capital punishment, yay or nay?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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. )

Big mistake here: "inborn" is not the same as "predictably or meaningfully inherited". People have all kinds of genes, not all of which are expressed. Homosexuality may be an innate, inborn condition - a given person may already at birth be likely to become homosexual, rather than due to upbringing, but that doesn't mean that there is anything in the parents genes that would allow you to predict it. Predilection at early age does not necessarily mean "bad genes, let's prevent via eugenics".

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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.

Why? Once somebody has already committed an assault (primary failure of deterrence) he or she now has the option of removing a witness at no extra penalty if death is applied for the assault. Two separate phenomena.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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 your proof for the validity of this theory is, what?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

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...

Well, Inq - you're the one proposing this theory of reduced crime due to elimination of criminal forebears. The burden is on you to provide evidence for it. As you've told us many times, the one making the proposition is the one who has to prove it.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Who is advocating not locking away these murderers for life? Most arguments I've seen here seem to agree that life without parole is the proper punishment instead of the death penalty.

--Philistine

Right. Can we take as "agreed" that the alternative to death penalty is "lock up permanently"?

[Schiavona]

I'm fine with the idea of keeping some one locked in prison for the rest of their life as an alternative to killing them. The problem with our idea of prison is that the system is based on rehabilition not straight punnishment.

[jeff]

We sometimes do one, sometimes the other. I think there are people who can be rehabilitated - but pretty obviously there are people who cannot. Gotta keep on track for which is which, and apply appropriately...

[jBirch]

I'm afraid I was a little late on this one...I had some point about the fallability of the courts and that it's easier to release a live prisoner then a dead one. However, I think that angle has already been covered.

What are the arguments for and against?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Homosexuality may be an innate, inborn condition - a given person may already at birth be likely to become homosexual, rather than due to upbringing, but that doesn't mean that there is anything in the parents genes that would allow you to predict it. Predilection at early age does not necessarily mean "bad genes, let's prevent via eugenics".

Well---what possibly COULD cause it, then? If one is predisposed at birth toward something, what else can it be but genetic?

I certainly can't be learned if it begins at birth or earlier, can it? So what's left?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Why? Once somebody has already committed an assault (primary failure of deterrence) he or she now has the option of removing a witness at no extra penalty if death is applied for the assault. Two separate phenomena.

This already goes on, both in states with CP and those without. It certainly goes on in countries which eschew CP. It seems indeed to be a separate phenomenon, as you say, though perhaps not in the sense you meant...

And your proof for the validity of this theory is, what?

Again, I did not assert that there WAS any "proof", merely that "there is a theory". It's one that is appealing on logical grounds alone; testing it is something else again. I'm sure it's been examined, but I'd have no idea where to look to find any such studies.

Well, Inq - you're the one proposing this theory of reduced crime due to elimination of criminal forebears. The burden is on you to provide evidence for it. As you've told us many times, the one making the proposition is the one who has to prove it.

Ah---no. Reread my posts. I was not "proposing" anything....

Moreover, the Australian example was offered as proof of the contrary of the theory. I do not see how it is incumbent upon me either to accept it automatically or to refute it...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Well---what possibly COULD cause it, then? If one is predisposed at birth toward something, what else can it be but genetic?

I certainly can't be learned if it begins at birth or earlier, can it? So what's left?

Let's think carefully about this: something may be innate, inherent to a person (nature, not nurture), not learned, yet not directly, let alone predictably, inheritable (unlike traits that can be predictably passed, like varieties of Mendel's peas). It's not a contradiction - it's just a recognition that many behaviors (and physical aspects, like likelihood to develop cancer) are very complex. Meiosis is magic - you shake the zillions of dice each time and there may not be a way to predict what will happen, and may not be correlation to previous generation. Despite eugenics for the last hundred years (by coincidence, just read an article on the guy who started the whole thing - and part of the problem was his misunderstanding of his own statistics) the attempts to find genetic patterns of criminality or idiocy (which led to sterilization campaigns in many countries, including the US) have all turned up to be fallacious.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

This already goes on, both in states with CP and those without. It certainly goes on in countries which eschew CP. It seems indeed to be a separate phenomenon, as you say, though perhaps not in the sense you meant...

Whatever sense did I mean then?

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Again, I did not assert that there WAS any "proof", merely that "there is a theory". It's one that is appealing on logical grounds alone; testing it is something else again. I'm sure it's been examined, but I'd have no idea where to look to find any such studies.

Ah---no. Reread my posts. I was not "proposing" anything....

Moreover, the Australian example was offered as proof of the contrary of the theory. I do not see how it is incumbent upon me either to accept it automatically or to refute it...

I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that you were proposing such a theory, since you brought it up, hence it would be your job to support it with other than speculation (unless it was just a speculative comment). If you weren't proposiing this, then never mind. Who brought up this proposition about reduce criminality as a byproduct of culling criminally inclined populations?

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jeff

We sometimes do one, sometimes the other. I think there are people who can be rehabilitated - but pretty obviously there are people who cannot. Gotta keep on track for which is which, and apply appropriately...

This would be a sane, rational approach, which means that you'll never see it in this country.

[Have At You]

Such cynicism!

Of course it varies from courthouse to courthouse, but most do try to rehabilitate those who they can. See all the drug programs, scared straight, shock programs, etc. etc. that are being implemented in lieu of jail. Most places that try them keep them, because they do work when implemented thoughtfully, are cheaper than incarceration, and reduce the recidivism rate.

Criminal justice is dealt with at the county level in the US, however, and everything is different everywhere. For example, prosecutors and judges in Manhattan, which has the busiest courthouse in the world, nevertheless spend the extra time to ensure long-term justice; but other places like Miami, are pretty short-sighted and just put people in jail. You can get two counties next door to each other in the same state with significantly different approaches.

The good thing about these differences is it makes it pretty easy to compare results. It makes no sense to compare the results from NYC with those from a homogenous rural community. But comparing results from communities of similar size, population and culture can be very useful in determining what works best in the long run.

Another good thing is that different places can try different things -- nothing's imposed from above, so change can evolve faster and more efficiently. And good ideas, once tried, tend to spread pretty fast if they work. Like drug programs for nonviolent offenders.

[Epee_Pox]

General comment... There was some good discussion on this topic in an earlier thread:

http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showpos...98&postcount=8

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that you were proposing such a theory, since you brought it up,

I did indeed, but to mention is not necessarily the same thing as to assert, else the Devil would have far fewer advocates in arguments.

I mentioned it only to point out that the assumption that no good can come from the killing of criminals is not one which ought to be accepted without examination.

Who brought up this proposition about reduce criminality as a byproduct of culling criminally inclined populations?

As I said, it was me, but I was mentioning it merely as food for thought; I was not advancing it as a serious argument, as I have no idea whether or not it is supportable on the facts.

[jeff]

Thanks for clarifying your position. It can be so hard to determine whether somebody is advancing a position they believe or merely floating a proposition.

[scrapinpeg]

Well, I certainly like to float ideas just to test them, without necessarily subscribing to them. This is quite a good forum for that, actually. Lots of good brains here with different perspectives.

Usually you can tell if one of my posts is an actual belief of mine by such phrases as "I think," "I believe" or "IMHO."

[jBirch]

Another take on the "deterrence" angle is to prevent vengence meted out by the public in defiance of the government's will. Part of the reason why the state engages in capital punishment is simply to control its use and minimise the chances of innocents being "caught in the crossfire" when retribution is enacted extra-legally. It's hard to kill two people with the same needle, so the theory goes, and if the populace is likely to take action against the criminal (jailhouse killings, familial killings/torture, etc...) then it's better that the state do it cleanly with an air of impartiality.

[jBirch]

Here's a link to what seems like good information on the issues so we can at least have consistent facts to argue from.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Another take on the "deterrence" angle is to prevent vengence meted out by the public in defiance of the government's will. Part of the reason why the state engages in capital punishment is simply to control its use and minimise the chances of innocents being "caught in the crossfire" when retribution is enacted extra-legally.

I agree that governments certainly prefer to monopolize the use of force, or to come as close to de-legitimizing any use by private citizens as is possible. But they like to arrogate rather a lot of things to themselves, and not always to 'protect' its citizens. I suspect that at base their reasons are closer to self-interest than to altruism...