|
C R E A T E A D |
Death Penalty: does it help in crime prevention?
| #1 :: October 15th, 2010 @ 10:17 PM | |
 nunniIs a Survivor    424 Posts 284 Achievements  
|
 I know that this topic is quite polemic. What I want to discuss is not whether it's wrong or right, human or not, etc. I'm interested in discussing the practical questions surrounding this subject: I want to know what are the consequences of the death penalty-- are people less prone to commit crimes if they know that their own life is at risk? How much does it cost to mantain a prisoner who is going to spend life in jail? Etc. Basically, all the pros and cons of the death penalty. {This is my first thread in debate... amidoinitrite? :c}
|
| #2 :: October 16th, 2010 @ 8:29 AM | |
| Tea is ZOMBIE LONG TIME  970 Posts 660 Achievements |
In relation to costs there are various different studies that suggest execution is far more costly than life incarceration: Kansas Maryland California. The federal bureau of prison publish their annual costs of incarceration here where the cost of incarcerating someone for a year is between 20-50 thousand dollars per year. I'm very much a fan of a man named Cesare Beccaria, one of the founding fathers of the classical school of criminology. He said that punishment should be used as a deterrent but would only be effective if: there was a certainty of being caught, the punishment followed the crime swiftly and the punishment matched the severity of the crime. But as we know, there isn't a certainty of being caught and it's human nature to believe that 'it'll never happen to me'. The punishment doesn't swiftly follow the crime. Prisoners on death row spend an average of ten years in prison before being executed in the U.S. As for the punishment matching the severity of the crime (he wasn't a fan of the death penalty btw) I think it should cause as much suffering to the perpetrator as it did to the victims and in many cases I don't believe the death penalty matches up to that. A simple way to prove that the death penalty does not act as an effective deterrent to crime is to look at the places that use it: Are crimes that merit the death penalty still occurring there? Wherever it is, I can guarantee you that the answer is yes.
|
| #3 :: October 16th, 2010 @ 10:07 AM | |
| temporaryplaceholder is a DANCING QUEEN  1,607 Posts 329 Achievements |
 @Tea, execution is not more costly than life incarceration, this is simply a failure of the American judicial system. That is not to say such a failure should not be taken into account, however, to brush aside the death penalty as impractical on these grounds is the wrong option. It's really a simple matter that no statistic can really deny; I can kill a man in an hour with nothing but my bare hands, yet I cannot keep him sheltered, fed, protected, trapped, and alive for more than a few years without considerable funds. If American law and imprisonment legislation has gotten so out of control that this balance has changed, then our duty is to correct that, not simply continue ahead at full steam issuing out "lifetime imprisonments" because it's just easier at the moment. It is a waste of time, money, employment, and space in an overcrowded system. As for the lack of reduction in severe crime, I again disagree. The problem is not that the death penalty is bad, per-se, but that it is a very, very complicated issue. You can't just compare the crime rates from death penalty to non-death penalty without acknowledging various other factors that hinge incredibly on the subject. For example, the prevalence of crime is often due to the socio-economic status of the state or country in question. Point in case, the ratio of black criminals to white criminals and the correlation to their average incomes and living standards. Whilst that example is independent of the penalty, it can be extrapolated to your comparison of places with and without such a penalty. That is, it is not to say that the death penalty "isn't working," rather, there are other variables at play to consider there. Those variables I allude to are almost always present in countries that are poorer and exhibit less social freedoms, which tends to correlate strongly with a corrupt, poorly funded, or rushed judicial enquiry system and criminal handling process. Having said that, whilst I am supportive of the death penalty, it is not from a criminology perspective, but one of protection. Protection of innocent individuals should be the highest priority of criminal handling. If this danger cannot be minimised to an acceptable standard, the person should be put to death out of the interest of safety, rather than punishment or deterrence, which are secondary concerns.
|
| #4 :: October 16th, 2010 @ 11:31 AM | |
| Tea is ZOMBIE LONG TIME 970 Posts 660 Achievements |
Quote By @temporaryplaceholder: @Tea, execution is not more costly than life incarceration, this is simply a failure of the American judicial system. That is not to say such a failure should not be taken into account, however, to brush aside the death penalty as impractical on these grounds is the wrong option. It's really a simple matter that no statistic can really deny; I can kill a man in an hour with nothing but my bare hands, yet I cannot keep him sheltered, fed, protected, trapped, and alive for more than a few years without considerable funds. If American law and imprisonment legislation has gotten so out of control that this balance has changed, then our duty is to correct that, not simply continue ahead at full steam issuing out "lifetime imprisonments" because it's just easier at the moment. It is a waste of time, money, employment, and space in an overcrowded system. I wasn't saying it couldn't be cheaper, I was just saying that's how it stands now in the U.S. Wrongful convictions do still happen, they may be few and far between compared to rightful convictions but I'd rather we gave every man and woman the chance to appeal before execution than wrongly execute someone. And that takes time and money. Quote: As for the lack of reduction in severe crime, I again disagree. The problem is not that the death penalty is bad, per-se, but that it is a very, very complicated issue. You can't just compare the crime rates from death penalty to non-death penalty without acknowledging various other factors that hinge incredibly on the subject. I agree with you, I didn't compare the use of the death penalty between different areas for that very reason. Crime and the way it is treated varies greatly from culture to culture and is incomparable. This explains why there are so many statistics both supporting and ridiculing the death penalty as a tool for deterrence. I was just pointing out the the death penalty does not act as a stand alone ultimate deterrence as crime still occurs in the places that it is used. My original post was just addressing nunni's main questions about cost and deterrence.Quote: Protection of innocent individuals should be the highest priority of criminal handling. If this danger cannot be minimised to an acceptable standard, the person should be put to death out of the interest of safety, rather than punishment or deterrence, which are secondary concerns. Is not putting people in prison and acceptable standard of protection? I would rather see the term life sentence actually mean LIFE (none of this getting out early bullcrap). From my point of view, killing someone against their will is abhorrent regardless of what they've done. Especially when there can be alternatives put in to action instead.
|
| #5 :: October 16th, 2010 @ 9:36 PM | |
| Baffled Is a Survivor  2,100 Posts 444 Achievements |
I don’t think having life or death penalty hanging over the head of a criminal will make them not do what they are about to do.
A Criminal is rarely thinking of the consequences of their actions, rarely caring for the people they are about to hurt, or about what may happen to them if they do it. Criminals are usually arrogant/emotionally crippled people who either think they are getting away with this crime scot free, or they seriously just don’t consider anything past what they feel they must do/or what they are doing. I suppose the possibility of your own death would deter the usual individual, the person like you and me, but to the psychopath, the murderer, or just the stupid petty thief, it won’t make a difference to them because they already have it in their head that they are getting away with this crime, no ifs ands or buts.
|
| #6 :: October 17th, 2010 @ 1:38 AM | |
| Tokkida Is Melody's Little Helper  975 Posts 482 Achievements |
But psh, like that's gonna happen. |
| #7 :: October 17th, 2010 @ 2:15 AM | |
| toilet Gets Around  4,843 Posts 464 Achievements |
i believe in capital punishment
i did this huge paper about how it deters crime and stuff... anywayyyyyyyyyyyy one of the main reasons i think the death penalty should stay in affect is plea bargaining. that is when you bring a sentence to a lower time .. well it's hard to explain but.. lets say this guy murders tons of people.. without the death penalty the highest sentence he would receive is life in prison (without parole) most cases are are plea bargained.. "According to the 2000 statistics: a total of 37,188 defendants who retained public counsel plea bargained. This was a total of 87.1% who plea bargained their case, while only 5.2% went to trial." here so lets say there is no death penalty, a guy who plea bargains will get life (with parole - or so on) ---- that means he is still around the public and can endanger innocent people. most death penalty cases are plea bargained into life without parole.. so it helps keep dangerous people away from innocent ones. there was also this one story where a few men were robbing a bank or something. and this one man brought a gun with him without the others knowing.. .. well he shot someone so everyone got in trouble the other men didn't know about the gun and would have not let him take it because of the fear for the death penalty.. i wish i could find the story to back it up, but i did the project years ago. there is also the point that it saves lives by deterring crime "According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented." here there is also the point about it being so rarely administered that it couldn't possibly save lives in there ^ a man did this study about the death penalty and he went through all the years of it and looked at all the deaths and the crime rates and .. crime went down every time the death penalty was actually administered.. |
| #8 :: October 22nd, 2010 @ 3:42 AM | |
 Korynnis Shady  407 Posts 309 Achievements |
 I believe if someone can kill another human being, they should be punished in the same way. Eye for an eye principle. Loads upon loads of money are dumped into these lowlife's books (bank account thing) by family, friends, etc.; so they eat well, sleep well, have a NICE plasma tv (two in some pods), hot water, free showers, etc etc. Yet we have a rising homeless population and TERRIBLE economy. So. Tell me again why we're feeding these people who do such horrible things in society? In one of my lower security sections I was interacting with someone that I'd NEVER let near me or my family, yet he was getting goodies and respect. UGH. I just. I've been around them, they're gross creepy lowlifes and just...deserve the right punishment for their actions, even if it's death. x: ...sorry, I'm done. -tosses soapbox in trash- {who, who are you really?}
|
| #9 :: October 22nd, 2010 @ 10:53 AM | |
| shatzy Subeta Elder  10,764 Posts 992 Achievements |
 we've been killing people for crimes for ages and we still have the same crimes, so....... i'm missing the argument. 
|
| #10 :: October 22nd, 2010 @ 11:44 AM | |
| temporaryplaceholder is a DANCING QUEEN 1,607 Posts 329 Achievements |
@shatzy, nobody claimed the deterrence was foolproof, you silly... We still have crimes, but in the same numbers? Unlikely. Whether the punishment is a predominant thought at the moment of the crime is relative to the criminal in question, but in general knowledge of consequence is always going to shape general behaviour in a population much prior to an events occurrence to begin with. Someone who is aware of their likely mortality for a behaviour is intrinsically going to have a compulsion to avoid it to save their own hide. Knowledge that they'll get a small fine on the other hand, has them merely weighing the costs and taking gambles.
|
| #11 :: October 22nd, 2010 @ 1:57 PM | |
| Lypsyl Is a Master Chef!  9,538 Posts 1,249 Achievements |
One website provides studies showing that the death penalty does act as a deterrent, that it does not, and that it actually increases murders. Assuming all studies are equally sound, what this tells me is that the studies can't, at this time, determine one way or another. For example one study from the FBI showed Quote:
In 1996, those states which had the death penalty had an average murder rate of 7.1 per 100,000 population; those states which do not execute people had a homicide rate of 3.6. What the study doesn't show, is if this is cause or effect - did the death penalty get voted in, or kept in, because the murder rate was higher to start with, or did the murder rate go up as a result of the death penalty? As is said repeatedly of studies, correlation =/= causation. There may be many other factors that the death penalty states have with could affect the murder rate independent of the death penalty. One study that looked at this question separated 'stranger murder' from felony murder and found that the death penalty did not impact felony murder in either direction (neither a deterrent, nor an increase), however they did find a small, but statistically significant, increase in stranger murder. As a side note, look at the company you keep, from Amnesty International. Quote: In 2006 91 per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan and the USA. Conclusion - we do not have the scientific resources to determine if the death penalty is a deterrent, increases or has no impact on homicide rates. - we do know that recidivism occurs, however the rate for murder is low. According the the stats I could find, 98.8% of released murders do not commit more murder. - we do know that people are convicted of murder who are innocent of murder. On a practical level, it seems to me, based on the knowledge we lack combined with the knowledge we have, that capital punishment is a losing proposition until we can make significant improvements to the judicial system and we can find a research method that will confirm the effect of capitol punishment on society.
|
| #12 :: October 23rd, 2010 @ 4:34 PM | |
| MommaT Is a Survivor  438 Posts 407 Achievements |
 I say make the punishment fit the crime. There is NO reason why the death penalty should cost more money than a life sentence. Did someone murder someone with a gunshot to the head? Then that is how they should be executed. Did they torture their victims first? Then they should undergo a similar torture. That ought to make people think twice (or at least, the ones who are sane enough to do so), and ought to cost a lot less. Now, there is, of course, the issue of wrongful convictions, which I agree is a BIG problem. I would say that in order for the death penalty to be given out, there must be certain types of irrefutable evidence presented, such as, perhaps, DNA or video footage (I'm not that well-versed in the evidence world, maybe someone else could chime in on an acceptable form of evidence?) 
|
| #13 :: October 23rd, 2010 @ 11:06 PM | |
| missatralissa Gets Around  2,380 Posts 691 Achievements |
 Quote By @Jesusfreak88: I say make the punishment fit the crime. There is NO reason why the death penalty should cost more money than a life sentence. Did someone murder someone with a gunshot to the head? Then that is how they should be executed. Did they torture their victims first? Then they should undergo a similar torture. That ought to make people think twice (or at least, the ones who are sane enough to do so), and ought to cost a lot less. I find your user name and your comment to be the biggest contradiction ever. Or did I forget the verse where Jesus said "shoot and torture them all"? Oh yeah, that right, he never said that. Instead there was that little verse, John 8:7: "[. . .] He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." I am always BAFFLED by Christians who are pro-capital punishment (and the ones that are pro-war & pro-guns). And usually (not always) they then also claim to be pro-life and will fight tooth and nail against abortion. Because killing a living breathing adult is perfectly okay but a clump of cells is murder. Okay, sorry, I know this isn't an abortion debate but you can't claim to be pro-life AND pro-capital punishment. I am not for capital punishment. As a Humanist I just can not swallow the thought of killing, for any reason. I know that it probably saves money, and I agree there are some people who are just not redeemable, but personally I am not for it. I'm not even Christian, and yet I agree with the Christ-like stance that we have no more right to take the life of a living breathing human being than the murder does.
|
| #14 :: October 23rd, 2010 @ 11:56 PM | |
| Peach is a Billionaire  8,623 Posts 885 Achievements |
@missatralissa@Jesusfreak88 Quote:
There's a huge moral distinction between killing someone who's committed a heinous crime and proved to be a harm to society, and killing a potential baby who really hasn't done anything besides being created in the wrong place at the wrong time. The term pro-life doesn't mean pro-any human life, like pro-choice doesn't mean pro-choice to do anything. Personally I prefer pro-abortion and anti-abortion, it's more accurate, but of course that'll never catch on. And the Bible also gave us 'eye for an eye', so there's no real contradiction between being Christian and supporting capital punishment.  Last Edit by:
Isis 10/23/10 - 11:56:59 pm
|
| #15 :: October 24th, 2010 @ 12:09 AM | |
| missatralissa Gets Around 2,380 Posts 691 Achievements |
@Isis The term "an eye for an eye" comes from the Hebrew bible (old testament). The whole point of Jesus was that his coming changed the rules. Christians are to follow the teachings of Christ, and not the old Hebrew or Levitical Law teachings. To be Christian is to be "Christ-like." Christ never advocated "an eye for an eye" he taught "turn the other cheek" (Mathew 5:39). So, sorry. If Christ was/is real, I highly doubt he would support Capital Punishment. Especially since, you know, that's how he died!
|
| #16 :: October 24th, 2010 @ 12:21 AM | |
| Peach is a Billionaire 8,623 Posts 885 Achievements |
@missatralissa
New Testament, Revelation 13:10 - "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword." 
|
| #17 :: October 24th, 2010 @ 12:34 AM | |
| missatralissa Gets Around 2,380 Posts 691 Achievements |
@Isis Again, that is not from Christ's teachings. If you can find me a passage where Christ himself promotes capital punishment, please show me. But, I'm sure well get told to hop back on the subject soon. I honestly don't care if a religion endorses killing of humans as means of punishment. I will never agree with it. I feel no person has the right to kill another.
|
| #18 :: October 24th, 2010 @ 1:29 AM | |
| Peach is a Billionaire 8,623 Posts 885 Achievements |
@missatralissa
Alright, never mind religion then! Quote: Criminals are usually arrogant/emotionally crippled people who either think they are getting away with this crime scot free, or they seriously just don’t consider anything past what they feel they must do/or what they are doing. I don't see why the death penalty can't be deterrent. Murderers don't just fall into two categories - those who commit crimes on the spur of the moment or sociopaths. There's a whole spectrum of criminals in between to which the threat of capital punishment might cause them to reconsider. 
|
| #19 :: October 24th, 2010 @ 1:56 AM | |
| missatralissa Gets Around 2,380 Posts 691 Achievements |
@Isis It's true that it could be a deterrent, but for me I can't feel okay with it. I recognize that there are some people that deserve death, but for some reason my respect for life just can't accept capital punishment.
|
| #20 :: October 24th, 2010 @ 8:04 AM | |
| MommaT Is a Survivor 438 Posts 407 Achievements |
@missatralissa Isis pretty much said everything I would have said. Keep in mind, there is more to the Bible and Christianity than just doing what Jesus said. Jesus makes up a very small part of the Bible. I also encourage you to make sure that when you throw Bible verses around, you consider the context of both the passage in question, and the time period that it took place in. Also, consider common sense. Turning the other cheek is one thing, but letting people get away with murder is another. As for being a "contradiction," I think it would make an interesting debate topic. Most Christians who believe such things don't consider themselves to be contracting themselves.
|
| #21 :: October 24th, 2010 @ 3:09 PM | |
| missatralissa Gets Around 2,380 Posts 691 Achievements |
@Jesusfreak88 Believe me, I do take into consideration the context, I'm a religions major, I know not to cherry pick. My stance is that Christ is the penultimate "CHRISTian" and that he is to be the model and guide for humanity. Just like Siddhartha is the model for Buddhism, there may have been people who came after and changed the teachings or added things, but he's still the original Supreme Buddha. But, from the teachings I had (for 18 years) as a Protestant, I was taught to be Christ-like. I mean, it's so cliché, but WWJD was really what more Christians should be considering. As I said, the old teachings of the Hebrews/Jews became bubcus with the coming of Christ. He ushered in the new era of law. Suddenly the god of the old testament went from striking down everyone and anyone, to passing out free food and wine. There is quite a dichotomy between the two, and honestly I don't understand how people don't see the contradictions. I will never understand how Christians justify the death penalty without admitting to the contradictions that are all over the bible. Even if we are to use the old laws, "Thous shalt not kill" it was one of the Ten Commandments. And, I don't remember a clause on it saying: "but only if they didn't kill anyone first."
|
| #22 :: October 24th, 2010 @ 9:57 PM | |
Newbie  0 Posts 54 Achievements |
A lack of ability to think before acting is what makes a criminal, so no.
I believe education and opportunity for a better life helps in crime prevention, but it seems that those will not be coming by any soon.
|
| #23 :: October 29th, 2010 @ 11:03 PM | |
| airforce_wife is a SUPER USER!!!  250 Posts 133 Achievements |
 well tell me,if you knew you would be killed for say,robbing the bank-would you do it? 
|
© 2006-2013 Agoge, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
About Subeta | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Link Back | Apply for Staff | Rules
Use of this site signifies your acceptance of the Terms and Conditions