Studies say death penalty deters crime

Originally posted by Now_Then

Originally posted by Lysergic

THOU SHALL NOT KILL

Isn't there something about an eye for an eye?

Not in the New Testament which is the basis of Christianity... And on the 10 Commandments which were given to Moses by "God" there is no reference to an eye for an eye. And if you really wanna get down to it all of this stuff comes from a Sumerian statue that had some 100+ commandments. So really your point is kinda moot. Ya know the whole Christ savior thang redemption. If you believe in that stuff.

But if you support murder, do what you do.

To me, knowing that your going to never be free again and that you will die in the jail cell, that you will watch your life pass you by and you age and even if you were an alpha you will loose that.

Sound like a much worse punishment all without the need for execution, and a lot of people that are in jail, probably shouldn't be there, thank our govt for its "WAR ON DRUGS" which is such a facade.

How spending the money saved by executing more proven murders on looking after our elderly better?

How about we take all that money we spend on wars, and weapon development and all the other wasteful spending and use it to feed and cloth every single human on this planet and then explore space forever and ever?

Sounds like a better plan to me.


We could go round after round, but I think I've said all I wish to say.






[edit on 11-6-2007 by Lysergic]

Originally posted by newtron25

Originally posted by JessicaS


Put them in a cell, give them books to read and no contact with the outside world. That will make them no longer a threat to anyone. Even have a slot through the door to pass meals in. It sounds fitting, and that way your not making the world blind.

Actually, suspended animation or forced coma seems slightly more fitting, as the killers have placed not just the loved ones' lives into turmoil, but frozen the development of the person they killed forever.

It all costs money - taxpayers money, money they don’t deserve spending on them. $27,000.00 to $35,000.00 per inmate, prob more for death row. And then you got the cost of all the legal side. I'm guessing you could live fairly well on $35k a year in the US.

I looked up American as we in the UK don't practice the death penalty (although we still have it, only for High Treason - and we don't have any executioners since the last one died)

no sorry I don't agree with this, due to the fact of how many people are on death row as it is. Add to this the insane number of times a person can appeal to save themselves. I don't think this is much of a deterrent as it is at this point.

Course I would like to see other crimes punishable by death, rape, child molesters, tail gaiters, making a bad movie (if you don't think I am being serious check out Dracula 3000, and ask yourself, "doesn't the idiot that made this movie deserve to die?"), etc.

They should get put to death within 24 hours of their conviction. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Some of these people in the system live for YEARS appealing and appealing their convictions tying up our courts and draining our tax dollars. You get convicted of a crime worthy of the death penalty it should be carried out in quick order and have it over and done with.

Originally posted by Lysergic
To me, knowing that your going to never be free again and that you will die in the jail cell, that you will watch your life pass you by and you age and even if you were an alpha you will loose that.

I posted this earlier:

Originally posted by Now_Then
I think the worst thing about the death penilty (from the convicts point of view) Would be the 60 days minium they spend in a tiny cell just yards away from their fate. Repent as much as you want mate, it aint bringing your victim(s) back.

Knowing your never gonna be free, dieing in jail (albeit in another room) I believe I’ve covered your criteria and saved tax payers some dosh to boot.

It really makes you wonder about crime and our justice system doesn't it?

Looking into the justice system can reveal a lot of things some interesting others not so much.

But if the death penalty or any other punishment truly deterred crime why do we still convict more and more offenders every day?

I don't think there is ever going to be a true fix to our crime rate. Actually I think it will do nothing but get worse. With more and more people out there every day refusing to take responsibility for their own actions and forcing the blame off on others it is no wonder we are in the mess we are in with crime.

The only way to ever deter crime will be a flawless psychological examination off people through out portions of their life. Doing this is as close one can come to reading the minds of those who would offend.

But honestly the biggest punishment would be life with no parole. After all should the criminal justice system not be about punishment and not another quick fix for one criminal by killing one more person? What is killing the offender going to do to punish them? They will feel no more pain, never have to work, never have another worry after they die except for after life punishments. Life in prison could be a very harsh punishment as long as the "humane" benefits are left out of jails and they get back to the grass roots of true punishment.

Here is a PDF on the death penalty talking about costs and more.
PDF

This site has some interesting articles on it.
Death penalty info center

Over one thousand links about the death penalty a lot of nice reading for and against.
1000+ links

New DNA testing frees 203 wrongfully convicted.
Innocence Project

More about the wrong man on death row.
Wrong man


I can not recall who at this time but it was once quoted some thing like this, "It is better that one thousand guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be executed." Honestly is that not true? What if you were the one who was wrongly accused of a crime and sentenced to death?


An essay by a father who urges forgivness after he lost his daughter.
Essay

[edit on 6/11/07 by Raist]

Originally posted by newtron25
Review my posts, I don't want to kill anyone in this fashion either, but if we continue to post platitudes promoted by peace keepers and angels, without offering solutions for the masses, then we are just as guilty as the rest.

Review my posts, you'll see that I've offered plenty of solutions plenty of times. However, real life has a habit of not providing ample opportunity to express my thoughts, but I wanted to insert a favorite quote of mine as I felt it was fitting.

Originally posted by newtron25
It is not enough to say we will go blind if we continue. We need leadership, if not from our leaders, then from within. And it starts by giving of our ideas and our hearts.

I see. I feel that your frustrated with a few things and my post was the boiling point. Try not to pigeon whole me as a member who is not offering thoughts and ideas. I have, I am, and I will continue to offer my thoughts on this concept.. but on this occasion you've come across a post where I did not.

Originally posted by newtron25
What do you offer a suffering nation who does not know how to help itself?

I offer an insight to a better society. A society where we do not stoop to the levels of those we have convicted. A society where we hold our guilty accountable for their actions, and put an end to this mythological restitution that is nothing more than revenge.

Those convicted of heinous crimes should spend their life time in a cell with little to no stimulation. That form of punishment would be much more serving to the masses than sticking a needle in their arm and putting them to sleep. While spending their days in a room with little to no stimulation, I would have a system implemented where they were offered help to fight their demons. The more they put into the program, the more time they could spend out of their cell. If they choose not to participate, they would spend their day in a room with little to no stimulation.

I'm not saying I would save everyone, but those that do not try, they will live a life of nothingness. A life of staring at a clock watching the seconds tick. Minute after minute, day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. It wouldn't take too long before they were begging for death. Death is not within reach, so they would have to reach out to the help that is being offered.

The program does not offer a guaranteed parole, but it is a way of coming to peace with what the individual has done.

The system surely has it's flaws, but it is better than the current system.

Originally posted by newtron25
If there is any better and more horrific illustration as to how deadened and numb we have become, look toward our attitudes on the "war" we are fighting now.

Forgive me, but what does any of this have to do with the topic we are here to discuss? I've tried my best to correlate your thoughts to the topic, but I am failing to see exactly what your attempting to say.

Originally posted by newtron25
Provide us new spectacles, Mr. Lennon. This time preferably without the rose tint and with corrected vision so we may see the truepath to resolution and peace.

I'll ignore your blatant and unnecessary condescending tone. I feel much of your post was completely off-topic and had nothing to do with the topic at hand. However, I've tried to offer an insight to a system where we hold our guilty accountable and provide a sense of retribution to the victims.

A system where the victim has a voice. A system that determines retribution on the satisfaction of the victim and not the duration of a sentence. The victim may not always be satisfied, but at least an effort will be made.

I do not believe that the death penalty deters crime or murder whatsoever. I would love to see this study that indicates otherwise. For many, the thought of living a life in a room with no stimulation.. that might be a little more frightening that being put to "sleep".

Taking a life from someone who has nothing to live for is kind of pointless.

Giving someone a life who has nothing to live for, and removing stimulation from the life, that is a fitting punishment.

Thoughts?

The legal profession will never support capital punishment because it needs criminals on the streets re-offending thereby generating lucrative repeat business for the legal profession.

This is one of the reasons that the legal profession so likes plea bargaining - it puts a crim back on the streets in short order. Plea bargaining should be decreed to be perverting the course of justice and banned accordingly.

The parole system was originally introduced as a means of rewarding genuine contrite rehabilitative behaviour from gaoled offenders but it has been perverted into an excuse to get offenders back on the streets ASAP.
Real truth-in-sentencing along with legislated minimum sentences must be enforced so that stakeholders cannot abuse the system.

IMHO, if a person is found guilty of a capital crime then they should be given two options;
1. Genuine life in prison working to provide financial compensation for the families of the victims.
2. The choice of being humanely executed, including a choice of (say) 1 of 10 methods. They should also be given opporunity to donate organs to offer some restitution to society.
Either way they are permanently taken off the streets and provide some recompense for their evil.

Thank you, Hippichick. First cogent presentation of an alternative application of justice I've read so far.

Not sure I'd offer 10 different methods of death, this wouldn't be like going out for an ice cream cone you know.

Also, law firms may not support the death penalty, but not for the same reasons you have stated. By embracing the death penalty in any form, the profession itself is kind of going against its fiduciary duty to some degree, no? Towards its clients, whether they be the defendant or the prosecution. Advocating the death penalty compromises an individual's (I'm talking the victim's here) ability to reconcile their morals (should they have them) with the justice being meted out.

The ABA would have a hard time arguing effectively why they should advocate the murder their actions have caused, though it is currently done by way of the Prosecutors acting on behalf of the state.

Is there a suitable corollary for doctors assisting suicide? Sorry for the tangent, just curious.

Originally posted by hippichick
The legal profession will never support capital punishment because it needs criminals on the streets re-offending thereby generating lucrative repeat business for the legal profession.

This is one of the reasons that the legal profession so likes plea bargaining - it puts a crim back on the streets in short order. Plea bargaining should be decreed to be perverting the course of justice and banned accordingly.

The parole system was originally introduced as a means of rewarding genuine contrite rehabilitative behaviour from gaoled offenders but it has been perverted into an excuse to get offenders back on the streets ASAP.
Real truth-in-sentencing along with legislated minimum sentences must be enforced so that stakeholders cannot abuse the system.

IMHO, if a person is found guilty of a capital crime then they should be given two options;
1. Genuine life in prison working to provide financial compensation for the families of the victims.
2. The choice of being humanely executed, including a choice of (say) 1 of 10 methods. They should also be given opporunity to donate organs to offer some restitution to society.
Either way they are permanently taken off the streets and provide some recompense for their evil.

Nicely said, hippichick.

Wish there was as much agonising about the fate of innocent civilians whose lives are taken/wasted every day through 'war', as there is about the fate of those in civilian life who decide, for whatever reason, to take the lives of their fellow creatures.

Hey, thanks for the interest on the thread. I just checked in and found 49 responses!!!

I believe that one must not kill. No matter what; even animals. However, we must protect our population from murderers and serious criminals. We are doing so now at Guantanamo, with indeterminate length stays. Why don't we take the next step of simply taking all the convicted killers of the world and moving them to an island where they can live out their lives. We could do periodic food drops, clothing drops, but they would have to live as primitive humans since they have chosen a life of savagery. No death penalty, no escape, no max security prisons needed, case closed. Australia was the right idea, but too nice a piece of real estate and they just dumped the poor there. We need a place like Alcatraz but without the prison for this project. Now, where to put them? I vote for the Falklands or Iceland. We could bring all the nice natives here. Or, we could hire that company that built the Palms island off the coast of Dubai to make an artificial island out in some shark infested body of water--maybe the Maldives since they are about to sink under the waves anyhow. Anyone else have a suggestion? Madagascar? Canary Islands? Just think, no more hard-core criminals on Earth except for 1 little island.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by j_kalin]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by j_kalin]

All evidence to date states that capital punishment is not a deterrant due to the nature of the crime. However that said I would like to see the murder rates wrt population size (murders per million) for all similar countries. NB that culture will affect the rate, for example murder rates in countires where honour killings are prevelant will be higher or possibly lower if they don't count them as murder! So what are the rates for judeo-christian western countries and which have the death penalty?

To all those in favour of the death penalty I presume you would find it perfectly acceptable for your children to be executed based on screwed up evidence. You know damn well the police have done this. It is for the greater good isn't it? Personally I would rather be able to unlock the door and let them free but then again maybe I'm some weirdo liberal.

I do believe that ALL prisoners work for their keep. Why not get them to do some of the less appealing work like cleaning up polluted fields, streams rivers. Graffiti removal, repair vandalised property. Build things, gardening etc for the poorer members of the community etc etc. Obvioulsy violent offenders do relevant work inside! Privileges such as entertainment, non essential food items etc are their incentive to work.

Originally posted by j_kalin
Hey, thanks for the interest on the thread. I just checked in and found 49 responses!!!

I believe that one must not kill. No matter what; even animals. However, we must protect our population from murderers and serious criminals. We are doing so now at Guantanamo, with indeterminate length stays. Why don't we take the next step of simply taking all the convicted killers of the world and moving them to an island where they can live out their lives. We could do periodic food drops, clothing drops, but they would have to live as primitive humans since they have chosen a life of savagery. No death penalty, no escape, no max security prisons needed, case closed. Australia was the right idea, but too nice a piece of real estate and they just dumped the poor there. We need a place like Alcatraz but without the prison for this project. Now, where to put them? I vote for the Falklands or Iceland. We could bring all the nice natives here. Or, we could hire that company that built the Palms island off the coast of Dubai to make an artificial island out in some shark infested body of water--maybe the Maldives since they are about to sink under the waves anyhow. Anyone else have a suggestion? Madagascar? Canary Islands? Just think, no more hard-core criminals on Earth except for 1 little island.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by j_kalin]

[edit on 11-6-2007 by j_kalin]

You must forgive the brief post here, but wasn't this already tried once...and it was called Australia??

Originally posted by hippichick

This is one of the reasons that the legal profession so likes plea bargaining - it puts a crim back on the streets in short order. Plea bargaining should be decreed to be perverting the course of justice and banned accordingly.

The parole system was originally introduced as a means of rewarding genuine contrite rehabilitative behaviour from gaoled offenders but it has been perverted into an excuse to get offenders back on the streets ASAP.
Real truth-in-sentencing along with legislated minimum sentences must be enforced so that stakeholders cannot abuse the system.

IMHO, if a person is found guilty of a capital crime then they should be given two options;
1. Genuine life in prison working to provide financial compensation for the families of the victims.
2. The choice of being humanely executed, including a choice of (say) 1 of 10 methods. They should also be given opporunity to donate organs to offer some restitution to society.
Either way they are permanently taken off the streets and provide some recompense for their evil.

You are only partially right about plea bargaining. It should be ban completely I'll agree with that, but you are wrong as to the reasons for having it. Plea bargaining is not designed or created to get the offender back out on the streets quicker. Rather it was designed to get them through the court system quicker at the same time giving them a reduced sentence as an unfortunate side effect.

You also are some what right with the parole system you went wrong though in the idea that it became perverted to get offenders back on the street. Those making the descriptions now are following politics and not investigating properly the danger the offender represents. You might find it interesting that as of 2005 there were only 11% of offenders on parole while 59% were on probation, 20% in prison and 10% in jail. A greater threat to society is that several violent offenders get off with nothing more than probation spending no time in jail until they offend again. This is not do to the fact that they want to release offenders so they can arrest them again. We all know some one else is going to offend soon enough so they will have bodies to arrest no matter what. No they are released on probation as a way to save the system and us the tax payer money. Also several states have eliminated parole boards.


As for life in prison working I can agree with that. Though states are not allowed to have prisoners provide work that would do any thing but save the state money. In other words inmates are to make licenses plates for that state only or make things like office furniture that will be used by state offices only. Back when the inmate work detail was strong the states were providing cheap labor and costing lawful citizens money by doing so. Do you want an inmate doing that type of job you do cheaper and taking money from your pocket?

As for the death penalty most inmates on mandatory life without parole would rather be executed. They see it as a quick way to end the punishment and suffering they are receiving now.

I am all for the death penalty as long as there is solid concrete evidence in the pending cases.

As for child molestors I think they should be subject to the death penalty too. They deserve far worse things than death but this seems like an adequate punishment to me. My other form of punishment for them is to chop off there reproductive organs or hands which are doing the molesting. Then maybe our children would be alot safer in this world.

Originally posted by newtron25
Thank you, Hippichick. First cogent presentation of an alternative application of justice I've read so far.

Not sure I'd offer 10 different methods of death, this wouldn't be like going out for an ice cream cone you know.

Also, law firms may not support the death penalty, but not for the same reasons you have stated. By embracing the death penalty in any form, the profession itself is kind of going against its fiduciary duty to some degree, no? Towards its clients, whether they be the defendant or the prosecution. Advocating the death penalty compromises an individual's (I'm talking the victim's here) ability to reconcile their morals (should they have them) with the justice being meted out.

The ABA would have a hard time arguing effectively why they should advocate the murder their actions have caused, though it is currently done by way of the Prosecutors acting on behalf of the state.

Is there a suitable corollary for doctors assisting suicide? Sorry for the tangent, just curious.

The ABA and law firms can be for or against the death penalty all they want they don't decide the sentence of the offender. They might recommend a sentence as ask by the DA's office but that is as far as it goes. The one responsible for handing out sentencing is a judge. Sentencing may be handed out with out trial but it is still decided by a judge. In the 90's how ever many states started going back to the mandatory sentencing of certain crimes. Mandatory sentencing can be either mandatory minimum or maximum or both on the sentence. For instance a judge may be forced by a mandatory sentence to put some one in prison for a minimum of 5 years though through certain circumstances the judge believes they deserve less.
If any one is to blame on light sentencing of crimes it is judges and light mandatory sentencing decided by the state supreme courts.
Lawyers are there to do nothing but prove the innocence or lack there of, of the offender. They can offer council on what they believe the punishments should be but that is all.

First degree murder is judged the same nation wide but the sentencing maybe different from one jurisdiction to another. At this time first degree murder is the only crime judged the same nation wide. As for others what is a felony in one place may be a misdemeanor in another.

The reason that criminals continue to have some what limited rights after being convicted is protection.
Not of those who are truly guilty but for those who might be found guilty but are truly innocent.
If we take away the basic rights of those convicted we remove the rights of a person that might some day be you.

The death penalty is a very serious thing that many seem to be willing to use with out question. But what about the fact that there are more and more people being exonerated every year for new evidence that proves they are innocent. Is it really worth the risk to see one innocent die to protect society or would life with out parole be a better choice? What is it was you or your child or someone you love on death row or put to death and they were innocent?

There are those out there that have lost loved ones and ask for forgiveness for the offender instead of asking for blood. Could something not be learned from them and their humanity?

The death penalty is not a punishment it is a quick way out of punishment. Life with no parole is a much better choice. Incapacitation is the only way to reduce crime and there is not true way to deter crime other than getting the morals of this country back.

Originally posted by newtron25
Review my posts, I don't want to kill anyone in this fashion either, but if we continue to post platitudes promoted by peace keepers and angels, without offering solutions for the masses, then we are just as guilty as the rest.

Where are the alternatives? Where is the uproar of protest with DEFINITIVE replacement plans on how to deal with what is going on?

I too would like to see alternatives to the death penalty, because I appose it. So here's a few ideas.
How about brain surgery to remove aggression? Tho I'm not sure it's possible but if it were then at least they could *someday* be put back into society. What about removing their arms, pretty hard for armless man to hurt let alone kill. I don't see the difference between that and castrating rapists.

Someone mentioned that, why should we pay for prisoners. I don't see why prisons can't make enough profits to earn their keep. Look we all profit from buying cheap goods made by some exploited kids in 3rd word countries(nike anyone). Why can't prisons be profitable factories?

Just listening to a radio talkback(www.abc.net.au...), the topic is. Should convicted murders be aloud to be euthaninzed?

[edit on 12/6/07 by styxxz]

If we agree that it's a crime against society and individuals to kill, isn't it then hypocritical to say that because someone has killed then they must be killed?

However, imo i am fully in favour of straw beds, bread and water and chain gangs etc.

The primary aim of any sentence must be to punish, not rehabilitate.

The primary aim of a sentence is provide justice. Punishment and rehabilitation are functions of society, not the law. Or did I get that reversed.....