Another Libertarian theory fails in experimental reality.

[GIThruster]

How can you place wrongful incarceration at the same level as wrongful execution? A ripple in a pond versus a tsunami.
You always do this. False equivalency.

But it's not a false equivalency. There is indeed the difference, that a wrongful execution cannot be compensated for, but in real terms, wrongful incarceration can never truly be compensated for. You cannot undo the harm done to someone imprisoned wrongfully, just as you cannot undo an execution.

The problem people have who hold this absurd position, is they haven't thought about it carefully and instead have simply absorbed the liberal position. For instance, what is the result of removing execution? Well, those people who would normally recieve the death penelty will then recieve life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Next you'll be arguing that this is cruel and unusual punishment because it offers no hope, and at the same time arguing that this is somehow more just or better than execution. Both arguments are absurd. Furthemore, both fail to note the other consequences of removing execution--that the utilitarian function of punishment is therefore curtailed.

The justice system is called that for several reasons. Just one of the justifications for deliberately causing the suffering of others is that justice is served in part by reducing the general suffering. Punishment is supposed to be a deterent and we know absolutely beyond a doubt that the death penalty is the strongest sort of deterrent. Criminals flee areas that have it and flock to areas that do not. The statistics on how capital punishment reduces crime are compelling. So in order to give it up, you have to have more than empty claims comparing a ripple with a tsunami. You have to have a real, adult argument--and you don't.

[Skipjack]

How can you place wrongful incarceration at the same level as wrongful execution? A ripple in a pond versus a tsunami.
You always do this. False equivalency.

The problem people have who hold this absurd position, is they haven't thought about it carefully and instead have simply absorbed the liberal position. For instance, what is the result of removing execution? Well, those people who would normally recieve the death penelty will then recieve life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Those wrongly imprisoned for life differ from those that are wrongly executed in several ways:
1. They still have a chance to fight for justice. They can work with lawyers and family to find new evidence and as new technology comes about, it might become possible to save them. When you are dead, you cant fight.
2. Once they have been released they can go and procreate thus not being a biological dead end. This is important! The death penalty or life in prison served, efectively prevents people from procreating. There is a sort of eugenics aspect to it, that is in this case probably desireable. When you are dead, you cant procreate.
3. Even just a few more years in freedom (after you got your jugdement overturned) are better than being dead. Death is final. There is no coming back from it. Period!

[Skipjack]

Regarding the death penalty being a deterrent. This statistic here shows no clear correllation either way (states without DP actually seem to have a lower rate, but that might be deceiving):
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder- ... -and-state

[GIThruster]

Those wrongly imprisoned for life differ from those that are wrongly executed in several ways:
1. They still have a chance to fight for justice. They can work with lawyers and family to find new evidence and as new technology comes about, it might become possible to save them. When you are dead, you cant fight.

It typically takes 15 years for a death row inmate to be executed--time granted to allow for the process you're talking about so you do not have a standing objection here.

2. Once they have been released they can go and procreate thus not being a biological dead end. This is important! The death penalty or life in prison served, efectively prevents people from procreating. There is a sort of eugenics aspect to it, that is in this case probably desireable. When you are dead, you cant procreate.

I fail to see any moral or ethical support that we have a reason to procure the genetic material of anyone, least of all criminals. This isn't even a serious argument, is it? Looks more like you bating trying to get somoene to espouse eugenics.

3. Even just a few more years in freedom (after you got your jugdement overturned) are better than being dead. Death is final. There is no coming back from it. Period!

Says you. It's noteworthy this sort of atheist drivel finds itself here in this issue. Try to remember you are in the vast minority in your opinion here. Again, no argument.

[Skipjack]

Those wrongly imprisoned for life differ from those that are wrongly executed in several ways:
1. They still have a chance to fight for justice. They can work with lawyers and family to find new evidence and as new technology comes about, it might become possible to save them. When you are dead, you cant fight.

It typically takes 15 years for a death row inmate to be executed--time granted to allow for the process you're talking about so you do not have a standing objection here.

2. Once they have been released they can go and procreate thus not being a biological dead end. This is important! The death penalty or life in prison served, efectively prevents people from procreating. There is a sort of eugenics aspect to it, that is in this case probably desireable. When you are dead, you cant procreate.

I fail to see any moral or ethical support that we have a reason to procure the genetic material of anyone, least of all criminals. This isn't even a serious argument, is it? Looks more like you bating trying to get somoene to espouse eugenics.

3. Even just a few more years in freedom (after you got your jugdement overturned) are better than being dead. Death is final. There is no coming back from it. Period!

Says you. It's noteworthy this sort of atheist drivel finds itself here in this issue. Try to remember you are in the vast minority in your opinion here. Again, no argument.

1. There are cases where it took longer for people to redeem themselves.
2. I was obviously arguing for the ability of those that were found to have been innocent after all to get another chance at procreating and passing on their genes.
3. Whether this is atheist or not is irrelevant. Dont even get me started with religious arguments against death penalty. It would take me an entire day to write them all down.

[hanelyp]

I think the real trick is in what is seen as the definition of "Due Process". ...

When the law is complex enough that a common educated man can't serve as competent legal council, and so all encompassing that a prosecutor can find a charge against pretty much anyone he decides needs to be punished, due process can become a needle in a haystack.

[Stubby]

How can you place wrongful incarceration at the same level as wrongful execution? A ripple in a pond versus a tsunami.
You always do this. False equivalency.

But it's not a false equivalency. There is indeed the difference, that a wrongful execution cannot be compensated for, but in real terms, wrongful incarceration can never truly be compensated for. You cannot undo the harm done to someone imprisoned wrongfully, just as you cannot undo an execution.

You cannot undo ALL the harm but you CAN undo some of it. You cannot say that for executions. This in of itself should be enough for moral people. But maybe the greater good requires it? Lets look at that below.

The problem people have who hold this absurd position, is they haven't thought about it carefully and instead have simply absorbed the liberal position. For instance, what is the result of removing execution? Well, those people who would normally [receive] the death [penalty] will then [receive] life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Next you'll be arguing that this is cruel and unusual punishment because it offers no hope, and at the same time arguing that this is somehow more just or better than execution. Both arguments are absurd. [Furthermore], both fail to note the other consequences of removing execution--that the utilitarian function of punishment is therefore curtailed.

The problem you have with your absurd position is that you are conflating arguments. You are also tying the death penalty to cruel and unusually punishment and deterrence.

For an innocent person, why would life without parole equate to loss of hope? THAT is absurd. As long as there is life, there is hope that new tech or new evidence will clear your name.
You equate removing the death penalty to removing all incarceration. You have brought out your wise old professor many times with the same argument. Do you really only think in black and white on this issue? Either we accept capital punishment as part of the justice system or the justice system will fall apart?

The justice system is called that for several reasons. Just one of the justifications for deliberately causing the suffering of others is that justice is served in part by reducing the general suffering. Punishment is supposed to be a [deterrent] and we know absolutely beyond a doubt that the death penalty is the strongest sort of deterrent. Criminals flee areas that have it and flock to areas that do not. The statistics on how capital punishment reduces crime are compelling. So in order to give it up, you have to have more than empty claims comparing a ripple with a tsunami. You have to have a real, adult argument--and you don't.

I agree that there is justification in imprisoning people who won't play nice with the rest of us. But I reject your assertion that the death penalty is the strongest sort of deterrent. On average, the murder rates are higher in death penalty states, look it up.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[GIThruster]

You cannot undo ALL the harm but you CAN undo some of it.

Nonsense. There is no way to compensate someone for taking years of their life, just exactly as there is no way to compensate them for wrongly taking their life. You are the one drawing a distinction without a difference. Either you clearly demonstrate the difference and why it is a difference, or your argument fails. For now we have to say it fails.

Do you really only think in black and white on this issue? Either we accept capital punishment as part of the justice system or the justice system will fall apart?

I didn't say that and I will again remind you not to put words in my mouth as this is a childish and immoral argumentation tactic. I've only seen it done by a couple people here at T-P but this is the third time I've asked you to knock it off, so knock it off.

The survival of the justice system is not contingent upon capital punishment, but justice is, and the effectiveness of the justice system is.

I reject your assertion that the death penalty is the strongest sort of deterrent. On average, the murder rates are higher in death penalty states, look it up.

That's hardly a statistical analysis. There have been plenty of studies done and the effect of the death penalty is only doubted by those with an axe to grind like yourself. Especially the interviews with inmates make it obvious that criminals greatly fear the death penalty and modify their behavior because of it. I'm sure if you seach online you'll find those statistics. There have been lots of careful studies, so why offer this useless data? Do I even need to start with the reasons it is useless? You haven't identified any cause/effect. You don't even know if you have a correlation. So why are you posting up data as if it were useful? Do you hold us all in contempt enough such that you're willing to offer these childish and useless arguments?

Instead of wasting people's time with data that is obviously not statistically relevent like the graphs you posted, I suggest you get some real education on the subject. Please note, the death penalty is the status quo position for 6 millenia. If you want to see it changed, the onus is clearly on you to offer a relevent argument and you have not done this. Your data is a useless distraction and your arguments are so weak as to make one wonder how you could possibly think you have an adult position. Clearly, you have your work cut out for you.

[Skipjack]

Nonsense. There is no way to compensate someone for taking years of their life, just exactly as there is no way to compensate them for wrongly taking their life. You are the one drawing a distinction without a difference. Either you clearly demonstrate the difference and why it is a difference, or your argument fails. For now we have to say it fails.

No, it is you who is talking nonsense! Of course you cant get the years of your life backt hat you lost, but you wont loose all the years of your life.
Even if you were to live only 5 remaining years of your life in freedom 5>0. Simple math! You loose!
Plus, you can get a nice financial compensation, which does not give you these years back, but might help the offspring you can create.

That's hardly a statistical analysis. There have been plenty of studies done and the effect of the death penalty is only doubted by those with an axe to grind like yourself. Especially the interviews with inmates make it obvious that criminals greatly fear the death penalty and modify their behavior because of it. I'm sure if you seach online you'll find those statistics. There have been lots of careful studies, so why offer this useless data? Do I even need to start with the reasons it is useless? You haven't identified any cause/effect. You don't even know if you have a correlation. So why are you posting up data as if it were useful? Do you hold us all in contempt enough such that you're willing to offer these childish and useless arguments?

Instead of wasting people's time with data that is obviously not statistically relevent like the graphs you posted, I suggest you get some real education on the subject. Please note, the death penalty is the status quo position for 6 millenia. If you want to see it changed, the onus is clearly on you to offer a relevent argument and you have not done this. Your data is a useless distraction and your arguments are so weak as to make one wonder how you could possibly think you have an adult position. Clearly, you have your work cut out for you.

You yourself produced the WRONG argument earlier that the areas with death penalty had a lower crime rate. You were wrong!
Now faced with facts that proof you wrong, you claim that this is of no statistical relevance. Face it, you were wrong and you just cant admit it to yourself becuse your ideology tells you that it cant be right.

[Stubby]

Actual since you are making the claim that deterrence is good reason for capital punishment, you provide the evidence. I will not do your work for you, refute it and then have you say, eg.: "That is not my evidence".

A report released on April 18, 2012, by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies based on a review of more than three decades of research concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report concluded: “The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Populations are from the U.S. Census estimates for each year.

Murder rates are from the FBI's "Crime in the United States" and are per 100,000 population.

Here is data from the US since 1990. Where is the deterrence?

[williatw]

Oh, and I don't love prohibition. I would much prefer a world where childish adults would restrain themselves from dangerous tampering with their brain chemicals, but as Burke said.



Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791).
-- Edmund Burke

The trouble with the analogy of "childish" adults only granted civil liberty in proportion to someone else (the surrogate parent the government) agreeing they deserve it is that it will inevitably lead to authoritarian government rule. The Founders believed that wisdom was vested more in the people than their rulers.


Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

George Washington


Those who would rules us are not (as your Burke would seem to think) wiser, kinder, more mature, they are all too often the worst of us, self-deluded narcissistic sociopaths whose hunger is to impose their will on the rest of us. They take advantage of existing problems be it drug addiction, poverty, crime, and propose solutions that invariably expand the power and scope of governmental rule over the rest of us "for our own good". When the solutions don't make things better or even make them worse, they say well that just means we need more governmental power and more control. We will either end or drastically curtail the welfare state (& entitlements) voluntarily or they will go bankrupt on their own effectively ending them, likewise with the war on drugs.

[GIThruster]

A report released on April 18, 2012, by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies based on a review of more than three decades of research concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. The report concluded: “The committee concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide is not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates. Therefore, the committee recommends that these studies not be used to inform deliberations requiring judgments about the effect of the death penalty on homicide.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Populations are from the U.S. Census estimates for each year.

Murder rates are from the FBI's "Crime in the United States" and are per 100,000 population.

Here is data from the US since 1990. Where is the deterrence?[/quote]

That's interesting, You'll find the actual styudy here:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discuss ... ce-studies

I was not aware of this finding by the national academies. I have not looked much at this issue since the early 1990's when in school. My prof was strongly against both the death penalty and imprisonment without hope of parole because he viewed both as cruel and unusual. He was likewise an atheist progressive, who was only too happy and willing to discard 6,000 years of human behavior at every turn he could, most often with no support for his values and choices.) He however had no trouble agreeing that the death penalty has a strong deterant effect on crime and showed the studies of that time. Now we have a report about other studies that calls them into question. I think we'd have our hands full for a long time sorting through the studies, and the studies of the studies, and in the end no one would change their mind.

That is perhaps why the national academies did the study--to render these other studies useless. Progresives are like that. They'll do anything to get their way.

I would still remind however, that the interviews with inmates and studies of their attitudes about the death penalty are perhaps the strongest evidence, and the national academies can't much change that. They're just saying you should ignore those things just as you need to ignore common sense if you really believe the death penalty is not a deterent.

[GIThruster]

You yourself produced the WRONG argument earlier that the areas with death penalty had a lower crime rate. You were wrong!

You're having a senior moment, Skippy. I didn't offer any sort of statistical analysis. All I did was state what I thought were undisputed facts. Now that the National Academies are denying the plain reading of the data--data that so far as I know was beyond dispute until 2012, I guess we're stuck. But traditionally there has been little question of the deterence value of the death penalty and one doesn't need more than common sense, and the testimony of a proper sampling of inmates to have clear answers.

My guess is the National Academies produced a study for political reasons specifically to deny the standing evidence.

And no Skippy, just as I've already said, you cannot read data like that. Only people looking to decieve you will pretend such a simple-minded approach to data is a useful option. Do some states with higher murder rates have them because they have the death pernalty, or do they have the death penalty because their unique culture creates a higher murder rate? As I said, at best all you can get is a correlation and not even that comes from that surface level of data. For useful data you have to have many more controls. Completely missing is the best sort of data that comes when a state changed from one to the other and then you compare. It's that sort of data that is the most trustworthy and for exmaple, gives the best evidence that concealed carry permits reduce crime.

[Skipjack]

You yourself produced the WRONG argument earlier that the areas with death penalty had a lower crime rate. You were wrong!

You're having a senior moment, Skippy. I didn't offer any sort of statistical analysis. All I did was state what I thought were undisputed facts. Now that the National Academies are denying the plain reading of the data--data that so far as I know was beyond dispute until 2012, I guess we're stuck. But traditionally there has been little question of the deterence value of the death penalty and one doesn't need more than common sense, and the testimony of a proper sampling of inmates to have clear answers.

My guess is the National Academies produced a study for political reasons specifically to deny the standing evidence.

And no Skippy, just as I've already said, you cannot read data like that. Only people looking to decieve you will pretend such a simple-minded approach to data is a useful option. Do some states with higher murder rates have them because they have the death pernalty, or do they have the death penalty because their unique culture creates a higher murder rate? As I said, at best all you can get is a correlation and not even that comes from that surface level of data. For useful data you have to have many more controls. Completely missing is the best sort of data that comes when a state changed from one to the other and then you compare. It's that sort of data that is the most trustworthy and for exmaple, gives the best evidence that concealed carry permits reduce crime.

No my point was that you can NOT make any conclusions either way. It is NOT as clear as you say that the death penalty has any effect either way.
You were the one who stated that it had. I explicitely kept this off the topic because I felt that it was NOT as clear as the fact that 5 years of life in freedom for an innocent man are better than 0 years of life when he has been executed.
It is a matter of simple math. By your logic anyone who has ever been incarcerated innocently and later released would have been just as happy, had he been executed.
You are sounding like one could have just as well let the innocent people that Saddam Hussein had in his prisons die there, since noone cant give them their lost years back anyway.
It makes no sense!!!

[MSimon]

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent