An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Death Penalty Works as Deterrent
The AP has a fascinating article up about the death penalty. As those who read this blog for several months (and read my contributions to TMV) know, I am an opponent of the death penalty, mainly for two reasons:
- I find the death penalty to be immoral. I would say that we – in the West – are above an eye for an eye
- I do not want to give the power to the government to kill its own people
Of course there is a third reason: many people, including myself, believe that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. The death penalty, in other words, does not scare off other potential criminals. Now, I might have to revise that opinion / reason…
Please click here to read more>>
13 Responses to “Death Penalty Works as Deterrent”
Regardless of whether it deters another from committing a murder, the death penalty ALWAYS deters the murderer from further mayhem.
Cosmo’s approach would work even better if we just shot everyone who looks like he might be capable of a crime. 100% deterrence.
Some methods that work are despicable, nevertheless.
That’s simply silly. Look at my comment on the evolution post, and be more rational.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=retribution
Main Entry: ret·ri·bu·tion
Pronunciation: “re-tr&-’byü-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English retribucioun, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin retribution-, retributio, from Latin retribuere to pay back, from re- + tribuere to pay — more at TRIBUTE
1 : RECOMPENSE, REWARD
2 : the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment especially in the hereafter
3 : something given or exacted in recompense; especially : PUNISHMENT
This word is often missing in the DP debate. It is not vengeance, although I think sanctioned vengeance is perfectly acceptable. All punition, sanctioned by the state, is vengeance and retribution, with varying degrees of both.
Too often, anti-DPers go overbiard- as Doma has, with hyperbole, and assume all DP supporters wanna execute all criminals.
Not so, only those were the evidence is overwhelming.
John Wayne Gacy fries.
Osama fries.
Ted Bundy fries.
John Gotti fries.
Tim McVeigh fries.
OJ Simpson walks.
If a case does not meet the high standards for the DP, so be it. BUT, it should be there for the serial killers, hitmen, terrorists, and spree killers; as well as those who kill with especial depravity and severity.
To not support that brings in to question the supposed claims of civility and kindness the anti-DPers wave, since they apparently care too little for the innocents in society that suffer from the murderers out there.
There is only one surefire way to prevent a murderer from recidivism, and it ain’t life in prison- check out statistics on murders committed while incarcerated.
Sorry, but like the Radical Right on evolution, the Loony Left loses its lunch on the DP.
Does anyone have any moral issues with the possiblity of an innocent person being executed? As Barry Scheck’s Innocence Project has proven with DNA that a jury’s verdict is not always accurate. Life in Prison without parole does keep real murderers out of society and any injustice has a chance to be rectified.
JD: see my above, ‘If a case does not meet the high standards for the DP, so be it. BUT, it should be there for the serial killers, hitmen, terrorists, and spree killers; as well as those who kill with especial depravity and severity.’
As for the claim that life in prison stops repeat murder- again, not so. Look at murder in jail. Should a tax fraud or some other minor offender- a drug user, have to get shiv’d because he’s housed with a killer who should have been iced? I don’t think so.
Cosmo-
Your comment is condescending, which is to say, it assumes that if you say somehting emphatically enough, the larger than life tone will make an opicion magically correct.
To begin with, your statement is bereft of any real meaning. Death marks the end of life and all possible missteps while alive. So? Birth marks the beginning of life. A whole lot happens in between, and that is where the real challenges lie.
I can not and will not accept your facile view of killing, no matter how you phrase it. The end does not always justify the means.
BTW, your take on the radical left, right or anyone in between is irrelevant to me. This is my personal opinion.
And we disagree.
Period.
Main Entry: fac·ile b : POISED, ASSURED
Pronunciation: ‘fa-s&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin facilis, from facere to do — more at DO
1 a (1) : easily accomplished or attained (2) : SHALLOW, SIMPLISTIC b : used or comprehended with ease c : readily manifested and often lacking sincerity or depth
2 archaic : mild or pleasing in manner or disposition
3 a : READY, FLUENT
synonym see EASY
Doma- nothing in that definition applies to ‘If a case does not meet the high standards for the DP, so be it. BUT, it should be there for the serial killers, hitmen, terrorists, and spree killers; as well as those who kill with especial depravity and severity.
To not support that brings in to question the supposed claims of civility and kindness the anti-DPers wave, since they apparently care too little for the innocents in society that suffer from the murderers out there.
There is only one surefire way to prevent a murderer from recidivism, and it ain’t life in prison- check out statistics on murders committed while incarcerated.’
That is a moderate, and balanced view on the subject.
You state, ‘To begin with, your statement is bereft of any real meaning. Death marks the end of life and all possible missteps while alive. So? Birth marks the beginning of life. A whole lot happens in between, and that is where the real challenges lie.’
What statement lacks meaning?:
‘the death penalty ALWAYS deters the murderer from further mayhem.’
Deny its verity.
‘It [retribution] is not vengeance, although I think sanctioned vengeance is perfectly acceptable. All punition, sanctioned by the state, is vengeance and retribution, with varying degrees of both.
No. That’s reality.
Doma, you are practicing obfuscation and sciolism.
Look the words up:
http://www.m-w.com/
Now, answer with specifics. And do not pout, please.
Also, when arguing, it is best to speak of facts, not opinions.
An opinion is not something that has any bearing on social problems.
Again, deal with the facts at hand.
Cosmo-
The only facts you present are declarative sentences of your own creation. Many of those lack any intrinsic meaning.
Death is verity. Water runs downhill.
Please.
When you present a rational, fact based argument, maybe I’ll reconsder taking your comments on this thread seriously.
PS Metaphysical discussions can be interesting, too.
They don’t help much when it comes to making decisions in the here and now, though.
Doma: No murderer has ever committed another murder. That is undeniable, and HARD evidence.
You make a vague appeal to emotion in your position. THAT is facile, and subject to your whims. Please. Look at how you are arguing with Jason in the evolution post, and you are using his tactics her, yet railing against his use of same there.
Try some facts, and intellect, for your position. Emotion turns too easily.
‘This word is often missing in the DP debate. It is not vengeance, although I think sanctioned vengeance is perfectly acceptable. All punition, sanctioned by the state, is vengeance and retribution, with varying degrees of both.
Too often, anti-DPers go overbiard- as Doma has, with hyperbole, and assume all DP supporters wanna execute all criminals.’
This is not declarative, but nuanced.
So, now that your claims are debunked (again) present some real arguments against the death penalty, other than your feelings (cue the cheesy 70s ballad).
jdledell beat me to it. There is where my complete opposition to the death penalty comes from. It has been shown that innocent people have been convicted and put on death row. Given the number of them I do not consider those who argue that there is no proof that innocent men have been executed to be arguing honestly. The virtual certainty that we have executed innocent men and that nothing has been put in place to make this less likely makes me believe that the death penalty should be eliminated.
I think the evidence supports capital punishment as a deterrent, and, as noted above, it prevents repeat offenders. But this, like abortion, is not an issue that gets rational debate, but a lot of emotion. Few of the comments address the original post, the deterrent value of capital punishment.
Question for all the anti-death penalty folks – do you also oppose abortion? The fetus is certainly innocent, and has no voice in the decision making process that will end its life. Is that any more or any less just than the possibility than an innocent man may be convicted and executed? Why or why not?
Again, I repeat – I don’t find either capital punishment or abortion attractive. I do think they are, at times, the ‘least bad’ (I hesitate to say ‘best’) resolution for a situation. I also respect my Catholic friends who oppose both abortion and executions for moral grounds. I have more difficulty accepting the viewpoint of the people who accept execution but not abortion, or abortion but not execution, as I find those views to be intellectually and morally hard to justify.
Jim: There likely have been innocents sentenced to death in this nation: Judge Roy Bean. Any number of judges in the pre-Civil Rights South.
But that is a separate issue from whether a murderer for whom there is incontrovertible evidence: Bundy, Gacy, etc., should fry.
Have you EVER met a pro-cap pun person who’s supported executing innocents? But, even in a society free of bias, there would be the rare chance of pure error. Should we not drive cars because we know several hundred times more people will be killed in them than on death row. Freedom has a price, and risk.
I worry far more of the many murderers who buy their freedom- the OJ’s and Bulows, than of possible wrongly executed.
Doma’s silence (translated): ‘Got a can of whoop-ass opened up on me.’
Orson: Cap Pun and abortion have no correlation. Cap Pun entails a guilty human being. Abortion entails a non-human being. If you want rational debate, make rational correlatives.
And my comments have always mentioned the deterrent effect of execution. 100% for the murderer.