Capital punishment not an effective deterrent, say experts

[mogandave]

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

So people that commit capital crimes are irrational, while people the commit non-capital crimes are rational, do I understand you correctly?

[Yinglove]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

So people that commit capital crimes are irrational, while people the commit non-capital crimes are rational, do I understand you correctly?

 

Not sure you understand anything anyone says.

The decision to break the law is almost always an irrational one as in each case society has applied penalties that outweigh the benefits.

Most criminals would appear to operate under the pretence that they will not be caught thus the deterrence value of most punitive measures are somewhat limited.

[wakeupplease]

It does not seem to deter the hiso's here does it

[mogandave]

Not sure you understand anything anyone says.
The decision to break the law is almost always an irrational one as in each case society has applied penalties that outweigh the benefits.
Most criminals would appear to operate under the pretence that they will not be caught thus the deterrence value of most punitive measures are somewhat limited.

So you misspoke when you said only crimes that are punishable by death. I assumes as much but I appreciate your candor.

But that begs the question; Why incarcerate them at all?

Realistically, while most people do not think they will be caught, they all understand they MAY be caught, and the severity of the punishment is really the only deterrent.

People often exceed the speed limit, and they all understand they may be caught and fined. I speeding were punishable by death, would fewer people speed?

If people only paid a $50 fine for armed robbery, would more people be armed robbers?

Again, I do not support the death penalty for any crime under any circumstances, I just do not think you have a valid argument.

[digger70]

13 hours ago, Moonmoon said:

 

 

really?

 

Singapore just executed a Malaysian Man based on circumstantial evidence for drug trafficking. 

If capital punishment is reserved for a certain crime. Wouldn't it be the utmost importance for all the evidence to be without a doubt before the sentence is mete out? 

If there is some evidence to suggest otherwise, I would prefer a life or lengthy sentence for drug offences just in case the justice system does not kill someone wrongly. 

 

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/07/malaysian-executed-for-drugs-conviction-in-singapore-after-unfair-trial-a-shocking-violation-of-the-human-right-to-life/

 

if death penalty is 100% effective, then why are there still Drug abusers and Drug traffickers in Singapore? I thought its supposed to be 100% ? 

The death penalty is a 100%  Cure for Reoffending,,,If one is exterminated one Can't Reoffend,,, 

[gandalf12]

2 hours ago, Yinglove said:

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.

Not at the expense of the tax payer though and life shoukd mean life. No chance of parole or "he / She has reformed"

[taffeylad]

What a load of rubbish. It may not deter later offenders but certainly stops you committing the murder to do so again.

[Roger Harris]

Read all this S hit, so why is it that a murderer can be shot by police when they try to get away. If proven guilty, hang them high. Less tax payers money for these criminals. Now the do gooders that run the western world will disagree what I have said. Because they have no knowlege of the <deleted> that are out there. Ex prison officer

[Roger Harris]

Not at the expense of the tax payer though and life shoukd mean life. No chance of parole or "he / She has reformed

 

Reformed, you got to be joking, these are recidivists offenders, (NO HOPE FOR THEM) How many murders or rapings do you want to see before taking serious action. What if it was you partener or one of your kids. I guess a different story from you.

[mogandave]

Not at the expense of the tax payer though and life shoukd mean life. No chance of parole or "he / She has reformed
 
Reformed, you got to be joking, these are recidivists offenders, (NO HOPE FOR THEM) How many murders or rapings do you want to see before taking serious action. What if it was you partener or one of your kids. I guess a different story from you.

We need to love them until they learn to love themselves.

[Jonmarleesco]

16 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Public Prosecutor Uthai Athivej said the idea of getting rid of repeat crime offenders from society was “too harsh”, and that in practice capital punishment had been unable to deter repeat offences.

You what? Capital punishment means execution. No chance of a repeat offence - unless they can find a way to rise from the dead.

 

Deterring other offenders? Well, we only have governments ' (all governments) statistics and their claims by which to go - data and interpretation of which certainly wouldn't be aimed at demonstrating the error of their ways in removing capital punishment from the penalty options.

 

In removing capital (and corporal) punishment from the statute books some fifty-plus years ago, the UK government then claimed it would mete out due and proper imprisonment to the offenders, including life that would mean life. Complete and utter BS, as it has turned out! No wonder the legal system there is such a shambling untrustworthy wreck. 

 

I'll give you that once dead, there is no coming back - whatever the Thais might believe. So capital punishment can only be right where there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the perpetrator. But should the option of capital punishment really be abandoned, even for the most heinous crimes? Only if the authorities commit to making damned sure that an equally appropriate punishment is imposed, and not rescinded unless fresh evidence is brought to light.

[Yinglove]

1 minute ago, Jonmarleesco said:

You what? Capital punishment means execution. No chance of a repeat offence - unless they can find a way to rise from the dead.

 

Deterring other offenders? Well, we only have governments ' (all governments) statistics and their claims by which to go - data and interpretation of which certainly wouldn't be aimed at demonstrating the error of their ways in removing capital punishment from the penalty options.

 

In removing capital (and corporal) punishment from the statute books some fifty-plus years ago, the UK government then claimed it would mete out due and proper imprisonment to the offenders, including life that would mean life. Complete and utter BS, as it has turned out! No wonder the legal system there is such a shambling untrustworthy wreck. 

 

I'll give you that once dead, there is no coming back - whatever the Thais might believe. So capital punishment can only be right where there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the perpetrator. But should the option of capital punishment really be abandoned, even for the most heinous crimes? Only if the authorities commit to making damned sure that an equally appropriate punishment is imposed, and not rescinded unless fresh evidence is brought to light.

Perhaps a little reading may help you.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010

[rijb]

The victims families might want a say in an appropriate punishment.

[Mac98]

Society generally wants deterrence of lesser crimes, such as property crimes or substance abuse, but want "justice" above all else for major crimes, such as especially violent murder involving women or children.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Mac98
Add clarification.

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, PeCeDe said:

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.

But why does the deterrence factor only apply to the death penalty? Robbery is illegal, but it still occurs everywhere. This doesn't mean the law is not effective. The death penalty is a punishment for murdering someone (in the USA) usually with a number of circumstances attached to even become eligible for the sentence. The person that is executed will not murder anyone ever again, that is deterrence (for the dead dude anyway).

[PeCeDe]

Agreed, but it's a bit like bolting the gate after the horse is gone. That murderer will not commit the crime again, true, but what about the next guy, and the next. Why is Britains and many other countries murder rate so much less than the US? Some say it's the relative absence of guns, maybe it's also education, history and other factors. Britain no longer has the death penalty and the murder rate hasn't changed to a large extent. So what's different? Certainly not Britains care more about life or are in some way superior. I don't have the answer, wish I did.

Edited August 14, 2017 by PeCeDe
added a few words

[coulson]

totally agree ....  and if used in other countries for drug sellers, pushers and traffickers they wouldn't be in such a mess.

The punishment is only effective if handed down to the correct culprit in the first place.

The justice system in Thailand is not conducive to administering appropriate capital punishment, therefore it is not at all effective here.

Look what happened in the Philippines, not a complete mess you say?

[PeCeDe]

Murder rates 3-4 years ago by country according to the UN.

 

USA 4.88 per 100k has death penalty in many States

Thailand 3.51 per 100k has death penalty

Canada 1.68 per 100k does not have death penalty

UK 0.92 per 100k does not have death penalty

 

If you just use statistics, then it seems the death penalty had little to no deterrence. Perhaps the real question should be why the huge gap between US, Thailand at the higher end and then the Uk and Canada at the lower end in murder rates?

 

BTW, there are many countries whose murder rate is far higher.

[taffeylad]

People who believe murderers and child rapist deserve to live are misguided.

Even other prisoners are known to have meted out direct punishment to certain types of murderers while in prison. There is a limit that society will accept.

[Farang99]

You don't get many repeat offenders!

[PeCeDe]

5 minutes ago, Farang99 said:

You don't get many repeat offenders!

Absolutely, but that doesn't answer the original question, there are still plenty of murderers "to be," where the death penalty is not on their mind when they  decide to kill and therefore it's not a deterrent.

[KKr]

On 8/13/2017 at 5:30 AM, rooster59 said:

that in practice capital punishment had been unable to deter repeat offences.

indeed, and even more so, if those punished would be out on Parole the deterrent effect is negative.

[KKr]

1 hour ago, PeCeDe said:

Absolutely, but that doesn't answer the original question, there are still plenty of murderers "to be," where the death penalty is not on their mind when they  decide to kill and therefore it's not a deterrent.

I think there is a difference between someone killing in a rage, who does not have the capability to control himself in that instance (p.e. see your child being raped) and claims temporary insanity), and someone planning to kill, get pleasure of the killing, or premeditated carrying weapons just in case p.e. someone is not polite in the elevator. 

[Stargeezr]

The Death penalty is indeed 100 percernt effective. I have not had to talk to anyone who has been

put to death yet. The Guillotine should be the way for the death penalty, as the body of the deceased

can be used for medical purpose. Even the eyes can be used. It may not be 100 percent effective as

a deterrent as there are some people who will kill, regardless, and people who will be drug dealers

no matter what,  but if they are caught in Singapore well I guess there is at least one place in the world

where some will not go and be stupid at.  China has a pretty cheap method as well, a shot in the head

so that does not cost the country too much to end the life of a criminal. Guess you can see that I am not

in favor of Murderers , especially getting to keep on living after they have ended someones life.

Geeze