Then you won’t mind if we scrap the whole thing then…
This is the best you have to offer in favor of capital punishment?
Good.
So, what about the innocent people who were sentenced to death?
Unfortunately, this isn’t basic game theory at all, because you are leaving out a major possible effect of the death penalty - that a person in a situation facing death for a crime may chose to shoot his way out/eliminate witnesses etc. Therefore, in your game theory calculation, there has to be room for the possibility that the death penalty will increase murders.
Nobody has shown me that the death penalty is effective as a deterrent. And it certainly seems logical to me far more important is the person’s chance of getting caught, rather than the punishment that he will face. But even if it does deter some people, I’m still not willing to accept it as right.
You’re looking at it wrong. The game theory calculation I referenced is from the perspective of the criminal. It’s his choices. His consequences. You’re talking about a game theory calculation for society. Apples to Oranges.
I’m not offering a defense of capital punishment. I don’t feel I need to. The OP asked the purpose of capital punishment. I explained. Nothing more, nothing less.
IPWWSTDs? I don’t believe they exist.
Scrap the death penalty? Or the discussion? We can scrap the latter, but I’d prefer to keep the former, thanks.
Seriously?
-
Releases From Death Row Raise Doubts Over Quality of Defense
-
National Institute of Justice Report: Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial (full report can be found here):
Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez (Chicago, Illinois)
I hope this particular belief is not ideological in nature, unperturbed by any factual evidence to the contrary.
Out of curiosity: could you tell me what “IPWWSTDs” means?
The death penalty.
Then we are back to where we started. Do you have any reason, which you DO care about, to believe the death penalty is a deterrant to murder?
No I am not. I am looking at the game theory calculation of deterrence. For the criminal, it isn’t a simple matter of commit crime-not commit crime. It is commit crime in way originally planned - commit crime in other more serious way - commit crime in other less serious way - don’t commit crime.
If you are considering the deterrent effect of the death penalty as potentially pushing people towards the do not commit crime option, you also need to include the possibility/likelihood that the person with alter the type of crime that he or she commits.
It’s a Whoosh and a Princess Bride reference, all in one.
I know there are people who have been sentenced to death and then exonerated. This tells me that there are flaws in the judicial process, not that the death penalty should be abolished.
I believe it is logical to assume that it is, in lieu of concrete evidence to the contrary. The studies presented so far are a mixed bag and don’t really sway me one way or the other. You may lean the other way. I don’t care enough to argue about it, since that’s not what this thread was about and has nothing to do with my original post.
That’s not how game theory works. Each new choice is a new grid.
“I killed Mr. Smith. Mrs. Jones may have seen me. Do I kill her, too?”
That’s a new weighted choice. The death penalty is already in play for the murder of Mr. Smith, so it provides less deterrent for the second murder. Which is really unfortunate, but I don’t see the problem, since the same could be said of any punishment. If the maximum was a life sentence, the murder of Mr. Smith has earned that, so the additional murder of Mrs. Jones doesn’t invoke additional consequences either and may help him escape culpability for the first. Are you suggesting that we not punish murderers at all, or perhaps establish some sliding scale - two years per murder committed, up to five? Kill one, get one free?
This is the very antithesis of logic. If you look up “illogical” in the dictionary, this is the definition. Logic is based on evidence, not the absence of it.
You’re wrong. My conclusions are based on the evidence we have, which is pretty scant. Just because you don’t like my conclusions doesn’t make them illogical. Just because you come to different conclusions doesn’t make them illogical.
Punishment for a behavior serves as a deterrent to that behavior. That is psychological fact. Proven again and again. More severe punishment provides greater deterrent. Fact. From these facts it is logical to extrapolate that the death penalty deters murderers more than would simple life sentences. The studies we have on the subject are apples to oranges comparisons, or inconclusive. Some support the extrapolation, some do not. In lieu of concrete evidence to refute the extrapolation, it is a logical one.
Now unless you have some relevant facts to add to the discussion, I suggest you drop it, as it’s getting circular.
The death penalty does not reduce the murder rate. That’s a fact. Deal with it.
How can society be considered safe when the state is executing people for nothing more than being the right face at the wrong time? How do we view other governments that execute innocent people? Not favorably.
Let me rephrase this statement as well as your previous ones: “I think that XXX, you evidence does not fit my world view so it is dismissed. I shall call this ‘logic’. Dont dare to insist on your evidence else I will get angry.”
CandidGamera, it’s difficult to have a meaningful debate when your answers stay vague:
You say that you disagree with my conclusion from this post, but you don’t say why.
You insist on the applicability of some basic game theory, but don’t care if your core hypothesis was confirmed by research; you also avoid any questions regarding its actual applicability in situations that deal with people who do not act rationally.
You admit that innocent people have been falsely convicted too – but you don’t say why you are willing to see them get killed just like the guilty ones.
Finally, you say:
And ..
Since you must have read “the studies” to come to such a conclusion, it shouldn’t be hard for you to point out the questionable parts:
[ul]
[li]First of all, what studies are you talking about?[/li][li]What data is fishy, where is the methodology disputable? [/li][li]Or are the conclusions faulty? If so, in what way?[/li][/ul]
And finally, why do you think capital punishment is a good idea, even though you have no conclusive evidence that it works?
Cite?
That reading of what I wrote would be blatant intellectual dishonesty.