Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[DanP]

So you haven't even got an example of a successful society run along the lines you advocate? All you can offer is further posturing?

So you haven't even got an example of a society run on the lines *you* advocate ? All you can offer is further posturing ?

 

[apeiron]

So you haven't even got an example of a society run on the lines *you* advocate ? All you can offer is further posturing ?

Err, I mentioned the specific example of Finland - not as a perfect society, but one that made a change in policy and so is a good case to examine.

But certainly, I would say Scandinavian nations in general. Canada. France. Anywhere where the focus is on "what works" and there is a general attempt to understand rather than a rush to punish.

So now your turn...

 

[DanP]

Err, I mentioned the specific example of Finland - not as a perfect society, but one that made a change in policy and so is a good case to examine.

The problem with your example of Finland is that you try to build a causality relation between lower crime rates and their punitive system. This fact is unproved.

The law crime rates can exist even despite their punishment system, due to other , much more important social conditions. Such as society homogeneity, levels of education, level of social protection offered to humans which live to the border of society and so on.The focus on what works is great, but what does work in the case of Finland ? Their punishment system, or their extremely well built democracy and social systems ?

If you claim a causality relation between punishment and low crime rates in their society, you have to prove it, which you did not.

Second, even if you prove that causality relation in the case of Finland, you have to prove
that the system will be of any use whatsoever in the case of a different society, such as USA or Russia for example.

Until such time, all one has is personal opinions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, but its exactly the same thing as you do :P Lot of philosophy, of beliefs, no proofs whatsoever :p

With all due respect DanP, apeiron provides sources to back his claims, which are also founded in well respected views of philosophy, social science, and psychology. You offer your own opinion, which I'm not belittling, but it is just one man's opinion. It isn't fair to say that you're operating in the same fashion.

 

[DanP]

With all due respect DanP, apeiron provides sources to back his claims, which are also founded in well respected views of philosophy, social science, and psychology. You offer your own opinion, which I'm not belittling, but it is just one man's opinion. It isn't fair to say that you're operating in the same fashion.

his links cover rehab of criminal mainly, not his claims of a better society with a lenient legal systems. Save for offering proof of the claims, all he has is philosophy.

 

[nismaratwork]

his links cover rehab of criminal mainly, not his claims of a better society with a lenient legal systems. Save for offering proof of the claims, all he has is philosophy.

I disagree, but I won't belabor the point... I just wanted to offer my view. You're no dummy DanP, but you're very closed-minded around this issue, and since our views do coincide in some areas of the debate, I suppose I wish that you'd be a little more open to a broader set of ideas in this particular area. Let's say, for the sake of argument that apeiron is JUST dealing in philosophy... so what? I find much of it compelling, and in line with modern psychology, neurology, and social sciences. I think he brings more to the table than philosophy, but even if that's it, you seem to have little or no respect for it, and I wonder why?

 

[DanP]

I find much of it compelling, and in line with modern psychology, neurology, and social sciences. I think he brings more to the table than philosophy, but even if that's it, you seem to have little or no respect for it, and I wonder why?

Compelling and in line doesn't mean much. What can convince me is clear proof of causality.

Proof that Finland has lower crime rates because it's imprisonment system, not because the way their society is structured at large, for example. Same for other norther countries, they are the foremost democracies on this planet, with extremely strong social programs and very good education systems.

 

[Proton Soup]

in the US, the incarceration rate has increased, while the crime rate decreased. so, it's not likely you're going to convince the public that lenient sentencing would make things better for them.

also, isn't Singapore known for having a pretty low crime rate while being fairly heavy-handed?

 

[DanP]

also, isn't Singapore known for having a pretty low crime rate while being fairly heavy-handed?

It is claimed to be one of the lowest incidence of violent crimes in the world, while the criminal law is pretty harsh. And best to my knowledge, they do retain death penalty.

Anyway, I am looking forward to see a lenient criminal law dealing with organized crime, for example Cosa nostra in Italy. They would just laugh in the face of law, they doit even now.
When you can do incomes in excess of 100 billion USD / year , too few things scare you.

Im really sure that with lenient criminal laws, organized crime in US, Russia, Italy, Japan , the drug traffic from South America and some Asian countires will just magically cease to exist :P

 

[DanP]

I think he brings more to the table than philosophy, but even if that's it, you seem to have little or no respect for it, and I wonder why?

You asked me what I have with philosophy. this:

Philosophy doesn't save humans lives. Philosophers are not law enforcement officers having to deal to with crime on the streets, they are not DAs and prosecutors, they are not judges shoot by organized crime, they are not kids dependent of drugs because of the enormous trafic we have to deal with nowadays.

In a word, I consider philosophy of crime a hobby done by smart ppl living in safe harbors, with too much time on their hands. It has no practical uses whatsoever. I consider most of the philosophy (but not all) a terrific waste of time and mental energy which could be used more productively in other ways.

 

[apeiron]

in the US, the incarceration rate has increased, while the crime rate decreased. so, it's not likely you're going to convince the public that lenient sentencing would make things better for them.

also, isn't Singapore known for having a pretty low crime rate while being fairly heavy-handed?

If you want real answers on the issue, you have to consider what the experts actually say. And for example, crime rates have gone down everywhere with a greying population and better home security.

So if you want to measure a deterrence effect, you have to be prepared to do some careful analysis, not just cite bald statistics.

I used to live in Singapore and have visited many times since. Yes, it is strict in many ways.

But their incarceration rate is 267 per 100,000 while the USA is the world leader at 760 per 100,000.

How do you explain that?

Either the US is more draconian than everyone else or produces more criminals than anywhere else. Neither seems to denote a healty social system.

 

[apeiron]

If you claim a causality relation between punishment and low crime rates in their society, you have to prove it, which you did not...Until such time, all one has is personal opinions.

These are not my claims but what I have learned from talking to criminologists and reading the literature. In fact I've also talked to many criminals too (mostly rehabilitated and reformed - including a criminologist who has done time).

So my point is that this is a well studied subject and you can't get away with just saying your opinion is valid without reference to any evidence.

It seems a simple question. What country most closely resembles your ideal when it comes to retributive justice? Do you like the "eye for an eye" approach of some Middle Eastern countries for example?

What would a society look like run along DanP principles? Can you articulate a vision?

 

[apeiron]

Im really sure that with lenient criminal laws, organized crime in US, Russia, Italy, Japan , the drug traffic from South America and some Asian countires will just magically cease to exist :P

If the issue is what works, rather than let's make ourselves feel better by handing out retribution, then yes, organised crime might have to be tackled differently from the disorganised kind.

For example, turning drugs into a health issue rather than a justice issue is one way to tackle the roots of organised crime. Having economic policies that favour social equality rather than inequality is another.

Both also are ways to tackle disorganised crime as well of course.

A bullet in the head should kinda be the last resort for a thinking society.

 

[nismaratwork]

You asked me what I have with philosophy. this:

Philosophy doesn't save humans lives. Philosophers are not law enforcement officers having to deal to with crime on the streets, they are not DAs and prosecutors, they are not judges shoot by organized crime, they are not kids dependent of drugs because of the enormous trafic we have to deal with nowadays.

In a word, I consider philosophy of crime a hobby done by smart ppl living in safe harbors, with too much time on their hands. It has no practical uses whatsoever. I consider most of the philosophy (but not all) a terrific waste of time and mental energy which could be used more productively in other ways.

One of the greatest philosophers of all time took poison at the order of the state, so I'm not sure that they are all in safe harbors. As for practicality, this is a bit like arguing whether or not art is practical, because like it or not, we seem unable to live without it emerging in some form.

To the Singapore example, they're quite harsh, but then, Japan has a low crime rate and they don't have to cane anyone to achieve it. On the books, Saudi Arabia is insanely harsh, but they have quite a bit of crime, and then you have Pakistan, which on the books is also harsh, but quite chaotic.

Singapore and Japan are both very ordered societies, both small (Singapore is a bit like a violent Finland, and in your estimation then, it should be invalidated), and both control crime by making corruption endemic to the system. In Japan, the Yakuza is essentially one third of their government, dealing heavily in construction, graft, and many rackets. The crimes don't go on the books, because it's only when they step out of line, culturally, that it's even called a crime.

In the US, we took great pains to stamp out the kind of mafioso entanglements in construction (with some success), and other areas. So, we have more of that crime, given that it's not institutionalized. Ignoring criminal penalties, in Japanese society, you also have the horrendous stigma of being even a petty criminal which can (due to the size and nature of the country) and does follow you for life. A societal deterrent is at work that keeps the penal system busy with a different class of criminal.

In the US, it's hard to get a job as a felon, and many may judge you for your past, but it's easy to escape it and plenty of people will give you a chance. In that sense, committing petty crimes doesn't carry the threat of ostracism, only misdemeanor charges. Now, Japan has a huge problem with the abuse of Methamphetamine ("shabu"), but unless someone commits crimes to obtain it, or as a result, it's just... their problem. Here, if you're cranked to the gills good luck working in an office environment, or construction; in Japan, that's the norm in many cases.

Maybe social science and philosophy can't solve these problems, but can you not see how they can help you understand what you're looking at? I think you're fooling yourself into believing that harsh penalties, and a certain kind of justice saves lives, and you believe that because you're failing to use all of the potential tools at your disposal to examine the situation.

For instance, our prisons are breeding grounds for petty crooks and drug addicts to move up through a kind of Darwinian process. Far from rehabilitation, we make them better at being crooks, and unfamiliar and often unable to be anything else. We release them, and they return again and again, a problem that countries with equally horrible prison systems also suffer. Without the ability or willingness to understand how the means by which we punish and cage our criminals, without regard to what they've done beyond a certain point, you miss much of the root of how crime is perpetuated. We're not saving lives by putting people in a position to work their way up from theft, to assault, and murder... and the solution isn't only to cage anyone who pisses on the sidewalk forever.

This is a complex issue, and to simplify it does favors to no one, including potential victims whom you seem concerned for.

 

[Proton Soup]

If you want real answers on the issue, you have to consider what the experts actually say. And for example, crime rates have gone down everywhere with a greying population and better home security.

So if you want to measure a deterrence effect, you have to be prepared to do some careful analysis, not just cite bald statistics.

I used to live in Singapore and have visited many times since. Yes, it is strict in many ways.

But their incarceration rate is 267 per 100,000 while the USA is the world leader at 760 per 100,000.

How do you explain that?

Either the US is more draconian than everyone else or produces more criminals than anywhere else. Neither seems to denote a healty social system.

maybe we need to legalize caning.

 

[dudleysharp]

If you have to do this to all the prisoners to get them to be compliant, it's neither an effective nor efficient means of control.

If you do this only to those who cross the line, while the others who see them go in also see them when they come out, it's a deterrent.

It is also very likely a deterrent to many of those who were in solitary. Being deeply disturbed and compliant do not, at all, necessarily go together. Certainly, many of those, now, compliant prisoners, became compliant because they did not wish to repeat isolation. That is also deterrence.

 

[dudleysharp]

deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. There is no exceptiom.

Understanding Deterrence & the Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp

Many wrongly believe that gross murder rates are the manner in which we detect deterrence. It isn't, nor can it be, even though many use that barometer.

For example, there are high, low and medium crime rates in different jurisdictions, throughout the world. Crime rates are constantly fluctuating through decades and centuries, throughout the world.

In all of those jurisdictions, and through all times, there will always be some who are deterred from entering criminal activity, based upon the fear of getting caught and the sanction to follow.

It is the same with the death penalty, as it is with all sanctions.

With the recent 25 USA studies finding for deterrence, they range in the deterrent effect preventing from about 90-900 murders per year, nationwide, or about 0.5%-5% of the total of all murders. For me, that is a huge number of lives saved, yet, it represents a very small fraction of the murder rate.

While no one can rationally or honestly say that the death penalty does not deter some, there will also never be any agreement on the measurement of the degree of that deterrence.

Some say that the burden of proof is with those supporting the deterrence hypothesis. Clearly, it is not. All prospects of a negative outcome deter some.

The burden of proof is with those who say that the most sever sanction - execution - is the only negative outcome that deters none. Rationally, as with history's measure, it is a claim that cannot be defended.

Of course the death penalty deters.

The only questions, which will never be answered to anyone's satisfaction, is "How much does it deter?"

Based upon the recent studies, deterrence has very little effect on net or gross murder rates, but that "little effect" represents saving 90-900 lives per year in the USA. Huge.

As Prof. Robert Blecker states:

"We support execution as a just and appropriate forfeiture of lives which deserve to be taken. We also support execution as a just and appropriate method to save lives which deserve to be saved. "

Please review:

Deterrence

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

"Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

deterrence #2

Would crime rise if there was no sanction for crime?

Deterrence & The Death Penalty

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

No matter the level of violent crime, be it high or low, legal sanctions deter some from committing crimes (1).

Based upon some recent deterrence studies, even "heat of the moment" murders can be prevented by deterrence (2). No matter how excited or enraged, most of us bring ourselves back from that abyss, to a more sensible approach. One reason for that is deterrence, either thoughtful or instinctive.

Most criminals do think about things. That is why, before their crimes, the usually choose locations other than police stations to commit them. Criminals nearly always use some form of stealth before and during the crime, to avoid witnesses and to lower the probability of being caught, just as they use such stealth to withdraw after the crime.

We know this to be true.

Such is based upon a fear of being apprehended. There is no fear of being caught unless there is a fear of sanction. Only sanction can put fear into being caught.

There are those who argue the death penalty is no greater a deterrent than a life sentence.

Even if the death penalty is only equal in value as a life sentence, as a deterrent, then the death penalty is an important deterrent.

There are several major tiebreakers in this "equality".

First, look at murderers not deterred. About 99.9% of all of those murderers who face the death penalty either plea bargain to a life or lesser sentence, go to trial seeking a life sentence, not death, in the punishment phase of their trials and fight a, seemingly, never ending appellate battle to stay alive while they are on death row.

Reason tells us that if 99.9% of a less rational group, those who commit murders, fear death more than life, that there must be some, more rational folks, those potential murderers who chose not to murder because they feared death more than life.

Do the experts denouncing deterrence say "the death penalty deters no one? Of course not. They can't.

There are a number of real life stories of potential murderers who have stated that it was the death penalty that prevented them from committing murder. This is known as the individual deterrent effect. In these cases, the death penalty was an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence. Meaning these were cases whereby the potential murders were deterred from murdering because of the death penalty, who would not, otherwise, have been deterred by a lesser sanction. (3)

In addition, individual, enhanced deterrence cannot exist without general, enhanced deterrence. Therefore, there is a general, enhanced deterrent, because individual deterrence could not exist without the general deterrent effect. (3)

If we are unsure about deterrence, there is no "equality" in the results of our choices.

If there is deterrence and we execute, we save innocent lives via deterrence and by preventing murderers from ever harming again. If there is deterrence and we fail to execute, we sacrifice more innocent lives by reduced deterrence and, additionally, we put more innocents at risk, because living murderers are always more likely to harm again, than are executed ones. If there is no deterrence and we execute, we protect more innocents because of enhanced incapacitation. If there is no deterrence and we don't execute, more innocents are at risk because the murderers are still alive. (3)

I repeat my position that it is irrational to say that none are deterred by the death penalty.

The weight of the evidence is that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence and any deterrence is significant in that it spares innocent lives.

If unsure about execution deterrence, the "risk" is saving innocent lives by the deterrence of execution vs the "risk" of not saving innocent lives and choosing not to execute. The risk to take is to execute, to save innocent lives that deserve to be saved. (4)

We do not execute or impose other sanctions based upon deterrence. We must base sanctions on them being a just and appropriate response to the crimes committed, the same foundation of support used for all criminal sanctions.

The reason for sanction is justice. Deterrence is a secondary reason for and a beneficial by-product of all sanctions, inclusive of the death penalty.

(1) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

(2) 25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

(3) This is a bit out of date, but corrects an number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
"Death Penalty and Deterrence"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent--confirmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx

(4) "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx


Other Links:

"A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

"Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

"The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception--death-penalty-opponents--draft.aspx

The 130 (now 139) death row "innocents" scam
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)

 

[DanP]

So my point is that this is a well studied subject and you can't get away with just saying your opinion is valid without reference to any evidence.

Sure, I agree with you. Please provide proof of causality between a lenient criminal system and a safe society. One which is conclusive, and excludes (or at least undoubtedly marks a lenient criminal system as the major contributor) all other factors, such as homogeneity of society, the educational and social programs.

 

[DanP]

If the issue is what works, rather than let's make ourselves feel better by handing out retribution, then yes, organised crime might have to be tackled differently from the disorganised kind.

Retribution is required. You took a life, you raped a child, you have to pay for it. I am sorry if this ruins anyone's idea that Earth is a paradise, but the reality is that we, humans, kill, that we rape, that we sodomize children.

The whole idea that retribution is based on the a "feeling which makes us better" is flawed to the bone. Retributive principles are based on accountability. You have to pay for the wrongs you've done.

Others may prefer to let children raper free after a while, with the hope that he won't do it again. I do not. I believe if as few as 1 of the released children rapers rapes again, we have failed in our duty to protect the society.

For example, turning drugs into a health issue rather than a justice issue is one way to tackle the roots of organised crime. Having economic policies that favour social equality rather than inequality is another.

Both also are ways to tackle disorganised crime as well of course.

I agree with you. But those are social changes in other areas than creating a lenient criminal system. Those are the main determinant of what I believe would create a better society. Education, social support, homogeneity and others.

Rather than being the determinant of the safety of a society , a lenient criminal system may very well be the result of root social changes.

A bullet in the head should kinda be the last resort for a thinking society.

Sure. Maybe one day it will not be required. Today, if I would ever end working like a DA,
I prefer to go in the front of families of the victims, in the front of their relatives, of their friends, and neighbors and honestly say about someone who killed , who raped kids

"Yes ma'am, he/she was hold accountable for its deeds. He will never hurt anyone else again, with 100% certainty."

It is only then I could feel I did my duty to justice, to the community, and to the victims and their social circle.

 

[DanP]

For instance, our prisons are breeding grounds for petty crooks and drug addicts to move up through a kind of Darwinian process. Far from rehabilitation, we make them better at being crooks, and unfamiliar and often unable to be anything else. We release them, and they return again and again, a problem that countries with equally horrible prison systems also suffer. Without the ability or willingness to understand how the means by which we punish and cage our criminals, without regard to what they've done beyond a certain point, you miss much of the root of how crime is perpetuated. We're not saving lives by putting people in a position to work their way up from theft, to assault, and murder... and the solution isn't only to cage anyone who pisses on the sidewalk forever.

This is a complex issue, and to simplify it does favors to no one, including potential victims whom you seem concerned for.

This thread is about capital crimes, the ones who could mandate a death penalty. Not about petty thieves, low danger property crimes, DUIs and pissing on the side. But ok, you go and change the social system, create social homogeneity, provide education to the masses. When you have finished the job, call me. We will then proceed together to change the criminal system =) Ill be your ally at that moment in time.

 

[apeiron]

We do not execute or impose other sanctions based upon deterrence. We must base sanctions on them being a just and appropriate response to the crimes committed, the same foundation of support used for all criminal sanctions.

So what defines "just and appropriate" when it comes to sanctions? What are the rational principles that actually determine the level of penalty?

Is it some kind of straight "eye for an eye" balancing of the books? Or something else?

Deterrence is at least a measurable goal?

 

[DanP]

So what defines "just and appropriate" when it comes to sanctions? What are the rational principles that actually determine the level of penalty?

Social and political negotiations. The only process which can establish the "just and appropriate" when it comes to sanctions. The only process which can exist in a democratic society.

 

[skeptic2]

With the recent 25 USA studies finding for deterrence, they range in the deterrent effect preventing from about 90-900 murders per year, nationwide, or about 0.5%-5% of the total of all murders. For me, that is a huge number of lives saved, yet, it represents a very small fraction of the murder rate.

To me, saying that 95% to 99.5% of murders are not deterred by the death penalty is more indicative of its ineffectiveness than its effectiveness. Why do you suppose so few murderers are deterred by the death penalty? I do not believe the average murderer thinks to himself "Well if I get caught I'll simply plead down to life." I think even believing they might get life in prison is a game changer for most potential murderers.

Perhaps besides thinking they won't get caught, they are also thinking that the person they intend to murder deserves retribution for some other perceived injustice. Perhaps it is the belief that taking the life of the offender is a just punishment that leads to so many murders. Why is it that there is a negative correlation between the states with or without the death penalty and the murder rate in those states? Could it be that the existence of the death penalty in those states actually promotes the kind of thinking that leads to murder?

 

[nismaratwork]

Sure, I agree with you. Please provide proof of causality between a lenient criminal system and a safe society. One which is conclusive, and excludes (or at least undoubtedly marks a lenient criminal system as the major contributor) all other factors, such as homogeneity of society, the educational and social programs.

This is what I mean about looking at an issue too simply: I don't think you can look at one factor at work and say, "aha, this is the cause of crime, or the cause of crime's cessation!". A prison system which puts a premium on rehabilitation rather than indefinite incarceration, which is ALSO based in a society with a high standard of living, eduction, and more all goes to the same end.

I imagine that your retort is that the USA isn't like Finland, nor ever likely to be, but does that mean we shouldn't take some cues from them? Russia has a notorious prison system, and a ridiculously high crime rate; far higher than ours, so do they just need to get tougher (not sure how they could)? Do they need to take a tip from Finland and try to reform their system... I don't think so. The problem in Russia is desperation, endemic corruption, and more, and none of that is changed by how you deal with people after they commit crimes.

To a greater or lesser extent, the same is true in the USA, but we DON'T have a rising crime rate, so maybe now that we have a handle on it, it's time to explore options that are open to a more successful society. Treating drug addiction and mental illness as health problems, with consummate reform of our mental health infrastructure would be quite useful. I don't think prisons filled with addicts who create an in-prison economy for drugs helps the cause of prisons, OR addicts. True, once someone commits a crime such as armed robbery or murder to feed their habit, they no longer would qualify, but could that person have been caught earlier in their rap sheet?... yeah, I think so.

This is so much like the "spanking/no-spanking" debate, when the issue is really how you deal with a kid so that they don't ****-up and require punishment in the first place. A "time out" is a way to stop behavior before it gets to the point where you need to punish, but somehow it's become a substitute for punishment, and now people are baffled when their kids aren't deterred by it. Well, if you use a hammer as a screwdriver, you're not going to have much luck, so go figure. In the same way, if you slap around a kid at the smallest thing, you're not teaching them anything, except that you're violent, and that violence is an effective means of control in the short term. Neither of the above are what parents are trying to teach their kids, but setting limits and enforcing them, and more complex punishments takes a lot of effort for the parent, and frankly, a lot crap out. When that happens, you're telling the kid "you're tougher than me", so matters escalate.

In much the same way, talking about the death penalty is like talking about beating (not spanking, actual beating) the hell out of a kid... by the time we've reached that point we've already lost the fight. Singapore, like Japan, has virtually no tolerance for what it deems to be a crime or immoral behavior, although what each country chooses to define as immoral and criminal differs in areas. The laws in Singapore reflect the cultural norms of the people, even the ones that visitors find draconian or strange (Singapore and "Night Life" are oxymoronic). This is possible because the people SUPPORT and generated these customs and laws, it wasn't just magically imposed one day.

Japan has a different way of dealing with things, but it is similar. If Singapore is an honest nun, then Japan is her naughty sister. In Japan, you have incredibly high levels of public order, and low violent crime, but whereas in Singapore the sex trade is DEEPLY underground and frankly, not that prevalent, in Japan you have the "Mizu shōbai" (Water Trade) which covers pretty much everything from a regular strip club to outright prostitution and some unique variants such as hostess bars and image clubs. Most of these, if not all, are affiliated with organized crime, but in Japan it's really REALLY organized! The Yakuza run that industry through bribes to the police and patronage of politicians (and blackmail and other means), but you won't see them as crimes on the books. It's an accepted cultural practice, and the means by which its run is as well... if someone in crime steps out of that line, the penalties socially and legally are VERY harsh, but it's rarely a problem.

In the USA, we have no single history or culture that allows for, or disallows the Singapore or Japanese model. Aside from the fact that pretty much any American you ask is going to think the Mizu shōbai is some weird stuff, good luck getting consensus on anything else. Prostitution is legal in some states, illegal in others, and "streetwalking" prostitutes are illegal everywhere. AND YET... we have tons of them, mostly addicted to drugs, but either way it's a crime. I'm not suggesting we have our own "water trade"... that's definitely another debate, but I am saying that our social norms and what we call a crime and how we deal with them as they happen, IS a big issue. MOST people don't pick up a gun, walk into a convenience store and demand cash as their first crime, but all too often that gun is used in panic or anger, and now you have a 2nd degree murder. If not, you still have an armed robber and that's around 7-10 years in most states.

Now, there are definitely people out there, such as rapists (serial especially) and sociopaths who commit crimes both petty and major who aren't going to respond to deterrents, social norms, or anything else. Those same people can't be treated with modern psychology or medicine either, so really we should be putting them away for a damned long time, or in your view, executing them. They are a TINY minority however, yet our prison system and death penalty isn't really geared to them; it's more of a shotgun approach at hunting pigeons. The result is messy, although you can always claim you hit your mark, the cost is high (no meal, no more pigeon) and the result is not acceptable.

Most people who live a normal life until they kill a spouse or child or friend out of jealousy or rage or who-knows-what... people unlikely to kill, and unlikely to kill again, also need to be put in jail, but there I think the "Finland" model is more successful. We're not dealing with deranged child-rapists, or serial criminals, but people who reached a breaking point and need to be rehabilitated. More importantly, evidence suggests that they CAN be rehabilitated (although not in our system). In the same way that you use a .22 to the head at point blank range for a mafia kill, a .308 winchester for a buck, and 12-10 gauge shotgun for anything you want shredded like Enron's records, so we should have some discretion in how we deal with various criminals.

First line of defense: Deal with drugs in a way that doesn't make the problem worse.

Second line of defense: Deal with the mentally ill as if their mentally ill and not evil, and stop shoving them into jails and prisons or the streets because we have no other options with our current devastated mental health system.

Third line of defense: This is tricky, but trying to raise the standard of living, not to universal wealth and joy, but past miserable poverty for some is very effective. Education and more go into this, including educating parents and keeping kids from having kids... teenagers generally have a hard time raising kids.

Fourth line of defense: When someone starts to commit petty crimes, and every damned cop and DoC officer knows they'll be back, not because they're bad, but because of their situation, education, etc... intervene. Don't throw them in jail to be trained by other criminals, divided into race-gangs and more.

Fifth: See #4, but change it so this person is committing crimes and is a sociopath. At THAT point, they need to be separated from your average prisoner, because just like they leave a wake of destruction in the free world, they do the same in prison. The earlier his nibs is caught skinning cats, or serial offenders are marked as such, the better. It would be nice to rehab them, but we can't right now, so get them the hell off the street.

Sixth: When someone blows their top and commits a terrible crime, follow the Finland rule, and try to rehab them. If they're not insane, and not sociopaths, there's no reason that with proper rehabilitation in prison, while paying their debt to society, that they can't be productive members again. I'm not saying they should spend 5 years for killing their wife or husband, but a life sentence is equally absurd.

Seventh: Now, with the rest out of the way, we have a platform to debate the death penalty. Killing is a FINAL OPTION in life, and it should be in law, not just as the ultimate penalty, but also after we've done all we can before-hand to help society. I still think it serves no purpose, because sociopaths don't think about consequences, people who kill in passion aren't planning ahead to consequences, and drug addicts and the mentally ill are desperate and/or deranged. Really, you're left with serial criminals capable of planning ahead, corporate crime which is organized and premeditated, and the rarest kind of murder; assassination for profit or a "reasonable" non-psychotic motive. The assassin might be a sociopath, but the person who hires them may well not be. These people aren't deterred, because they don't believe they'll be caught or punished!

Why should we keep the practice of the death penalty for a vanishingly small number of cases, none of which are going to make the "cut and dried" standard, because of the necessary complexity? Why keep it, when we let free the people who destroy the life's work and savings of hundreds of thousands get off scott-free for with a slap on the wrist, but someone who takes one life is killed? It's an irrational desire for vengeance, and that's not an acceptable motive for murder, and it shouldn't be an acceptable motive for execution. Given how few people really fit the category, current or my "revised edition" for high crimes, saving money is BS... there aren't that many people costing us that much on death-row.

As a society, if we choose to just kill 'em all and let god sort them out, instead of trying to change our society and various systems, we're just killers with a profit and revenge motive. Like any killer, we're making ourselves feel just thinking that "they deserve it", or "why waste time and money on X person".

 

[DanP]

This is what I mean about looking at an issue too simply: I don't think you can look at one factor at work and say, "aha, this is the cause of crime, or the cause of crime's cessation!". A prison system which puts a premium on rehabilitation rather than indefinite incarceration, which is ALSO based in a society with a high standard of living, eduction, and more all goes to the same end.

Maybe, but in absence of such proof, any claim that a lenient criminal system contributes to lower crime rates is void. You cannot ask anyone to believe it.

 

[DanP]

As a society, if we choose to just kill 'em all and let god sort them out, instead of trying to change our society and various systems, we're just killers with a profit and revenge motive.

Like any killer, we're making ourselves feel just thinking that "they deserve it", or "why waste time and money on X person".

Legal homicide does not make anyone a killer :P That's the irony.

You are trying to project your feelings and your experiences of life on me, insisting that I am making myself thinking "they deserve it". You are wrong.

I do not believe in fairy tales that humans occupy a privileged spot in creation, that our "humanity" is special, that we are good, spotless angels, that if this universe have an *******, that ******* exist because of us humans. If I would ever believed those fairy tales, then maybe I would have the need to lie to myself in order to support the death punishment. But I did not and I do not. I believe in accountability, and for some crimes death is a fit punishment.

 

[nismaratwork]

Maybe, but in absence of such proof, any claim that a lenient criminal system contributes to lower crime rates is void. You cannot ask anyone to believe it.

I didn't say that it did, I believe you've misread what I wrote, especially since you can't take one piece of what I said and maintain its validity without destroying the totality of my point: social reform is needed, not harsh or lax penalties. Without social reform such as I described, you're just going to run into trouble with lenient or strict regimes.

I will add, you're the one who also keeps saying "lenient"... that's your judgment, and also without proof. Your personal definition of lenient, or "relatively" lenient, is just that, your definition. I'd also add that that by your logic, we need a utopia to spontaneously emerge as proof of concept before we attempt to improve ourselves... that's fallacious as hell. The opposite must also be true; why should we accept the claim that a harsh system contributes to lower crime rates without proof? We see lower crime in countries with stricter regimes, and higher ones in the same compared to the US. Who's to say what the major factors are in each case, and why do you think it's the endpoint: the prison system or death that's the big factor? There's no proof of that, and in fact, as has been referenced earlier, that's a de facto reformulation of the "deterrence" argument, for which proof exists that it IS flawed.

 

[nismaratwork]

Legal homicide does not make anyone a killer :P That's the irony.

You are trying to project your feelings and your experiences of life on me, insisting that I am making myself thinking "they deserve it". You are wrong.

I do not believe in fairy tales that humans occupy a privileged spot in creation, that our "humanity" is special, that we are good, spotless angels, that if this universe have an *******, that ******* exist because of us humans. If I would ever believed those fairy tales, then maybe I would have the need to lie to myself in order to support the death punishment. But I did not and I do not. I believe in accountability, and for some crimes death is a fit punishment.

Who are you to hold another non-special being accountable for anything? You call this accountability, but it's just your own view of how "things should be according to DanP". In essence, you're saying no one is special except you, because you have the right idea, and that idea is making people pay for their actions according to your standards.

 

[DanP]

I

I will add, you're the one who also keeps saying "lenient"... that's your judgment, and also without proof. Your personal definition of lenient, or "relatively" lenient, is just that, your definition. I'd also add that that by your logic, we need a utopia to spontaneously emerge as proof of concept before we attempt to improve ourselves... that's fallacious as hell.

I never claimed proof and scientific validity of my believes. Others did. I simply said I do not believe it's of a major consequence, and death penalty is valid. Others claimed my way is flawed, and the "experts" know better, but I seen no such proof from any expert so far. I am pretty comfortable in fighting those kind of battles politically.

 

[DanP]

Who are you to hold another non-special being accountable for anything? You call this accountability, but it's just your own view of how "things should be according to DanP". In essence, you're saying no one is special except you, because you have the right idea, and that idea is making people pay for their actions according to your standards.

Politics. Understand the mechanism. I vote for the ones who are closest to my view of the world. You vote for anyone you want. YOu believe that humans shouldn't be executed. Ok, vote for somebody who you think it will make your vision come true. You do realize I can ask you the same question ? Who the heck are you to even dare to say "humans should not me executed " ? or "Who the heck to you believe you are you to vote with democrats" ? Who are you to have a vision" ? I dont. I don't care what you believe in. Exercise your right to vote and make your (and other ppl with same ideas) vision come true.

 

[nismaratwork]

I never claimed proof and scientific validity of my believes. Others did. I simply said I do not believe it's of a major consequence, and death penalty is valid. Others claimed my way is flawed, and the "experts" know better, but I seen no such proof from any expert so far. I am pretty comfortable in fighting those kind of battles politically.

Your demand for proof is at odds with any talk of arguing from personal beliefs. If you just believe what you do, have no desire to change that or explore other views, then the obvious question arises: why are you having this conversation with me and others, here, on PF, where "this is my opinion and it ain't going to change" doesn't hold water?

Politics. Understand the mechanism. I vote for the ones who are closest to my view of the world. You vote for anyone you want.

Yeah, but this isn't a thread about who to vote for, it's a discussion about the death penalty and thereby related issues. I certainly haven't discussed voting for anyone. This is Politics & WORLD AFFAIRS, not "who yah going to vote for?". Once again, given what you're saying I have to wonder why you're bothering to participate in this discussion, if you're saying there's no discussion to be had!

 

[skeptic2]

Excellent post #305 nismaratwork.

 

[DanP]

Yeah, but this isn't a thread about who to vote for, it's a discussion about the death penalty and thereby related issues. I certainly haven't discussed voting for anyone. This is Politics & WORLD AFFAIRS, not "who yah going to vote for?". Once again, given what you're saying I have to wonder why you're bothering to participate in this discussion, if you're saying there's no discussion to be had!

Sure, I agree. But in this case would you gimme a break with "Who are you to think X should be executed or not" ? Please. Understand the basic political mechanism, and don't put dummy question like "who are you ... "

 

[DanP]

why are you having this conversation with me and others, here, on PF, where "this is my opinion and it ain't going to change" doesn't hold water?

To hammer my political ideas in the heads of as many ppl as possible.