Does capital punishment reduce crime?

[Drakon1323]

"You mean you have to feed the fish?!?!?"

hahahahahahahahaha....niiice

 

thats exactly it though.

 

So I'm not really sure what the answer is.

Does anybody really ?....

Thats part of the reason were here.

[Tormod]

"I'm not sure of the answer" seems to be my refrain, which is a far cry from where I started at this site, huh Tormod?

 

Here's a refrain for you:

 

My wild Irish Rose,

The sweetest flow'r that grows.

You may search ev'ywhere,

But none can compare,

With my wild Irish Rose.

My Wild Irish Rose,

The dearest flow'r that grows.

And someday for my sake,

She may let me take,

The bloom from my wild Irish Rose.

 

:)

[Fishteacher73]

One must accept that just about any scientific premis is always up for refinement. We may come to find that something as basic as gravity (which we have come very well a explaining what it's effects are, but really still do not know what its is.) I think the test of true thought is the ability to accept what facts present, even if they contadict what one thought was right.

 

If you stop growing, you start dying.

 

But this thread begins to digress. :) Pehaps a nudge back into the original direction might help....

As to the questions posed on the original thead:

 

1) Does capital punishment reduce crime?

 

2) Is captital punishment moral?

 

It is obvious that if the answer to the first is "no" there is no ground for claiming something that has no positive value and only death to be moral.

Does revenge justify the action? Is eye for an eye a validation? (Not in terms a "It says so in the Bible" idea, but the concept itself.)

[Drakon1323]

But this thread begins to digress. :) Pehaps a nudge back into the original direction might help....

good idea.

 

As to the questions posed on the original thead:

 

1. I really think if implemented the right way, yes.

 

2. realisticly, i cant answer that. I would say yes if all circumstances warranted such action.

[IrishEyes]

Is eye for an eye a validation?

Why not?

 

On another note, can we relate this topic to the ZT topic? Some of the 'innocents' might get hurt, but school admins are willing to take that chance in order to send the message that violence will not be tolerated, right? I understand that expelling a student for vilence is a LOT different than putting a murderer to death, but is it not comparable? I'm just trying to figure out how you can be FOR ZT, yet AGAINST CP, Fish?

[syntax]

It is obvious that if the answer to the first is "no" there is no ground for claiming something that has no positive value and only death to be moral.

Does revenge justify the action? Is eye for an eye a validation? (Not in terms a "It says so in the Bible" idea, but the concept itself.)

 

Here is a web site that points out that if someone is executed, then he will not murder again. It also gives examples where, had an execution taken place, many lives would have been saved.

 

http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter

[Fishteacher73]

Here is a web site that points out that if someone is executed, then he will not murder again. It also gives examples where, had an execution taken place, many lives would have been saved.

 

I think that dead men tell no tales is pretty self evident. Yes, one could argue that if Hitler or Stalin were executed many lives would be saved. But Removing them from society not achieve the same end? What valid reason is their death required to remove the threat? :)

[Fishteacher73]

On another note, can we relate this topic to the ZT topic? Some of the 'innocents' might get hurt, but school admins are willing to take that chance in order to send the message that violence will not be tolerated, right? I understand that expelling a student for vilence is a LOT different than putting a murderer to death, but is it not comparable? I'm just trying to figure out how you can be FOR ZT, yet AGAINST CP, Fish?

 

I think that you answer this your self. Execution can not be taken back. If an error was made in the ZT case, one can be returned to school. I don't think a "Oops, Sorry for the leathal injection" card from Hallmark will rectify the situation.

 

I personally do not see the two ideas as mutually exclusive.

[pgrmdave]

No, you cannot reverse a suspension, because you cannot give back time, or emotional hurt.

[syntax]

I think that dead men tell no tales is pretty self evident. Yes, one could argue that if Hitler or Stalin were executed many lives would be saved. But Removing them from society not achieve the same end? What valid reason is their death required to remove the threat? :)

 

Sorry, I was under the impression that we were discussing whether or not executing convicted murderers would reduce crime.

 

So now we are talking whether or not we should execute political heads of state? :)

[lindagarrette]

I should think it would be a deterrant to those who fear death and hell thereafter. Capital punishment's role in punishment is an inigma. First, everyone dies and those who believe in heaven should wish for it. Secone, no one likes to suffer and now we provide a painless death for the convicted which is better than most get. The worst part must be the time spent on death row. Other than that, it doesn't seem very effective.

 

Crime reduction is best prevented by removing the cause. Educating the ignorant and treating the mentally defective. Easy for me to say.

[IrishEyes]

Crime reduction is best prevented by removing the cause.

What is the cause of crime reduction, that can be identified and removed?

 

Educating the ignorant and treating the mentally defective.

What does this mean? That only the ignorant and the mentally 'defective' commit crimes?

 

I'm not saying that the only answer is CP, but I just don't understand how your summation fits. "Crime reduction is best prevented by removing the cause" - that doesn't make any sense at all.

[maddog]

Keeping criminals alive is more ethical because it allows them to live their life without harming anybody

HOW is this 'more ethical'? "More ethical' than what, a controlled execution?

 

Swift and harsh punishment may not be fashionable, but many of the countries that exercise this option have relatively low violent crimes, in relation to their population, don't they? I can't seem to find stats on typical murder rates in China and Iran, as they seem to be the two other 'main' CP countries, but I'm going to keep looking. I think the US may be the exception to the rule in this instance, possibly for the reason mentioned by drak... punishment takes soooo long, that it's not seen as an effective deterrant.

 

Is it really more humane/moral/ethical to keep people in prison for their entire lives for a crime? Or should they be rehabilitated and returned to society? And who gets to decide which crimes are 'bad enough' for life in prison versus rehabilitation?

 

On the principle of capital punishment to right a wrong seems a bit harsh and more a the "Eye for an Eye"

from the bible. Some form of punsihment needs to be paid. I just not sure what is best.

 

In some case I do have some suggestions. Their was a serious disaster that occured in LA yesterday.

Some [deleted remark] person had a desire to commit suicide. However, he botched this so bad that not

only did he not die, he created so bad an accident that two trains were derailed, killing 11 people so far.

Bodies are still being pulled from the wreckage. So I feel VERY strongly that were this individual (he has

been finally charge) to be convicted that he NOT get the death penalty. Instead my feeling that he be

made to live at all cost for 10 more years for every individual that was killed in the incident and he is

subjected to a simulation of the sounds of panic from these people as they died be played into his cell

every night while he attempt to sleep. This wouldn't bring back the people. They're dead. It would be

some sense of justice. :)

 

Maddog

[pgrmdave]

So, Maddog, if I read your post correctly, you advocate psychological torture over death?

[pgrmdave]

Linda, I don't disagree with you, sort of. I don't think that most people, believer or not, wants to die. There are some exceptions, though they are few and far between. The problem is that most people don't think about things like murderers do. Assuming it was a planned murder, nobody thinks that they will be caught, so the punishment doesn't usually come into play. When you think that you have everything under control, you don't need to worry about the possibility of things going wrong. Especially in the case of serial killers, in which you have a usually highly intelligent, systematic killer, the punishment never crosses their mind, at least after the first killing. They are convinced of their superiority. I know that I am talking about only one kind of murderer, but it is at least one, very dangerous case, in which CP serves no purpose.

[lindagarrette]

I'm not saying that the only answer is CP, but I just don't understand how your summation fits. "Crime reduction is best prevented by removing the cause" - that doesn't make any sense at all.

Typo.

[Yvonne]

Does punishment reduce crime?

 

There are different kinds people commiting crime.

 

I think parents have a huge responsiblity to teach their children right from wrong, and do the right things. That does not mean that I advocate that criminals should get easier off if they have a "terrible" childhood.

 

I think that the government has a huge responsiblity in giving children opportunites. I saw a documentary from the states about a school in a very, very poor area. This girl was going to school trying to learn how to read. Her mother had left and she lived with her grandmother. Her grandmother and her father (who lived nearby) couldn't read. Who is supposed to help them doing there homework when they're reading about dna? The teachers were busy trying to make the kids pass some national exames so they wouldn't loose more governemnt funds. Lot's of these children will never get a "proper" job earing enough to get out of the poor area, and even less supporting a family. They are going to look for easy cash in industries as prostitution and drugs.

 

Then you have after school activites, which is also a problem in Norway, there is no way you can expect teenagers to stay home all afternoon and night. And if they don't have any money and no plass to hang for free they are easy targets. I'm not saying everybody is, though - there is alway people who excell no matter what.

 

I think if we could help kids get a good start in life, and give them an opportunity to make the right choices (as education) the crime rate will drop in the future.

 

If we also help the kids with mental problems, we'll both help the kids and teachers but also give them a choice to do the right thing.

 

Kids should be top priority, and later we can harvest the rewards!!

 

My point is, these kids start doing their crime before they even now that there is an alternative, and by the time they are 16 and they should know better - "it's too late" - they're caught in the system.