Executions ~ Right or wrong?

[Kacey]

Not only is there no data to support this assertion, but I seriously doubt such data could even be gathered on such a specialized sample. First off, you would have to identify a pool of serial killers (which make up, what, about one percent of all violent criminals?). Then, you would have to ascertain their reasons for continuing or discontinuing their criminal tendencies. Lastly, you would have to demonstrate these patterns across both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.

I'm sorry, but this simply sounds like a just-so statement made to affrim a pre-existing a priori belief.

And so does this. Simply because data does not exist to support a claim does not make it so, nor does the lack of such data prove the supposition is false, either.

 

[Lisa]

How do they reoffend if they are dead? :idunno:

 

[Xue Sheng]

Ever watch boxing? UFC? Pride fighting? Ever see a fight at school and keep watching? How about rubber necking traffic accidents?

I'm assuming you are refereing directly to executions. However, our soceity at large seems to not mind watching the pain of others.

Yes I have watched those but I think there is a bit of clarification needed here. Since the first quote you responded to was mine and the second quote you responded to had no source I felt I needed to say I did not make the comment about pain.

Also I needed to add that I realized after my last post that my whole view of this does change when it becomes crimes against children as many of my posts on that subject have made clear in the past and I do not wish to rehash those here.

As to Saddam, this is what I assume brought about this post. I am not sorry he is no longer with us; I just do not see where it made any difference. The war goes on the Iraq issues still exist and he is dead that is all. Will it make it better or leave a whole waiting to be filled? I have no idea.

Now the death penalty for a serial killer will pretty much assure he never does it again but it will not assure that someone else will not.

I guess my issue or question here is that I am not sure what the goal or result of a death penalty is expected to be beyond the fact that the person put to death will not do it again.

As to making it more public, I am not sure what to say there. It would likely end up a spectacle no matter how you tried to stop it from being one. And that could lead or most likely would lead to a desensitization we really do not want.

And this still leave me with absolutly no idea of how I really feel about it, other than as stated here.

 

[heretic888]

Perhaps you don't see a purpose of the death penalty... but we sure as hell do!

I think this is why discussion of capital punishment is such a difficult subject to approach. What happened to your cousin has clearly affected you on a personal and intimate level, resulting in an unique perspective that others may have trouble understanding.

However, and I mean this with no disrespect, there is nothing even vaguely resembling a defensible argument for capital punishment in your post. You are making a rather powerful Appeal to Emotion and understably so. But, at the end of the day, it remains a non-sequiter and a fallacious argument. You are replacing logic with emotion in decision making here.

Your justification for capital punishment, if I understand you correctly, is simply that you ardently despise this person and would feel better if his life were ended. Coming from the position of a third-party observer, it becomes obvious the problems with such arguments in the course of policy decisions.

That being said, I wonder whether it is even possible for someone in MA-Caver's position to approach this subject in a rational manner. Where I in his shoes, I can't honestly say I'd feel much differently than him.

Laterz.

 

[Andrew Green]

And so does this. Simply because data does not exist to support a claim does not make it so, nor does the lack of such data prove the supposition is false, either.

Yes, and this is where that whole burden of proof issue comes in.

I'd like to think legal issues require a little more evidence then the Flying Spaghetti monster though.

 

[heretic888]

And so does this. Simply because data does not exist to support a claim does not make it so, nor does the lack of such data prove the supposition is false, either.

I am afraid you are mistaken in your estimation here, Kacey.

If you are aware of any studies that support a relationship between capital punishment and criminal deterrence, then feel free to post them. But, until then, the Burden of Proof is on those that posit there is such a relationship. Such a burden is not on those maintaining no evidence for a relationship presently exists.

Furthermore, this still ignores the fact that the specific claim Ceicei gave is probably untestable to begin with. How, exactly, does one demonstrate that capital punishment is a deterrent to serial killers?? How would you even begin to approach testing such a hypothesis??

 

[Lisa]

I am afraid you are mistaken in your estimation here, Kacey.

If you are aware of any studies that support a relationship between capital punishment and criminal deterrence, then feel free to post them. But, until then, the Burden of Proof is on those that posit there is such a relationship. Such a burden is not on those maintaining no evidence for a relationship presently exists.

Furthermore, this still ignores the fact that the specific claim Ceicei gave is probably untestable to begin with. How, exactly, does one demonstrate that capital punishment is a deterrent to serial killers?? How would you even begin to approach testing such a hypothesis??

Ah, I see where you are coming from now. See, I read CeiCei's comment as death would stop them from reoffending, cause, well, they would be dead! , not that it was a proven deterant.

 

[Mariachi Joe]

It depends on the circumstances. To excecute a young girl because she has a boyfriend to defend the family's honor is just plain barbaric and wrong. In the case of individuals like Sadam Hussein or Ted Bundy, what else can you do with them, they are probably not going to reform.

 

[michaeledward]

In the case of individuals like Sadam Hussein or Ted Bundy, what else can you do with them, they are probably not going to reform.

While your comment may very well be rhetorical:

Convicted criminals can be detained for life in maximum security prisons, or super max prisons. This has an equal effect for society; preventing a recurrance of undesired behavior.

 

[Kacey]

I am afraid you are mistaken in your estimation here, Kacey.

If you are aware of any studies that support a relationship between capital punishment and criminal deterrence, then feel free to post them. But, until then, the Burden of Proof is on those that posit there is such a relationship. Such a burden is not on those maintaining no evidence for a relationship presently exists.

Furthermore, this still ignores the fact that the specific claim Ceicei gave is probably untestable to begin with. How, exactly, does one demonstrate that capital punishment is a deterrent to serial killers?? How would you even begin to approach testing such a hypothesis??

My point precisely - under current conditions, it is not possible to test this hypothesis either way. That does not make it proven or unproven; it makes it unproveable. What has been proven is that the current system is not working - of we wouldn't be having this much trouble with recidivism, or with the crime rate in general.

Capital punishment has been around a long time - not beginning with the Law of Hammurabi, which called for the punishment to fit the crime. At the same time, modifying the punishment based on the relative status of those involved has also been around a long time - on the Old Testament, for example, the value of a transgression was lighter if a freeman transgressed against a slave.

You are welcome to your opinion - which, as things stand, is no more proveable than mine or any other. This is a complex social issue, and no study of a single facet will determine the correct answer - indeed, there are, quite likely, multiple approaches that could prove effective. However, I am no more willing to accept your unsupported opinion than you are mine, and that is my option. If you have something to say other than "I'm right, because your opinion is unproveable" - especially when your position is equally unproveable - then, please, step forward. If not, well... enjoy yourself, but don't expect to be taken seriously; it's a weak argument, at best.

 

[Jade Tigress]

ATTENTION ALL USERS

Mod Note

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Sr. Moderator

 

[BrandiJo]

i think that dispite the many apeals some innocent people will be killed. How ever i think some people no longer deserve the right to live. Top on the list child molesters. But untill we figure out a better way to do things what we have now will have to do
​

 

[Ceicei]

See, I read CeiCei's comment as death would stop them from reoffending, cause, well, they would be dead! , not that it was a proven deterant.

Yep, you read me correctly. That was exactly my point.

- Ceicei

 

[Rich Parsons]

Ignorant people, eh? I will just let that one go for the time being....

I did not misquote you. You stated imprisonment costs more than state executions. This statement is not supported by actual data. What "context" am I missing here??

You argue that today's implementation entails "lots of appeals and time and money", but the context of the argument --- if you will actually read your own post --- is why capital punishment does not work as a deterrent. You were not addressing the cost of execution versus imprisonment. I did not misread the context here nor did I misquote you.

If you wish to change the context of your argument after the fact and state that the appeals process artificially inflates the cost of executions you also have to selectively ignore the appeals process for imprisonment, as well. It is not as if appeals and time evaporates into a magical legal void once someone is imprisoned. Appeals take place with or without death row.

In any event, I find the whole line of argumentation morally incredulous. We're essentially saying that it's okay to kill human beings because it'll save us some cash. That is a bit too Machiavellian for my tastes.

Laterz.

My apologies to everyone but heretic.

:bs:




I think I will not let it go completely.

I think maybe I might try to find someone's points and try to quote out of context and also then maybe just try to change the intent of their post.

It could be fun.

But then that would give someone the idea that their points and also their words matter.

Enjoy your self. It is yourself that is dealing with your own ego.

Have a very nice day.

 

[Mariachi Joe]

i think that dispite the many apeals some innocent people will be killed. How ever i think some people no longer deserve the right to live. Top on the list child molesters. But untill we figure out a better way to do things what we have now will have to do​

I agree 100%

 

[BlackCatBonz]

The last line, which I have bolded, is, I think, the key here - execution is not a deterrent to unnacceptable behavior. If it were, then, perhaps, my opinion might be different - but since execution does not serve the purpose it is intended to serve, then I see no purpose in continuing the practice.

sometimes it's hard to see the purpose when it doesnt affect you directly.

I prefer to take the sentence as a whole, which implies that the way we implement the death penalty in this country is not a deterrent. I agree with that statement completely. As for it not being a deterrent period, that I disagree with. If a criminal thought that he would be put to death quickly, such as was the case with Saddam, then I think it could be a deterrent but with an expected trial and appeals process that can last 20 years, it is definitely not a deterrent.

I consider the death penalty to be a regrettable but sometimes necessary sentence. There are those in society that have committed such heinous crimes that they need to pay the ultimate price. We just have to make sure it's done right.

And sometimes you can. I had a cousin who at 17 was raped and murdered by her boyfriend and left out in the woods to rot. He even pretended to aid in the search for her and her mutilated body was found by hunters. DNA evidence found indisputable evidence of the rape and her fighting back (skin samples under her nails) and his fingerprints on the body after he broke her neck. Police investigation concluded that he raped and killed her in his car, then tossed her body over the edge of a cliff.
He was sentenced to death... later it was turned over and now he serves life.
You tell me... should we feel that this animal still live after treating her this way? How much harder was it for her mother when she was informed that his death sentence was turned over to a life sentence?
The girl would've been 35 this year.

You can go ahead reply that you're sorry that this terrible thing happened and offer your sympathies and all that, but it still doesn't affect you... and that's okay. That's just okay. It only affects us, the victims family, who have to live with the grief, try to get over the pain and loss and be reminded of the loss every time the victim's birthday comes around (like it did this Dec 26th) and knowing that animal is still alive in a prison getting three squares a day.

Perhaps you don't see a purpose of the death penalty... but we sure as hell do!

I see i stirred up some emotions with my post, MA-Caver.
As you can see, i stuck my words right after Kacey's and I highlighted what i was referencing.
I am terribly sorry that this happened to your family.
What I meant in my post was, unless something terrible has happened to you or your family, it may be hard to accept killing someone as punishment.
I kind of feel the same way about it as jdinca.

War criminals...yes.
Serial killers...yes.
Murderers.....yes.

I don't look at it like a deterrent. Imprisonment for criminals is not really a deterrent anyway.....it's more like a setback.
Rehabilitation is a load of crap......and no, I do not want to hear about studies or numbers that refute that.
Habitual criminals that are rehabilitated are just criminals that have become better at not getting caught.

If death is the sentence, then it must be imposed only if there is hard, scientific; or irrefutable evidence.
An innocent person dying at the hands of a Governor or President issued execution warrant is also a victim.

 

[Cryozombie]

Not only is there no data to support this assertion, but I seriously doubt such data could even be gathered on such a specialized sample.

Your kidding me right? So, there is No data to prove once a serial killer has been executed, that he or she will not kill again... therefore its a false statement?

 

[Cryozombie]

Oops, sorry, that point had been clarified already... my bad for not finishing the thread.
​

 

[Cryozombie]

s
I don't look at it like a deterrent. Imprisonment for criminals is not really a deterrent anyway....

No, its a Crime College, and for some criminals, a way of life.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I am not sure what the answer is here, just throwing out some thoughts

Is the death penalty a deterrent to other to not commit the same crime? No
Does putting the offender to death prevent him from committing that crime again? Yes
Does imprisoning the offender for life prevent him from committing the same crime again? Depends on the crime, if it is murder he can commit it in prison, either against other prisoners or prison guards. Not to mention that there are criminals that call prison home. Kill a guy and you get to go home and get taken care of for the rest of your life.

Is deciding the effectiveness of capital punishment based on cost effectiveness the way to go? Not in my opinion.

If you are worried about cost effectiveness the cheapest ways to go would be ignore them all together and let them run loose in society. It will not cost you much monetarily but it will cost you a lot from the stand point of safety in society. Or you could just forgo all the imprisonment and appeals and trials and just shoot em’ one bullet is cheap.

But none of this is a solution in my opinion. So far all I have seen that is a deterrent is CERTAINTY of punishment. Which is something we do not have in the US; trail followed by many many appeals and then of course there is plea bargaining and there is always the possibility you will get away with it. I do not have the statistics to back anything up (and frankly without knowing the data that produced the statistics they are fairly useless for more than supporting your opinion in an argument) but it would be interesting to see the types of crimes committed and the repeat offenders in a country where it was fairly certain that you would get caught, imprisoned and or killed for a crime.

I am no longer certain what the answer is, but I do not think that weighing human life and/or safety against cost effectiveness of long term incarceration or capital punishment is the way to go here, but as I said this is only my opinion