In the same way that everything is “proven”: observation. In this case, observing the facts and using the techniques that PLDennison mentioned above.
Rich
Well, for one thing, it increases the overall amount of brutality in society. (Don’t believe me? Look at the societies that still have it.)
For another, it rests on the presumption that your life belongs to the state, which it does not.
For another, two wrongs don’t make a right.
For another, it is hypocritical to punish killing with killing.
For another, the same end can be accomplished through permanent, irrevocable imprisonment. Which, with its constant threats of violence, sodomy, and the like, leads many prisoners to prefer death row.
This sounds like a TOPIC!
I believe I’ll start it.
Stoidela
Thesaurus: An ancient reptile with an excellent vocabulary
[[My contention was with the statement that I can’t prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. Aside from my wise-ass comment above, how could anyone prove it? Can you prove that it is not a deterrent?]]
The overwhelming conclusion of professionals and academics who have studied the issue is that capital punishment is not a net deterrent. It is important because that fact undercuts a major past argument FOR capital punishment. Naked retribution, while not wholly illegitimate, is a tough justification for the government killing people it has securely in custody, IMO.
Omniscient:
Susan Smith to boyfriend: Will you marry me?
Boyfriend: Well, I would but I’m not ready to be a dad. Too bad you got those kids.
Susan Smith to police: My children have been kidnapped by a black man!
Susan Smith to police after the car’s found in the lake: I was really trying to kill myself and them too 'cause I didn’t want them to grow up without their momma.
Reality Check: Bullshit–that selfish twit killed those kids as was her intent once her boyfriend let her know he wasn’t marrying a woman with children.
There’s a continuum here, beginning with those acts we “normal” people can comprehend to those acts that are impossible for us to understand. Let me pick out a few points along this continuum, but keep in mind that there are infinite gradations between them:
- Mom loves her baby and is concerned for baby’s welfare. By pure freak accident she allows a tragedy to occur, an accident that could happen to any parent. (I saw a mom on TV once who carefully unplugged the iron before going to get her toddler up from a nap; the ironing board tipped over and the hot iron fell onto her newborn baby, melting the baby’s face off. Did this woman want to kill herself? Yes.)
- Mom generally takes good care of the kids but is sometimes careless. (Say, she’s talking on the phone and leaves her toddler alone in the bathtub for just one minute.)
- Along down the continuum, we have a mom who occasionally loses her temper and spanks her toddler a little too hard, then feels guilty about it. She tries not to let it happen again.
- Right around here we have a mom who is blatantly careless. She leaves her baby in the car on a hot day, somehow not realizing this action will cause her child’s death.
- Mom frequently uses too much physical force. Once in a while, her child sustains a scar or two. Deep down, she knows this behavior is wrong but she can’t seem to control herself.
- Another mom freaks out and beats the child so badly the kid dies. She didn’t plan to do it, in fact can’t believe she did it, and feels terrible remorse.
- Mom freaks out and kills her kid; it wasn’t premeditated, but she feels little remorse.
- A mom plots to kill her children, then carries out the act. This is where Susan Smith comes into the picture.
We can all identify with mom #1. At what point do you place yourself on this continuum, and at what point do you stop comprehending? (Personally, the actions of mom #6 are beyond my realm, although I would place myself between 1 and 2.) The place where understanding ends and horror begins is a little different for each of us.
Side note: why do we consider it more horrible when mom kills her kids, and less horrible when dad does the same?
Years ago, when I would hear news stories about babies or kids murdered I would think, “oh thats terrible” and in a few minutes I would be thinking of something else. Now that I am a father of a 15 month old boy, any bad news involving children makes me literally sick to my stomach. I hate hearing about them because it depresses me so much now. I thank the powers that be that I dont actually meet people like Susan Smith for I fear that I may go insane and snap their neck like they deserve. As for the woman who left her child to gamble, wouldnt such a place be busy enough to warrant other people walking to and from the lot? If I ever saw a child in distress like that, I would bust the window, call 911 and care for the child until help arrived. Couldn’t anyone have noticed or heard the child? I cannot comment anymore, thinking about such a tragedy is making me sick.
And as long as we’re talking about idiotically short terms, what about gaybashers who get short sentences when they use the homo-panic defense?
“Gee, yer Honour, when he came on to me I just saw red.”
Criminy. If this was a viable defense for anyone else, do you know how deep the bodies of straight guys would be piled on the street?
pldennison, good list. Here’s 2 more problems with the death penalty:
-
The chance that the wrong person was convicted. There’s been a lot of death row convictions thrown out recently due to advances in evidence technology (epecially DNA) proving that the person convicted was innocent.
-
The fact that it costs taxpayers about 10 or 20 times the amount of money to put someone to death than it does to imprison them for life. Millions of dollars more for each case. This is because of the many appeals that the prisoner is entitled to, over a period of roughly 10 years while waiting for execution. Even in cases where the prisoner is willing to accept a death penalty, advocacy groups take up the case.
So, when the government sets its spending budget, money that could be spent more productively loses out to ‘good, old-fashined revenge’ because of the death penalty.
Is the death penalty a deterrent? I agree that conclusive proof is not possible, but consider two points:
-
For hundreds or thousands of years most human societies have believed that it was a deterrent.
-
A few decades age, when death penalties were abolished or restricted in this country, the murder rate sky-rocketed. More recently, as death penalty was reinstated, murder rates dropped.
IMHO, these two points create some degree of presumption of a deterrent effect.
In another post out here I mentioned how several people in my town have kids when they shouldn’t even have a dog. These kids are really sweet and basically good. They hang around my house (I work at home) to play with my dog (who is very well trained) and because I talk to them and think of games to play or teach them about things (like why the leaves change color in the fall). But I’m saddened thinking of when they go home to a mom and/or dad who couldn’t care less about them, treat them horribly or don’t care about them at all. When the boy down street got an award at school he ran home to show it to ME, not his folks. When I asked him why he said they don’t care about this stuff. Man, that’s so sad. All I could do was let him know that I cared.
Just last night at 11pm the two and three year old down street were still out playing on the sidewalk. I guess my question is WHY do these people have kids in the first place? I don’t have kids and don’t think I will because I see the full scope. I guess the only thing I can relate it to is my dog: I would never, ever hit her or ‘forget’ where she was or leave her in a car in the sun. In fact, I broke out a window in a car (no easy feat, let me tell you) to get a dog out of a broiling car. If I saw a kid in there I’d do the same. I got in a lot of trouble with the owner and payed for the window but at least that dog didn’t die in there. After checking around with family/friends with kids all of them looked horrified at the idea that they wouldn’t know where their kids were. It seems like lax parenting to me. And people who should stick with dolls rather than kids.
Still, I’d like to know WHY these people reproduce in the first place. Any ideas?
You can count the number of apples in one tree but never the number of trees in one apple.
December:
You have numbers for these, December?
Never regret what seemed like a good idea at the time.
Trumpy303
Member posted 07-21-99 07:52 PM
“If you were the judge, what would YOUR sentence for this woman be?”
Unfortunately, there are some people stupid enough not to realize that there is any risk involved in putting their children in their cars. If she is such a person, I say take any other children she has away from her. If she knew there was risk, but just didn’t care, then it seems that several weeks imprisonment would be appropriate. Although, when I say “imprisonment” I don’t mean “stuck in a prison”. I mean in a closed car, at just a low enough temperature not cause heat stroke.
TennHippie
Member posted 07-22-99 12:26 AM
“Of course it’s all very tragic and horrible, but which is the worse injustice?
The unpunished killing or the inequity of treatment? I dunno.”
I don’t see that the two cases are the same. In the first, a woman actively placed her child in a closed car. In the other, the couple accidentally left the child in the car. I see a significant difference.
matt_mcl
Member posted 07-29-99 03:15 PM
““Gee, yer Honour, when he came on to me I just saw red.”
Criminy. If this was a viable defense for anyone else, do you know how deep the bodies of straight guys would be piled on the street?”
This argument isn’t completely without merit. After all, our society does train people, especially men, to act completely irrationally about homosexuals. That doesn’t making killing a homosexual right, but it does make it more understandable, because the blame for anti-gay attacks does not rest completely upon the perpetrator; it is shared by the rest of society, especially the religious right (‘love the sinner, hate the sin’? Like hell you do! If Jenny Jones can be sued, you should be too). But you're right; if straight men can use this excuse, gay men have an even greater right to it.
Byzantine
Member posted 08-15-1999 04:34 PM
“Still, I’d like to know WHY these people reproduce in the first place. Any ideas?”
Simple. Stupid people that don’t reproduce are not represented in the gene pool. Those that do are represented. Sucks, doesn’t it?
-Ryan
" ‘Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or enmity. Their content did not matter.’ " -Kurt Vonnegut, * Breakfast of Champions *