I’m split on this issue. On the one hand, theoretically speaking I have no problem with hanging first-degree murderers, but in practical terms it is far too costly and risks killing innocent people (even if it is remote, I’d rather have a thousand convicted murderers rotting away in prison for the rest of their lives than one innocent man executed). I’d keep it on the books for those who are guilty beyond virtually any doubt such as serial killers, terrorists, or war criminals.
Driving people insane from sensory/intellectual deprivation & lack of all social contact isn’t merciful. What you are talking about is the kind of “fingerprint free” torture America has become fond of; we like to torture people using methods that leave no marks so we can pretend to be decent people instead of sadists.
cite. I bet I can come up with at least as much evidence that the death penalty deters murder as you can that is encourages murder.
The problem with the death penalty is that it is no applied to the right crimes. Its hard to deter a crime of passion or a crime committed in desperation (like stealing bread for your starving kids). I think it CAN serve as an effective deterrent for white collar crime. Those are rarely crimes driven by desperation or passion but coldly calculated and can cause incredible harm to a great many people.
Execute a dozen people for insider trading and insider trading would evaporate almost overnight. Execute a dozen people at HSBC for money laundering for drug dealers and terrorists and that sort of activity dries up overnight. I could be wrong but I don’t think we will know until we try.
The only way to justify the possible execution of an innocent is if there is a deterrent effect that prevents the death of many more innocents. But the question remains, would you be willing to kill one innocent man to save many others? Would you throw a fat man in front of a the bus so that it doesn’t plow into a kindergarten class.
No you can’t. It’s well known that with neighboring states, the states with a death penalty have a statistical higher murder rate. But there’s no evidence at all that it deters murder (not that its proponents actually care as far as I can tell).
This is true.
They used to hang people in England for petty theft. This was a totally effective deterrent. There were hardly any thefts at all when this was on the statute books. Thieves were hardly ever hanged because there were no thieves to hang. A tiny number of executions made theft virtually non-existent.
Oh, wait …
OK, I’ll give you this; execute enough people and you may well make a dent in murder, because all the serial killers will be working for the government. 
I’m a bit weirded out by these “I’m not happy unless the inmate is doing hard labor while dangling by his testicles over a flaming cactus in a septic tank” types. Administering justice should not be confused with sadism.
But in any case, I’d be in favor of removing the death penalty for all but the most heinous criminals with high body counts. BTK, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Brevik, and the other assorted serial/spree killers would be executed; while run of the mill murderers would only face prison. Changing the parole system to automatically release prisoners barring a reason to keep them locked up would free up space for the inmates who would have otherwise been executed.
So go ahead and and give me your cite or eat your words. well known fact… pffft, so your post is your cite, huh?
First of all a deterrent doesn’t have to be 100% effective to be an effective deterrent.
If you are talking about petty theft during the time of Oliver Swift then I think desperation was a factor comes into play.
Like I said, I could be wrong but we won’t know until we try.
I think the death penalty should end. But first, execute all death row inmates at San Quentin. Richard Ramirez, Ramon Salcido, David Carpenter, Richard Farley, Richard Allen Davis, and Scott Peterson go first.
No; I simply didn’t want to bother searching for something that’s so well known and repeated so often. This is another “cite that the sky is blue” request.
Here’s a mention.
How can You come up with that evidence is death penalty have been applied to wrong crimes? You say it works on white collar crime, but how You know if white collar criminals have not been executed.
Also criminals make plans, especially if they’re white collar. None of these plans are to get a lighter sentence, they all are about not getting caught. Even plans concerning how easy and fast the job can be done, aim to not getting caught. And when the plan is seemingly perfect, they work accordingly. Getting caught is not an option they consider, so no punishment is deterring them.
Only thing that will deter criminals is knowing that they will not benefit anything.
If crime solving rate goes near 100%, it will deter criminals ( even if the punishment would be just a slap to the wrists - 'cause why bother? )
But you claimed it as 100% effective. Your words were that it would “evaporate almost overnight.”
If you start shooting the place up and have a shootout with the cops then you will most likely get shot yourself. If you survive then you get what you deserve with Death In Prison; if you die then you’ve saved the state a lot of problems. How about this: DON’T COMMIT CRIMES IN THE FIRST PLACE! Why the hell doesn’t THAT ever come up? And as for people saying that “Well you know, with the economy in such bad shape these days, people are getting desperate and resorting to desperate measures to survive.” Yeah okay, I really don’t think the vast majority of convicted armed robbers were committing felonies because they wanted to make their child support payments for this month or because they were simply trying to take care of their families…yeah, SURE they were.
I have no problem with PUNISHING FELONIOUS & DANGEROUS THUGS! Call it what you will, the fact of the matter is that I have MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS with convicts getting paroled and then going out and committing more brutal felonies and ruining more innocent lives; but hey, we can take comfort in the fact that we are avoiding “fingerprint free torture” so long as it’s regular citizens who are being killed instead of a convicted felon. Yet for some reason NOBODY who opposes the death penalty ever comes out and says “I oppose the death penalty 100%! It’s immoral and unjust! However, let’s make life in prison actually MEAN life in prison and KEEP offenders behind bars where they belong so we won’t have a NEED for the death penalty!”
OK, this is the third time this happens to Me in GD within a day. I’m seriously considering changing My username to ‘Poe’s Lawyer’…
And I know it’s bad manners to quote oneself, but You probably didn’t see this:
This with some social reform should do the trick - no crimes and You don’t have to kill anybody in the process.
You realize that you’re advocating that President Obama should be empowered to immediately place three more justices on the Supreme Court. 
It does. All the time.
There’s no “need” for the death penalty; we just get off on killing people. And it’s the Right that is by far more responsible for criminals being released early, between throwing so many people in prison that there’s no room, and by being so terrified of mostly-imaginary liberal judges releasing prisoners that they’ve restricted judges so much with mandatory sentencing laws that the judges can’t keep genuinely dangerous criminals* in*. And then there’s the right wing’s obsessive desire to make prisons as brutal as they can with no attempt to reform, which simply makes it that much more likely that they’ll commit more crime when they get out.
Two things: First of all, I would agree with you that the right should get off this “War on Drugs” crap! It’s a waste of time just like Prohibition was. I have no problem regulating drugs and doing it the way liquor is regulated. So yes, that is a waste of time for law enforcement as well as the penal system. FYI—I will be 50 years old this year and I have never even put a joint to my lips, so I have no “personal” interest in the legalization of illicit drugs other than freeing up law enforcement (and the prisons for that matter) to concentrate on truly dangerous criminals. Although it may interest you to know that it’s not just idiocy on the right that insists on keeping drugs illegal; Jesse Jackson himself opposes the legalization of drugs as well (unless he’s changed his mind in recent years).
Next, regarding a solution to what the prisons are like: I just gave you one with “Death In Prison” but as I see so often many left wingers don’t like THAT solution either. So we just “get off on killing people” do we? Okay, maybe we do. Does that mean that the left just “gets off” on not judging people and releasing thugs into the community? I’d say the answer is probably NO to both questions.
I don’t mind social reform although the term is rather broad. And in my suggested sentence of “Death In Prison” then we “don’t have to kill anybody in the process” either, do we? Problem solved.
Is any one here Bundy knowledgeable? In the movie The Deliberate Stranger, he inquires as to what state is the most likely to execute a murderer. The answer was Florida. Bundy went there and was ultimately fried. If that was accurate it’s one example of something the opposite of deterrence.