capital punishment, yay or nay?

[Louweasel]

It has also been said that the death penalty for minor offences in the 18th and 19th century exacerbated the crime problem and made matters worse - if you are going to be hanged for stealing a man's watch, you may as well take his wallet, coat, jewellery as well and stick a knife in him so he can't tell the police. The law could do no more to you. In modern terms, some say that rapists should suffer the death penalty, which surely is the best way to ensure that all rapists kill their victims to lessen the chances of getting caught, as it would make their punishment no worse.

As for your gene pool argument, that would suggest that criminality is genetic and inherited, which frankly I don't buy without some very good evidence. Crime families maybe one thing (which don't last that long anyway) but you seem to be talking about a medical genetic trend.

Plus what Neil said as well. Zelda, you hear that, you scumbag aussie? What have you stolen this week so far?! *joking*

As for straw men, I was just extrapolating your argument that it didn't matter if people were executed by mistake as they didn't contribute much to society anyway. And as we are around and about 60 years since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, may I suggest that such "cleansing" the gene pool of supposedly "less useful" members of society, such as homosexuals and the handicapped, was exactly what Hitler was doing when he sent them along to the gas chambers with the Jews/Jehovah's Witnesses and others. The death penalty as a form of eugenics? Do me a favour.

[LordTofuDog-jnr]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Okay, but I was assuming that we were debating the topic in our respective countries, seeing as that I am obviously unqualified to comment about Australian law, and I'm guessing that you are unqualified to comment about American law. My point was that if our justice systems need improving, then we should improve them, rather than taking away punishments for criminals..

And my point is that I don't personally believe in the death penalty.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I don't think that killing a criminal as a method of punishment is really a crime. I thought you were commenting on the mental issues executioners might face. But let me ask you, are soldiers who kill the enemy murderers? I don't see them as such. I think that it's unfortunate that they have to kill, but that they do it for a greater good..

The mental state wouldn't matter, if a computer is used then it has to be programmed, it's the same to program a killer as it is to kill yourself.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Why would it? If a serial killer is executed in my town, will I be more likely to kill people? I don't think so.

You forget that even killers have families too then?

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

That judge would probably be investigated somehow. I'm not familiar with the obscure details of the legal system that deal with corrupt or insane judges, but a judge that sentenced more than one man innapropriately to death row would almost definately be dealt with.

Touche! I'm glad to hear it, and since I don't live in America I can't argue the point.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you rephrase?

The point is that a person who is sentenced to 30+ years wouldn't escape in a hurry.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

If you don't want an argument, either a) don't post or b) don't start your post with "the death penalty is retarded"

Are you saying that if I post you will argue with me? "The death penalty is retarded" is MY opinion and a good way to sum up what I think incase people don't like reading posts.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Yes, but that's not the murder that gets you on death row. The death penalty is very, very rare in America, especially if you don't count Texas. You have to rape and kill a few people, kill people brutally, kill people for fun, kill children, or a mixture of those to even qualify for the death penalty. There are some very, very bad people out there who got life in prison.

Point well taken and well presented. I still don't believe in it though.

[jeff]

I strongly agree with Louweasel's comments: extending death penalty to more offenses is a direct incentive for criminals to murder their victims, as there is no additional penalty and they remove the witness.

The idea that wide use of death penalty in 18th century reduced crime at the time or later is absurd: The incidence of petty theft and larger offenses - all subject to capital punishment - was so high at the Tyburn hanging site (they attracted big crowds, including many thieves to work the crowds) that it was a cliche that criminals in large numbers were committing the crimes that could get them hanged while witnessing their others being hanged that very moment. Some deterrent. And the idea that it had an effect on future generations is even more absurd. The Australian counter example being just one reason to reject that shabby eugenics, aside from the general repugnance of the concept.

[Sabress]

Well, I could be certain if it was pre med if the guy/woman had a detailed diary, including everything they said or did beforehand.
Nobody ' murders' on the spur of the moment. They obviously have thought about it beforehand, don't try to deny that. Perhaps the intent to frighten or hurt someone can be a spur of the moment thing, but the average person whould suddenyl stop after they realise what they did, and either run or apologise or whatever. If they continue, with the knowledge that that continuous hurt will kill, AND they kill, then it's murder.

Guns are no exception.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Sabress

{snip}
Nobody ' murders' on the spur of the moment. They obviously have thought about it beforehand, don't try to deny that. Perhaps the intent to frighten or hurt someone can be a spur of the moment thing, but the average person whould suddenyl stop after they realise what they did, and either run or apologise or whatever. If they continue, with the knowledge that that continuous hurt will kill, AND they kill, then it's murder.

Guns are no exception.

Actually, a lot of people kill others on the spur of the moment. A sudden burst of anger. A shove down the stairs that turns fatal. A sudden move by a shopkeeper during a robbery. I'd hazard a WAG that most homicides are spur of the moment.

--Philistine

[Sabress]

Did anyone ever hear about the "Criminal 5%" theory, in that in an experiement with rats, scientists found that when put in a large group, 5% of the rats developed criminal tendencies. I must sound like I'm talking out of my ***, but I read it not long ago. If I find it, I'll post it on here.

[Sabress]

pushing someone down stairs obviously took some thought, what if they waited untill the victim was at the top of the stairs?? That was pre med.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Gav

Which Nietzchen follower has promulgated that rubbish. Lets see some citations young man.

Frighteningly accurate reference, Gav. It was H.L. Mencken, who had sympathies for fascism, though I'm not sure that the theory either originated with or was confined to him...

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by Sabress

pushing someone down stairs obviously took some thought, what if they waited untill the victim was at the top of the stairs?? That was pre med.

That's not true at all. If you are saying arguing with somone, and you're shaking them, then you let them go and they fall down the stairs and hit there head and die, it is not pre-meditated. It was accidental that they died.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by KShan5[PrFC]

That's not true at all. If you are saying arguing with somone, and you're shaking them, then you let them go and they fall down the stairs and hit there head and die, it is not pre-meditated. It was accidental that they died.

Yes, but if you lure someone to the stairs and then push them, it was pre-meditated. Evidence for that could be found through letters, overheard conversations, evidence of how the person fell, etc.

Anyway, pushing someone down stairs is not a very good way to kill them. It's pretty uncertain.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Louweasel

It has also been said that the death penalty for minor offences in the 18th and 19th century exacerbated the crime problem and made matters worse - if you are going to be hanged for stealing a man's watch, you may as well take his wallet, coat, jewellery as well and stick a knife in him so he can't tell the police.

Yes, that's another thesis, but not one borne out by the low crime rates which followed. The one I cited is consistent with the moderate crime rates Britain enjoyed...though of course it may be nothing more than correlation without causation.

As for your gene pool argument, that would suggest that criminality is genetic and inherited, which frankly I don't buy without some very good evidence.

So...people accept without batting an eye that homosexuality must be inborn....that mental illness and tendency toward suicide definitely are...but criminality? Reject that one out of hand. This is a liberal double standard, I think. ( We know at the least that serial murderers display certain personality traits and characteristics at very early ages, which points toward some hereditary influence. )

But then, the nature/nurture angle may be irrelevant. If criminality IS genetic, then eliminating the genes will be beneficial to some extent. If it's learned behavior, eliminating the teachers of criminality will likewise prove beneficial.

As for straw men, I was just extrapolating your argument

Yes, that's pretty much what a straw man argument is....

And as we are around and about 60 years since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, may I suggest that such "cleansing" the gene pool of supposedly "less useful" members of society, such as homosexuals and the handicapped, was exactly what Hitler was doing when he sent them along to the gas chambers with the Jews/Jehovah's Witnesses and others.

As repugnant as those actions were, they are relevant to the theory I cited only insofar as it would be possible to measure whether there had been a drop in the rates of homosexuality or genetically-passed handicaps post WWII. It certainly produced dramatically fewer Jews in Germany after the War, did it not? The argument embodied in the theory did not involve morality, only practical outcomes: does X produce Y, which is entirely different from "should we do X?"

Anyway, you have gone and tripped over Godwin's Law now.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

I strongly agree with Louweasel's comments: extending death penalty to more offenses is a direct incentive for criminals to murder their victims, as there is no additional penalty and they remove the witness.

If we take it as a given that the death penalty has no or little deterrent effect, because criminals aren't thinking that deeply or that far ahead, then we must accept that it has no motivating effect, either. You cannot have it both ways.

The idea that wide use of death penalty in 18th century reduced crime at the time or later is absurd: The incidence of petty theft and larger offenses - all subject to capital punishment - was so high at the Tyburn hanging site (they attracted big crowds, including many thieves to work the crowds) that it was a cliche that criminals in large numbers were committing the crimes that could get them hanged while witnessing their others being hanged that very moment. Some deterrent.

That's correct as far as it goes, but the theory I cited said nothing whatsoever about deterrence. It posited a reduction in criminality by reducing the numbers of criminals and their ability to produce more criminals, not by making them think twice about their acts.

And the idea that it had an effect on future generations is even more absurd. The Australian counter example being just one reason to reject that shabby eugenics, aside from the general repugnance of the concept.

Is "the Australian example" really a counterexample? What WERE the relevant crime rates in Australia during the period and subsequent ones? Were they higher than in England, do you suppose? Don't just assume they weren't and proceed on the idea that the theory is exploded thereby...

[Inquartata]

By the way, why is it suddenly acceptable for political topics to be seeping out of the 'Politics ghetto'? I thought everyone hated having them in the general Water Cooler...

[LordTofuDog-jnr]

I was thinking to myself when I first saw this thread that it'd be better off in polatics. Oh well.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Yes, but if you lure someone to the stairs and then push them, it was pre-meditated. Evidence for that could be found through letters, overheard conversations, evidence of how the person fell, etc.

Anyway, pushing someone down stairs is not a very good way to kill them. It's pretty uncertain.

Right, but sabress is saying that all murder is pre-meditated, and what I am showing is that there are times where it isn't, hence manslaughter. I think you can certaintly think about how to kill somone and decide to do it by pushing them down stairs, and that it can be proven that you did. However, I think there are also times where you can kill someone it a fit of rage, let's say, that is not pre-meditated at all.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Louweasel

In modern terms, some say that rapists should suffer the death penalty, which surely is the best way to ensure that all rapists kill their victims to lessen the chances of getting caught, as it would make their punishment no worse.

the vast majority of rapists don't think that what they did was rape. the really psychotic ones have some concept of it and are turned on by it, and they really can't be helped. but there are so many more people who just don't know the meaning of the word "no" .....

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

As repugnant as those actions were, they are relevant to the theory I cited only insofar as it would be possible to measure whether there had been a drop in the rates of homosexuality or genetically-passed handicaps post WWII. It certainly produced dramatically fewer Jews in Germany after the War, did it not? The argument embodied in the theory did not involve morality, only practical outcomes: does X produce Y, which is entirely different from "should we do X?"

i have a feeling that the gay people probably hid farther back in the closet when they were being persecuted by the governme.....

oh.

wait.

whoops.

nevermind.

back to your regularly scheduled amendment passing.....

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

By the way, why is it suddenly acceptable for political topics to be seeping out of the 'Politics ghetto'? I thought everyone hated having them in the general Water Cooler...

Actually, this is an excellent point. Whisked to the politics folder....

No idea why it never creeped into my head to move it.

[Schiavona]

My apologies to everyone, but I find it hard think (or feel) in terms of 'Greater Society'. If some one becomes a predator on their fellows then my family's security and safety are at risk. These are the conditions I base my opinions on. If a predator is killed it preys no more. If it is locked away it preys no more-untill it is released, then it threatens my family once again. If concern for my family makes me a barbarian, so be it. Please tell me how my family is protected without killing or locking up (away) these predators forever.