Hmmm, well from what I am seeing you are only offering your facts from that one report. Which again I will say is a very interesting read. But you can not base the truth on the results of one study. Where as I am seeing multiple studies for the other side of this argument. Which I agree on.
As much as I dislike the death penalty I believe it should be used with great caution on rare occaisions, unfortunately there are humans that have been proven to be unsalvageable. The below is a short list, if you read the paragraphs for each you should understand where im coming from. http://kosmo.hubpages.com/hub/Dirty-Dozen-Americas-12-Worst-Serial-Killers
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64237,00.html I admit to a bias here as one of those killed was a friend. The three shooters received the death penalty, the getaway driver received 5 consecutive life sentences. IMO the three shooters should be put down like rabid dogs.
I see your point but though I don't go for slippery slope arguments, I think it's a dangerous president to establish execution as a legitimate means of getting rid of people we find it otherwise too difficult to deal with.
The existence of the death penalty, however, can create perverse incentives and actually encourage a shift from single murder to multiple murder
Only if the murderer is as mad as a spoon. Given that, he probably would have done it anyway so just as well to take out the trash. Personally, I'd hang anyone caught with a dealer quantity of any illegal drug, including weed. Being a liberal lefty, I wouldn't hang the users, just force them into rehabilitation and social work programs. That'd solve a massive pile of crime in weeks.
Thats the same url as the one I was talking about? Though the information about the Soviet Union is interesting. Can I see the link for it?
Wither one person is murdered or multiple people are murdered that person was going to murder someone. Stopping the death penalty won't stop murders.
Wither one person is murdered or multiple people are murdered that person was going to murder someone. Stopping the death penalty won't stop murders.
If perverse incentives to commit multiple murder are created then it is quite reasonable to assume that capital punishment can increase murders
I don't like it nor think it necessary. Plus it removes the ability to correct screw-ups, which DNA evidence is proving, unequivocally, that our criminal justice system is not merely capable of, but in fact does, far too frequently.
You still cant understand that therere two different reports? But I guess the titles of the reportsre too vague and everyone can confuse the title - NEW JERSEY DEATH PENALTY STUDY COMMISSION REPORT with the title - The Death Penalty A World-wide Perspective, Oxford. Here you are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Russia http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CF%F0...E8#1960.E2.80.941991_.D0.B3.D0.BE.D0.B4.D1.8B p.s. also here is a problem with considerable number of latent crimes in Russia. And how are things in your country? You have the same probs with the latent crimes too?
If support for the death penalty reflects the valid notion of deterrence, then evidence suggests that the punishment has to be completed as soon after the crime as possible (i.e. the deterrence rationale goes hand in hand with criminal justice mistakes)
Why? Life in prison is a non-deterent? Folks think it a cake walk, do they? Absurd. Plus, in truth, death penalty is typically for premediated murder, where recitivism rates are quite low, comparitively, to other crimes. Mostly, they're crimes of passion, where once killed, the murderer's problem (need to murder) is served. So the likelihood they'll get out 40 years from now and reoffend is pretty low. But once again, far too many innocents are being jailed, even those on death row. We rely heavily on eye-witness testimony, which is known to be highly flawed, yet move juries like non other. A woman points, and says, "That's the man I saw shooting the victim." and bingo. Juries are convinced. We're simply too uncertain, in too many cases, to do what cannot be undone. Thus I believe death penalties have no place in our system of justice, if the objective is being just, in all cases.
Prison and the death penalty is certainly treated as differently. The only question mark is the issue of marginal deterrence (as shown by the possibility of increased multiple murderers). Nevertheless, it is just factual to remark that the empirical evidence does show that deterrence effects increase with reductions in any time delay over the use of the death penalty. I'd certainly agree that recidivism is a red herring. An optimal punishment system is not necessarily consistent with what we see as 'just'. For example, I find physical assault more abhorrent than car crime. However, the gains from car crime would typically indicate greater punishment levels (as a means to reduce criminal activity).
No doubt. Faced with death, one might quickly plea to Murder 2 in hopes of staying alive, and not rotting for 20 or so years in issolation on death row. However, to suggest that one is a deterrent more so than the other, is absurd. Killers want to not get caught, and some who might murder but do not, fear either outcome, greatly, as would you or I if we had someone we'd like to kill.
I don't have to suggest anything. I can just refer to the evidence. There are multiple studies that find these deterrence effects are significant. They have even been found significant for crimes of passion (something I personally would have rejected)
Our ridiculous court system has forced us to come up with something more practical. John Wayne Gacey was on Death Row longer than the lifetime of any of us victims. I suggest we literally make these people pay their debt to society instead of costing us a dime. Use them to test life-saving medical drugs. Let them save lives after they took lives, then let them go free if they live through the experiment. Of course, the victim-haters on the Court will call this "cruel and unusual," which only inflicts the public with cruel and unusual crime. We must be self-governed and deny the Court its self-declared right to make our decisions for us.
Pick a peach and reference your favorite. I'm not keen on reading the entire thread, since I can cite myriad studies which show, conclusively, that reading too much of PF.com kills braincells.
