Capital punishment not an effective deterrent, say experts

[PeCeDe]

Law Professors love the Capital punishment debate, and indeed it's always bought up in debating classes with each side taking one position. Then half way through the professor randomly changes who is on what side... You know which side eventually wins? As long as it's effectively done, Nobody. Because there is no right or wrong, unless you take the religious tack which is so far from the Law it's never mentioned.

[Yinglove]

Just now, rijb said:

You're on the home stretch.  The death penalty is not just a deterrent.  It's cleaning up the trash.

And where exactly do the two wrongfully convicted Koh Toa Burmese lads fit in to the clean up?

[rijb]

Just now, Yinglove said:

And where exactly do the two wrongfully convicted Koh Toa Burmese lads fit in to the clean up?

You're changing the subject.  This topic is not about the Thai judicial system.  We probably see eye-to-eye on that.

[Yinglove]

Just now, PeCeDe said:

Law Professors love the Capital punishment debate, and indeed it's always bought up in debating classes with each side taking one position. Then half way through the professor randomly changes who is on what side... You know which side eventually wins? As long as it's effectively done, Nobody. Because there is no right or wrong, unless you take the religious tack which is so far from the Law it's never mentioned.

Nonsense.

 

[Ace of Pop]

And where exactly do the two wrongfully convicted Koh Toa Burmese lads fit in to the clean up?

Typical Wimp reply, its the deterrent being debated, not a Pathetic Judgement.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Yinglove]

1 minute ago, rijb said:

You're changing the subject.  This topic is not about the Thai judicial system.  We probably see eye-to-eye on that.

It is the Thai judicial system that metes out the death penalty so it is entirely on topic.

 

So, where do the two wrongfully convicted Koh Tao Burmese lads fit in to the clean up?

[Yinglove]

4 minutes ago, Ace of Pop said:

Typical Wimp reply, its the deterrent being debated, not a Pathetic Judgement.
Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Wimpy?

Pros and cons of anything need to be weighed up to see whether benefits outweigh the costs.

If the death penalty deterred 100 murderers and wrongly executed 5, is that a system you would like to live under?

 

Are you proposing that there are people out there who would be deterred by the death penalty but not deterred by life in prison without parole?

Edited August 13, 2017 by Yinglove

[PeCeDe]

4 minutes ago, Yinglove said:

Nonsense.

 

So what about the 9 or 10 pages of arguments for and against here on TV with the result of not changing anyones mind, least of all yours. Plus the countless times the subject has been broached here on TV. Still no definitive answer. Thank God in my land there's a jury of 12 plus a Judge.

[Ace of Pop]

Yes it is Wimpy,to use a few wrong calls to allow the Majority to evade fair penalty.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Yinglove]

Just now, PeCeDe said:

So what about the 9 or 10 pages of arguments for and against here on TV with the result of not changing anyones mind, least of all yours. Plus the countless times the subject has been broached here on TV. Still no definitive answer. Thank God in my land there's a jury of 12 plus a Judge.

Oh, you think unless everyone comes to the same conclusion then there is no right or wrong answer.

Despite the extensive and indisputable evidence that Earth is billions of years old there are still plenty of folk who believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and that the earth is a mere 10,000 years old.

Guess there's no right or wrong as to the age of the Earth then huh?

 

[Yinglove]

3 minutes ago, Ace of Pop said:

Yes it is Wimpy,to use a few wrong calls to allow the Majority to evade fair penalty.

A few wrong calls - would you be downplaying it if it were your neck wrongfully in the noose?

[mogandave]

Wimpy?
Pros and cons of anything need to be weighed up to see whether benefits outweigh the costs.
If the death penalty deterred 100 murderers and wrongly executed 5, is that a system you would like to live under?
 
Are you proposing that there are people out there who would be deterred by the death penalty but not deterred by life in prison without parole?

And would you propose that there are people that would be deterred by life in prison without parole that would not be deterred by 20 years in prison?

If you are going to argue a more severe penalty is not more of a deterrent than a less severe penalty, than why not just make it 30 days?

I am anti capital-punishment, but the argument that it is not a deterrent is idiotic.

[Ace of Pop]

Yes ,its not a perfect World.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Yinglove]

Just now, mogandave said:

And would you propose that there are people that would be deterred by life in prison without parole that would not be deterred by 20 years in prison?
If you are going to argue a more severe penalty is not more of a deterrent than a less severe penalty, than why not just make it 30 days?
I am anti capital-punishment, but the argument that it is not a deterrent is idiotic.

 

No, I'm not proposing that those deterred by life in prison without parole would not be deterred by 20 years.

The difference between life without parole and 20 years is with one there is no ability to re-offend and with the other there may be.

The death penalty, life without parole and 20 years in prison are, to my thinking, all equal deterrents.

Of the three, only the death penalty and life without parole prevent re-offending.

Of these two, only life without parole doesn't potentially kill innocent people.

 

Nothing idiotic here.

[mogandave]

No, I'm not proposing that those deterred by life in prison without parole would not be deterred by 20 years.
The difference between life without parole and 20 years is with one there is no ability to re-offend and with the other there may be.
The death penalty, life without parole and 20 years in prison are, to my thinking, all equal deterrents.
Of the three, only the death penalty and life without parole prevent re-offending.
Of these two, only life without parole doesn't potentially kill innocent people.
 
Nothing idiotic here.

They could still kill an innocent while in jail, happens every now and then. So using your logic, the death penalty is absolutely a more effective deterrent, as once they're dead, they have even less of a chance of reoffending, yes?

[Chris Lawrence]

To deal with this problem first up is to have a fair and equitable legal system. The majority of persons incarcerated would be poor, illiterate or with mental learning disabilities. This is my assumption based on the favouritism the middle class and elite can obtain.

[Yinglove]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

They could still kill an innocent while in jail, happens every now and then. So using your logic, the death penalty is absolutely a more effective deterrent, as once they're dead, they have even less of a chance of reoffending, yes?
 

 

Wrong again.

Solitary confinement.

In the US death row inmates spend 23 hours a day alone in their cell and 1 hour a day alone in a small exercise yard.

The death penalty may indeed be marginally better at preventing re-offending but it is definitely responsible for the more deaths of wrongfully convicted innocents than life without parole is.

 

BTW - The death penalty doesn't deter the people it kills from re-offending, deterring involves having options. As dead people are dead, they have no options.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pacovl46]

11 hours ago, Ahab said:

Complete rubbish. The death penalty is an extremely effective deterrent (100%) for repeat crimes from the person that is executed. Life in prison also prevents that person from committing crimes (except against other prisoners) for the rest of their life. 

You're wrong and here's the reason why capital punishment does not deter:

 

First degree murders are committed only under two circumstances, it's either planned in which case capital punishment doesn't deter the crime because the perpetrator-to-be assumes that he'll be able to escape getting caught, or it is a heat-of-the-moment thing in which case the perpetrator doesn't (can't) think straight and simply loses control. Since he isn't in control of himself in that moment, it's safe to assume that he also doesn't think about the consequences in that moment and therefore any form of punishment doesn't deter the crime.

 

Studies have shown that the chances of a heat-of-the-moment murderer to murder again after being released are extremely slim to none because it is a major traumatic experience for the murderer as well. A lot of these murderers really regret what they did as opposed to the murder-for-hire guys!

 

I can't remember which state in the US it was nor in which year, my guess is 80s or 90s, which reinstated the death penalty after years or even decades of non-capital punishment and the following year the murder rate went up by something like 20% to a new all time high. If your theory was correct it should have gone down! 

 

The general assumption is that capital punishment deters murders in the first place which simply isn't true. Yeah, life imprisonment keeps people from doing it again, but the consequences of it are horrendous, and not every prisoner deserves to live in that kind of enironment.

 

Also, life imprisonment is simply torture. Murderers should be given the option of either life imprisonment or death at any time of their choosing.

 

I know I'm gonna get a lot of heat for the last paragraph before this one, so I just wanna say upfront that I'm in no way endorsing murder in any way or shape. People who commit murders need to be punished accordingly. Murder-for-profit killers definitely deserve the death penty, but it should be done humanly, and by that I mean skipping appeals, skipping being on death row for decades. Just simply get it over with because it is torture. Being caged for life is torture and punishment in my opinion shouldn't be as extreme as torture. By doing that we essentially lower ourselves to their level and we shouldn't be doing that. Lastly I wanna say that murder is murder and it doesn't matter whether it's during the course of a war, for profit, losing control or legally sanctioned by a nation.

Edited August 13, 2017 by pacovl46
forgot something

[PeCeDe]

6 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

You're wrong and here's the reason why capital punishment does not deter:

 

First degree murders are committed only under two circumstances, it's either planned in which case capital punishment doesn't deter the crime because the perpetrator-to-be assumes that he'll be able to escape getting caught, or it is a heat-of-the-moment thing in which case the perpetrator doesn't (can't) think straight and simply loses control. Since he isn't in control of himself in that moment, it's safe to assume that he also doesn't think about the consequences in that moment and therefore any form of punishment doesn't deter the crime.

 

Studies have shown that the chances of a heat-of-the-moment murderer to murder again after being released are extremely slim to none because it is a major traumatic experience for the murderer as well. A lot of these murderers really regret what they did as opposed to the murder-for-hire guys!

 

I can't remember which state in the US it was nor in which year, my guess is 80s or 90s, which reinstated the death penalty after years or even decades of non-capital punishment and the following year the murder rate went up by something like 20% to a new all time high. If your theory was correct it should have gone down! 

Correct, The very fact the murderer who committed the crime committed murder in a death penalty jurisdiction proves beyond doubt the death penalty did not deter that murder.  Anyone suggesting otherwise is someone who can be told the bare truth, but cannot be made to accept it.

[mogandave]

Wrong again.
Solitary confinement.
In the US death row inmates spend 23 hours a day alone in their cell and 1 hour a day alone in a small exercise yard.
The death penalty may indeed be marginally better at preventing re-offending but it is definitely responsible for the more deaths of wrongfully convicted innocents than life without parole is.
 
BTW - The death penalty doesn't deter the people it kills from re-offending, deterring involves having options. As dead people are dead, they have no options.
 
 
 
 
 
 

So now you're adding life without parol in solitary confinement...too funny. I thought the was deemed cruel and unusual? no? In any event, they would still have an opportunity to kill a guard, yes?

I am more interested in deterring the first crime than subsequent crimes. Deterring the first crime eliminates crime, it doesn't just reduce it.

Now come with some more nonsense...

[gandalf12]

2 hours ago, Yinglove said:

There is no way to count what, how many have gone through the following thought process

 

I am going to murder someone.... oh no there is a death penalty, that's a really severe punishment - I'll remain a law abiding citizen.

 

I am going to murder someone.... the punishment is the rest of my life in maximum security prison with no hope of parole, what a puny little punishment - let the murder spree begin.

 

Dumb!

 

 

When you carry a weapon be it gun, machete or knife your intention is not to make friends

[lvr181]

There are no recidivists when capital punishment is applied. That is 100%!! Guaranteed. As a deterrent, well it probably only deters those of a sound mind.

 

Perhaps the best deterrent is to do, in legally controlled circumstances, to the criminal what they do to their victims? Perhaps the 'deterrent' effect may work? 

[Yinglove]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

So now you're adding life without parol in solitary confinement...too funny. I thought the was deemed cruel and unusual? no? In any event, they would still have an opportunity to kill a guard, yes?
I am more interested in deterring the first crime than subsequent crimes. Deterring the first crime eliminates crime, it doesn't just reduce it.
Now come with some more nonsense...

 

The system will accomodate you exactly how they feel necessary to keep themselves and other inmates safe.

If necessary, solitary confinement for as long or as short as necessary.

Since the death penalty was re-introduced in some states in 1976 - no death row inmate has ever been able to harm anyone except themselves.

 

The death penalty doesn't deter anymore than life without parole - pacovl46's post above is another good explanation why this is true.  

 

 

 

[Yinglove]

6 minutes ago, gandalf12 said:

When you carry a weapon be it gun, machete or knife your intention is not to make friends

What's your point?

[Yinglove]

2 minutes ago, lvr181 said:

There are no recidivists when capital punishment is applied. That is 100%!! Guaranteed. As a deterrent, well it probably only deters those of a sound mind.

 

Perhaps the best deterrent is to do, in legally controlled circumstances, to the criminal what they do to their victims? Perhaps the 'deterrent' effect may work? 

And what of the wrongfully convicted? How do you undo the state sanctioned killing when the DNA evidence comes through and exonerates the dead man?

[gandalf12]

1 minute ago, Yinglove said:

What's your point?

I thought it would be pretty obvious. Your reaction that people dont go out thinking they are going to do nasty things to other people is correct for the majority of people anywhere. However when you carry a weapon like we see some of these thugs in Thailand carry their intention is far from peaceful.

[Yinglove]

Just now, gandalf12 said:

I thought it would be pretty obvious. Your reaction that people dont go out thinking they are going to do nasty things to other people is correct for the majority of people anywhere. However when you carry a weapon like we see some of these thugs in Thailand carry their intention is far from peaceful.

No, my point was that people who commit crimes rarely (if ever) rationally think through their actions therefore life in prison is just as effective a deterrent as the death penalty. Anyone not deterred by the former will not be deterred by the latter.

[mogandave]

No, my point was that people who commit crimes rarely (if ever) rationally think through their actions therefore life in prison is just as effective a deterrent as the death penalty. Anyone not deterred by the former will not be deterred by the latter.

All crimes or just capital crimes?

[Yinglove]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

 

All crimes or just capital crimes?

 

 

All crimes that the death penalty is to be applicable to.

[lvr181]

22 minutes ago, Yinglove said:

And what of the wrongfully convicted? How do you undo the state sanctioned killing when the DNA evidence comes through and exonerates the dead man?

I understand, but what of those who are killed by a person who is let off by sympathetic judges/juries or through bad laws? Those 'victims' also have rights that also cannot be undone?

 

If one is 'sacrificed' for the protection of many, so be it. It is not a perfect world. I'll side with protection for the majority.