I figure deterrence is a burden of proof issue. For deterrence to be a factor in support of the DP, it does have to be proven that the DP is a crime deterrent. Unless that happens, it is probably the worst possible argument for the DP. The argument for opponents is that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the DP acts as a crime deterrent. That is 100% true. If supporters don't like that good point, they need to prove that it's wrong. They can't.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I think Judge Gergel doesn't really understand "fair". Saying it would be unfair to have 38 witnesses testify in the sentencing phase against Roof doesn't make sense, unless Roof was denied his own witness testimony. The fact that there aren't 38 people lined up to sing Roof's praises doesn't make this process unfair. What is unfair is that there are 9 families that have been destroyed by Roof. And to have Bruck say that it isn't a memorial service seems insensitive at best. Someone should kick him in the nuts.
it's not unfair to Roof. it's unfair to give more credence to victims who have family and friends as opposed to the homeless guy who was murdered and no one knew him, so there's no "impact statement" given. it's not prejudicial to the defendent. it's prejudicial in precedence for other victims who don't have the same social influence.
So because a homeless guy doesn't have someone to speak for them... nobody else should either?
I have stated before that I think victim impact statements shouldn't be allowed. the impact a victim had on society shouldn't have any place in deciding what a killer's fate is. we should all be equal before the law. not held to a higher standard because of our social status.
I agree. There are sentencing guidelines to follow and when you let emotion enter in to what type of punishment should be enforced; the process becomes flawed. My social status or likeability among others shouldn't affect what type of penalty anyone receives if I'm murdered. To me that's just as ridiculous as a rape victim being criticized or character assassinated based on what they were wearing and how many sexual relationships they've had.
Yes, there will be cases where it is 100% clear that the defendant is guilty, but not 100% of cases can be prosecuted with 100% certainty. Impossible. I don't agree with the death penalty because I don't think it's a more severe punishment. If someone is sentenced to life in prison it needs to be without parole. A lot of these cases get plea bargained and one of the first things they remove is the "without parole", which creates hope for the person who committed the vile, heinous, evil (insert term here) crime that they will someday see the light of day. There should be no hope, no future; nothing. Someone like Roof needs to know full well that they will live in a cell for 23 hours of everyday for the rest of their life and never see the outside world again.
I get Thirty's point about how we can't truly measure deterrence because of how the system operate currently. I do think that it would probably deter a small percentage of people, which I guess is better than nothing; however, we also don't know if life without parole would serve to be an equally effective deterrent because that also cannot be properly analyzed since it isn't consistently charged and convicted.
I think the history of our world should give us some context on how effective immediate execution is on deterrence though. If it were such a deterrent why aren't there still public hangings, guillotines, firing squads? Action against criminals was much swifter, more severe and widely known, but it didn't seem to be effective in decreasing the problems. That should have been one hell of a way to deter people I would think.
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?
now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
No.
It's never been proven time and again it's not a deterrent. If it was employed in more than 0.0006 percent of all muder cases... we could definitively state- one way or another- whether it served as a deterrent or not.
I'm not inclined to test the idea, but as JeffBR consistently asserts, in one regard... it does serve as a deterrent given the killer can't kill again (just like in that example pointed out to you three posts or so ago... and many other times I might add).
that's not a deterrent. that's prevention.
de·ter·rent dəˈtərənt/ noun 1. a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something. synonyms: disincentive, discouragement, damper, curb, check, restraint; More adjective 1. able or intended to deter. "the deterrent effect of heavy prison sentences"
find me any 2 studies that experts agree, with stats to back it up, that murder rates would decrease if the DP were in effect.
The entire point is moot.
We could never actually state one way or another whether the DP is a deterrent or not given its current and historical application. I only countered what you suggested stating that you cannot declare 'it is proven to not be a deterrent '. Such a statement is inaccurate.
I wish to clarify that my position doesn't stem from a deterrent standpoint.
neither does mine.
so the overwhelming majority of experts in the field suggest it is not a detterent, and the entire point is moot to you?
not only that: look at these statistics: indisputable proof. the murder rate in states WITH the death penalty is HIGHER. and has been every year since 1990.
Well I guess if you ignore all other variables you can come to any conclusion you like, Hugh.
I've reviewed all those studies and they are all flawed given the testing parameters cannot possibly yield definitive results. Objective scholars all concede what I've tried to impress upon you, however... just as you preferred to view the pro comments in that piece you submitted as inferior to the anti comments given their content... you're choosing to do the same here.
You are trying to pass unfounded speculation and theory as fact.
this isn't making any sense.
other variables? like what? statistics aren't theory. interesting I have never read one "objective scholar" to be pro-DP, and also interesting you have not posted about this prevoiusly, and we've been discussing this for how long now? post something. I'd honestly like to read the take of an "objective scholar".
I guess career criminologists aren't objective enough? nor are they experts in their field I suppose?
Hmmm. Oh. Say. Maybe socioeconomics? Demographics? Culture? And a multitude of other variables that might more accurately account for discrepancies between countries, states, or whatever it might be one would try to compare.
Not all career criminologists and experts in the field agree, Hugh. And even if the majority felt the same as you... that wouldn't necessarily mean they were right.
Bottom line: you cannot draw definitive conclusions from poorly flawed data fields. Stating the DP is or isn't a deterrent given its used in 0.006 of all murder cases does not demonstrate construct validity in the slightest.
If you choose to ignore that very basic principle... then you are choosing to believe what you want to believe based on theory, speculation, or hunch- anything but something that has been quantified with data because the data to support such a premise... is... not... there.
I asked you to support your assertion that objective scholars concede what you've tried to impress on me with back up. you did not do so.
never said they all agree. but I'm curious........about an hour ago you stated quite emphatically that the majority of people wish the DP to be reinstated, supporting your opinion for it to be brought back. But now, if the majority does not support your opinion, and even when those with that opinion are experts in their field and not just laymen, that opinion is to be ignored or dismissed entirely?
You're all over the place.
When I said the majority wish for reinstatement I did so expressing that was the popular sentiment. I never expressed it was one that everyone should get in line for. Believe what you want.
And I never said opinions to the contrary should be ignored or dismissed entirely. I said being in the majority doesn't automatically make them right (same stands for popular opinion).
Are you going to continue to dance around the fact that the data is simply not here and never could be without sweeping changes to the implementation of the DP (none which anyone wants) to quantify the 'not a deterrent' argument? Or are you going to concede that testing parameters simply cannot yield a definitive answer leaving this portion of the discussion moot?
all over the place? hardly.
then what was the point of bringing up the fact that a (slim) majority would like the DP reinstated if not to make it part of your argument that since the majority wants it, that means they are correct or at the very least they should be followed (majority rules)?
it is odd that I am being required to show data in the negative. I'm saying there is no data supporting the notion that the DP is a deterrent. you can't prove against the absence of data. the absence of definitive data in the positive is the whole argument itself.
Yikes.
I brought it up as a matter of fact- not as a tactic of persuasion. It speaks to the legitimacy of the concept.
I'm not requiring anything of you at all. Am I speaking in hieroglyphics? I'm telling you there is no conclusive study that can state either (a) the DP works as a deterrent... or (b) the DP does not work as a deterrent. Yes... there are some studies that try to come to the conclusions they seek, however these studies are inadequate given their poor constructs.
The limitations of the aforementioned studies ultimately render the argument to subjective opinion. In this forum... subjective opinion is typically met with scorn, yet here it should stand to reason?
jesus man. I can't have a decent discussion with you without it devolving into a condescending pit of "yikes" and "wows".
in cases of subjective opinion, I tend to lean towards the opinions of experts in their field of study. maybe that's just me.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Here's an excerpt from a link to a Washington Post article that acknowledges findings different from your website that vociferously opposes the DP and selectively chooses what message it seeks to promote:
The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?" "If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.
So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.
Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.
You're asking for the law to establish another level of guilt. If someone is super duper guilty, then the death penalty is applicable? No. You're either guilty or not guilty.
Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree. ... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?
now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
No.
It's never been proven time and again it's not a deterrent. If it was employed in more than 0.0006 percent of all muder cases... we could definitively state- one way or another- whether it served as a deterrent or not.
I'm not inclined to test the idea, but as JeffBR consistently asserts, in one regard... it does serve as a deterrent given the killer can't kill again (just like in that example pointed out to you three posts or so ago... and many other times I might add).
that's not a deterrent. that's prevention.
de·ter·rent dəˈtərənt/ noun 1. a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something. synonyms: disincentive, discouragement, damper, curb, check, restraint; More adjective 1. able or intended to deter. "the deterrent effect of heavy prison sentences"
find me any 2 studies that experts agree, with stats to back it up, that murder rates would decrease if the DP were in effect.
The entire point is moot.
We could never actually state one way or another whether the DP is a deterrent or not given its current and historical application. I only countered what you suggested stating that you cannot declare 'it is proven to not be a deterrent '. Such a statement is inaccurate.
I wish to clarify that my position doesn't stem from a deterrent standpoint.
neither does mine.
so the overwhelming majority of experts in the field suggest it is not a detterent, and the entire point is moot to you?
not only that: look at these statistics: indisputable proof. the murder rate in states WITH the death penalty is HIGHER. and has been every year since 1990.
Well I guess if you ignore all other variables you can come to any conclusion you like, Hugh.
I've reviewed all those studies and they are all flawed given the testing parameters cannot possibly yield definitive results. Objective scholars all concede what I've tried to impress upon you, however... just as you preferred to view the pro comments in that piece you submitted as inferior to the anti comments given their content... you're choosing to do the same here.
You are trying to pass unfounded speculation and theory as fact.
this isn't making any sense.
other variables? like what? statistics aren't theory. interesting I have never read one "objective scholar" to be pro-DP, and also interesting you have not posted about this prevoiusly, and we've been discussing this for how long now? post something. I'd honestly like to read the take of an "objective scholar".
I guess career criminologists aren't objective enough? nor are they experts in their field I suppose?
Hmmm. Oh. Say. Maybe socioeconomics? Demographics? Culture? And a multitude of other variables that might more accurately account for discrepancies between countries, states, or whatever it might be one would try to compare.
Not all career criminologists and experts in the field agree, Hugh. And even if the majority felt the same as you... that wouldn't necessarily mean they were right.
Bottom line: you cannot draw definitive conclusions from poorly flawed data fields. Stating the DP is or isn't a deterrent given its used in 0.006 of all murder cases does not demonstrate construct validity in the slightest.
If you choose to ignore that very basic principle... then you are choosing to believe what you want to believe based on theory, speculation, or hunch- anything but something that has been quantified with data because the data to support such a premise... is... not... there.
I asked you to support your assertion that objective scholars concede what you've tried to impress on me with back up. you did not do so.
never said they all agree. but I'm curious........about an hour ago you stated quite emphatically that the majority of people wish the DP to be reinstated, supporting your opinion for it to be brought back. But now, if the majority does not support your opinion, and even when those with that opinion are experts in their field and not just laymen, that opinion is to be ignored or dismissed entirely?
You're all over the place.
When I said the majority wish for reinstatement I did so expressing that was the popular sentiment. I never expressed it was one that everyone should get in line for. Believe what you want.
And I never said opinions to the contrary should be ignored or dismissed entirely. I said being in the majority doesn't automatically make them right (same stands for popular opinion).
Are you going to continue to dance around the fact that the data is simply not here and never could be without sweeping changes to the implementation of the DP (none which anyone wants) to quantify the 'not a deterrent' argument? Or are you going to concede that testing parameters simply cannot yield a definitive answer leaving this portion of the discussion moot?
all over the place? hardly.
then what was the point of bringing up the fact that a (slim) majority would like the DP reinstated if not to make it part of your argument that since the majority wants it, that means they are correct or at the very least they should be followed (majority rules)?
it is odd that I am being required to show data in the negative. I'm saying there is no data supporting the notion that the DP is a deterrent. you can't prove against the absence of data. the absence of definitive data in the positive is the whole argument itself.
Yikes.
I brought it up as a matter of fact- not as a tactic of persuasion. It speaks to the legitimacy of the concept.
I'm not requiring anything of you at all. Am I speaking in hieroglyphics? I'm telling you there is no conclusive study that can state either (a) the DP works as a deterrent... or (b) the DP does not work as a deterrent. Yes... there are some studies that try to come to the conclusions they seek, however these studies are inadequate given their poor constructs.
The limitations of the aforementioned studies ultimately render the argument to subjective opinion. In this forum... subjective opinion is typically met with scorn, yet here it should stand to reason?
jesus man. I can't have a decent discussion with you without it devolving into a condescending pit of "yikes" and "wows".
in cases of subjective opinion, I tend to lean towards the opinions of experts in their field of study. maybe that's just me.
Well then at a bare minimum at least acknowledge what I've painfully detailed to you: you can't have a study one way or another with testing parameters as they currently are. You've ignored that very basic point and it is irrefutable- leaving this long stretch of conversation relatively meaningless. I'm not trying to win anything here... I'm trying to say we're discussing point of view and not point of fact.
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree. ... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
For the spontaneous variety... I agree.
Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree. ... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
For the spontaneous variety... I agree.
Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
"Fundamental flaws in the research we reviewed make it of no use in answering the question of whether the death penalty affects homicide rates," said Daniel S. Nagin, professor of public policy and statistics at Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. "We recognize that this conclusion may be controversial to some, but no one is well-served by unsupportable claims about the effect of the death penalty, regardless of whether the claim is that the death penalty deters homicides, has no effect on homicide rates or actually increases homicides."
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree. ... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
For the spontaneous variety... I agree.
Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
I'm not so sure about that.
If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
Well then at a bare minimum at least acknowledge what I've painfully detailed to you: you can't have a study one way or another with testing parameters as they currently are. You've ignored that very basic point and it is irrefutable- leaving this long stretch of conversation relatively meaningless. I'm not trying to win anything here... I'm trying to say we're discussing point of view and not point of fact.
I did. I stated very specifically that the burden to prove whether the DP is a deterrent or not is on those that wish to prove it. I personally don't give a shit if it's a deterrent or not. That has never been the basis of my opinion. Whatsoever.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
I used to be a huge proponent of the DP. But over the last few years, I think it should only be used when there isn't a shadow of a doubt the guilty party is guilty. If there is any doubt, I don't think it should be used. In this case (dylan roof), I think it should 100% be applied. He can't be reformed or rehabilitated. He will always be scum and a drain on society.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree. ... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
For the spontaneous variety... I agree.
Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
I'm not so sure about that.
If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
Well that isn't fair, because there is no such thing as death being a certainty upon getting caught. We're talking about the actual death penalty, not a fantasy one where every single convicted murderer is killed upon conviction. So in terms of reality, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone would cross the line if it meant life in prison, but not if it meant being on death row and possibly being executed. If someone were open to not murdering someone solely because of the possible consequences, I think the consideration would just be not getting caught.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
Lol.
Have you been reading this thread?
I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.
At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.
I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.
DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
I used to be a huge proponent of the DP. But over the last few years, I think it should only be used when there isn't a shadow of a doubt the guilty party is guilty. If there is any doubt, I don't think it should be used. In this case (dylan roof), I think it should 100% be applied. He can't be reformed or rehabilitated. He will always be scum and a drain on society.
He will never be remorseful or sorry for what he's done. I'm good with the DP here. Although I still don't think Susan Smith is remorseful either.
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
Lol.
Have you been reading this thread?
I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.
At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
I am talking about the DP debate in general, not this thread. Support for the DP is a subject bigger than this thread, and all arguments that I consider are ones that are used by supporters and opponents in the wider world, FYI.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
Lol.
Have you been reading this thread?
I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.
At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
incorrect. i was responding to someone else who said it WAS a deterrent.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree. ... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
For the spontaneous variety... I agree.
Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
I'm not so sure about that.
If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
Well that isn't fair, because there is no such thing as death being a certainty upon getting caught. We're talking about the actual death penalty, not a fantasy one where every single convicted murderer is killed upon conviction. So in terms of reality, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone would cross the line if it meant life in prison, but not if it meant being on death row and possibly being executed. If someone were open to not murdering someone solely because of the possible consequences, I think the consideration would just be not getting caught.
We were talking in the context of employing the DP in its full capacity.
In reality, it's likely not a deterrent; however, with extensive application... it likely would become a deterrent (and for some... an argument for).
I'm not for extensive usage. I'm for very selective usage. Roof fits the criteria for me: he's definitely guilty; he committed mass murder; and to boot... he's still laughing about it.
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree. ... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
For the spontaneous variety... I agree.
Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
I'm not so sure about that.
If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
Well that isn't fair, because there is no such thing as death being a certainty upon getting caught. We're talking about the actual death penalty, not a fantasy one where every single convicted murderer is killed upon conviction. So in terms of reality, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone would cross the line if it meant life in prison, but not if it meant being on death row and possibly being executed. If someone were open to not murdering someone solely because of the possible consequences, I think the consideration would just be not getting caught.
We were talking in the context of employing the DP in its full capacity.
In reality, it's likely not a deterrent; however, with extensive application... it likely would become a deterrent (and for some... an argument for).
I'm not for extensive usage. I'm for very selective usage. Roof fits the criteria for me: he's definitely guilty; he committed mass murder; and to boot... he's still laughing about it.
And if implemented consistently, so might life in prison without parole...
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
Lol.
Have you been reading this thread?
I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.
At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
incorrect. i was responding to someone else who said it WAS a deterrent.
Not quite.
Just after you suggested people who support the DP are stupider than its opponents... Gern commented that if the execution was more timely, then it would serve as more of a deterrent.
You responded with 'but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent.' Which, of course, is not accurate.
Not sure what point you're trying to make there. Just that you think the burden of proof is on opponents and not supporters? I disagree. ... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
For the spontaneous variety... I agree.
Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
Yes, and that probably happens all the time. I'm sure there are TONS of people who have wanted to kill someone but didn't because of the consequences. I'm assuming there are even some of those people right here on these boards. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not someone would pin the decision on the difference between the possibility of the death penalty vs the possibility of life in prison and all the bad shit that comes with that. Subjectively, I find THAT possibility extremely unlikely. I think people think about getting caught for murder vs not getting caught for murder, and that's pretty much where it ends.
I'm not so sure about that.
If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
Well that isn't fair, because there is no such thing as death being a certainty upon getting caught. We're talking about the actual death penalty, not a fantasy one where every single convicted murderer is killed upon conviction. So in terms of reality, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone would cross the line if it meant life in prison, but not if it meant being on death row and possibly being executed. If someone were open to not murdering someone solely because of the possible consequences, I think the consideration would just be not getting caught.
We were talking in the context of employing the DP in its full capacity.
In reality, it's likely not a deterrent; however, with extensive application... it likely would become a deterrent (and for some... an argument for).
I'm not for extensive usage. I'm for very selective usage. Roof fits the criteria for me: he's definitely guilty; he committed mass murder; and to boot... he's still laughing about it.
And if implemented consistently, so might life in prison without parole...
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
Lol.
Have you been reading this thread?
I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.
At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
incorrect. i was responding to someone else who said it WAS a deterrent.
Not quite.
Just after you suggested people who support the DP are stupider than its opponents... Gern commented that if the execution was more timely, then it would serve as more of a deterrent.
You responded with 'but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent.' Which, of course, is not accurate.
that was not a suggestion. it was an observation based on what I read. I also stated very clearly, TWICE, that it is very possible that was a product of biased editors trying to make a point.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
now it "unfair." he chose not to present ANY mitigating evidence. Its unfair at the depth of witness impact statements, they're going to come back for death for sure........
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Well I'll agree with that. If it can't be proven that it deters crime it is a moot point. The only reason opponents bring it up is because supporters have suggested that it is a deterrent. Once they stop suggesting that it might prevent murders, opponents will likely stop saying that it doesn't.
Lol.
Have you been reading this thread?
I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.
At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
incorrect. i was responding to someone else who said it WAS a deterrent.
Not quite.
Just after you suggested people who support the DP are stupider than its opponents... Gern commented that if the execution was more timely, then it would serve as more of a deterrent.
You responded with 'but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent.' Which, of course, is not accurate.
that was not a suggestion. it was an observation based on what I read. I also stated very clearly, TWICE, that it is very possible that was a product of biased editors trying to make a point.
You did qualify your comment afterwards, but my feelings were already hurt so it was too late lol.
Thanks for your efforts today. Seriously. This has been a good discussion concurrent with Season 2 Narcos (just couldn't focus today- sick, antibiotics, hungry, too lazy to make something good to eat).
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.
So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.
Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.
You're asking for the law to establish another level of guilt. If someone is super duper guilty, then the death penalty is applicable? No. You're either guilty or not guilty.
Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.
We're not talking about applying the death penalty based on severity of the crime, it was about doing it when guilt is 100% certain. That means there would be cases of 60 and 80% certainty where you would have to establish some sort of criteria for that partial certainty. The jury says guilty or not guilty, though. Not sort of guilty.
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.
So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.
Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.
You're asking for the law to establish another level of guilt. If someone is super duper guilty, then the death penalty is applicable? No. You're either guilty or not guilty.
Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.
We're not talking about applying the death penalty based on severity of the crime, it was about doing it when guilt is 100% certain. That means there would be cases of 60 and 80% certainty where you would have to establish some sort of criteria for that partial certainty. The jury says guilty or not guilty, though. Not sort of guilty.
To get a guilty conviction you just need "beyond a reasonable doubt". I've stated that that is probably not quite enough for me, but I have no problem with the DP if there is 100% certainty. That certainty can be based on evidence, confessions, videos, etc... It doesn't have to be an actual, new, legal verdict. I have never talked about that. I said for me to be comfortable with it I would like 100% certainty. I'm not sure why you're unable to understand that.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
Yes, there will be cases where it is 100% clear that the defendant is guilty, but not 100% of cases can be prosecuted with 100% certainty. Impossible. I don't agree with the death penalty because I don't think it's a more severe punishment. If someone is sentenced to life in prison it needs to be without parole. A lot of these cases get plea bargained and one of the first things they remove is the "without parole", which creates hope for the person who committed the vile, heinous, evil (insert term here) crime that they will someday see the light of day. There should be no hope, no future; nothing. Someone like Roof needs to know full well that they will live in a cell for 23 hours of everyday for the rest of their life and never see the outside world again.
I get Thirty's point about how we can't truly measure deterrence because of how the system operate currently. I do think that it would probably deter a small percentage of people, which I guess is better than nothing; however, we also don't know if life without parole would serve to be an equally effective deterrent because that also cannot be properly analyzed since it isn't consistently charged and convicted.
I think the history of our world should give us some context on how effective immediate execution is on deterrence though. If it were such a deterrent why aren't there still public hangings, guillotines, firing squads? Action against criminals was much swifter, more severe and widely known, but it didn't seem to be effective in decreasing the problems. That should have been one hell of a way to deter people I would think.
wow indeed.
-EV 8/14/93
in cases of subjective opinion, I tend to lean towards the opinions of experts in their field of study. maybe that's just me.
-EV 8/14/93
Here's an excerpt from a link to a Washington Post article that acknowledges findings different from your website that vociferously opposes the DP and selectively chooses what message it seeks to promote:
The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?" "If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html
... Let's talk about the issue subjectively for a second though. How would one figure that the DP would prevent murderers from murdering before they are caught and imprisoned? Are there actually people who think that potential murderers stop and think, "oh wait. I better not do this because I could get the DP if I'm caught!" As opposed to stopping and thinking, "Oh wait, I better not do this because I could get caught and thrown in prison for life!"? The deterrence argument only has any weight if murderers would kill under the risk of life imprisonment, but would not kill if the DP was a possibility instead. Logically, subjectively, that just seem ludicrous, don't you think?
Is it within the realm of possibilities that someone planning a murder might think twice and not follow through on it given the consequences?
http://www.livescience.com/19776-death-penalty-deterrent-capital-punishment.html
If death was a certainty upon getting caught, I'm confident there would be at least one (more like many in reality) that would put the brakes on their plans.
-EV 8/14/93
we will find a way, we will find our place
So in terms of reality, I don't think it's reasonable to think that someone would cross the line if it meant life in prison, but not if it meant being on death row and possibly being executed. If someone were open to not murdering someone solely because of the possible consequences, I think the consideration would just be not getting caught.
Have you been reading this thread?
I've been trying to put the deterrence notion to rest for both sides, but have had a challenging time because opponents insist their side of this moot argument is legitimate.
At least in this instance... you got it the wrong way.
-EV 8/14/93
In reality, it's likely not a deterrent; however, with extensive application... it likely would become a deterrent (and for some... an argument for).
I'm not for extensive usage. I'm for very selective usage. Roof fits the criteria for me: he's definitely guilty; he committed mass murder; and to boot... he's still laughing about it.
Just after you suggested people who support the DP are stupider than its opponents... Gern commented that if the execution was more timely, then it would serve as more of a deterrent.
You responded with 'but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent.' Which, of course, is not accurate.
-EV 8/14/93
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Thanks for your efforts today. Seriously. This has been a good discussion concurrent with Season 2 Narcos (just couldn't focus today- sick, antibiotics, hungry, too lazy to make something good to eat).