Capital Punishment:

[Agent_Grey]

It's factually demonstrated to not deter crime in any state that uses it.

It's morally indefensible on the grounds that it can't be taken back if used unjustly.

It's only purpose is vengance, which is a bad reason to do anything.

Disagree? Bring it.

 

[obvious Child]

It's factually demonstrated to not deter crime in any state that uses it.

Not that I disagree with you, but you need to provide some evidence for this assertion.

 

[JimboJ]

It's factually demonstrated to not deter crime in any state that uses it.

It's morally indefensible on the grounds that it can't be taken back if used unjustly.

It's only purpose is vengance, which is a bad reason to do anything.

Disagree? Bring it.

Even on the vengance rationale, capital punishment serves as a poor policy. Since capital punishment cases typically take years to resolve, they entail dragging a victim´s family through a lengthy and emotionally harrowing experience. Given your reason 1 the cases cannot go more quickly. Even at their current rate mistakes are made.

 

[Oftencold]

Of course it deters crime. No one so treated has ever murdered again.

 

[obvious Child]

Of course it deters crime. No one so treated has ever murdered again.

But that is by definition not a deterrence. A deterrence is something that prevent crime by fear. A dead man has no fear. Therefore a dead man cannot be deterred.

From Webster:

* Main Entry: de·ter·rence
* Pronunciation: \di-ˈtər-ən(t)s, -ˈter-; -ˈtə-rən(t)s, -ˈte-; dē-\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1861

: the act or process of deterring: as a : the inhibition of criminal behavior by fear especially of punishment b : the maintenance of military power for the purpose of discouraging attack

What you are discussing is prevention, not deterrence.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Some people are irredeemable and should not be suffered to live.
Not vengeance-just elegance and simplicity.

I am for the theory of capital punishment, but opposed to some of the practice.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It's morally indefensible on the grounds that it can't be taken back if used unjustly.

Because we are mortals, there is no penalty that can "be taken back if used unjustly."
Does this mean that all penalties are "morally indefensible"?

 

[jamesrage]

It's factually demonstrated to not deter crime in any state that uses it.

It's morally indefensible on the grounds that it can't be taken back if used unjustly.

It's only purpose is vengance, which is a bad reason to do anything.

Disagree? Bring it.

It purpose is to serve as the ultimate punishment for committing the most heinous of crimes. If it deters some people from murdering then so be it if not then oh well. So what if if scumbag sympathizers see that its only purpose as vengeance. A dead murderer will no longer possess any ability to harm another inmate nor will he possess any ability to harm a guard,prison staff or anyone else nor is there the slight change he will be released on humanitarian grounds or escape. So this idea by you scumbag sympathizers that somehow the only purpose this serves is vengeance is asinine.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

It's factually demonstrated to not deter crime in any state that uses it.

There is a 100% certainty that a person who receives the death penalty will not reoffend. That seems like deterrance to me.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

There is a 100% certainty that a person who receives the death penalty will not reoffend. That seems like deterrance to me.

If you're willing let deterrence mean something other than its regular meaning...

 

[Ikari]

I don't believe the death penalty is worth keeping anymore. Or if we're going to have it, it should be based off the Colorado version. Here it's very very difficult to get a death penalty conviction and there has to be overwhelming evidence presented for the crime and the crime must be grave enough before it's even possible. We don't have many criminals on death row and we rarely execute people. Colorado had its death penalty reinstated in 1975, and since then we've executed one man in 1997.

 

[JimboJ]

Some people are irredeemable and should not be suffered to live.
Not vengeance-just elegance and simplicity.

I am for the theory of capital punishment, but opposed to some of the practice.

If elegance and simplicity is your rationale for capital punishment, then you should be opposed to all of its current practice. Carrying out capital punishment in any state is neither elegant or simple. It is a horrific, expensive and drawn out process. Of course, any move to simplify it would increase the existing risk of putting innoccent people to death. There is no elegance in the state killing an innocent person.

 

[Agent_Grey]

Because we are mortals, there is no penalty that can "be taken back if used unjustly."
Does this mean that all penalties are "morally indefensible"?

That's not entirely true. The recent cases of falsely accused men being released after decades were greatful to get to enjoy the rest of their lives free, and in some cases were financially compensated for the amount of time they were held.

The executed do not have those options.

 

[Joe1991]

I'm for the death penalty, I just think we ought to apply it to white collar criminals as well.

Swindlers like Bernie Madoff destroy peoples lives just as much as a rapist or murderer.

I say if you steal or cheat people out of more than 20k, you get an appointment with Michael Jacksons doctor.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If elegance and simplicity is your rationale for capital punishment, then you should be opposed to all of its current practice. Carrying out capital punishment in any state is neither elegant or simple. It is a horrific, expensive and drawn out process. Of course, any move to simplify it would increase the existing risk of putting innoccent people to death. There is no elegance in the state killing an innocent person.

I am for the theory of capital punishment, but opposed to some of the practice.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That's not entirely true. The recent cases of falsely accused men being released after decades were greatful to get to enjoy the rest of their lives free, and in some cases were financially compensated for the amount of time they were held.
The executed do not have those options.

So we somehow add those decades back into their life? Do we go back with a time machine and prevent whatever hurts and suffering the convicted and their families suffer?
If not, then the detriments are not actually taken back.
There are moral grounds that can be used to object to the death penalty. However, "can't be taken back if used unjustly" is not one of them

 

[Agent_Grey]

So we somehow add those decades back into their life? Do we go back with a time machine and prevent whatever hurts and suffering the convicted and their families suffer?
If not, then the detriments are not actually taken back.
There are moral grounds that can be used to object to the death penalty. However, "can't be taken back if used unjustly" is not one of them

I disagree. In my example above I pointed out that the people held then released are typically greatful. If they spent the rest of their lives doing nothing but lamenting their incarceration, I'd agree with you, but they don't. If nothing else at least they get to go to their death beds knowing they're exhonerated, a joy the wrongly executed never get to know.

 

[Oftencold]

I don't believe the death penalty is worth keeping anymore. Or if we're going to have it, it should be based off the Colorado version. Here it's very very difficult to get a death penalty conviction and there has to be overwhelming evidence presented for the crime and the crime must be grave enough before it's even possible. We don't have many criminals on death row and we rarely execute people. Colorado had its death penalty reinstated in 1975, and since then we've executed one man in 1997.

Note to would be murderers: kill your victim in Colorado.

 

[Ikari]

Note to would be murderers: kill your victim in Colorado.

HAHAHAH. Why? We have jails. We put people in them for murder. It's not like you'll go unpunished if you murder someone here.

Your comment was just a dumb dumb comment that has nothing to do with the issues on hand. You're trying to make some idiotic appeal to emotion saying I'm in more danger or that it's better to kill in CO just because we don't aggressively pursue the death penalty. It's a non sequitur deflect and nothing more. Come back when you can intelligently contribute to the conversation.

 

[rathi]

The death penalty is normally just a waste of resources, and impossible to reverse. That said, it is occasionally useful in certain scenarios. I would get rid of it except for special circumstances, probably requiring some kind of federal approval.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

If you're willing let deterrence mean something other than its regular meaning...

It has a very specific meaning...it deters THAT INDIVIDUAL. The death penalty ABSOLUTELY deters an offender from killing someone heinously, ever again.

Beyond that, I've never viewed criminal justice as a form of overall deterrence, anyway. Criminal justice is only, EVER, a deterrent for offenders who've been charged and convicted. It has very little impact, overall, on other offenders.

It's a false map that you and others have set up to create an unworkable means of determining efficacy. A better method is this:

Does crime go down when we incarcerate/execute the right offenders?

The answer? Absolutely.

The next question is: Is their sentence an appropriate measure of the impact their crimes caused to the victims and society as a whole?

The third question is: Do they recidivate after incarceration? That last question should drive programming behind bars, as well as determinations about sentence length and appropriateness.

Only a tiny percentage of society (around 3%) will offend, anyway. That's the only group we should be focusing our criminal justice sights on.

As far as prevention/intervention, if you want to discuss those subjects, I'd be happy to, but it's a mistaken in terms to suggest that incarceration and/or the death penalty have an effect on other individuals in society choosing whether or not to commit a crime. I don't even believe that "deterrence," as you define it, has a role in the discussion.

 

[obvious Child]

It has a very specific meaning...it deters THAT INDIVIDUAL. The death penalty ABSOLUTELY deters an offender from killing someone heinously, ever again.

Simon is correct, the definition you use is prevent, where deterrence is something entirely different:

See:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/Death-Penalty/55514-capital-punishment.html#post1058229824

For proper definition of deterrence.

A very simple way of figuring out if something is a deterrence is asking, does it prevent the behavior through fear of potential punishments?

Then apply that to the death penalty. Can a dead man feel fear?

 

[Catz Part Deux]

A very simple way of figuring out if something is a deterrence is asking, does it prevent the behavior through fear of potential punishments?

As stated, this is a false platform for discussing the death penalty. The reason we use the death penalty is NOT for an overall societal effect (to scare people out of committing crimes, which DOES NOT WORK), but to prevent individuals from ever killing again.

Thus, the entire discussion is founded on an essentially false premise.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Deter Definition | Definition of Deter at Dictionary.com

de⋅ter  /dɪˈtɜr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-tur] Show IPA
Use deter in a Sentence
See web results for deter
See images of deter
–verb (used with object), -terred, -ter⋅ring.
1. to discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding: The large dog deterred trespassers.
2. to prevent; check; arrest: timber treated with creosote to deter rot.

I used the term deter in the second context, i.e., to stop. In this case, the death penalty PERMANENTLY deters an offender from future offending.

 

[obvious Child]

As stated, this is a false platform for discussing the death penalty.

Well, we cannot go about changing definitions of words because it is inconvenient to use their actual definition. The death penalty by definition is not a deterrent in how it functions.

The reason we use the death penalty is NOT for an overall societal effect (to scare people out of committing crimes, which DOES NOT WORK), but to prevent individuals from ever killing again.

Then it should be discussed as a prevention tool, not a deterrent as prevention does not have linguistic issues regarding fear as a primary motivation.

Thus, the entire discussion is founded on an essentially false premise.

Wait, isn't removal of killers a net benefit effect for society? And it's questionable why some states use the death penalty. I wouldn't make a blanket statement that as a country we don't use it as a deterrent.

And the discussion is founded on a few other issues, such as morality and alleged vengeance, neither of which are in any way related to deterrence/prevention.

IHO, I don't have a problem with it in principle, I just think that the US form needs serious, serious reform.

1) It is too expensive
2) It is still racially biased (and thus arbitrary)
3) Innocent people (of the specific crime in question) have been wrongfully executed
4) It is too slow. You're more likely to die selling crack on a corner then you are on death row at any one point in time.
5) The basis of prosecution these days, DNA is shown to be unreliable and US labs are backed up for months if not years.