Is it time to bring back the death penalty?

[AJS-]

Kermit power said:

Halb said:

AJS- said:

As far as I know the murder rate in the US has been higher for as long as such things have been measured. It's a more violent society for a whole number of reasons. I can't find the statistic but it's one that the gun lobby like to bandy about, I think it was over the whole course of the 20th century.

South American countries have similarly high murder rates and most (if not all?) have abolished the death penalty some years ago. Notably Brazil who last executed someone in 1885 and have a murder rate of over 4 times that of the US.

Indeed, I don't think the US can be used as a comparison. Their society has veered too far away from our mutual starting point.

You both missed my point. I wasn't comparing the UK to the US. I was comparing US States with the death penalty to those without it. The murder rate is far higher - and has been every year for the last 2 decades or more - in States which have the death penalty than in those which don't.

I would agree that you can't really compare the UK with the US, but I do think you can compare the US with itself, and everything there suggests that you get more murders where they have the death sentence.

So just perhaps it is those US States with the highest murder rates who choose to use the death penalty?

[Kermit power]

AJS- said:

So just perhaps it is those US States with the highest murder rates who choose to use the death penalty?

Nice try, but not only have the States with the death penalty had higher murder rates than those without for at least 30 years, the gap in murder rates between the two has been growing increasingly wider. Back in 1990, it was around 6% higher in DP States, whereas now it's about 40% higher.

Whatever way you look at it, the Death Penalty in the States is no deterrent to anything.

[nightflight]

Hang a few drug dealers, then watch the crime rate fall. A massive amount of everyday crime is drug related. This is where the problem lies.

[Uncle Fester]

Some years ago a member of my family was both a senior politician and a leading opponent to capital punishment. As such he was instrumental in the abolition.

He wrote a book on the capital punishment entitled “The shadow of the gallows”. I would urge everyone to read the book before reaching a conclusion on the subject. It’s out of print, but you can still get second hand or library copies.

I find Sam’s book infuriating because he argued his case so articulately, fairly and tightly. Yet I still disagree with his conclusions. Even with over 50 years to develop a counter-argument, I find him hard to fault. He was a real political operator and at best I could argue him to a draw on this.

Ultimately Sam began with a bias, which is less apparent to those who didn’t know him. That side of my family were hard-line Protestant and formerly Quaker; as such they were biased against all killing. Sam was hen pecked by his wife Maude. What appears to be his opinion was always hers, or at least sanctioned by her.

I’m an Atheist and have no inhibitions against judicial killing based upon religious grounds. Personally I feel we should reintroduce capital punishment.

Yet I find myself forced to conclude that Sam and I have both reached conclusions that are the result not of logic, facts or evidence, but upon preconceptions.

Perhaps it’s impossible to do otherwise.

Damn.

[Halb]

Legalize drugs?

[AJS-]

Kermit power said:

AJS- said:

So just perhaps it is those US States with the highest murder rates who choose to use the death penalty?

Nice try, but not only have the States with the death penalty had higher murder rates than those without for at least 30 years, the gap in murder rates between the two has been growing increasingly wider. Back in 1990, it was around 6% higher in DP States, whereas now it's about 40% higher.

Whatever way you look at it, the Death Penalty in the States is no deterrent to anything.

But I didn't say it did act as a deterrent. I don't believe the two are related



This is from what seems to be an anti death penalty site deathpenaltyinfo.com. Yes the murder rate as a whole is higher for states with the DP. However the spread is huge and makes conclusions meaningless IMO.

Non DP New Mexico has a higher murder rate than any of the DP states apart from Louisiana.

New Hampshire has a lower murder rate than any of the non DP states.

[G350]

Halb said:

Legalize drugs?

Seriously, yes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/29/drugs-...

[alfaman]

Edited by alfaman on Sunday 26th June 04:28

[alfaman]

Edited by alfaman on Sunday 26th June 04:30

[alfaman]

AJS- said:

But I didn't say it did act as a deterrent. I don't believe the two are related



This is from what seems to be an anti death penalty site deathpenaltyinfo.com. Yes the murder rate as a whole is higher for states with the DP. However the spread is huge and makes conclusions meaningless IMO.

Non DP New Mexico has a higher murder rate than any of the DP states apart from Louisiana.

New Hampshire has a lower murder rate than any of the non DP states.

You need to look at the mean Or median of both sets : DP states mean is about 5, non DP about 2.5 or so. Statistically significant with those sample sizes .

I would want to see murder rate trends from similar murder rate States pre DP to post DP : comparing ones with to without DP.

Kermits post suggests the trend has worsened in DP states. So it hasn't had a deterrent effect.

Personally I doubt DP acts as much of a deterrent as many (most?) murders are cOmmitted in the heat of the testosterone or drug fuelled irrational moment and/or the murderer never believes they will be caught

[Mario149]

Mario149 said:

You can argue that *maybe* the death penalty would act as deterrent and potentially stop murders occurring etc. But, if you don't believe that collateral damage will happen at some point (innocents being executed), then you are frankly incredibly stupid/naive/blind - pick whatever offends you less, there's no way I can sugar coat it.

If those in the pro death penalty camp believe that some "collateral damage" is acceptable, fine, I await you to step up and post on here that you would be willing to trade the life of yourself/your child/parent/sibling as collateral damage in order to have a system of punishment re-introduced whose only certain "benefit" to society would be to satisfy the basest of all human emotions, hate, for may be a short time for a few hundred people every year. At the risk of sounding harsh for the second paragraph in a row: post that up or shut up

Still waiting for a comment/reply to this (in the context of my whole original post on page 7) from the pro capital punishment lobby....

[turbobloke]

Mario149 said:

Mario149 said:

You can argue that *maybe* the death penalty would act as deterrent and potentially stop murders occurring etc. But, if you don't believe that collateral damage will happen at some point (innocents being executed), then you are frankly incredibly stupid/naive/blind - pick whatever offends you less, there's no way I can sugar coat it.

If those in the pro death penalty camp believe that some "collateral damage" is acceptable, fine, I await you to step up and post on here that you would be willing to trade the life of yourself/your child/parent/sibling as collateral damage in order to have a system of punishment re-introduced whose only certain "benefit" to society would be to satisfy the basest of all human emotions, hate, for may be a short time for a few hundred people every year. At the risk of sounding harsh for the second paragraph in a row: post that up or shut up

Still waiting for a comment/reply to this (in the context of my whole original post on page 7) from the pro capital punishment lobby....

I'm not in the omni-pro-DP camp which considers that all premeditated murders should be dealt with by capital punishment and as such consider your line of reasoning to be simplistically catch-all. Which it must be to work in the intended manner. It could also be said to operate via the same 'base' emotion that you criticise, since you ask people to be willing to sacrifice themelves or a loved one before you will take their opinion seriously. Should your opponents demand that you be willing to put yourself or a loved one in jail for life before taking you seriously? Maybe you need to make a more rational statement of position if you want more responses from your target lobby, whoever they are.

[Derek Smith]

Halb said:

Legalize drugs?

There is little doubt that the 71 Drugs Act went some way to increasing the murder rate by brining in organised crime into their import and distribution. Many of the stabbings and shootings of youngsters is because of internecine battles over turf, etc.

Further, some murder are committed to feed a drug habit.

Organised crime in this country has followed behind that in many other European states but we appear to be catching up.

A death penalty would not stop these murders.

The best deterrent to any crime is the likelihood of being caught. The harshness of punishment has little effect. There has been much research in the past on this subject and most of it agrees. With the cuts in police we are likely to see a drop in detection rates and therefore and increase in all crime, including murders.

There was a suggestion in one report I read a few years ago that the death penalty increases the likelihood of an offender fighting to the finish with police as he had little to lose. There was a fair bit of collateral damage there as well. It was proved statistically so in fact no one really knows.

We have an imperfect system of justice. There will always be errors. The only way of eliminating them is to increase the requirement for evidence to a level that is all but impossible. If no one saw you do it then you would get off. And you’d get off on identification evidence in any case. Even with confessions there is doubt.

Most juries would be reluctant to convict if they thought a person would be killed as a result of their opinion.

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

With the cuts in police we are likely to see a drop in detection rates and therefore and increase in all crime, including murders.

Do you have a view on the amount of police time wasted under Labour's red tape paper chase which keeps BiB in the station rather than out detecting crime, and what impact it would have in offsetting the impact of cuts if police were much less hogtied in that way? Labour has made hay over cuts and headline-grabbing PR content over job losses whereas ACPO has been more restrained and as such it seemed to me they might be looking to do away with past 'guidance' (as opposed to legal requirements or due process).

[Halb]

turbobloke said:

Mario149 said:

Mario149 said:

You can argue that *maybe* the death penalty would act as deterrent and potentially stop murders occurring etc. But, if you don't believe that collateral damage will happen at some point (innocents being executed), then you are frankly incredibly stupid/naive/blind - pick whatever offends you less, there's no way I can sugar coat it.
If those in the pro death penalty camp believe that some "collateral damage" is acceptable, fine, I await you to step up and post on here that you would be willing to trade the life of yourself/your child/parent/sibling as collateral damage in order to have a system of punishment re-introduced whose only certain "benefit" to society would be to satisfy the basest of all human emotions, hate, for may be a short time for a few hundred people every year. At the risk of sounding harsh for the second paragraph in a row: post that up or shut up

Still waiting for a comment/reply to this (in the context of my whole original post on page 7) from the pro capital punishment lobby....

I'm not in the omni-pro-DP camp which considers that all premeditated murders should be dealt with by capital punishment and as such consider your line of reasoning to be simplistically catch-all. Which it must be to work in the intended manner. It could also be said to operate via the same 'base' emotion that you criticise, since you ask people to be willing to sacrifice themelves or a loved one before you will take their opinion seriously. Should your opponents demand that you be willing to put yourself or a loved one in jail for life before taking you seriously? Maybe you need to make a more rational statement of position if you want more responses from your target lobby, whoever they are.

Quite. It's a difficult question all round.
Not least with stories like this that happen.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/75357...

Derek, personally I don't believe the state has the right to deny people the drugs of their choice, it's a bit of a different thread. Portugal seem to have moved away from punishing the user to seeing if they need help with treatment. Would this free up police resources?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=p...

Edited by Halb on Sunday 26th June 10:48

[Mario149]

turbobloke said:

It could also be said to operate via the same 'base' emotion that you criticise, since you ask people to be willing to sacrifice themelves or a loved one before you will take their opinion seriously.

I'm not sure how you're tying the emotion of hate into this? I don't hate people pro DP advocates, or their families, and I (hope I'm) not asking the question in a hateful way. I'm just trying to establish if people in the pro lobby have put themselves through the mental experiment of "what if" as I am certain many haven't really. There's always the "it wouldn't happen to me" mentality which allows people to justify opinions/positions. But the point is you HAVE to analyse it as if it were someone close to you as the innocent person who would be killed would always be someone else's child/father/mother etc.

turbobloke said:

Should your opponents demand that you be willing to put yourself or a loved one in jail for life before taking you seriously?

Very good point, seriously. That is effectively the other option in this thought experiment. So we have 2 options, one for the DP system, and one for the non DP system. So, which option would you rather inflict on a loved one? My point still stands and I know which one I would choose. And that's without even going into the whole finality of killing an innocent person which cannot be undone compared to the prison option.

turbobloke said:

I'm not in the omni-pro-DP camp which considers that all premeditated murders should be dealt with by capital punishment and as such consider your line of reasoning to be simplistically catch-all. Which it must be to work in the intended manner
....
Maybe you need to make a more rational statement of position if you want more responses from your target lobby, whoever they are.

I'm biased, but I believe my statement was rational (or maybe it's not clear and I need to write a bit better ). But please don't confuse rational for blunt and slightly provocative which it was deliberately to make people think - it's easy to get lost in the "noise" of all the other pro/con arguments: appeals, life without parole, cruel and unusual, religious etc etc.

Fundamentally, if you are of the viewpoint that an innocent should never be judicially killed for a crime they did not commit when such a miscarriage is *entirely* avoidable by implementing another form of punishment, then you cannot hold a pro DP position. The fact that human beings, our society, our nature etc are always going to be imperfect means that you cannot guarantee perfect and final determination of innocence/guilt, therefore you cannot inflict a "perfect" and, more importantly, final punishment

Edited to fix quoting

Edited by Mario149 on Sunday 26th June 13:15

[AJS-]

alfaman said:

You need to look at the mean Or median of both sets : DP states mean is about 5, non DP about 2.5 or so. Statistically significant with those sample sizes .

I would want to see murder rate trends from similar murder rate States pre DP to post DP : comparing ones with to without DP.

Kermits post suggests the trend has worsened in DP states. So it hasn't had a deterrent effect.

Personally I doubt DP acts as much of a deterrent as many (most?) murders are cOmmitted in the heat of the testosterone or drug fuelled irrational moment and/or the murderer never believes they will be caught

It is significant, and there's no doubting that on the whole DP states have a higher murder rate. But that tells us nothing as to why.

Using a bit of farmer's statistics (if there's such an expression, you can have farmer's maths, so why not?) and my own impressions of the states involved, I would guess that affluent and predominantly white states have a lower murder rate than poor states with large minority populations.

I wouldn't argue for it as a deterent. I support the death penalty for two reasons:

Firstly it removes the twisted individual from the gene pool. This is a good thing in it's own right. Even against life long incarceration, because they are still a danger to prison guards and fellow inmates.

Secondly it expresses the public's disapproval in the strongest possible sense, and gives the public a closure on the anger felt towards the worst offenders.

I reject entirely the argument that it brings us down to the level of the criminal, because it simply doesn't. Administering quickly and fairly the ultimate penalty set out in law, after a fair trial and a right of appeal is so far removed from the way most murderers operate as to be almost an opposite.

[Halb]

Mario149 said:

The fact that human beings, our society, our nature etc are always going to be imperfect means that you cannot guarantee perfect and final determination of innocence/guilt, therefore you cannot inflict a "perfect" and, more importantly, final punishment

We are imperfect, and I reckon it shall always be so. Our imperfection affects our current situation. Have you played the 'what if' game with the example I gave? A killer/rapist/paedo/torturer is released and goes onto commit more of the same, against a member of your family. A permanent solution would have denied this ever happening. I am not flippantly just throwing this back at you, but asking you to think rationally as you have asked of those who want the DP. I think our current situation needs addressing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_...
The European court will rule on this for us.

I saw the Big Question today, the European Court HRA act was denying us the ability to export a torturer back to his home nation. I didn't seem right to me.

[Kermit power]

AJS- said:

But I didn't say it did act as a deterrent. I don't believe the two are related

I was more posting in response to andymadmak's emotional "won't someone think of the extra 330 murdered people per year thread. He clearly believes it would act as a deterrent, yet the opposite seems to be true in the States.

[turbobloke]

Mario149 said:

I'm not sure how you're tying the emotion of hate into this?

I'm not, the only mention of hate has come from you. Could you indicate that word in what I said? As it's not there, you can't highlight it! Perhaps you missed the point of what I posted. There's no excuse for clouding the consideration of a death penalty with emotion in terms of family members. If a death penalty is warranted and just, or if it isn't, that will be the case regardless of who is in the dock in terms of whether they are a relative of yours or mine, or not.