
*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 :ohmy: )
I couldn't give a shit about your finger pointing. (same tired phrase + smiley) :dry:
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
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? :blink: )
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.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
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.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
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.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
As indeed is locking them up and throwing away the key.
...but you pay for it.....for the rest of their life.
Remunerated exile. :dry:
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
...but you pay for it.....for the rest of their life.
Remunerated exile. :dry:
We've covered this.
I would enforce labour, as outlined previously.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
We've covered this.
I would enforce labour, as outlined previously.
Oh I missed where you said that.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
What would you define as murder? Because i'm sure that many have been killed in the name of religion. Would you classify acts of killing during "religious wars" as murders? the man in this thread (remember him?) committed his crimes against places that didn't side with his religious views.
So as you said about proof or disproof....
I would class anyone who kills using religion as an excuse as a fanatic. It always depends what side you are on. People wanting change in the old Soviet Union were Freedom fighters. People in Iraq wanting 'invaders' out are Insurgents.
Quote:
You can't prove everything with stats, especially with that method.
Of course you cant. Because people would just come back with other statistics to try and disprove yours. If you are not going to use statistics you should not quote instances to prove a point.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I would class anyone who kills using religion as an excuse as a fanatic. It always depends what side you are on. People wanting change in the old Soviet Union were Freedom fighters. People in Iraq wanting 'invaders' out are Insurgents.
Of course you cant. Because people would just come back with other statistics to try and disprove yours. If you are not going to use statistics you should not quote instances to prove a point.
Instances tell more of the story than stats.
Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.
However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.
Stat out out the window. :dry:
The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Instances tell more of the story than stats.
Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.
However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.
Stat out out the window. :dry:
The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.
No ... instances, by their very nature, are one off events. Properly prepared statistics tell the story of a lot of instances so tell you what's most likely to happen.
Of course a statistic is not always right but it is infinitely more reliable than one instance.
I could say that you won't remember pi to any more than 1000 digits, even if you practiced all day - because of statistics yet a few instances say that it's possible.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Instances tell more of the story than stats.
Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.
However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.
Stat out out the window. :dry:
The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.
Are you saying that this discussion can not be resolved? Because you cant prove one way or another.
The USA has one of the highest murder rates in the world. It also retains the death penalty. One could say that the murder figure would be a lot higher if it was not for the skill of the medical world.
I dont think it can be proved or disproved whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not. My personal opinion says that if it is a deterrent why do they have to keep carrying out.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Instances tell more of the story than stats.
Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.
However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.
Stat out out the window. :dry:
The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.
You are telling me that one anecdotal event overthrows what statisitcs bears out.
You flip a coin twice and it is heads both times, you want to tell me that the chance per flip is not 50/50?
You want to bring up the time that not wearing a safety belt saved a life because the victim was thrown from the car, which went over as cliff and ignore the other 999 times?
Anecdotal evidence is the anti-thesis of science.
You, yourself, would be dead had that nut case grabbed a gun instead of a hammer. Your six guns and box of shirikins were of no use to you.
You should have learned something there.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Are you saying that this discussion can not be resolved? Because you cant prove one way or another.
The USA has one of the highest murder rates in the world. It also retains the death penalty. One could say that the murder figure would be a lot higher if it was not for the skill of the medical world.
I dont think it can be proved or disproved whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not. My personal opinion says that if it is a deterrent why do they have to keep carrying out.
I explained that before.....
Is hell a deterrent?
Remove the death penalty...now is life in prison a deterrent?
It's very simple.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I dont think it can be proved or disproved whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not. My personal opinion says that if it is a deterrent why do they have to keep carrying out.
I don't think it can be unequivocally proven since comparisons are fraught with difficulties but wrt the second sentence, it would only no longer be necessary to carry it out if it was a deterrent to 100% of the populous. If it was merely a deterrent to 99.999% of the population then it would still be carried out.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I would class anyone who kills using religion as an excuse as a fanatic. It always depends what side you are on. People wanting change in the old Soviet Union were Freedom fighters. People in Iraq wanting 'invaders' out are Insurgents.
fanatics, whatever, it's still murder in my book and many a murder has been carried out because of religious beliefs.
I went through this before with busy.
having religion doesn't equal morality and having no religion doesn't equal immorality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
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 have to take this to task because we are seeing non fanatics every day being charged with murder. The BTK killer...a church leader, not a fanatic, not claiming god told him to do it.... Catholic priests buggering boys, devoutly religious yet not claiming god told them to do it. My point being that these are "god fearing folk" and your opinion really has no basis ( I appreciate you did say it was impossible to prove) and as an atheist I can't agree with this opinion.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
You are telling me that one anecdotal event overthrows an what statisitcs bears out.
You flip a coin twice and it is heads both times, you want to tell me that the chance per flip is not 50/50?
You want to bring up the time that not wearing a safety belt saved a life because the victim was thrown from the car, which went over as cliff and ignore the other 999 times?
Anecdotal evidence is the anti-thesis of science.
You, yourself, would be dead had that nut case grabbed a gun instead of a hammer. Your six guns and box of shirikins were of no use to you.
You should have learned something there.
I never said ignore stats. I said stats don't always equal proper solution.
Your answer is get rid of all guns except I guess law enforcement.
Mine is tighten gun laws.
Your stats don't conclude either solution.
Mine just happens to be more feasible and not a pipe dream. :)
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
I don't think it can be unequivocally proven since comparisons are fraught with difficulties but wrt the second sentence, it would only no longer be necessary to carry it out if it was a deterrent to 100% of the populous. If it was merely a deterrent to 99.999% of the population then it would still be carried out.
We have a winner and a thinker here. :)
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
I never said ignore stats. I said stats don't always equal proper solution.
Your answer is get rid of all guns except I guess law enforcement.
Mine is tighten gun laws.
Your stats don't conclude either solution.
Mine just happens to be more feasible and not a pipe dream. :)
I believe like you do, that it is a pipe dream and that we should tighten guns laws.
My interest in this thread stems from my interest in why it does work in the UK and why it won't work here.
What are these variable that make our society unique.
I think that is the next question.
But I agree with you that outlawing guns in the US is great on paper, but would not work, today. Perhaps in the future, but definitely not now.
A key problem that needs to be addressed first is Americas infatuation with guns and these "Red Dawn" fantasies so many people have. Good ole' boys working together to thwart their oppressive government or the Commies.
Also we have significant problems related to race and race equality in this country. I think that the attitude of being helpless to succeed and feeling that society is not giving one a fair shake, leads to desperation.
I have been in situation where looking at someone the wrong way lead to an almost life or death situation. The black guy refused to back down, he was willing to take this to death. That is how he earned respect in his world. The white guy had to back down and apologise. The black guy clearly didn't see that as a choice.
I really can't get in to this as I would like as I need to go to work, but I would be interested in knowing why people think it won't work here, presently.
Sometimes your post remind me of "Your America" by Living Colour. One country, 2 distinct and separate Americas.
I look at the T.V.
Your America's doing well
I look out the window
My America's catching hell
I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
I change the channel
Your America's doing fine
I read the headlines
My America's doing time
I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
I just want to know which way do I go to get to your America?
Go west young, go west young man
Don't want to crossover
But how do I keep from going under?
Where is my picket fence?
My long, tall glass of lemonade?
Where is my VCR, my stereo, my T.V. show?
I look at the T.V.
I don't see your America
I look out the window
I don't see your America
I want to know how to get to your America
I want to know how to get to your America
America
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
I don't think it can be unequivocally proven since comparisons are fraught with difficulties but wrt the second sentence, it would only no longer be necessary to carry it out if it was a deterrent to 100% of the populous. If it was merely a deterrent to 99.999% of the population then it would still be carried out.
If yours was the case this discussion would never have risen. My point is, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran on a Friday. If you go anywhere near the public square and let it be known that you are a Westerner you will be pushed to the front of the crowd to see a public execution. This is the crux of my point. Surely if it is a deterrent then puiblic execution would be the best way to demonstate the 'deterrent'. It is not working in Islamic states. Drug trafficking is a Capital Offence in Singapore, yet people are continually committing the offence.
Maybe the decision on capital punishment should be left to the relatives of the victim. I believe this is the case in some middle eastern countries. It would definately take the pressure of the jurors.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
My interest in this thread stems from my interest in why it does work in the UK and why it won't work here.
What are these variable that make our society unique.
I think that is the next question.
But I agree with you that outlawing guns in the US is great on paper, but would not work, today. Perhaps in the future, but definitely not now.
A key problem that needs to be addressed first is Americas infatuation with guns and these "Red Dawn" fantasies so many people have. Good ole' boys working together to thwart their oppressive government or the Commies.
Also we have significant problems related to race and race equality in this country. I think that the attitude of being helpless to succeed and feeling that society is not giving one a fair shake, leads to desperation.
I have been in situation where looking at someone the wrong way lead to an almost life or death situation. The black guy refused to back down, he was willing to take this to death. That is how he earned respect in his world. The white guy had to back down and apologise. The black guy clearly didn't see that as a choice.
We have another winner.
Without me going into details, I have always said that the dynamic of our countries (UK, USA, Sweden) are entirely different.
I grew up in a violent area but as a youngster, knew about many people getting shot. It was always about being tough, physically and mentally.
I get a little older....say something off to me you get a punch in the jaw and made you think that if you said something else that I would stomp the shit out of you.
This is why I made the DisneyWorld comments earlier.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
If yours was the case this discussion would never have risen. My point is, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran on a Friday. If you go anywhere near the public square and let it be known that you are a Westerner you will be pushed to the front of the crowd to see a public execution. This is the crux of my point. Surely if it is a deterrent then puiblic execution would be the best way to demonstate the 'deterrent'. It is not working in Islamic states. Drug trafficking is a Capital Offence in Singapore, yet people are continually committing the offence.
Maybe the decision on capital punishment should be left to the relatives of the victim. I believe this is the case in some middle eastern countries. It would definately take the pressure of the jurors.
Sorry boab but it's hard for me to say the obvious sometimes.
I see many folks give the obvious answer to many things and instead I like folks to figure it out.
All deterrents don't work for everyone.
Sometimes I think people avoid the obvious answer just to stick to their guns about their point.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
If yours was the case this discussion would never have risen. My point is, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran on a Friday. If you go anywhere near the public square and let it be known that you are a Westerner you will be pushed to the front of the crowd to see a public execution. This is the crux of my point. Surely if it is a deterrent then puiblic execution would be the best way to demonstate the 'deterrent'. It is not working in Islamic states. Drug trafficking is a Capital Offence in Singapore, yet people are continually committing the offence.
Maybe the decision on capital punishment should be left to the relatives of the victim. I believe this is the case in some middle eastern countries. It would definately take the pressure of the jurors.
I didn't say my figure was the case, I used it to demonstrate a point.
You said that it wasn't a deterrent because the punishment still happens, I said that isn't so. I tried to make it clear that we're not dealing with absolutes.
The question isn't whether it's a deterrent or not - because it plainly is to some. More pertinent to the discussion is whether it's more of a deterrent than life imprisonment without parole.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Sometimes I think people avoid the obvious answer just to stick to their guns about their point.
Exactly. I agree completely. I think everyone in here should say that. :lol:
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
The question isn't whether it's a deterrent or not - because it plainly is to some. More pertinent to the discussion is whether it's more of a deterrent than life imprisonment without parole.
Luckily we have an assortment of flavors to choose from. :)
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by busy
Sometimes I think people avoid the obvious answer just to stick to their guns about their point.
You mean like when people say they don't have a fear of burglars when they have six guns and a munitions dump in their laundry room ;)
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
The question isn't whether it's a deterrent or not - because it plainly is to some. More pertinent to the discussion is whether it's more of a deterrent than life imprisonment without parole.
Luckily we have an assortment of flavors to choose from. :)
Tbh, that doesn't matter to me. Sometimes a price is just too high, no matter what good becomes of it.
I think taking a life is one of those things ... however, the discussion seems to be moving away from that so I thought I'd pitch in :ermm:
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
You mean like when people say they don't have a fear of burglars when they have six guns and a munitions dump in their laundry room ;)
I was really waiting for that. :shifty:
tbh I really don't worry about itnow.
At the time of preparation, ya damn skippy. ;)
Some fear can keep you alive.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Tbh, that doesn't matter to me. Sometimes a price is just too high, no matter what good becomes of it.
I think taking a life is one of those things ... however, the discussion seems to be moving away from that so I thought I'd pitch in :ermm:
I can respect that.
I can also respect that those like-minded folks in America pay for the "forever" room and board for the heinous folk that they want to keep alive. :)
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
More pertinent to the discussion is whether it's more of a deterrent than life imprisonment without parole.
I had taken that as being read, hence not actually spelling it out.
And it still doesn't matter if it is. Life imprisonment serves the purposes of protecting society and the punishment of the offender.
Make them work and pay for their own keep, serves to lessen the burden on the rest of us. Feck if it were done properly it could raise funds for us.
Guess what , if it turns out the person is innocent we can let them go as well.
I can't stand all those bleeding heart liberals who don't have the heart for making a person stay in prison for 40 years, with no hope of parole and no control over their own life.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You're my hero. :)
:blushing:
Am I everything you wish you could be.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP
I had taken that as being read, hence not actually spelling it out.
Likewise.
However, if taken in context, you'll see why I thought it necessary at that juncture :ermm:
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Make them work and pay for their own keep, serves to lessen the burden on the rest of us. Feck if it were done properly it could raise funds for us.
:shifty:
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Likewise.
However, if taken in context, you'll see why I thought it necessary at that juncture :ermm:
Absolutely, probably should have done it earlier (me not you), however we hold some truths to be self evident. Wait, that's another speech.
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Maybe the decision on capital punishment should be left to the relatives of the victim. I believe this is the case in some middle eastern countries. It would definately take the pressure of the jurors.
'boab, maybe this is kind of a bad idea?
putting a life or death decision in the hands of, say, a grief-stricken mother?
not an attack on your thought by any means,
it just seems that....that could actually be a step backwards,
on a system that already is under scrutiny
-
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Well...I do
Even if you are a wee bit of a twat. :D
The best amongst us invariably are.
