RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime

RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 6:53:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Could you explain the last sentence please? The meaning is not clear to me. So if I understand you correctly, you would base the criminal justice system on mathematical equations, without any questions of ethics? "The cost to society of allowing innocent, productive members of society far exceeds the cost of executing those who prey on good citizens." Let's take a recent murder case--the 18 y/o woman who just graduated from high school and was abducted from the Target parking lot. She was going to go to college, and who knows what she could have been--a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, a stockbroker. Any one of those professions would add millions of dollars in value to the Gross Domestic Product--I'm not just talking about her salary, I'm talking about the value of the goods she would produce. Or in the case of a teacher, the productive capacity her instruction would add to the students she educates. Compare that to the murderer--likely a ne'er'do'well, who tended to take more from society than he put in. Not only was he not producing, he chose to destroy someone who could have produced. His crime was not just against the person he killed or her family; it was against all society. That's why the charges in any crime read "The People of the State of California vs XXX." The person has infringed upon the rights of all the people, not just those of the victim. Secondly, no I wouldn't base the justice system on ethics per se. If you look at the basic structure of our government--the political philosophy upon which it is based, you see that our laws and society are not (or rather, should not be) based on the ethical judgements of any single individual. Locke argued that people have complete autonomy in a state of nature--they may do as they wish, but they are always at risk of having their liberty destroyed by those who are stronger than them. Thus, they band together and surrender some of their liberty in exchange for the protection accorded by banding together. They lose some liberty but they protect the bulk of it. Government is a contract between the people and the government to protect the liberty of individuals in exchange for all individuals obeying the law. Synergy's question was illogical and a trap. He wanted me to say "Oh I would not kill an innocent person," or "Oh I would kill an innocent person." I reject the concept that anyone is killing anyone. The juror who votes for death does not kill the individual being executed, guilty or not. The executioner does not kill the individual, guilty or not. The Government, acting as the agent of all the people, merely executes the contract. The individual, guilty or not, has been found to have violated the terms of the contract, and must pay the penalty for such. He has killed himself. This is why I said there were no ethics involved. It's not a question of whether I would be killing the individual. As a juror, mine is only to determine whether he is guilty of violating the contract. Whether I vote for life or death is immaterial. I included the statistics to demonstrate that the error rate is very low. It's statistically impossible to have a 0% error rate. Government cannot make policy based on the concept that if it cannot have perfection, it shall do nothing. One might say "We'll launch a health care initiative that will save 98% of the victims of Illness X," and then have that proposal rejected because it does not save 100% of such victims. It's illogical to expect perfection from anything involving humans.

Vendaval -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:05:19 PM)
The man charged with her kidnapping and murder, Edwin R. Hall, is married and the father of a 4 year old son. http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21285427.shtml quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 "The cost to society of allowing innocent, productive members of society far exceeds the cost of executing those who prey on good citizens." Let's take a recent murder case--the 18 y/o woman who just graduated from high school and was abducted from the Target parking lot. She was going to go to college, and who knows what she could have been--a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, a stockbroker. Any one of those professions would add millions of dollars in value to the Gross Domestic Product--I'm not just talking about her salary, I'm talking about the value of the goods she would produce. Or in the case of a teacher, the productive capacity her instruction would add to the students she educates. Compare that to the murderer--likely a ne'er'do'well, who tended to take more from society than he put in. Not only was he not producing, he chose to destroy someone who could have produced. His crime was not just against the person he killed or her family; it was against all society.

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:06:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Fair enough. Your response when the innocent person being killed is you? Life's imperfect. What a silly question. You might ask me whether I would support abortion if I was the fetus being aborted. Or whether I would support allowing women to drive if a woman driver hit and killed me. Or whether I think natural gas vehicles should be banned because one blew up and killed me (that actually happened here, btw). Here's my answer: I think no injustices should ever be visited upon me. My life should be nothing but daisies and flowers and pretty girls and good wine that doesn't give you a hangover or make you puke. [:)] Understand completely. As long as the standards apply to strangers, you are all for them. You and AnencephalyBoy have a lot in common. Sinergy

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:07:42 PM)
[sm=banghead.gif]

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval However, the estimates I've read for the wrongful conviction rate ranges from 0.03% to 0.06%. We should strive for 0%, but realisitically that's nothing to be ashamed of. Cite your sources, please. Vendeval, I can't keep responding to these all nite or I'll never get my own work done (although I would like to reread Montesquieu and Locke sometime [:)]). Suffice to say that you are correct in pointing out that many of my responses in post 76 were silly and irrelevant. They were meant to be. I thought Synergy's question was silly, and I gave him a silly answer. The question of sources is fair. Here's my source: The Innocent And the Shammed New York Times, Jan 26, 2006 Joshua Marquis is the district attorney of Clatsop County in Oregon and a vice president of the National District Attorneys Association. "To start, only 14 Americans who were once on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence alone. The hordes of Americans wrongfully convicted exist primarily on Planet Hollywood. In the Winter 2005 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, a group led by Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, published an exhaustive study of exonerations around the country from 1989 to 2003 in cases ranging from robbery to capital murder. They were able to document only 340 inmates who were eventually freed. (They counted cases where defendants were retried after an initial conviction and subsequently found not guilty as ''exonerations.'') Yet, despite the relatively small number his research came up with, Mr. Gross says he is certain that far more innocents languish undiscovered in prison. So, let's give the professor the benefit of the doubt: let's assume that he understated the number of innocents by roughly a factor of 10, that instead of 340 there were 4,000 people in prison who weren't involved in the crime in any way. During that same 15 years, there were more than 15 million felony convictions across the country. That would make the error rate .027 percent -- or, to put it another way, a success rate of 99.973 percent."

subinside -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:09:18 PM)
i studied Criminology in University, and all the studies that we ever examined showed that there is no indication that the death penalty deters crime at all. The ratio of 'death penalty' crimes committed remain in sync between states with the death penalty as those without it.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:11:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval The man charged with her kidnapping and murder, Edwin R. Hall, is married and the father of a 4 year old son. http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21285427.shtml He sounds like a model father: "It is belived that Hall's, or "Jack's", general interests were "eating small children and harming small animals." Do you think this man is capable of having a positive impact on the child's life?

TheHeretic -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:11:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy ...in addition to the question of how you would feel if the innocent person being killed was you. I look forward to your response. Sinergy I'm not sure why this question seems to work so well for you in debate, Sinergy. It' not hard to answer and the premise is almost annoyingly smug. I support the death penalty. I think some crimes are so heinous as to demand it. My list would be longer than the Government's. This does not mean I support lynch mobs, kangaroo courts, corrupt cops and DA's or every single provision of the Patriot Act. I don't wish to see innocent people locked up for anything. You ask if we (death penalty supporters) would change our minds if we found ourselves on death row for a crime we didn't commit. Let's shrink the analogy a bit. Do you assume I would change my mind about putting armed robbers in prison If I was pulled over on my way to a range and matched a description, with the worst possible outcome? Convictions aren't always based on nothing but personal circumstance, you know. In the hypothetical you raise, I'd fight to the last, exhaust every appeal, scream at the injustice and still believe death was the appropriate punishment for the crime.

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:13:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 or, to put it another way, a success rate." Unless you are one of the .027% We already know that unless you are in that group, you completely agree that those in that group should just suck it up and accept it as their personal sacrifice for the greater good. Sinergy edited for -not

Vendaval -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:15:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 Secondly, no I wouldn't base the justice system on ethics per se. If you look at the basic structure of our government--the political philosophy upon which it is based, you see that our laws and society are not (or rather, should not be) based on the ethical judgements of any single individual. So again, you see the justice system as not needing any ethics? Are you saying that individual lives have no value? Locke argued that people have complete autonomy in a state of nature--they may do as they wish, but they are always at risk of having their liberty destroyed by those who are stronger than them. Thus, they band together and surrender some of their liberty in exchange for the protection accorded by banding together. They lose some liberty but they protect the bulk of it. Government is a contract between the people and the government to protect the liberty of individuals in exchange for all individuals obeying the law. The law exists to protect the people and stabilize society. Synergy's question was illogical and a trap. He wanted me to say "Oh I would not kill an innocent person," or "Oh I would kill an innocent person." I reject the concept that anyone is killing anyone. The juror who votes for death does not kill the individual being executed, guilty or not. The executioner does not kill the individual, guilty or not. The Government, acting as the agent of all the people, merely executes the contract. I am sure Synergy can explain his own meaning behind that question. But my own take on that question is this - Have you ever been involved directly in the criminal justice system? As a victim, as a criminal, as an eye-witness or innocent bystander? So the Government is responsible for the killing of the individual? No individual or groups of individuals have any of the blame? The individual, guilty or not, has been found to have violated the terms of the contract, and must pay the penalty for such. He has killed himself. So guilt or innocence makes no difference to you? And the person being killed is responsible for their own death? This is why I said there were no ethics involved. It's not a question of whether I would be killing the individual. As a juror, mine is only to determine whether he is guilty of violating the contract. Whether I vote for life or death is immaterial. So voting for life imprisonment is also immaterial? I included the statistics to demonstrate that the error rate is very low. It's statistically impossible to have a 0% error rate. Government cannot make policy based on the concept that if it cannot have perfection, it shall do nothing. No one is saying that should be the case. One might say "We'll launch a health care initiative that will save 98% of the victims of Illness X," and then have that proposal rejected because it does not save 100% of such victims. It's illogical to expect perfection from anything involving humans. You are missing the point entirely again.

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:17:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic In the hypothetical you raise, I'd fight to the last, exhaust every appeal, scream at the injustice and still believe death was the appropriate punishment for the crime. What crime did you commit? Sinergy

Real0ne -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:19:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 The individual, guilty or not, has been found to have violated the terms of the contract, and must pay the penalty for such. He has killed himself. now if we could just be assured we had an honest government huh? i dont have a problem with the death penalty as such. i have a problem with the death panalty in a corrupt society of legal murderers.

Vendaval -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:22:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 He sounds like a model father: His parenting skills are not being reported as of yet. "It is belived that Hall's, or "Jack's", general interests were "eating small children and harming small animals." The evidence will be forthcoming one way or another. Do you think this man is capable of having a positive impact on the child's life? No opinion one way or the other, no evidence regarding his parenting skills has yet been circulated.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:22:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic It' not hard to answer and the premise is almost annoyingly smug. ... In the hypothetical you raise, I'd fight to the last, exhaust every appeal, scream at the injustice and still believe death was the appropriate punishment for the crime. The premise is "almost annoyingly smug" because your answer is simply unbelievable. I just don't believe that would be your actual response under the hypothetical circumstances. You remind me of one of those hawkish chest-beaters in congress that will never see even 5 minutes of wartime combat. You talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:24:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval You are missing the point entirely again. Perhaps it would be more productive if you gave us your perspective on this.

Sinergy -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:24:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 Synergy's question was illogical and a trap. He wanted me to say "Oh I would not kill an innocent person," or "Oh I would kill an innocent person." I reject the concept that anyone is killing anyone. The juror who votes for death does not kill the individual being executed, guilty or not. The executioner does not kill the individual, guilty or not. The Government, acting as the agent of all the people, merely executes the contract. The individual, guilty or not, has been found to have violated the terms of the contract, and must pay the penalty for such. He has killed himself. That is not what I wanted you to say, but thank you for putting words in my mouth. It was a trap. I wanted you to try to explain how the life of an innocent person was worth keeping the death penalty around. Your response was to evade the question. As far as Vendaval's response, you are further evading the question by refusing to stand up and be responsible for putting people to death. The impression I get from your posts is that as long as somebody else is doing the state-sponsored murder, you feel absolved of any responsibility. It is like people who support the Iraq war. As long as it does not directly impact their lives, and they are not the ones doing anything, they are slathering at the mouth to murder Iraqis. Sinergy

Real0ne -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:25:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I think some crimes are so heinous as to demand it. the only flaw with that is you cant torture a dead man. any crime that is THAT Henious he should at least be begging to die for 10 years before turning out the lights LOL

Vendaval -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:31:10 PM)
Sources against the Death Penalty also abound, to list just a few - http://www.wrongfulconvictions.com/releases.htm http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/dwilkes_more/30convicting.html http://www.wrongfulconvictions.blogspot.com/

selfbnd411 -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:35:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Sources against the Death Penalty also abound, to list just a few - But those are other people's writings. Other people's ideas. I can google those. I can't google Vendeval's ideas on why she opposes the death penalty. Not unless you post them! [:)]

TheHeretic -> RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime (6/11/2007 7:41:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy What crime did you commit? Sinergy How about a nice spree killing with an axe? No. Wait... that was a dream. Does it really matter? Pick a capital offense and I suppose I could hypothetically be wrongly convicted of it. Like I said, I think it's an appropriate sentence far more often than it's applied.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.076172E-02