The death penalty does not work at reducing violent crime or murder. In fact, there is good evidence to say that where the penalty exists, these type of crimes go up ... possibly because of its brutalising effect.
One thought is that when the death penalty exists, someone will be more willing to kill to avoid being caught. This phenomonon now exists in California with the three strikes law. They're finding that a criminal with two strikes is more likely to do whatever it takes to avoid getting caught with the third strike since they have nothing to lose.
Much of the same logic could be used against the right to have guns. Because the burglars know the chance for you to have a gun under your pillow is high they better shoot you first.
Cain-our brother, who in a fit of righteous indignation rose up and slew our brother Abel. The first homicide, the one that for all time places homicide in its proper perspective. For now we understand that all homicide is really fratricide. It is the killing of our brother, our sister. Cain-whom God sought out, and to whom He posed those most poignant of all questions: "Where is Abel, your brother?" "What have you done?" Cain-upon whom God set His mark to identify his crime. "The mark of Cain"-not to invite the enmity or retribution of others, for God explicitly forebade anyone to touch him. "The mark of Cain"-a powerful reminder to all of what each is capable of in the dark recesses of our imagination. "The mark of Cain," whose chief punishment now is to walk the earth as a "fugitive and wanderer" upon whom no one is to take vengeance. "The mark of Cain"-who will now be condemned, more importantly, to live apart from "the presence of God."
States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates
A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve
states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20
years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times, 9/22/00)
Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas.
Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart examined executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997. They speculated that if a deterrent effect were to exist, it would be found in Texas because of the high number of death sentences and executions within the state. Using patterns in executions across the study period and the
relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found no evidence of a deterrent effect. The study concluded that the number of executions was unrelated to murder rates in general, and that the number of executions was unrelated to felony rates. (45 Crime and Delinquency 481-93 (1999)).
According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of all executions (90% in 2000). From 1989-1998, 292 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the south, 125 in the west, 121 in the midwest, and 80 in the northeast, the region with the fewest execution - less than 1%.The three leading states where law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in 1998 were California, the state with the highest death row population (7); Texas, the state with the most executions since 1976 (5); and Florida, the state that is third highest in executions and in death row population (5). (FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 1998)
No no no no NO NO NO NO NO! Look at my siggy. Pro-death != pro-death penalty. Don't give my group (of 1) a bad name.
My bad BR.
For anyone who has seen this, I would just like to state that I have infringed BR's intellectual areas and generally trodden on his toes. I am, in fact, a hardened pro-deather of the BR school.
Well this really is confusing. I went to a few Bible sites and yes, it would seem that Christianity says it's OK to take the life of another human being, as long as it's 'lawful'.
But Leviticus. I see also that in Leviticus (20:13) it says that we must put gay people to death:
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
What's your opinion on this? Do you think that we should put gay men to death if they sleep with each other? It's in the Bible, after all, which is your 'frame of reference' as far as deciding what is and is not 'lawful' killing. I've just read it. So, as a committed Christian, do you agree that gay people should be executed?
BR: I rest my case.
Hassan: In a word, no. That mandate only applied to Hebrew men, not foreigners living in Israel. The modern equivalent/application would be the church, not the state, and instead of death, practicing homosexuals are excommunicated . That is a simple explanation and I think it?s about all you want. If not, email me because I won?t have time to check the boards this week.
Hassan: In a word, no. That mandate only applied to Hebrew men, not foreigners living in Israel. The modern equivalent/application would be the church, not the state, and instead of death, practicing homosexuals are excommunicated . That is a simple explanation and I think it?s about all you want. If not, email me because I won?t have time to check the boards this week.
Okie-dokie. Do the other laws of Leviticus only apply to Hebrew men, then? What about the Commandments themselves? I'd be really interested to see which bits of the Old Testament still apply to the vast majority of Christians alive today in Africa, South America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific.
I'd be really very interested indeed to know exactly where in the Bible it says that only homosexual Hebrews should be put to death. Chapter and verse would be cool! Ta.
Hassan: In a word, no. That mandate only applied to Hebrew men, not foreigners living in Israel. The modern equivalent/application would be the church, not the state, and instead of death, practicing homosexuals are excommunicated . That is a simple explanation and I think it?s about all you want. If not, email me because I won?t have time to check the boards this week.
Hold on! Back the objectivity train up a second. What the hell do you mean by ?modern equivalent/application?? Just a few posts ago you were just spouting off about how you ?think in terms of biblical Law and thus that is your point of reference.? How can it be your point of reference if you?re going to put it through this modern subjectivity filter of yours? Hassan just quoted a passage that read ?they shall surely be put to death.? How does that translate to excommunication?
?Surely put to death? means ?surely put to death.? That is it, the end. I think the only way you could have a modern equivalent (if you?re going to take this passage literally) is to use something along the lines of lethal injection, electric chair, or (if you?re feeling feisty) a firing squad. But not ?excommunication.?
Hold on! Back the objectivity train up a second. What the hell do you mean by ?modern equivalent/application?? Just a few posts ago you were just spouting off about how you ?think in terms of biblical Law and thus that is your point of reference.? How can it be your point of reference if you?re going to put it through this modern subjectivity filter of yours? Hassan just quoted a passage that read ?they shall surely be put to death.? How does that translate to excommunication?
?Surely put to death? means ?surely put to death.? That is it, the end. I think the only way you could have a modern equivalent (if you?re going to take this passage literally) is to use something along the lines of lethal injection, electric chair, or (if you?re feeling feisty) a firing squad. But not ?excommunication.?
maybe its a figurative death relative to the church. as far as the church is concerned (by my understanding), exocommunicated people are no longer with us.
i didnt realize people still advocated exocommunication in these `modern' times. surely the best way to deal with some behavior you disagree with isn't to cut off discussion with an individual who enacts such behavior. its more antiquated than dp as far as i'm concerned.
Wait a second...based on what? You haven't responded to me. You haven't articulated anything. You are just stating that you are resting your case and thus it is so? WTF?
Criminals need to be separated into two categories...those that can be rehabilitated and those that can't. Rapists, murderers, repeat offenders of serious violent crimes, and other criminals of the same ilk simply should be excised from society completely. They get free room and board and as many books as they would like to read for the rest of their natural lives.
Now, those who don't fall into the above category of the socially unfit must be placed into an entirely different system. They must all work to repay their debt to society. More importantly, they must learn or advance a skill that will benefit society, whether it is studying for and earning a degree or learning how to weld something. They must spend 30 hours each week working various jobs which will fund another 30 hours per week of mandatory skill set enhancement.
Oh yeah, all victimless crimes are decriminalized as well.
That, class, is how we must revamp our penal system so that it accomplishes something(yes, I said penal chuckle everyone).
This is an interesting suggestion.
I am against death penalty, but those who cannot be rehabilited should really be excised from the society.
The big problem with this dichotomial system is it's very difficult to separate people in these two groups. Even specialist can only give statistics about the chance of rehabilitation, and sometimes they fail.
Some rapist will never do their crime again, some will comit a new one quickly. Same apply for murderers.
Some murderers just acted in a particular situation and have only very little chances to commit a crime again, some are dangerous and as you said should be excised of the society. We can never be sure of their future, but i'll say that an extreme caution apply in these cases : liberate these people only if we think that he certainly will never commit a murder again. If we don't know : keep it in jail. The life of such people do not worth to risk the life of an innocent.
For the rappist, they must be cured, if it's fail and cannot be rehabilited, put them in jail forever. Don't automatically put them in jail forever. The next rappist will think that the best way to not be caught by the police, will be to kill the witness, aka the victim.
For the rest, well it's difficult to know in which group the criminal belong. Your system is difficult to apply, certainly cost a lot of money, but he is interesting conceptually.
I am against death penalty, but those who cannot be rehabilited should really be excised from the society.
The big problem with this dichotomial system is it's very difficult to separate people in these two groups. Even specialist can only give statistics about the chance of rehabilitation, and sometimes they fail.
Some rapist will never do their crime again, some will comit a new one quickly. Same apply for murderers.
Some murderers just acted in a particular situation and have only very little chances to commit a crime again, some are dangerous and as you said should be excised of the society. We can never be sure of their future, but i'll say that an extreme caution apply in these cases : liberate these people only if we think that he certainly will never commit a murder again. If we don't know : keep it in jail. The life of such people do not worth to risk the life of an innocent.
For the rappist, they must be cured, if it's fail and cannot be rehabilited, put them in jail forever. Don't automatically put them in jail forever. The next rappist will think that the best way to not be caught by the police, will be to kill the witness, aka the victim.
For the rest, well it's difficult to know in which group the criminal belong. Your system is difficult to apply, certainly cost a lot of money, but he is interesting conceptually.
Thanks. That was the kind of thoughtful reply I was looking for. I don't claim it is perfect or easy to implement. It's just my idea, if it can be implemented, of the fairest system around.
Although the separation of criminals into those two categories may be difficult, the other part which is in my opinion more important, would be feasible. Criminals go to prison and learn how to be better criminals. That must stop. They must learn how to contribute to society. They must advance a skill that will benefit society if they want to be let out.
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
The death penalty does not work at reducing violent crime or murder. In fact, there is good evidence to say that where the penalty exists, these type of crimes go up ... possibly because of its brutalising effect.
One thought is that when the death penalty exists, someone will be more willing to kill to avoid being caught. This phenomonon now exists in California with the three strikes law. They're finding that a criminal with two strikes is more likely to do whatever it takes to avoid getting caught with the third strike since they have nothing to lose.
Cain-our brother, who in a fit of righteous indignation rose up and slew our brother Abel. The first homicide, the one that for all time places homicide in its proper perspective. For now we understand that all homicide is really fratricide. It is the killing of our brother, our sister. Cain-whom God sought out, and to whom He posed those most poignant of all questions: "Where is Abel, your brother?" "What have you done?" Cain-upon whom God set His mark to identify his crime. "The mark of Cain"-not to invite the enmity or retribution of others, for God explicitly forebade anyone to touch him. "The mark of Cain"-a powerful reminder to all of what each is capable of in the dark recesses of our imagination. "The mark of Cain," whose chief punishment now is to walk the earth as a "fugitive and wanderer" upon whom no one is to take vengeance. "The mark of Cain"-who will now be condemned, more importantly, to live apart from "the presence of God."
http://www.allsoulsnyc.org/publicati...k-of-cain.html
---------
States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates
A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve
states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20
years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times, 9/22/00)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=167#STATES WITH THE DEATH PENALTY V. STATES WITHOUT
---------
Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas.
Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart examined executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997. They speculated that if a deterrent effect were to exist, it would be found in Texas because of the high number of death sentences and executions within the state. Using patterns in executions across the study period and the
relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found no evidence of a deterrent effect. The study concluded that the number of executions was unrelated to murder rates in general, and that the number of executions was unrelated to felony rates. (45 Crime and Delinquency 481-93 (1999)).
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...id=167#STUDIES
---------
Deterrence & Murder of Police Officers
According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of all executions (90% in 2000). From 1989-1998, 292 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the south, 125 in the west, 121 in the midwest, and 80 in the northeast, the region with the fewest execution - less than 1%.The three leading states where law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in 1998 were California, the state with the highest death row population (7); Texas, the state with the most executions since 1976 (5); and Florida, the state that is third highest in executions and in death row population (5). (FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 1998)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...EATH%20PENALTY
Originally posted by Harald
This is the point when the pro-deathers always shut up. Then they leave it a few months and the thread gets restarted.
No no no no NO NO NO NO NO! Look at my siggy. Pro-death != pro-death penalty. Don't give my group (of 1) a bad name.
Originally posted by BR
No no no no NO NO NO NO NO! Look at my siggy. Pro-death != pro-death penalty. Don't give my group (of 1) a bad name.
My bad BR.
For anyone who has seen this, I would just like to state that I have infringed BR's intellectual areas and generally trodden on his toes. I am, in fact, a hardened pro-deather of the BR school.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well this really is confusing. I went to a few Bible sites and yes, it would seem that Christianity says it's OK to take the life of another human being, as long as it's 'lawful'.
But Leviticus. I see also that in Leviticus (20:13) it says that we must put gay people to death:
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
What's your opinion on this? Do you think that we should put gay men to death if they sleep with each other? It's in the Bible, after all, which is your 'frame of reference' as far as deciding what is and is not 'lawful' killing. I've just read it. So, as a committed Christian, do you agree that gay people should be executed?
BR: I rest my case.
Hassan: In a word, no. That mandate only applied to Hebrew men, not foreigners living in Israel. The modern equivalent/application would be the church, not the state, and instead of death, practicing homosexuals are excommunicated . That is a simple explanation and I think it?s about all you want. If not, email me because I won?t have time to check the boards this week.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Hassan: In a word, no. That mandate only applied to Hebrew men, not foreigners living in Israel. The modern equivalent/application would be the church, not the state, and instead of death, practicing homosexuals are excommunicated . That is a simple explanation and I think it?s about all you want. If not, email me because I won?t have time to check the boards this week.
Okie-dokie. Do the other laws of Leviticus only apply to Hebrew men, then? What about the Commandments themselves? I'd be really interested to see which bits of the Old Testament still apply to the vast majority of Christians alive today in Africa, South America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific.
I'd be really very interested indeed to know exactly where in the Bible it says that only homosexual Hebrews should be put to death. Chapter and verse would be cool! Ta.
Originally posted by Fangorn
Hassan: In a word, no. That mandate only applied to Hebrew men, not foreigners living in Israel. The modern equivalent/application would be the church, not the state, and instead of death, practicing homosexuals are excommunicated . That is a simple explanation and I think it?s about all you want. If not, email me because I won?t have time to check the boards this week.
Hold on! Back the objectivity train up a second. What the hell do you mean by ?modern equivalent/application?? Just a few posts ago you were just spouting off about how you ?think in terms of biblical Law and thus that is your point of reference.? How can it be your point of reference if you?re going to put it through this modern subjectivity filter of yours? Hassan just quoted a passage that read ?they shall surely be put to death.? How does that translate to excommunication?
?Surely put to death? means ?surely put to death.? That is it, the end. I think the only way you could have a modern equivalent (if you?re going to take this passage literally) is to use something along the lines of lethal injection, electric chair, or (if you?re feeling feisty) a firing squad. But not ?excommunication.?
Originally posted by DiscoCow
Hold on! Back the objectivity train up a second. What the hell do you mean by ?modern equivalent/application?? Just a few posts ago you were just spouting off about how you ?think in terms of biblical Law and thus that is your point of reference.? How can it be your point of reference if you?re going to put it through this modern subjectivity filter of yours? Hassan just quoted a passage that read ?they shall surely be put to death.? How does that translate to excommunication?
?Surely put to death? means ?surely put to death.? That is it, the end. I think the only way you could have a modern equivalent (if you?re going to take this passage literally) is to use something along the lines of lethal injection, electric chair, or (if you?re feeling feisty) a firing squad. But not ?excommunication.?
maybe its a figurative death relative to the church. as far as the church is concerned (by my understanding), exocommunicated people are no longer with us.
i didnt realize people still advocated exocommunication in these `modern' times. surely the best way to deal with some behavior you disagree with isn't to cut off discussion with an individual who enacts such behavior. its more antiquated than dp as far as i'm concerned.
Originally posted by Fangorn
BR: I rest my case.
Wait a second...based on what? You haven't responded to me. You haven't articulated anything. You are just stating that you are resting your case and thus it is so? WTF?
Originally posted by BR
Criminals need to be separated into two categories...those that can be rehabilitated and those that can't. Rapists, murderers, repeat offenders of serious violent crimes, and other criminals of the same ilk simply should be excised from society completely. They get free room and board and as many books as they would like to read for the rest of their natural lives.
Now, those who don't fall into the above category of the socially unfit must be placed into an entirely different system. They must all work to repay their debt to society. More importantly, they must learn or advance a skill that will benefit society, whether it is studying for and earning a degree or learning how to weld something. They must spend 30 hours each week working various jobs which will fund another 30 hours per week of mandatory skill set enhancement.
Oh yeah, all victimless crimes are decriminalized as well.
That, class, is how we must revamp our penal system so that it accomplishes something(yes, I said penal chuckle everyone).
This is an interesting suggestion.
I am against death penalty, but those who cannot be rehabilited should really be excised from the society.
The big problem with this dichotomial system is it's very difficult to separate people in these two groups. Even specialist can only give statistics about the chance of rehabilitation, and sometimes they fail.
Some rapist will never do their crime again, some will comit a new one quickly. Same apply for murderers.
Some murderers just acted in a particular situation and have only very little chances to commit a crime again, some are dangerous and as you said should be excised of the society. We can never be sure of their future, but i'll say that an extreme caution apply in these cases : liberate these people only if we think that he certainly will never commit a murder again. If we don't know : keep it in jail. The life of such people do not worth to risk the life of an innocent.
For the rappist, they must be cured, if it's fail and cannot be rehabilited, put them in jail forever. Don't automatically put them in jail forever. The next rappist will think that the best way to not be caught by the police, will be to kill the witness, aka the victim.
For the rest, well it's difficult to know in which group the criminal belong. Your system is difficult to apply, certainly cost a lot of money, but he is interesting conceptually.
Originally posted by DiscoCow
That's a great excuse isn't it? Why use our tax dollors to give the soulless bastards free room 'n board, when we can just kill 'em?
In a previous thread on AO, it was clearly demonstrated that Death sentance people cost more to you US tax payer, than a life in jail sentance.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
This is an interesting suggestion.
I am against death penalty, but those who cannot be rehabilited should really be excised from the society.
The big problem with this dichotomial system is it's very difficult to separate people in these two groups. Even specialist can only give statistics about the chance of rehabilitation, and sometimes they fail.
Some rapist will never do their crime again, some will comit a new one quickly. Same apply for murderers.
Some murderers just acted in a particular situation and have only very little chances to commit a crime again, some are dangerous and as you said should be excised of the society. We can never be sure of their future, but i'll say that an extreme caution apply in these cases : liberate these people only if we think that he certainly will never commit a murder again. If we don't know : keep it in jail. The life of such people do not worth to risk the life of an innocent.
For the rappist, they must be cured, if it's fail and cannot be rehabilited, put them in jail forever. Don't automatically put them in jail forever. The next rappist will think that the best way to not be caught by the police, will be to kill the witness, aka the victim.
For the rest, well it's difficult to know in which group the criminal belong. Your system is difficult to apply, certainly cost a lot of money, but he is interesting conceptually.
Thanks. That was the kind of thoughtful reply I was looking for. I don't claim it is perfect or easy to implement. It's just my idea, if it can be implemented, of the fairest system around.
Although the separation of criminals into those two categories may be difficult, the other part which is in my opinion more important, would be feasible. Criminals go to prison and learn how to be better criminals. That must stop. They must learn how to contribute to society. They must advance a skill that will benefit society if they want to be let out.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
In a previous thread on AO, it was clearly demonstrated that Death sentance people cost more to you US tax payer, than a life in jail sentance.
That's ironic.
Another nail in the coffin.
If anyone use cost as an argument against death penalty I would call them either cynics or liars.