Another Libertarian theory fails in experimental reality.

[Diogenes]

Jurors for death penalty cases ought not be made up of just the people too stupid to dodge jury duty. There ought to be competency requirements for jurors when a death penalty case is being tried. Idiots, such as were on the O.J. Simpon murder trial, should never be permitted as jurors on serious cases.

Actually I think OJ was possibly innocent of the murders of Nicolle Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. That rather it was his son, Jason Simpson who did it, and OJ helped him cover it up after the fact.


http://www.dallasobserver.com/2001-04-1 ... tial/full/




He Jason was 24 yr old muscular 511 over 200lbs, (not a 46 yr old ex-footballer with arthritic knees) at the time with a boatload of violence issues, and was at the time off his meds. Had allegedly some kind of strange obsession with Nicole his former stepmom. He also had access to a set of personal chef's knives he owned (he was a chef), his alibi at the time didn't check out. He was also ex-navy trained in hand to hand combat; OJ as far as I know had no particular experience with knives; also heard he was actually rather squeamish at the sight of blood.

His son goes and kills (Viciously) his ex-wife? And her boyfriend?

[Diogenes]

This is how you create a deterrence effect.

Who did it deter?

You are being facetious. You can't possibly mean that as a serious question.

[Diogenes]

Deterrence is the single most cited reason for capital punishment.
According to the new research, deterrence really depends on the number of executions per year. States like Texas have more of a deterrent than ones like Utah.

Deterrence is the theory underpinning the entire Justice system. Every law operates by deterrence. (The Government will do something bad to you if you break the law.)


The Death penalty is just intended as a stronger degree of deterrence and it has the added benefit of making certain that a particular criminal will never offend again. Ever.

[Skipjack]

Deterrence is the single most cited reason for capital punishment.
According to the new research, deterrence really depends on the number of executions per year. States like Texas have more of a deterrent than ones like Utah.

Deterrence is the theory underpinning the entire Justice system. Every law operates by deterrence. (The Government will do something bad to you if you break the law.)


The Death penalty is just intended as a stronger degree of deterrence and it has the added benefit of making certain that a particular criminal will never offend again. Ever.

I think that it is a wrong way of looking at punishment, or rather an incomplete one. There are several meanings to prison sentences and also the death penalty:
1. Deterrence
2. Protecting the public from the criminal. In a sense it is a reverse bann or expulsion from the tribe.
3. Reducing the criminals ability to procreate (he at least theoretically should not be allowed to find a mate and procreate in the time of incarceration) and thus passing on his (potentially harmful) genes. Naturally this is only of means to very long sentences or the death penalty.
The second two go back to tribal ancestors of men, when criminals were "banned", expelled from a tribe and not allowed to get near the tribe again ever (under threat of death).
If you look at prison as an inverse bann, you quickly see how that works.
Socialists will probably also name a 4th meaning to punishment (except death penalty) and that is "education" of the criminal to becoming a better person. I personally consider that nonsense however. Prison can no make someone a better person.
A 5th one could be revenge. But that is IMHO flawed.

[KitemanSA]

This is how you create a deterrence effect.

Who did it deter?

You are being facetious. You can't possibly mean that as a serious question.

You claim a deterrence effect. Demonstrate it.

[ladajo]

Which of you has read Crime and Punishment or Duty?

[ladajo]

Law serves two functions.

1. Simplicity for Idiots

2. Deterence for non-Idiots.

The part that law can not speak to is personal accountability.

In simple terms; I choose to dominate for my personal benefit, and it is not unfair. For in my world, it is not only fair, but essentially required. Dog eats dog. Am I more hungry or less hungry? It matters not. For if I can eat the next dog, ...I will.

What morality do you choose?

[williatw]

Jurors for death penalty cases ought not be made up of just the people too stupid to dodge jury duty. There ought to be competency requirements for jurors when a death penalty case is being tried. Idiots, such as were on the O.J. Simpon murder trial, should never be permitted as jurors on serious cases.

Actually I think OJ was possibly innocent of the murders of Nicolle Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. That rather it was his son, Jason Simpson who did it, and OJ helped him cover it up after the fact.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2001-04-1 ... tial/full/




He Jason was 24 yr old muscular 511 over 200lbs, (not a 46 yr old ex-footballer with arthritic knees) at the time with a boatload of violence issues, and was at the time off his meds. Had allegedly some kind of strange obsession with Nicole his former stepmom. He also had access to a set of personal chef's knives he owned (he was a chef), his alibi at the time didn't check out. He was also ex-navy trained in hand to hand combat; OJ as far as I know had no particular experience with knives; also heard he was actually rather squeamish at the sight of blood.

His son goes and kills (Viciously) his ex-wife? And her boyfriend?

He had violent outbursts and behavior issues going back years prior to the murders. Had been hospitalized for such and was at the time of the murder off his meds. He had gone out clubbing with Nicole on a number of occasions, it was alleged he had developed some kind of jealous fixation on her. A father might lie and cover up the actions of a mentally troubled son, especially if said father felt a certain amount of guilt for having left his mother and him and the other kids growing up, to take up with Nicole. Not condoning it if that's what happened but I could understand OJ's motive in not throwing his son under the bus. I also seem to recall hearing at the time about blood samples recovered at the scene that "matched" OJ Simpson but not exactly...something about 5 of 6 genetic markers used matched OJ, but it wasn't a perfect match. Their excuse was well, the odds that a random stranger would match that closely were a bazillion to one, so it must be him. One would expect your biological son would be a very close genetic match, and as far as I know Jason was never tested.

[Diogenes]

Who did it deter?

You are being facetious. You can't possibly mean that as a serious question.

You claim a deterrence effect. Demonstrate it.[/quote]



I don't think you are serious. I have to presume a colossal degree of ignorance on your part just to take the question seriously. I just don't believe you to be that stupid, ergo you are just being contrarian.

[Diogenes]

Deterrence is the theory underpinning the entire Justice system. Every law operates by deterrence. (The Government will do something bad to you if you break the law.)


The Death penalty is just intended as a stronger degree of deterrence and it has the added benefit of making certain that a particular criminal will never offend again. Ever.

I think that it is a wrong way of looking at punishment, or rather an incomplete one. There are several meanings to prison sentences and also the death penalty:
1. Deterrence
2. Protecting the public from the criminal. In a sense it is a reverse bann or expulsion from the tribe.
3. Reducing the criminals ability to procreate (he at least theoretically should not be allowed to find a mate and procreate in the time of incarceration) and thus passing on his (potentially harmful) genes. Naturally this is only of means to very long sentences or the death penalty.
The second two go back to tribal ancestors of men, when criminals were "banned", expelled from a tribe and not allowed to get near the tribe again ever (under threat of death).
If you look at prison as an inverse bann, you quickly see how that works.
Socialists will probably also name a 4th meaning to punishment (except death penalty) and that is "education" of the criminal to becoming a better person. I personally consider that nonsense however. Prison can no make someone a better person.
A 5th one could be revenge. But that is IMHO flawed.

I am very much against imprisonment, especially in the manner of the current system. Warehousing criminals is not effective if they are to be released back into society at some point. I favor something more along the lines of boot camp/training system with those who refuse to participate/cooperate going to the warehouse style prisons.

I am also against life in prison. It costs the taxpayers something like $50,000.00 per year to keep people in prison. But for the constant interference by Liberals with Capital punishment in this nation, It's far cheaper to simply kill them.

[Skipjack]

It's far cheaper to simply kill them.

I am sure a lot of famous dictators thought the same way.
Boot camps or better work camps are a better idea.

[Diogenes]

It's far cheaper to simply kill them.

I am sure a lot of famous dictators thought the same way.
Boot camps or better work camps are a better idea.

I have a simple philosophy. You want something, YOU pay for it.


I don't want to pay $50,000.00 per year for a murderer to stay in prison. I want those people who are opposed to executing him, to pay for it.

When someone is sentenced to life in prison, it is really the Taxpayers who are sentenced to "life in prison."

[ladajo]

I don't want to pay $50,000.00 per year for a murderer to stay in prison. I want those people who are opposed to executing him, to pay for it.

What a novel idea with one fatal flaw. Those folks are in the business of spending other people's money for them, without asking.
I like it though. You want to keep him alive, you pay for it. When the funding runs out, he dies.
Talk about trial by a jury of your peers.

It has the makings of a good book I think. I claim the movie rights here and now!

[Skipjack]

I have a simple philosophy. You want something, YOU pay for it.
I don't want to pay $50,000.00 per year for a murderer to stay in prison. I want those people who are opposed to executing him, to pay for it.
When someone is sentenced to life in prison, it is really the Taxpayers who are sentenced to "life in prison."

Again it does not solve the basic problem of killing innocent people. I gather you are for killing innocent people then?
I would rather have them in work camps. Those that work get the better food and those that dont work get just basic, cheap stuff to keep them alive, but not happy.
It used to be like that in Austria before the socialists invented the so called "humane punishment"- nonsense and turned prisons into hotels.

[MSimon]

Again it does not solve the basic problem of killing innocent people. I gather you are for killing innocent people then?

It does keep costs down.

Yet the same people tend to oppose abortion by the folks who want to keep costs down. Killing innocents is wrong don't ya know.