Once Upon A Day…Britain decided to send all those nasty criminals that they didn’t want to Australia. It was a place at the arse end of the world. It seemed like the worst thing they could do (and it probably was). Now the descendents of those criminals get to tell poms to fuck off. Australia is a very old example of how prison should work. You do your time and then you can rebuild yourself.
That country of crims did pretty well in the olympics 
Like I said before in this thread, conditioning combined with fear of consequences plays a significant role. Let me give you a minor example using myself as the protagonist. Earlier today I was going to the store. As I drove through traffic, I obeyed the rules of the road. I stopped at stop signs, and I waited for oncoming traffic to pass before turning left, etc. I was doing this voluntarily like we all do. There are nowhere near enough police to make everybody behave, and if it weren’t for voluntary compliance the streeets would be in chaos. But as I approached the final intersection before turning to the right to go into the store’s parking lot, I stopped because of a red light. You can turn right on a red light here if no one is coming. Well, no one was so I started to go. Just as I did, traffic facing the opposite direction got the green light and started to go, including the cars that would be making a left turn in front of me to go into the parking lot. On impulse, I started to shoot on out in front of them as I had plenty of time to do so without causing any kind of problem, but as soon as I did the thought that if a cop saw me I’d get a ticket caused me to hit the brakes and let the other cars go by first.
This is the kind of thing I’ve been talking about regarding peoples’ behavior being guided by both conditioning and fear of punishment. I drove to the store obeying all the laws because I’ve been conditioned to do so and because I know it’s what is best overall, but then when I had an impulse to break the law and dart out in front of traffic at the light, I didn’t because of fear of punishment.
This is what I’m talking about where impulsive murderers and the death penalty are concerned. They’ve been conditioned to think of killing as wrong so they go through their lives obeying that. And then, once they are tempted to kill someone, they will pretty much automatically stop themselves in the great majority of cases if they are fearful enough of the consequences should they get caught.
Sorry, but again I think the vast majority wouldn’t risk it if they were sufficiently afraid of the consequences should they be caught. There will always be dare-devils who might try anyway, but they would be few and far between compared to what goes on otherwise.
This is why people have brains. You can tell by using common sense and judgement. Not everything boils down to facts and figures on a piece of paper. Do you really and truly think, under the scenario I presented, that such a punishment would not be a deterrent? And do you not think that as that punishment becomes less and less harsh, that the deterrent effect is not lessened? I doubt very much, if you are honest with yourself, that you think this is not so. And the reason is because your common sense, judgement and life experience tell you so. A person doesn’t have to have a piece of paper with facts and statistics in front of him to be able to recognize that torture executions would be a significant deterrent to murder. It’s just common sense.
Because it isn’t a theory (assuming you’re talking about the torture execution scenario and it’s gradual lessening in harshness). It’s a simple description of human nature and adverse reaction at work. I can’t imagine that anyone who would want to be taken seriously would deny the deterrent effect that the scenario I described above would have, or that it’s deterrent effect would not be diminished as its harshness was lessened.
pizzabrat and calm kiwi, I’ve been here all night and I’m afraid my eyes are crossing from fatigue. Sleep beckons. I’ll try to answer your last posts, if you still want answers, when I return later this afternoon or this evening.
Regards to all.
Um… Because your guesses are wrong?
In fact, it has been tried. Time and again. And the result is, consistantly, that murder rates go up. As one example, in England in the – I think 18th – century (I’m far from my cites) decided that executions would be not only public, but very gruesome. This was done as a deterrent. And you know what happened? That’s right, Virginia, in the neighborhoods where this took place, violent crime spiralled out of control.
There is a reason that capitol punishment in today’s America takes place behind closed doors – it is because the people carrying it out understood that public bloodlust just engendered more public bloodlust.
You can argue until you’re blue in the fingers that things should happen a certain way, but if you choose to ignore the facts we already have, you’re just burying your head in the sand. Some of us prefer to confront the facts head-on.
Slightly off-topic, I want to thank you all for this high-spirited debate. It’s been fun. But I must leave it now. I’m off for three fun-filled days of sun, surfing, and snorkelling. Should this debate fall off of the boards by Monday evening, then see you all later, and thanks for all the fish.
Okay, I can’t let this ride until tonight and besides it won’t take that long to answer.
First of all, bolding is mine.
Secondly, did these executions not take place amongst a drunken, carnival-like atmosphere, where there was much partying, jeering and rowdyism? And do you not think having the executions take place in the midst of all this, in addition to economic misery and an oppressive government, might have led to a more rowdy and unruly atmosphere wherein more drunken murders took place? (I never said the threat of execution was highly effective against drunks, although it probably still is somewhat.)
I beg to differ. I think calm kiwi’s on target in that regard and that we don’t have public executions because of the revulsion it would create. This is what has always been claimed and I have no reason to doubt it. Modern day Americans are not a bloodthirsty lot.
You’re probably right. But it is not much different than the atmosphere outside of death row prisons today. Those are popular events. And if we televise executions (as some people have suggested in the past), do you not think that such things would be excuses for beer blasts?
We’re not? Apparently you have been avoiding the evening news, the cinema, and cities.
You obviously were never been outside the old VA state prison when it was located across from Oregon Hill. On execution nights there was no end of calls of “Fry the nigger!” and “Burn, baby, burn!” A great many modern day Americans are a bloodthirsty lot.
It can be a symptom of one, yes. You’ve never heard of this?
Anyone with a mental disorder affecting their behaviour is by definition incapable of controlling their actions. You’ve never heard of this?
Nope. Not a psychopath either, and I never claimed otherwise.
I don’t know. Why do you ask?
Starving Artist, you keep telling us guesses, thought experiments and opinions, while being extremely short on facts. You have nothing supporting your position, just your own hypotheses regarding how the world should be, how humans should react. Reality doesn’t agree with you. Doesn’t that bother you? Doesn’t that cause you to think “hey, maybe I’m wrong”?
As for the torture executions, I think the result would be pretty much what increased government cruelty always results in: higher rates of crime, especially violent crime.
Finally, as for the “civilized-barbaric” deal, please respond to my post where I explained that I don’t care about that.
I suggest that you think again. Please feel free to continue to ignore my previous post.
Common sense and judgement tells me that Minnesota - sans DP - has a lower murder rate than Texas - which fries people weekly. Common sense and judgement tells me that the death penalty doesn’t work.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here [bolding to illustrate]. Either they think it’s wrong or they don’t. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you must be talking about murderers who, regardless of personal morality in regards to killing, don’t care about the consequences (to the victim or themselves) of their actions. If they truly don’t care what difference does it make what penalty they might receive if caught? Barring that, if they’re acting reflexively, it’s safe to assume they’re not thinking their actions (or moral standing) through at that moment, right? Perhaps the people you’re talking about didn’t even intend to kill, just waive around a gun as a threatening device. But I’m not sure how morality even matters in that case. The deed is done.
And how does the DP relate to this? I think the idea here is not to get caught. It’s only speculation on your part why this person doesn’t want to get caught. Is it because they don’t want to go to prison? They don’t want mom to find out? It can’t possibly be because they don’t want to be executed since it’s commonly known that the DP isn’t applied to rape/robbery cases, though it is in murder cases. What’s your point?
Are you suggesting that rapists and robbers should get the DP, too? Why not, if it makes such a fine deterrent? If you’re not suggesting this, then tell me: If prison is a decent enough deterrent for rape/robbery, why isn’t it good enough for murder?
Perhaps the prospect of punishment differentiates between people who wouldn’t commit a crime because there are consequences and those who don’t really care one way or another. It doesn’t even register to criminals who don’t expect to the caught. I’m still trying to figure out how the DP deters people who are already ambivalent to consequences. Particularly if their primary goal is to commit the crime without being caught.
You seem to believe that the consequence of execution is a more effective deterrent to those who commit murder. If this is true, the outcome must surely be less murder, but it’s not. How do explain that? It probably will not have any effect on those who don’t care about the consequences of their actions, on those who act “reflexively,” on those who don’t expect to be caught, and on those who don’t have a high regard for life in the first place. Who exactly does the DP deter?
If that is the case how can we consider the DP to be a deterrent? Or even prison? See, that’s the problem with the “deterrent theory.” I reiterate that it only differentiates between people who will act regardless of consequences and those who won’t. Nevertheless, the reasons why people commit crimes are many. But their intent on avoiding apprehension is pretty universal by virtue of the fact that very few people turn themselves in after committing a crime. So, it must be safe to assume that criminals, by and large, disregard the specific consequences of their crimes, up to and including the death penalty.
How, if they don’t care about the consequences to begin with and they’re acting deliberately? And how, if they do care about the consequences but they’re acting reflexively? And how, if they think they’ve come across a fool-proof way to commit the crime and avoid apprehension and/or conviction? What of those who can see that there’s no guarantee that they’ll be convicted even if they do get caught?
Since you’re speculating on what’s going on in the criminal mind, I think everyone expects to see some concrete evidence that your theory is sound. Otherwise, you appear to be in la-la-land. Every bit of reality we’ve seen so far seems to contradict your theory.
So, in other words: Nothing would convince you you’re wrong, because “common sense” tells you you’re right, regardless of what actually happens in the real world.
Do you really and truly think, under the scenario I presented, that ice cubes would not sink to the bottom of a glass of water?
But unlike you, I realize that “common sense” is sometimes at odds with reality. When common sense tells you something that simply doesn’t match the facts, if you’re honest, you will admit that common sense is wrong.
Some mental disorders. And a person suffering from such a mental disorder would not, by law, be subject to the DP.
A sadist can be of sound mind. If he is of sound mind, he can control his actions. He may simply choose to do another person harm and end their life. Such a person is not ‘in need of help’. Such a person is simply, for lack of a better word, evil.
Wait a moment, let’s get this straight. We’re talking about a person who delights in the suffering of others, and chooses to harm and kill another person. And you think this person is of sound mind?
In a word, yes. If he chooses to harm and kill, does in not follow that he can choose NOT to harm and kill?
So we should get him to understand that he should choose not to do it. Come on now, “evil” is a really antiquated notion.
“Just say no to murder”, huh?
They understand that they should choose not to kill and otherwise harm. They understand that society thinks it’s wrong and will punish such acts severely (if society can catch them). Doesn’t seem to deter them.
So we’re obviously doing something wrong.
Look here, no matter what you think about “right” or “justice” or “deserve” or any other arbitrary, abstract bullshit, we’ve shown you the facts, which seem to indicate (and please present any alternative interpretation you may have lying around) that killing murderers leads to more murders. If you agree with me that the number of murders should be minimized, you should therefore oppose the death penalty. This is something real and concrete, as opposed to “evil” and whatever other medieval notions you feel like bringing up.
No, you’ve show that it does not deter other murders. Not the same thing.