Supreme Court vs Lethal Injection - Page 6

Kytro · 09-28-2007, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

It reduces recidivism on serious crimes to 0%. When used properly, it deters future crimes of the same type. AND it makes people "feel better". Seems like it serves a purpose.

You could also randomly execute people that are statistically likely to commit a serious crime and further reduce crime, but that does not mean it is a good idea.

It's use as a deterrent is questionable at best, and honestly I believe that there alternative paths that are far more benefical

Donkey® · 09-28-2007, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

It reduces recidivism on serious crimes to 0%. When used properly, it deters future crimes of the same type. AND it makes people "feel better". Seems like it serves a purpose.

You could also cut their arms off? Maybe their legs? Lobotomy might make it a 0% change to commit future crimes as well. All of these mean no crime...but no killing.

Joe_Cool · 09-28-2007, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

You could also cut their arms off? Maybe their legs? Lobotomy might make it a 0% change to commit future crimes as well. All of these mean no crime...but no killing.

at the idea that dismemberment and lobotomy are more humane than execution.

Anyway, I'm all for killing criminals. You kill somebody without just cause, you get executed. I see no reason whatsoever to avoid killing them.

Joe_Cool · 09-28-2007, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

You could also randomly execute people that are statistically likely to commit a serious crime and further reduce crime, but that does not mean it is a good idea.

We punish people for what they HAVE done, not what we think they might do. The con arguments get more and more ridiculous.

It's use as a deterrent is questionable at best, and honestly I believe that there alternative paths that are far more benefical

Ok, let's try an experiment:

There's a piece of pie on the table. I'm standing there with a gun, and I tell you "If you eat that pie, I WILL kill you."

Are you going to be more or less likely to eat it than if I hadn't said that?

Kytro · 09-28-2007, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

We punish people for what they HAVE done, not what we think they might do. The con arguments get more and more ridiculous.

It wasn't a serious suggestion. You argued that execution reduces future crime to 0 for a given person. I pointed out this was true for any risk.

The point was using "preventing possible future crime" as a positive argument for execution is about risk mitigation.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Ok, let's try an experiment:

There's a piece of pie on the table. I'm standing there with a gun, and I tell you "If you eat that pie, I WILL kill you."

Are you going to be more or less likely to eat it than if I hadn't said that?

It is about risk vs reward. A pie isn't worth much of a risk, and the risk is obvious in this circumstance.

However most criminals don't have someone standing over them with a gun. The threat isn't "real" to them, people don't plan on getting caught and they are unlikely to take the risk if they believe they will get caught (in almost all cases) for even a somewhat harsh punishment. Do you think a criminal actively considers execution vs life in prison before killing someone?

Joe_Cool · 09-28-2007, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

It is about risk vs reward. A pie isn't worth much of a risk, and the risk is obvious in this circumstance.

Great. Change the reward in the situation to 900 billion dollars.

However most criminals don't have someone standing over them with a gun. The threat isn't "real" to them, people don't plan on getting caught and they are unlikely to take the risk if they believe they will get caught (in almost all cases) for even a somewhat harsh punishment. Do you think a criminal actively considers execution vs life in prison before killing someone?

Please, just answer the question. Will the promise of death keep you from taking the reward?

To be honest, I fully expected you to make excuses rather than just answer. Yes, criminals think they can get away with their crimes. But potential risk is most definitely something they consider.

Kytro · 09-28-2007, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Great. Change the reward in the situation to 900 billion dollars.

Please, just answer the question. Will the promise of death keep you from taking the reward?

Personally I try to avoid anything that may hurt or kill me, but then I am not a violent criminal, and obviously they are willing to take more risks than I am.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

To be honest, I fully expected you to make excuses rather than just answer. Yes, criminals think they can get away with their crimes. But potential risk is most definitely something they consider.

Well of course it is, otherwise they would commit crime in plain sight all the time. They do weigh risk, but I would expect the weight the risk of getting caught up rather than the penalty. Be it 10 years, 20 or even execution, if they thought there was a good chance of getting caught they would most likley not commit the crime.

I'm not saying it couldn't be used to deter people, but I see no evidence that it is overly effective, and how I actually feel about the penalty isn't a good indicator of overall effectiveness - after all I am not the intended target

Joe_Cool · 09-28-2007, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Personally I try to avoid anything that may hurt or kill me, but then I am not a violent criminal, and obviously they are willing to take more risks than I am.

Naturally. That doesn't mean they don't weigh risks, not only of getting caught, but of the penalty if they are caught.

If we changed the penalty for murder to a $50 fine instead of years in prison, do you think the murder rate would increase?

Well of course it is, otherwise they would commit crime in plain sight all the time. They do weigh risk, but I would expect the weight the risk of getting caught up rather than the penalty. Be it 10 years, 20 or even execution, if they thought there was a good chance of getting caught they would most likley not commit the crime.

Without a doubt, better investigative techniques and better policing are part of the solution (although the chance of NOT getting caught when you commit murder is pretty slim already). But when you are caught, the punishment needs to be certain and consistent. that's where we're messing up. You only get the death penalty now if your murder was one of a narrow category of "BAD" murders that our legal system deems worthy of execution, and even then, only if your judge and jury are willing to hand out the penalty instead of crying over how mean it is. I say ALL murder should be capital murder, and once you're convicted of murder, there should be little to no flexibility in sentencing.

Let me give you an example of a lawbreaker weighing risks:

I used to speed A LOT. Naturally I tried to avoid getting caught, but even if I did get caught it was no big deal, because a $30 ticket = so what.

Then the state started raising the fines for speeding, to outrageous amounts. Like $150 for going up to 10mph over the limit, $200 for 11-15, $275 for 16-20, etc. My risk of getting caught didn't change, but the penalty if I did get caught changed drastically.

See if you can guess whether I speed more, the same, or less now.

I'm not saying it couldn't be used to deter people, but I see no evidence that it is overly effective, and how I actually feel about the penalty isn't a good indicator of overall effectiveness - after all I am not the intended target

The reason it's not as effective as it should be is because our implementation is horribly flawed. Even so, there's a fairly strong correlation (.60) between the number of executions and the number of murders. If we did it properly (every convicted murderer gets executed, and quickly, not after 30 years on death row) it would be a very strong deterrent.

JaJae · 09-28-2007, 12:29 PM

I would agree we need to be consistent. People commit murder and they have a chance of being out on the streets in 10 years. Or someone can commit murder and have their life taken. You can commit murder and plea it down to manslaughter and be out even quicker in some cases.

The punishment needs to be consistent.

Donkey® · 09-28-2007, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

at the idea that dismemberment and lobotomy are more humane than execution.

Anyway, I'm all for killing criminals. You kill somebody without just cause, you get executed. I see no reason whatsoever to avoid killing them.

Killing someone is the ultimate inhumane treatment.

JaJae · 09-28-2007, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Killing someone is the ultimate inhumane treatment.

I have to say I this is the first time I've heard an argument against capital punishment due to inhumane treatment and the counter argument given was to maim them for life. It is interesting though.

Donkey® · 09-28-2007, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I have to say I this is the first time I've heard an argument against capital punishment due to inhumane treatment and the counter argument given was to maim them for life. It is interesting though.

Well, I don't think I would approve of maiming them...it was used to illustrate a point. I think life in prison is just fine. When you kill someone, it's the ultimate cruelty. Anything less than that, ie: maiming, would be less cruel. The ultimate cruelty you can put on someone is to take their lives. In the end, that's all any of us have that's worth something.

JaJae · 09-28-2007, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The ultimate cruelty you can put on someone is to take their lives. In the end, that's all any of us have that's worth something.

Which is why when you violently and illegally take someone else's life the punishment must be the most severe consequence in order for justice to be served.

Donkey® · 09-28-2007, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Which is why when you violently and illegally take someone else's life the punishment must be the most severe consequence in order for justice to be served.

And I am not understanding how life in prison isn't severe? I would do away with ANY kind of parole for people who take another person's life. They should NEVER see the outside of a prison again. Complaining that it's a "light" sentence because they have a fucking TV is just stupid.

JaJae · 09-28-2007, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And I am not understanding how life in prison isn't severe? I would do away with ANY kind of parole for people who take another person's life. They should NEVER see the outside of a prison again. Complaining that it's a "light" sentence because they have a fucking TV is just stupid.

Life in prison is severe, but it's not the most severe as you said.

You said maiming someone for life would be less severe than killing someone. So then what if maiming someone for life = life in prison. See what I'm getting at? I believe that sometimes, for some crimes life in prison is not suitable for the crime. There are crimes in existence where I believe that the only suitable justice is capital punishment... for example: Saddam.

Kytro · 09-28-2007, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Naturally. That doesn't mean they don't weigh risks, not only of getting caught, but of the penalty if they are caught.

I'm not in touch enough to really know for sure, but I would be suprised if a person facin 20 yrs in prision would cnahnge thier mind based on the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

If we changed the penalty for murder to a $50 fine instead of years in prison, do you think the murder rate would increase?

Mostly likey as $50 is a somethin most people could sacrifice.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Without a doubt, better investigative techniques and better policing are part of the solution (although the chance of NOT getting caught when you commit murder is pretty slim already).

I would be surprised at that, but I have never looked into it.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

But when you are caught, the punishment needs to be certain and consistent. that's where we're messing up. You only get the death penalty now if your murder was one of a narrow category of "BAD" murders that our legal system deems worthy of execution, and even then, only if your judge and jury are willing to hand out the penalty instead of crying over how mean it is. I say ALL murder should be capital murder, and once you're convicted of murder, there should be little to no flexibility in sentencing.

I cannot agree. For one thing I think capital punishment is waste of possible benefits, and second I think punishments hould fit the actual circumstances.

I would expect that our viewpoints about justice are poles apart.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Let me give you an example of a lawbreaker weighing risks:

I used to speed A LOT. Naturally I tried to avoid getting caught, but even if I did get caught it was no big deal, because a $30 ticket = so what.

Then the state started raising the fines for speeding, to outrageous amounts. Like $150 for going up to 10mph over the limit, $200 for 11-15, $275 for 16-20, etc. My risk of getting caught didn't change, but the penalty if I did get caught changed drastically.

See if you can guess whether I speed more, the same, or less now.

It's a fair anlaysis, but I to make it more accurate say it was $90,000 a ticket at first and now it is $900,000

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

The reason it's not as effective as it should be is because our implementation is horribly flawed. Even so, there's a fairly strong correlation (.60) between the number of executions and the number of murders. If we did it properly (every convicted murderer gets executed, and quickly, not after 30 years on death row) it would be a very strong deterrent.

It could possibly be so, but I think there are better wqys to deter people other than killing people

Kytro · 09-28-2007, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Life in prison is severe, but it's not the most severe as you said.

You said maiming someone for life would be less severe than killing someone. So then what if maiming someone for life = life in prison. See what I'm getting at? I believe that sometimes, for some crimes life in prison is not suitable for the crime. There are crimes in existence where I believe that the only suitable justice is capital punishment... for example: Saddam.

Life in prison is ore harmful than death, in most cases

Donkey® · 09-28-2007, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Life in prison is severe, but it's not the most severe as you said.

You said maiming someone for life would be less severe than killing someone. So then what if maiming someone for life = life in prison. See what I'm getting at? I believe that sometimes, for some crimes life in prison is not suitable for the crime. There are crimes in existence where I believe that the only suitable justice is capital punishment... for example: Saddam.

Revenge is not justice. Death is not punishment.