It can be a symptom of illness, such as this one (also see here):
The help that identifies children in need and actively helps them. The help that doesn’t let children grow up in abusive homes. The help that doesn’t fling teenagers into jail where they learn to become more effective criminals. The help that gives families who are identified as “troubled” access to resources and people who can steer them in the right direction. The help that prevents the bullied child from becoming the bullying adult.
The kinder society kind of help.
What makes you think blaming the actual murderer is mutually exclusive with looking for the causes that shaped him into a murderer?
Anything but help society make them.
Sure there are some who are evil bad seeds. How many years ago was Jack the Ripper? Most of them are not inherently evil though. Just look at the backgrounds of many criminals. A bad childhood does not mean a bad adult but it sure helps.
Well, lissener, I’m afraid you’re probably going to be disappointed in my answer but I believe the justifications on both sides are emotion-driven. I can’t speak for other DP advocates but I would agree that most DP advocates are emotionally driven by a belief that the murderer should pay for taking another life by forfeiting his own, and that it’s only fair, right and just that they do so. I believe they also think the DP is a significant deterrent if it is applied consistently. And I think they are in favor of the sense of closure and/or sense of justice having been done that the families and loved ones of the victim may feel.
I think the anti-DP proponents are guided by an emotional desire to rise above what they consider barbaric and uncivilized urges, and to attempt to minimize the damage already done by “rehabilitating” the murderer and perhaps even returning them to society. Perhaps they even feel that a society that does not execute its murderers is a safer society because it is showing through its own example that life is worth saving and rehabilitating. I think they take a more big-picture view that ignores the individuals involved in favor of minimizing the greater overall societal loss of life, and they make no allowances for, nor are they particularly concerned with, the individuals who are involved in, or effected by, a particular murder one way or the other.
But I think both sides are driven by emotional desires to see their beliefs prevail, and each side uses statistics and/or facts to bolster these beliefs. I’ve declined to do so in this thread, because like I said, I don’t think it accomplishes anything. It only leads to dueling statistics and the issue can’t be settled that way…neither here, nor in society at large.
Basically I guess it just boils down to who has the most govenmental and judicial power on their side. For a long time in this country’s history the pro-DP philosophy prevailed. Then for two or three decades starting sometime in the sixties, anti-DP sentiments and philosophies took hold and grew. Then for the last decade or so, the pendulum has begun to swing back toward a POV more favorable to harsher penalties for crime in general as well as the death penalty itself.
I know this isn’t the answer you were looking for, but it is as accurate a description of how I view both sides’ motivations as I can give you.
Regards.
Well, let’s see. If it were the case that psychology has either had complete and total grasp of all things psychological or absolutlely none at all throughtout its history, I suppose your comment could be accurate. But since it’s a developing science which I don’t think anyone (other than you) believes has more than a modest grasp on the inner workings of the human mind, I don’t think its accurate to say psychology either has all the answers or else it’s a fraud.
Good thing I didn’t say it has all the answers then, huh?
It’s funny what you can find when you actually read what I write, instead of making up your own strawmen to knock down. 
OTOH, what you said was “no one … can come anywhere close to diagnosing what is wrong with a particular murderer” and “diagnosing and treating murderers … isn’t even possible.” Those are false generalizations. While it’s true that not every irrational criminal is ill, not every ill criminal can be diagnosed, and not every diagnosed ill criminal can be treated, it’s incorrect to say that none of them can.
Well, FWIW, my position is based on cold logic: the DP is statiscally proven NOT to be a deterrent; it costs the taxpayers more than life in prison; and it’s irreversible, in a fallible system. Nobrainer; case closed.
True. And I am sympathetic, right up until the time they decide to end someone else’s life.
Me too. When they end a life I am no longer am sympathetic. Then I am just incredibly sad for all the lives ruined.
I am no longer sympathetic. (that should have said)
What worries me then is the children. The victims children and the criminals children. I have more fear and concern for the criminal children though …I think.
They have to live with the stigma. The “you will end up like your dad” type thoughts. That is where society needs to step in and make sure they have prevented another criminal rather then ensured there will be another.
I want to make it clear I in no way support such as I’m about to mention, as even I am not so barbaric, but to use an extreme example to illustrate a point, let me ask the following…
What do you suppose the result would be to torture executions? What if every time a person was convicted of committing an intentional murder, he was subjected to the most excruciating pain at the time of his death? I won’t suggest any specific type of torture, but let’s just say it involves a lot of terror on the killer’s part, along with begging, pleading, crying, and ultimately screaming and writhing and begging to be killed. And what if this went on for a period of two or three hours?
Then let’s suppose that while not exactly televised, accounts of these executions were readily available and over a period of some years most people in the country had a pretty good idea of what happened to criminals who committed murder.
What effect do you think that would have on the murder rate? To what degree do you think it would cause people to rein in their homicidal impulses…not to mention the effect it would have on reining in the more cold-blooded types of killings?
My guess would be that even though murders would still happen, they would be drastically reduced. I’m guessing that under such circumstances, the murder rate would be only two or three percent of what it is now.
Now, why do you suppose that would be?
It’s because such executions would be a hell of a deterrent, that’s why. If people fear the consequences enough, they will rein in their impulses…and in the case of cold-blooded killers they will abandon their plans (or more likely never conjure them up in the first place).
What we have now is a drastically toned-down form of punishment. In the case of a life sentence, it’s somewhat of a deterrent. In the case of a possible life-without-parole sentence, it’s maybe a little bit more of a deterrent. But neither of these bring into the scenario a sense of fear. A desire for avoidance maybe, but not fear. The death penalty, however, if it’s carried out consistently and uniformly, contains at least some element of fear. Maybe not as much as when people were hung, gassed or electrocuted, but still a fair amount because people are afraid of dying.
So, to the degree that the death penalty continues as at least a possible result of committing murder, fewer murders will occur. To the degree it is abolished or thwarted, murders will increase.
Any comments?
You keep trotting this out, and it doesn’t get any more true the more you repeat it.
There are countries with and without the death penalty, the United States itself has been with and without the death penalty, and there’s still no evidence that the DP reduces the number of murders as you claim it does. Either your theory is wrong, or the facts are wrong.
I don’t think there is any deterrent to murder other than the conscience of the individual. Those evil enough to do it are arrogant enough to think they won’t be caught. My opinion, anyway.
Starving Artist, maybe you can comment on this theory:
- Ice is cooler than liquid water.
- Cooler things are more dense than warmer things.
- More dense things will sink below less dense things.
- Therefore, ice will sink to the bottom of a glass of water.
Sure, you might have heard reports of ice cubes floating on top of glasses of water, but those experiments were done incorrectly anyway. Pay no attention to them. My theory works perfectly on paper, and if we just keep dropping ice cubes into glasses of water for long enough, we’re sure to find that they sink to the bottom! It’s just common sense.
Well, I’m going with the facts being wrong then. They don’t take into account the great many variables that come into play in regard to the murder rate in any given country and/or at any given time.
By your logic, all countries without the death penalty should have identical murder rates per capita. But they don’t, do they? And why not? Because of the variables I just mentioned.
Any comments?
Yes. Maybe not entirely directed to what you were thinking.
I believe you would sicken the majority of the population. Shit many Americans got up in arms over Janet’s boob! You think they would like that more? How many rapist “boob” fanantics did Janet create? Do we have to wait a few years to see the effects of Janet’s boobs?
Thailand has had the death penalty for drugs for many years now. Many, many Western nations have appealed this penalty on behalf of their citizens. Cramming condom loads of drugs up your arse and being caught will mean your govt will try to not have you executed. Why? Because it is “crazy and cruel” to execute someone for arse stuffage. Well not in Thailand it isn’t.
In Saudi Arabia you can have a hand amputated for theft. Madness? No it’s not madness there.
In America I can murder someone and then be murdered by the state. Madness? Well apprently not there.
At the end of the day the mjority of murders are commited without forethought. You could televise public castration for adultry let alone torture for murder and it wouldn’t prevent damn thing. If someone decides something on the spur of the moment the penalty is not something they are thinking about.
Yes there are those who plan murders, but they are arrogant wankers. Arrogant enough to think they won’t be caught and arrogant enough to think they wont meet your televised torture.
But you didn’t mention any!
How could this ever be tested?
All right, look at it this way. How can you, or anyone else, possibly tell whether or not your theory is correct? Is there any conceivable set of facts that could disprove your theory, or would you explain all changes in the homicide rate as nothing but the “great many variables” coming into play? (Remember, if you can dismiss all evidence that seems to contradict your theory, then we can dismiss all evidence that seems to support it.)
And if your theory isn’t falsifiable, why should anyone care about it?