Death Penalty

[Kyrisch]

Since a quick search reveals that there has not been a thread devoted to this subject for at least a year, I have decided to open this up after reading Severian's claim of advocation for the death penalty in another thread.

 

My argument comes in two parts: first, that the actions of the justice system are meant as a deterrent for crime, not a punishment. I believe this because of the problem of free will. Sociologist Malcolm Gladwell's work tends to get to the core of the issue. In his books, he illustrates through citation of various social phenomena as well as many classic psychological experiments that people's actions are more heavily influenced by outside sources than many people would realize. I, however, will even go so far as to point out that many internal drives are similarly out of a person's control. This does not make the action that results from such a drive right in a moral sense, but it does absolve an individual from a lot of personal responsibility, as hard to accept as that may be.

 

As such, I don't want to get into an argument about whether or not free will exists because I'm not adopting and radical stance on the matter. I am simply saying that when a psychopath is driven to murder, it's because he's a psychopath, not because he has chosen to murder. Furthermore, he did not choose to be a psychopath.

 

This, however, does not mean that the whole justice system is invalid. Imprisonment and other such consequences to violent or otherwise illegal actions are valid as deterrents to crime, though not as punishments. While people are naturally vindictive, the judicial system cannot fairly be.

 

So, why the death penalty? This seems exactly what I mentioned above -- a reflection of the vindictive nature of people to whom wrong has been done. As a deterrent, it can only be preferred if it better deters crime. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. Further, it isn't even cheaper. While death penalty advocates claim that it costs the same as maintaining a life sentence in prison, less conservative estimates place it as far more expensive.

 

The death penalty is simply unreasonable. Just because it makes people feel better that the person who killed their loved one is being put to death does not mean it is right to be vindictive.

[Pangloss]

You're right, it has been a while since we talked about the death penalty. Thanks for the thread.

 

I don't know that I have much to add here, but just to be supportive I'll say that I'm opposed to the death penalty. Mainly this is because I have an almost physical opposition to two-wrongs reasoning, and because I don't believe that it reduces crime.

 

I have little interest in moral reasoning, and find most of it to be hypocritical, particularly amongst special interest groups (e.g. saying that abortion is okay but the death penalty is wrong, when in fact both are moral compromises).

[Sisyphus]

I am also opposed, for the same pragmatic reasons as you. It doesn't deter crime and it's wildly expensive. If someone can show me otherwise I'm willing to reconsider.

 

As for questions of punishment and free will and all that, it doesn't really matter. The reason the state punishes is to influence behavior. If it doesn't work, it isn't doing anyone any good, and I don't want to pay for it. You could threaten me not to breathe, but no threat is capable of influencing my behavior, so it would be pointless. You could threaten me not to steal, and that can be incorporated into my motivation if it's credible, so it makes sense to follow through on those threats.

[Phi for All]

I'm also opposed to the death penalty. For the reasons Pangloss and Sisyphus stated, and also because it precludes (or at least deters) further research into better methodologies. That's the problem with most "ultimate solutions"; once you consider it the best method, you stop trying to find anything better, even when the evidence shows you it's not even very good.

 

There has to be something better than killing people for killing people.

[Mr Skeptic]

Firstly, I think people need to own up to the fact that life in prison is essentially a death penalty (death by old age). The only reason that it matters what you call it, is that this would then gain the protections entitled to those receiving the death penalty: automatic appeal and higher standards of evidence. As it stands, life in prison is a major cop-out by people who are gaming the system, so as to avoid protections entitled to those against whom such punishment is sought. This is why life in prison is cheaper than the death penalty -- there is a lower standard.

 

So, I advocate death penalty be automatically given in place of any life in prison (or most-of-your-life-in-prison which would follow shortly if this was implemented.).

 

Now, as to what our justice system is: we have Prevention (both deterrent and active prevention), Punishment, and (only in theory) Rehabilitation. Prevention via placing bad people in a box so they can't do bad things during that time, also essentially having a bit of a leash on them (parole) after we let them out of the box. This presumably also acts as a deterrent.

 

Punishment, it is actually important that people feel that justice has been served. Without this, you are going to get lynch mob mentality and a general disrespect of the government and justice system.

 

Rehabilitation is the major point that is lacking in our justice system. In fact, we get largely the opposite: putting people in jail makes them more criminal. Which is just fine with the people running jails: they get more customers. If you think they are better than that, consider the case of a for-profit juvenile jail that was paying a judge to hand out jail terms to juveniles. Rehabilitation is extremely difficult politically as people are more interested in vengeance, despite this being far more important. Obviously, rehabilitation is far more abstract and harder to see/verify as well.

 

The first thing we need to do: prisons should not produce a profit. Not for a company, and not for anyone responsible for the convictions. Those seeking vengeance must be willing to pay for it themselves (the community, not specific individuals).

 

Also, I advocate public corporeal punishment in place of jail time. Despite what the big dummies in the Supreme Court may think, putting someone in jail for years at a time, is, in fact, cruel and unusual. It causes enormous harm to their social lives, which is far worse than physical pain, is more expensive, and is less visible and less satisfactory for the people who were harmed. Also, a destroyed social life increases crime, so it is also a dumb idea.

[bascule]

Even if we could be certain that no innocent person has been executed ever, I would still be opposed to the death penalty.

 

That said, there have been many cases in which innocents were executed and posthumously exonerated. There's no excuse for that.

[Phi for All]

The first thing we need to do: prisons should not produce a profit. Not for a company, and not for anyone responsible for the convictions. Those seeking vengeance must be willing to pay for it themselves (the community, not specific individuals).

I can see part of your point here. One of the things that keeps our prison system going is the amount of money made from it. But I don't understand what you mean by the community being willing to pay for vengeance themselves. Could you elaborate?

 

Also, I advocate public corporeal punishment in place of jail time. Despite what the big dummies in the Supreme Court may think, putting someone in jail for years at a time, is, in fact, cruel and unusual. It causes enormous harm to their social lives, which is far worse than physical pain, is more expensive, and is less visible and less satisfactory for the people who were harmed. Also, a destroyed social life increases crime, so it is also a dumb idea.

Can we come up with a cheap device that inflicts pain by nerve induction so there's no physical damage, and let's those who have been wronged push the button? If this type of corporal punishment is handed down by a legitimate authority, can be done in public to add to the humiliation factor and provide visible justice, I think it would serve as a better deterrent than incarceration, and at least would be a worthy experiment in some cases.

 

But I worry about it becoming a spectacle. Television coverage would start out like C-Span and end up like Fox Sports. I don't think sponsoring punitive actions is the road we need to go down.

[john5746]

I, however, will even go so far as to point out that many internal drives are similarly out of a person's control. This does not make the action that results from such a drive right in a moral sense, but it does absolve an individual from a lot of personal responsibility, as hard to accept as that may be.

 

Not having a choice just means they will continue to be a danger and must be removed from society. This could be used as an argument for death, IMO - they are broken, so dispose of them.

 

As such, I don't want to get into an argument about whether or not free will exists because I'm not adopting and radical stance on the matter. I am simply saying that when a psychopath is driven to murder, it's because he's a psychopath, not because he has chosen to murder. Furthermore, he did not choose to be a psychopath.

 

This, however, does not mean that the whole justice system is invalid. Imprisonment and other such consequences to violent or otherwise illegal actions are valid as deterrents to crime, though not as punishments. While people are naturally vindictive, the judicial system cannot fairly be.

 

If you assume people have no choice, then how is imprisonment more of a deterrent than death? You cannot mean it might deter others - since they have no choice, only the person who commited the crime. Death would seem to prevent them from doing it again better than imprisonment.

 

 

 

The death penalty is simply unreasonable. Just because it makes people feel better that the person who killed their loved one is being put to death does not mean it is right to be vindictive.

 

I agree that we should try not to allow emotions to determine justice, but it is a little ironic that we want our justice system to act without empathy - like a psychopath.

 

To me the arguments against a death penalty are:

 

(1) It cannot be reversed - must be sure they are guilty

(2) Economics

 

 

On the aggregate, it appears the death penalty is more expensive, so in general I do not support the death penalty, but I am glad that we are not paying for Timothy McVeigh's healthcare and food for the next 50 years.

 

I have little interest in moral reasoning, and find most of it to be hypocritical, particularly amongst special interest groups (e.g. saying that abortion is okay but the death penalty is wrong, when in fact both are moral compromises).

 

I agree, not because of the comparison to abortion, but because we have war. We kill perfectly good people over national disagreements, so I don't understand why we give a pass to citizens who are basically killing machines.

 

There has to be something better than killing people for killing people.

 

Maybe some medical procedure to change their brain? Until then, we either lock them up or dispose of them. I don't think either method will promote scientific discovery.

[Mr Skeptic]

I can see part of your point here. One of the things that keeps our prison system going is the amount of money made from it. But I don't understand what you mean by the community being willing to pay for vengeance themselves. Could you elaborate?

 

Basically, there are two aspects. First, I don't think there should be any way for someone, out of financial self-interest, to be able to produce more convictions. No for-profit prisons, and minimize any sort of financial benefit anyone might receive for having a prisoner.

 

Second, I think it should be the duty of the community to pay for the conviction, so that they have a strong interest in keeping the prices down. This would apply both to cost per prisoner and excessive prison sentences for silly things. Nothing will nuke the prison culture as quickly as having people pay for their own prisoners, rather than having money magically appear from far away places. It would put the price tag on that "let them rot in jail" attitude.

 

Can we come up with a cheap device that inflicts pain by nerve induction so there's no physical damage, and let's those who have been wronged push the button? If this type of corporal punishment is handed down by a legitimate authority, can be done in public to add to the humiliation factor and provide visible justice, I think it would serve as a better deterrent than incarceration, and at least would be a worthy experiment in some cases.

 

But I worry about it becoming a spectacle. Television coverage would start out like C-Span and end up like Fox Sports. I don't think sponsoring punitive actions is the road we need to go down.

 

A spectacle is fine by me, so long as this doesn't get done because it is a spectacle. Still, considering the number of criminals we have I don't think there would be a problem to fill up even a 24 hour timeslot. But, for the vengeance aspect it is more important that the public, rather than the wronged party, feel that justice has been served. So if we are to let the wronged party push the button, they would still have to keep within the pre-set limit.

 

And, after people feel justice has been served and others deterred from doing that, it would be the time for a rehabilitation phase. It should help them become law-abiding, productive, tax-paying members of society. That way, everyone wins and we aren't paying absurd amounts of money to increase crime and prevent people from being productive.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

On the aggregate, it appears the death penalty is more expensive, so in general I do not support the death penalty, but I am glad that we are not paying for Timothy McVeigh's healthcare and food for the next 50 years.

 

The death penalty is not more expensive, it is the conviction that is more expensive. Why set high standards of evidence to kill someone when you can use lower standards of evidence to put them in jail for the rest of their lives which is much the same thing. This seems to me like gaming the system, although admittedly one can be reversed but the other cannot.

 

Still, for some people it will be the case that they are very dangerous to keep around as they have a lot of people who might try to free them. In those cases, a death penalty might be cheaper (and possibly save the lives of a few guards).

[Severian]

Since I apparently "inspired" this thread I suppose I should comment.

 

I believe that to take a human life is morally wrong, but I do believe in the death penalty. That might seem like a contradiction, but I agree with Pangloss that morality has nothing to do with it. Morality is subjective and individual, but our legal system should not be.

 

Let me also say that I advocate extending the death penalty to all violent offenders, not just the usual death-row inmates. Why I think this should become clear below.

 

First I list the pros for the death penalty:

 

Pro 1: Cost

It probably surprises you that I list cost as a pro. After all, the death penalty in the US is incredibly expensive. There are costs for appeals and costs for maximum security on death row and many other things I won't list. However, these are costs due to the way the death penalty is administered, not the death penalty itself.

 

So, we get rid of appeals altogether. After all, if a jury of one's peers have decided you are guilty, then in the eyes of the law you are guilty (I will deal with wrongful convictions later). Before a guilty verdict we must assume that the accused is innocent, but equally, after being proven guilty we must assume that they are guilty.

 

On the very same day as the verdict is announced, the convicted criminal should be taken to an execution chamber and killed by lethal injection. (Incidentally, I disapprove of making it into a spectacle - just kill him or her quietly.)

 

No appeals, no maximum security between conviction and execution, and no more mental torment for the criminal. If you also execute all violent offenders, you also remove the need for maximum security prisons altogether. That would be a huge saving of money.

 

Imagine the money we could save that could be used to fund healthcare for the poor. Spending money on violent offenders instead of sick children kills as surely as any death penalty does.

 

Pro 2: Prevention

The prison system is just dumb. You catch a young first-time offender, maybe just selling cannabis and you stick him in with a group of hardened criminals who teach him how to be a proper criminal, and then let him back on the streets. What idiot had that idea?

 

By removing violent offenders altogether, you cut the cancer out at the core. Career criminals are simply removed - they will not go back into society so they cannot commit more crimes. I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK 58% of convicts re-offend within 2 years of being released. Imagine how many innocent people are dieing because you let these guys back out on the street.

 

Again it is a matter of judgement as to whether you think a convict's life is worth more of less than x non-convicts, but for me that x-value is pretty low (maybe 10^-5). The convicts have made their choice to declare war on our society, and they should be the ones paying the price.

 

Pro 3: Deterrent

To be honest, I think this is a rather weak pro. Most criminals would not commit the crime if they thought they were going to get caught. Also, criminals who get caught are probably pretty stupid, so it doesn't make much sense to ascribe logical reasoning to them. Never-the-less, it must have some effect as a deterrent, so should be a pro. The other reason I don't think this is a strong pro is...

Pro 4: The death penalty is more humane

I think death is a natural part of life. People live, people die - it is has always been like that. We don't moralise when someone is killed by a tiger in the jungle (even if not killed for food) - it is just the way the world works. Prison, on the other hand, is not natural. As Mr Skeptic pointed out, death by old age in a prison is also a death penalty - but it is a horrible lingering one. Of course, this is also not a terribly strong pro because it is subjective, but I can honestly say I would rather die than be sent to a prison for the rest of my life.

 

Now on to the cons:

 

Con 1: Innocent deaths

Not killing someone clearly allows you to reassess someone's guilt at a later stage, and indeed disturbingly often evidence appears a few years later which exonerates the convicted criminal.

 

To this I have two responses. First of all, this is a criticism of the courtroom, not the punishment. An innocent person should not be convicted in the first place. Indeed, maybe part of the cost savings outlined above could be used to improve this.

 

Secondly, and more importantly, so what? I think this criticism of the death penalty stem from a misunderstanding of statistics.

 

There are about 1.5 million offenders in US prisons. Assuming they are all violent offenders (they are not) and assuming that the proportion of them who are innocent is 3% would give 45,000 wrongful deaths. To put this in context, this is slightly lower than the number of people killed in traffic accidents in the US each year. If we use more conservative numbers and say that the number of violent criminals is say 500,000 (I genuinely have no idea what this number is) and the rate of wrongful conviction is 0.1% (the NYT estimated 0.027% while the Wall Street Journal estimate 0.065%) then the number of wrongful deaths would be 500. That is about 4 days worth of road traffic accidents.

 

And even then, the number we should actually be using is the number of people wrongly convicted who had never been convicted of a violent crime before. Those that had committed a violent crime in the past cannot be wrongly convicted if they are dead...

 

We make judgement calls in our society all the time that lead to deaths which are way in excess to anything you would cause with the death penalty. Now, you might say that the deaths caused by, say, traffic accidents are accidental, so not compatible. However, they are preventable - just ban cars. Of course we are not willing to do that because we are willing to take the risk of deing in a car crash to gain the advantage of mobility. We think that our society is a better place with the mobility offered by cars, and that improvement outweighs the risk of dieing in an accident. Well, I contend that the improvement of living in a society with vastly reduced violent crime rates outweighs the risk of being accidentally killed through a wrongful conviction.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Severian

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think a better comparison than "number of people who die in road accidents" would be "number of people who die due to violent crime."

 

If it were the case that more people would die from wrongful convictions than violent crimes, or that the reduction in violent crime would be matched by the increase in deaths due to wrongful convictions, your argument would fail. Now, while I think there are far more than 500 violent crime deaths per year in the US, it's still a much smaller number to compare against than traffic deaths, and makes people pause.

 

I mean, if you're wrongfully killing as many people as, say, all serial murderers in a given year (since I assume very few murderers are serial murderers), you're not helping much...

[Severian]

I mean, if you're wrongfully killing as many people as, say, all serial murderers in a given year (since I assume very few murderers are serial murderers), you're not helping much...

 

I disagree. The victims of serial killers are not the only cost of violent crime.

[JohnB]

Firstly. This is from the perspective of a citizen of a nation that has abolished this disgusting practice.

 

Secondly. I was once a strong advocate for the reintroduction of the Death Penalty in Australia for much the same reasons as Severian listed. I changed my mind.

 

Thirdly. Bascule and I are on the same side on this one, so the "pro" side are on a hiding to nothing.

 

There are three things that changed my mind. One political philosophy reason and two moral.

 

The political reason. To allow the DP in a nation means that you accept the political principle that a government must have the right to legislate for the premeditated murder of it's citizens.

 

It was estimated that more than 500 million people were killed by their own governments during the 20th century, compared to only 55 million during WW 2. By granting the power to execute to governments, you legitimise every one of those civillian deaths. From the Nazi death camps, through the Russian Gulags, the "Killing Fields" of Pol Pot and the Kymer Rouge, the death squads of the Argentine Junta right up to the actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

What most people fail to understand is that all these deaths were lawful. They were done within the legal confines of the relevent nations. Every one of those atrocities was legal in the nation they occurred in.

 

If you agree with the political concept that governments should have this power, you must also agree that governments have the right to exercise that power as they see fit. Because logically, if you don't think that governments should exercise the power as they see fit, then you must believe that they will not exercise this power wisely. If you believe they can't use it wisely, why do you believe they should have it?

 

The bottom line is that if you think that governments have right to murder their own citizens then you forfeit the right to comment if this power is misused. You have to also accept that all those previous atrocities were quite all right and above board.

 

For this political reason, I cannot accept the Death Penalty. The premeditated murder of a citizen by a government is always wrong. It has to be.

 

The first moral reason. By having the DP, a moral choice has to be made. "Where do you draw the line?" There must be a point that "above the line" means the DP and "below the line" does not. This is a moral, not a legal choice. The law only defines the moral choice. It's easy to say "violent crime", but how "violent"? I think we can all agree that a thug beating someone within an inch of life classifies as "violent", but how is this different from a drunk lout doing the same thing? A man that beats his wife daily is a violent offender, do you execute him? What if he does it every second day? Only weekly? Where do you draw the line?

 

And perhaps more importantly, how do you explain to the victim who was just below the line that they were not hurt enough? There is only one way to avoid this moral morass and that is to not have the Death Penalty.

 

For this moral reason, I cannot accept the Death Penalty. It's existence creates a moral dilemma.

 

The second moral reason. Wrongful executions. Regardless of how careful we are and how we structure our system it will always have an inbuilt flaw. It will be administered by humans and humans are fallible and will make mistakes. Knowing this to be true, then to institute or continue a system that you know will wrongfully execute innocents is not only morally repugnant, but (and I'm sure that bascule will back me up on this) contravenes international human rights conventions. The wrongful deaths are 100% avoidable and there is therefore no justification under international statutes for the death.

 

So we must make another moral judgement, "How many wrongful deaths are too many?". I say 1 is too many. If we do not care about killing innocent people, how are we any better than those we are supposedly getting rid of?

 

For this second moral reason, I cannot accept the Death Penalty. Even 1 innocent killed is 1 too many.

 

While you cannot legislate morality, the laws and punishments of a land reflect the moral values of the people of that land. The moral values of civilised people say that institutionalised murder is wrong and is best left where it belongs, in the past. They say that we should take all practical measures to avoid the killing of innocents. Have we learnt nothing in the 6,000 years since Babylon?

 

So, severian, to take your "Pros" in order.

 

Pro 1: Cost

It probably surprises you that I list cost as a pro. After all, the death penalty in the US is incredibly expensive. There are costs for appeals and costs for maximum security on death row and many other things I won't list. However, these are costs due to the way the death penalty is administered, not the death penalty itself.

 

So, we get rid of appeals altogether. After all, if a jury of one's peers have decided you are guilty, then in the eyes of the law you are guilty (I will deal with wrongful convictions later). Before a guilty verdict we must assume that the accused is innocent, but equally, after being proven guilty we must assume that they are guilty.

 

The argument is wrong on a number of levels, but two will suffice to counter it.

 

a) The idea of using cost as a justification is repugnant. To argue thusly is to place a dollar value on a human life. Shall we use the same argument to deny medical care to the elderly? After all, their earning days are over and they will no longer generate wealth for the economy, it is economically better for them to die. And as you say, everybody dies eventually. I'm sure that nobody would agree with such reasoning concerning aged care, so why should it be acceptable for the Death Penalty?

 

b) By removing the appeals process you are now more likely to wrongfully convict and therefore execute an innocent person. Also, while you are removing the cost of jailing people for a long time, you will drastically increase the number of convictions in general and your prisons will fill very quickly with lesser offenders. Unless you remove the appeals only for the Death Sentence and that is just plain silly. I can appeal a 6 month conviction for shoplifting but not a death sentence?

 

Pro 2: Prevention

The prison system is just dumb. You catch a young first-time offender, maybe just selling cannabis and you stick him in with a group of hardened criminals who teach him how to be a proper criminal, and then let him back on the streets. What idiot had that idea?

 

By removing violent offenders altogether, you cut the cancer out at the core. Career criminals are simply removed - they will not go back into society so they cannot commit more crimes. I don't know how it is in the US, but in the UK 58% of convicts re-offend within 2 years of being released. Imagine how many innocent people are dieing because you let these guys back out on the street.

 

Again it is a matter of judgement as to whether you think a convict's life is worth more of less than x non-convicts, but for me that x-value is pretty low (maybe 10-5). The convicts have made their choice to declare war on our society, and they should be the ones paying the price.

 

Flat out wrong. While your system might remove the "core", it will generally not effect career criminals. The first offenders will still learn better ways to rob banks, steal cars and generally misbehave. 58% might reoffend, but how many of those are violent criminals? Probably included in your 58% are shoplifters and car thieves. Exactly how will "removing" violent criminals effect these?

 

I would add that the violent ones could also be "removed" by placing them in a different prison. The "education" of the junior crims could be just as easily cut short by segregating them from the "hardened" crims. Death is not neccessary. The problem is not the existence of hardened crims, the problem is putting junior crims in with them.

 

It is not about whether a convicts life is worth more or less than an innocents. It's about valuing life. Are there any other criteria we might use to decide whos life has greater value? Race? Religion? You either have a legal system that values life, or you don't. And if it doesn't, then welcome to the 10th Century.

 

Pro 3: Deterrent

To be honest, I think this is a rather weak pro. Most criminals would not commit the crime if they thought they were going to get caught. Also, criminals who get caught are probably pretty stupid, so it doesn't make much sense to ascribe logical reasoning to them. Never-the-less, it must have some effect as a deterrent, so should be a pro. The other reason I don't think this is a strong pro is...

 

I'm glad you think it's weak, it is. 200 years ago the English used both the Death Penalty for "major" crimes and "Transportation for Life" for minor ones like stealing a loaf of bread. As a lot of people came to Australia this way I think that itis fair to say that it had no deterrent effect. In fact, since the DP has existed for all of recorded history and we still have problems its "deterrence" effect must be very small if existant at all.

 

Pro 4: The death penalty is more humane

I think death is a natural part of life. People live, people die - it is has always been like that. We don't moralise when someone is killed by a tiger in the jungle (even if not killed for food) - it is just the way the world works. Prison, on the other hand, is not natural. As Mr Skeptic pointed out, death by old age in a prison is also a death penalty - but it is a horrible lingering one. Of course, this is also not a terribly strong pro because it is subjective, but I can honestly say I would rather die than be sent to a prison for the rest of my life.

 

While you might prefer to die, the majority of people go to great lengths to avoid death. By all means use a bed sheet if you wish, but don't suggest that the rest of us become murderers doing your dirty work for you.

 

I must also add (concerning wrongful convictions and executions);

Secondly, and more importantly, so what?

 

With such disregard for the lives of innocent victims (of the system) exactly how are you any better than those you wish to "remove"? You would condemn a person to death for killing 1 other, yet have no problems with killing 500 innocents? There is a problem here.

Edited February 10, 2010 by JohnB

[ajb]

Am I right in thinking that for most of us here a prison or even a death sentence is not the reason we do not commit crimes?

[npts2020]

Am I right in thinking that for most of us here a prison or even a death sentence is not the reason we do not commit crimes?

 

I don't think that is entirely true. While there are probably better reasons for not committing many crimes, threat of punishment does have some deterrent effect. The reason I don't drive much over the speed limit on the interstate when there are no other cars is mostly because I don't want to get a citation and fine for it and/or possibly lose my license to drive. While this is a far cry from anything "deserving" of the death penalty and I generally am a law abiding citizen, I think the same is at least a little bit true of more serious crimes.

[ajb]

... I generally am a law abiding citizen...

 

Because if you don't abide the law you will go to prison?

[npts2020]

Because if you don't abide the law you will go to prison?

 

Well, for myself, I can't think of anything that I would do if it wasn't going to land me in jail. However, I have a few of friends who have told me that is the reason they don't do drugs, particularly marijuana. Of course many of them do it, anyway, so the deterrent is obviously not universal. To say that it has no effect, I think is incorrect, though

[ajb]

Is there any real evidence that harsher punishments lead to less crime? Which is partly what this thread must be about.

[Phi for All]

Am I right in thinking that for most of us here a prison or even a death sentence is not the reason we do not commit crimes?

I think it's the reason it becomes ingrained in your thinking. If there was no negative consequences other than the possibility of naturally occurring ones (car accidents from driving too fast, retaliation from someone you stole from, etc), then I don't think many people would survive adolescence.

 

Later in life we know mortality, and the consequences of our actions on others, but not so much when we're young. Experience tempers our actions, good and bad.

[Mr Skeptic]

The political reason. To allow the DP in a nation means that you accept the political principle that a government must have the right to legislate for the premeditated murder of it's citizens.

 

The government has the power to execute citizens, whether or not it has the right to do so. Harsh prisons or excessive force when the person "tries to escape" will do the job just fine.

 

I suppose that banning the death penalty might make it harder on evil regimes, but I don't know by how much. And, what is to prevent them from re-enacting it? In America, presumably we solve this problem via the right to bear arms, which is a practical (if dangerous) solution.

 

If you agree with the political concept that governments should have this power, you must also agree that governments have the right to exercise that power as they see fit. Because logically, if you don't think that governments should exercise the power as they see fit, then you must believe that they will not exercise this power wisely. If you believe they can't use it wisely, why do you believe they should have it?

 

No, we limit every other power the government has, and this is no different.

 

The first moral reason. By having the DP, a moral choice has to be made. "Where do you draw the line?" There must be a point that "above the line" means the DP and "below the line" does not. This is a moral, not a legal choice. The law only defines the moral choice. It's easy to say "violent crime", but how "violent"? I think we can all agree that a thug beating someone within an inch of life classifies as "violent", but how is this different from a drunk lout doing the same thing? A man that beats his wife daily is a violent offender, do you execute him? What if he does it every second day? Only weekly? Where do you draw the line?

 

We have laws limiting the maximum sentence for various crimes; why should this be different? The line has to be drawn anyways.

 

The second moral reason. Wrongful executions. Regardless of how careful we are and how we structure our system it will always have an inbuilt flaw. It will be administered by humans and humans are fallible and will make mistakes. Knowing this to be true, then to institute or continue a system that you know will wrongfully execute innocents is not only morally repugnant, but (and I'm sure that bascule will back me up on this) contravenes international human rights conventions. The wrongful deaths are 100% avoidable and there is therefore no justification under international statutes for the death.

 

So we must make another moral judgement, "How many wrongful deaths are too many?". I say 1 is too many. If we do not care about killing innocent people, how are we any better than those we are supposedly getting rid of?

 

Again though, it is not like imprisonment is much better. You can't un-imprison someone just like you can't un-kill them. You can release them, but they still have been punished for something they didn't do.

 

And, what if people die because someone was not executed? Someone with life in prison without possibility of execution, has nothing to lose by trying to escape, killing guards, and what not. How many innocent deaths were too many again? Innocent people die all the time.

 

a) The idea of using cost as a justification is repugnant. To argue thusly is to place a dollar value on a human life.

 

Yeah, I've got news for you. The dollar value of a human life is about $10, although it is higher in developed nations. Chew on that for a while.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Am I right in thinking that for most of us here a prison or even a death sentence is not the reason we do not commit crimes?

 

Perhaps... But tell me, what happens when suddenly the probability of getting caught drops a lot, like during disasters?

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, I've got news for you. The dollar value of a human life is about $10, although it is higher in developed nations. Chew on that for a while.

 

All else aside, what are you basing that on?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yeah, I've got news for you. The dollar value of a human life is about $10, although it is higher in developed nations. Chew on that for a while.

Not according to our government.

 

http://fast.faa.gov/Riskmgmt/Secriskmgmt/secriskmgmt.htm

 

In order to maintain the quantifiable continuity of the process, human life is assigned a dollar value of $2.7 million.

 

This is for cost/benefit analyses for safety measures taken by the FAA, although I'm not sure how they derived the value. I recall reading somewhere that it was based on the estimated contribution to the economy by each individual over their lifetime. Or something.

[ajb]

Perhaps... But tell me, what happens when suddenly the probability of getting caught drops a lot, like during disasters?

 

There will be a group that will take advantage of this, the question is how many had committed crimes before? However, I would not confuse the need to acquire what you and your family needs to survive in time of a disaster with the act of looting. The case in point is some of the news channels coverage of Haiti.

 

But I understand the point you are making.

[Mr Skeptic]

All else aside, what are you basing that on?

 

A few years ago, I calculated that about $5 would save a life in Africa by dividing the cost of malaria vaccine by its effectiveness. I doubled that to account for inflation, but if you want an accurate figure you'd want to check the number of deaths preventable by vaccination and the cost of said vaccinations. Alternately, you can consider the cost per year to provide one African with clean water and the likelihood that they would die without clean water. Or some other potentially life saving measure.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So what you're really saying is that "it takes $10 to save certain lives in certain situations," not that $10 is the "value" of human life.

 

I mean, you could do the same sort of analysis in a developed country for the cost of treatment for heart disease, and you'd end up with a much larger number.