Does capital punishment reduce crime?

[maddog]

1) Does capital punishment reduce crime?

 

2) Is captital punishment moral?

1) Maybe not. I don't have evidence to back me up. Consider though that maybe

-- what is going on is a case of Natural Selection. The stupid criminals get caught

-- some eventually get CP (where it is used). The mechanism then selects for more

-- craftier criminals to either not get caught or bright enough to get good Lawyers.

 

2) Is an "Eye for and Eye" moral ? It was in the Old Testiment a LOT! Does that make

-- it moral ? Then you have you answer. If not then a different answer. Were I to be

-- jurist (this is coming up this month), I would have to consider CP case by case as

-- it's morality. I not sure I can render such a blanket statement. Were Hitler had

-- been caught and tried at Nurremburg (spelling?) would it be moral to sentence him

-- to death. That was 6,000,000 people he had murdered and even more were given

-- many forms of abuse. If that was enough, then would 11 people killed because of

-- a person attempting to commit suicide be enough people to justify giving a death

-- penalty moral. If 6,000,000 enough why wouldn't 11 ? Where do you stop ?

 

I am sorry I have more questions than answers. This is a dilemma that doesn't fit into

very easy logical semantical debate as "right/wrong" in my book. ;)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

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

I don't know if I would say it is Moral though. It appears that the CIA and other parts

of the intelligence community of the US government are participating in various forms

of torture (as evidenced by the atrocities in Abu Gharib). ;) My government has

decided to scapegoat a few to protect the guilty. ;) Of this I am embarrased.

 

Maddog

[syntax]

Here's the link to the whole page:

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT

 

 

The citation of one study:

 

Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2, May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona, consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma.

 

Another study with graphs to help illustrate:

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif

 

Do you have any scientific data to show that the death penalty contributes to an increase in the murder rate?

 

What you presented was a political site who's only purpose is to repeal the DP.

[pgrmdave]

Compare these graphs:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/dr.htm - which details prisoners on Death Row

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/exe.htm - which details executions

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.htm - which details state prison population by offense type

 

From these graphs, I can see no correlation between CP and crime. I know that it is intuitive to assume they have a connection, but it seems that CP does not lower crime.

 

While it could be argued that the increase in CP is due to the increase in violence, CP is meant to lessen violence, so if it is increasing, CP is not working well.

[syntax]

The charts show a drop in executions after 2000 and no drop in violent crime after 2000.

 

This would tend to refute what fishteacher said about capital punishment increasing the murder rate.

[Tormod]

Do you have any scientific data to show that the death penalty contributes to an increase in the murder rate?

 

What you presented was a political site who's only purpose is to repeal the DP.

 

The site in question uses scientific data to support their claims.

[syntax]

The site in question uses scientific data to support their claims.

 

.

 

So what? iIt is perfectly simple to skew data so that it will support one's political point of view.

 

Besides, what he claimed was that there were studies that indicate that capital punishment increases the murder rate.

 

I saw none of that, did you? ;)

[Tormod]

So what? iIt is perfectly simple to skew data so that it will support one's political point of view.

 

Can you prove that they have skewed the data? If not, I fail to see the problem.

[syntax]

Can you prove that they have skewed the data? If not, I fail to see the problem.

 

 

Well, ;) I thought it was up to him to prove that he could produce a study that said that CP increased the incidence of murder.

 

He sure didn't do it with the sites that he posted--did he? ;)

[Tormod]

I'm only pointing out that Fishteacher is free to use sources as he wish, as are you, and that his source uses scientific data. Of course they are biased (as was pointed out many times on the previous page). Critical thinking should be a given for anyone who uses this site.

 

I am sure he can stand up for his own arguments, that is not my task here.

[syntax]

I'm only pointing out that Fishteacher is free to use sources as he wish, as are you, and that his source uses scientific data. Of course they are biased (as was pointed out many times on the previous page). Critical thinking should be a given for anyone who uses this site.

 

I am sure he can stand up for his own arguments, that is not my task here.

 

I do not understand you can refer to the data that he presented as "scientific" and as "biased" in the same paragraph.

[Crim]

In answer to the original questions:

 

1. Yes, it does reduce crime. However, not in the way and amounts its supporters would think. It reduces crime, in that it reminds those with a workable conscience that there are repurcussions. It is possible that even without this reminder, this segment of people would not commit the crime anyway. And if some did, I would think that it would be a fairly minor number. So, I would say at best, that it prevents a fairly minor number of people with a workable conscious from commiting a crime.

 

However, the type of people that capital punishment tries to target, I would say are the least likely to be affected by capital punishment. The inherent traits of one who ignores or lacks the sense of repurcussion, are the same traits that allow one to commit crimes at the level of murder, especially when premeditation is involved. This type of person would be the most likely to commit a crime, and most probably makes up the bulk of the top level crimes. What makes these people prone to committing the crime, is also what makes them for the most part, unaffected by possibility of repurcussion (such as capital punishment). So, to refine the question, does capital punishment reduce crime commited by those most likely to ? Effectively, no, unless you count the fact that those executed are unable to re-commit.

 

Capital punishment represents how outdated society's approaches are towards resolving issues. We are much better at making electronics, cloning, nuclear armaments, SUV's, etc.. than we are at managing domestic issues that affect us all.

 

Each person is different, and the reasons for their being, are different. For those that will still commit a crime under possibility of capital punishment, there is no preventative measure. This is just the way these people are. I think at this point, the government in some way understands this, and uses capital punishment more for its secondary nature: to eliminate the problem. How can we begin to rehabilitate some of these people, if we can't even identify them before they commit a crime. I assert, that if we do not have the ability to identify these people for their traits before they commit, then we do not have the ability to properly rehabilitate. You can't solve a problem, if you don't truly understand that problem to begin with. This results in our current programs that attempt to rehabilitate, which only burden the taxpayer, both in implementation and in re-comitting of a crime. I'm not saying it is unfeasible to rehabilitate. What I'm saying is that there hasn't been enough headway into our finding proper solutions to each individual's problems so that they can be rehabilitated. Look at it this way, if we as a society developed a way to recognize and correct these traits in people beforehand, would we need capital punishment ? And even if it were not possible to identify beforehand, at the very least if we could in 99 percent of the cases rehabilitate a person to not commit again, would we need capital punishment ?

 

Capital punishment exists because of our lack of ability to identify and correct the inherent problems in some people that are prone to commit crimes. Throwing rocks at it won't help. However, finding alternatives that take into account the true nature of the problem, will.

 

2. For our current level of development, it is acceptable. Much like how it is acceptable that a dog can lick itself, or does not need to wear clothes. This because they do not know any better.

 

I hope that covers it ;)

[Killean]

Welcome to Hypography Crim. I like the post.

 

syntax, please do not come in here only to attack people. Please discuss your feelings about the subject without the need to revert to name calling.

Thank you.

 

;) - "Alright people, nothing to see here."

[Tormod]

I do not understand you can refer to the data that he presented as "scientific" and as "biased" in the same paragraph.

 

You seem unaware of the term "scientific bias" then? Do you believe that you (for example) are not biased?

 

Every person is biased. So is science. Bias is inherent in everything we do as human beings. *Any* data that is published is biased, either in POV, reason for being published, reason for gathering the data, etc.

 

Critical thinking is one of the ways to understand and correct this bias from the POV of the reader.

 

It would be a good idea to get the discussion back on track now.

[Fishteacher73]

I find it amusing to say that my sources are biased and yours are not syntax. Would not a US gov't site (The US gov't Dept. of Justice supports CP) not present information that was skewed to its POV?

 

The refernce site I listed is just a clearing house for anti-CP information. All the studies are independent of the site, and citation is given to the sources.

 

The coment about CP increasing crime is about there is usually a spike in crime for a few weeks following an execution.

 

Syntax wrote:

 

There are over two million people in our prisons right now." At yearend 2003, 37 States and the Federal prison system held 3,374 prisoners under sentence of death." "Among inmates under sentence of death and with available criminal histories: -- about 1 in 12 had a prior homicide conviction." Divide 3,374 by 12 and you have 281 people that were killed by people who had been PREVIOUSLY convicted of homicide. That means they had already killed at least 281 people in the first place, then they were released to kill again. Add 281 and 281 and you now have 562 dead people not counting the remaining 3,093 killers who did not have a prior. Without counting multiple murders, the carnage here is at least 3,655 dead (3,093 and 562). If Hallmark was going to print cards, they would spend their money on sympathy cards for the dead victims families and friends. How many people are affected by 3,655 deaths compared to 23 deaths?

 

Not all homocides are considered capital offenses. How many of these would have even been on death row? You say skewing facts and numbers, but your math is skewed. the only argument you have against my citations is that you don't like where they come from. Deal with it. One reason that many homocides are not tried as CP cases is that the cases are more expensive and harder to prove. Most of these that were set free probably would not have been in a position to be released if the prosecution did not have to weigh the costs and conviction rates for CP cases and opted for a lighter sentance. As well as many CP cases end in a plea bargain. Most DA's will not ask for the DP unless there is a preponderance of evidence and/or the crime is unusually heinous. This would imply that many of the ciminals that were not locked up for good were the result of shying away from CP and aiming low by the prosecutors. AS A REACTION TO CP. I do not see how your statistics support the idea of CP as a deterrent, if nothing they, again, highlight the problems involved with having CP in the system.

[Crim]

Thanks for the welcome Killean.

[IDMclean]

Umm I don't remember exact sources but I think it was Crime watch, toxic America, or The USA cenus but something like that had statistics that showed that Capitial punishment actually resulted in Higher Crime Rate.

 

Morale? I don't know. The sadistic part of me says, in a word, yes. My reasoning is that If you let them rot in a cell for 60 years is Cruel and unusal Punishment. They live every day, at least somewhat, Regreting what they've done. To kill them would be to release them from their agony of self. A pain which as I said my sadistic part of me would not deny them.

 

So I guess it comes down to if you think it more morale to let them sit and rot or fry them and give them the short cut out.