Originally posted by FMFJust provides yet another reason for the UK to ditch the EU.
A civilized society imprisons people, whatever the cost, and doesn't put them to death. A country wishing to join the Europen Union cannot have capital punishments on its statute books. This reflects the opinions and principles of the vast majority of Europeans. As a European, I am proud of this fact.
Originally posted by Leon AlvaradoSo... so far you are in favour of the state putting people to death because:
Just provides yet another reason for the UK to ditch the EU.
(a) it saves wasting money on incarcerationg them, and
(b) it provides yet another reason for the U.K. to ditch the E.U.
Anything more?
Any philosophy, principle, or any other substance?
The question that needs to be adressed here is what the purpose of sentencing people for crimes? Is to punish the offender, eye for an eye and all that? Or is it to rehabilitate, to ensure that the offender does not repeat the offense? Or is it to deter others from committing the same offense?
The point is that capital punishment has no rehabilitating effect (obviously), and only marginally deters people from committing criminal offenses.
As I don't adhere to the Old Testament-vengeance idea, believing instead that sentencing should have rehabilitation as its goal, I find capital punishment barbaric. As does most of the "civilised" world.
Originally posted by mbakuninIn criminal law theory, there are 4 basic reasons to punish people:
The question that needs to be adressed here is what the purpose of sentencing people for crimes? Is to punish the offender, eye for an eye and all that? Or is it to rehabilitate, to ensure that the offender does not repeat the offense? Or is it to deter others from committing the same offense?
The point is that capital punishment has no rehabilitating e ation as its goal, I find capital punishment barbaric. As does most of the "civilised" world.
1) incapacitation (preventing this person from committing further crimes; usually by incarceration)
2) rehabilitation of the offender
3) deterrence (i.e., to cause people to not commit crimes for fear of punishment)
4) retribution (i.e., to vindicate society's "need" to exact a price from the person who violated its laws)
The death penalty isn't needed for incapacitation, as life imprisonment does basically the same thing. It's obviously irrelevant for rehabilitation. It was once thought that it was a good deterrence, but recent studies have called that into question. That leaves retribution, of course.
By the way, before you scoff at retribution as immoral and ridiculous, try answering the following hypothetical:
Person A has 7 drinks at a bar and is drunk, with a BAC of 0.14. He gets in his car and drives home. Because he is inebriated, he can't control the car very well and the car swerves back and forth as he's driving. Officer Toughie sees person A's car swerving back and forth and pulls him over for reckless driving. When he smells alcohol on Person A's breath, he gives him a breathalyzer test and, after seeing the results, promptly places him under arrest for driving while intoxicated.
Person B has 7 drinks at a bar and is drunk, with a BAC of 0.14. He gets in his car and drives home. Because he is inebriated, he can't control the car very well and the car swerves back and forth as he's driving. Officer Toughie is sleeping on the job and never sees Person B's car. On the next block, Person B's state of inebriation causes him to lose control of his car. The car jumps a sidewalk and kills two 12 year old children who were walking home from school and severely injures two others.
Who should be punished more severely, Person A or Person B? If you answered Person B, go back over the reasons for punishment and determine which of those reasons justify differing treatment of Person A from Person B.
And, pay attention, this will be on the test. 😉
Originally posted by clandarkfireI think it problematic to be dogmatic on either side of the isle. I think capital punishment has its place but not for all cases.
I know this is not the most current topic, but I am curious of peoples' opinions on this subject. Discuss -
Originally posted by Leon Alvaradoyour understanding of how the UK economy works is not that great.
Just provides yet another reason for the UK to ditch the EU.
what about the trade benefits with other eu countries?
without mentioning the cultural and political benefits of staying in the EU.
Originally posted by sh76I believe you left out Denunciation and Restitution. Interesting example you give, though.
In criminal law theory, there are 4 basic reasons to punish people:
1) incapacitation (preventing this person from committing further crimes; usually by incarceration)
2) rehabilitation of the offender
3) deterrence (i.e., to cause people to not commit crimes for fear of punishment)
4) retribution (i.e., to vindicate society's "need" to exact a pric ...[text shortened]... ment of Person A from Person B.
And, pay attention, this will be on the test. 😉
Originally posted by sh76Mostly correct, except that there isn't even evidence for a "minimal" deterrence effect. In actual fact, US states which have the death penalty have higher murder and violent crime rates than those which don't. So, it seems that either the death penalty encourages violent crime by devaluing human life, or else the correlation is instead explained by intermediary variables.
I believe that studies have shown that in the US it costs as much or more to execute people than it does to keep them in prison for life. People are in solitary confinement on death row for at least a decade in most cases and the government has to finance endless appeals with the government paying both sides' legal fees in most cases.
Studies have also shown ...[text shortened]... o be executed and intentionally dropped all his appeals. We seem to be doing fine without it.
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
Paul R. Zimmerman
Estimates of the Deterrent Effect of Alternative Execution Methods in the United States: 1978-2000
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 65, no. 4, p. 909 (Oct. 2006)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=355783
Abstract: Several recent econometric studies suggest that states' application of capital punishment deters the rate of murder [Brumm and Cloninger (1996), Cloninger and Marchesini (2001), Mocan and Gittings (2001), and Zimmerman (2002)]. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's moratorium on state executions was lifted in 1976, states with death penalty laws have executed individuals using one or more of five different methods of execution (electrocution, lethal injection, gas chamber asphyxiation, hanging, and/or firing squad). The perceived "brutality" of certain execution methods (such as electrocution and gas chamber asphyxiation) has also recently lead to lethal injection being imposed as the sole method of execution in several death penalty states.
Using a panel of state-level data over the years 1978-2000, this paper examines whether the method by which death penalty states conduct their executions affects the per-capita incidence of murder in a differential manner. Several measures of the subjective probability of being executed are developed taking into account the timing of individual executions as in Mocan and Gittings (2001). The empirical estimates suggest that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is driven primarily by executions conducted by electrocution. None of the other four methods of execution are found to have a statistically significant impact on the per-capita incidence of murder. These results are robust with respect to the manner in which the subjective probabilities of being executed are defined, whether or not a state has a death penalty law on the books, the removal of state and year fixed effects, controls for state-specific time trends, simultaneous control of all execution methods, and controls for other forms of public deterrence. In addition, it is shown that the negative and statistically significant impact of electrocutions is not driven by the occurrence of a "botched" electrocution execution during the relevant time period.
Originally posted by sh76Justice must also attempt to restore victims. Crime creates wounds which need to heal. Punishment to prevent crime only benefits future potential victims, not present ones.
In criminal law theory, there are 4 basic reasons to punish people:
1) incapacitation (preventing this person from committing further crimes; usually by incarceration)
2) rehabilitation of the offender
3) deterrence (i.e., to cause people to not commit crimes for fear of punishment)
4) retribution (i.e., to vindicate society's "need" to exact a pric ment of Person A from Person B.
And, pay attention, this will be on the test. 😉
In many cases, material restoration is not possible (e.g. due to death), but some attempt can be made to restore them mentally -- through compensation (rarely) or by "making the punishment fit the crime."
I don't think it matters whether a convicted criminal is put to death or imprisoned for life PROVIDED that person has no further contact with anyone else in society. If we could reliably keep people in a chemical-induced coma from which they could be awakened if their conviction was overturned, I would advocate for that. Since that is probably impossible and expensive, we should get as close to it as we can through incarceration.
For me, opposing the death penalty is 50% instinctive. "It deters" is an intellectual argument that has absolutely no impact on that gut feeling. "It deters" is also an argument that has such an underwhelming statistical basis that it has absolutely no impact on the 50% of me that is opposed to the death penalty for intellectual reasons.
I have ONE issue that makes my opinion on capitial punishment a slam dunk for me. Innocent people being wrongly convicted. Without going into detail I personally know someone who I *know* was wrongly convicted of a major crime.
It does happen and I think it happens more than people might think. What exactly is a jury of your 'peers'? A bunch of average (some below average) Joes off the streets who aren't legal schalars and who can be subject to bias and emotion. Sure you can request a trial by judge but then you have to worry about the judge not wanting to appear "soft on crime." Most people don't think about it but judges do have political considerations.
And then you have other human aspects that go into it. I'm not against the judicial process, as it's the best thing we have available. But too many people view a guilty verdict as solid "proof" a crime has been committed, and in many cases it's not.
If we had a guarantee that no innocent people would be executed I would consider capital punishment. But for now I'm completely against it.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI once argued the same thing and got taken to task in a rather interesting way by no1marauder. See here, if you're interested: Thread 105419 from about page 2 onwards.
I have ONE issue that makes my opinion on capitial punishment a slam dunk for me. Innocent people being wrongly convicted.