Death Penalty Saves 18 lives per year?

[Jakboi]

Hey,

I know most of Europe and several other nations around the World dislike the death penalty and constantly harp on the US for having such a bad policy. I came across this interesting study that says the death penalty saves lives and would save more lives if death row were quickend up. Now to the accuracy of the findings I am not too sure, but food for thought either way.

Studies: Death Penalty Discourages Crime

(I mean its not like we are chopping heads off, stoning to death, or placing people in front of a fire squad.)

 

[GaryPanic]

Personal view (and if you trawl through my posts you will see this)
The death penalty as a punishiment and/or deterrent I think is flawed - its not punishiment unless its drawn out and then thats inhumane - and as a deterent don't think this works .

However when used to cull the herd . ie that behaveouir is unacceptable and you are incapble of change then thin the herd,

this does allow a single killing - ie if some one was killed - then the fealth penatly would not apply - more than 1 death (excpte by accident) - then hang em....

as to whether its saves lives - this is subject if you kill a killer does this reduce the killers out there, no cos if they were a killer - you should of locked them up

problem with statatistics is you can read them anyway you want, if yu want a report to show a given answer, then you can lean on the questions to get this result
(This applies to all reports, none can really been seen as object, because the people asking the questions are already basis to one side or the other, and even the way a question is "asked can lead someone to answer it differently than they might of)

See you got me rambling again...
g

 

[ColinEssex]

I see this story is from Fox news, owned by Rupert Murdoch so it's bound to be biased towards his thoughts. Fox news would not dare print or show anything that may incur his wrath - he's too powerful.

Thats one reason why we changed from Sky to Virgin, SkyNews was saying slightly different things about main stories as compared to BBC and ITV - to reflect Murdoch's stance on politics etc.

Col

 

[GaryPanic]

Total agree with Colin on this one. gasp! surprise

Murdoch too much power
same goes for R B
and also the BBC being a tool of the Goverment -

 

[Newman]

This may be good as prevention, but...
If someone already killed someone else and there is a death penalty where he reside, he would probably do anything to be sure not to get caught, including more kills. It is also true without death penalty, but I am sure that it is more present with than without.
Of course this is true for what I call «Killer with a "reason"» (ie: Killing cheating wife/husband, killing associate who get the new job, killing the guy who hurt a child, etc.), but with do nothing more or less to a «Killer without a "reason"» (ie: serial killer, thrill killer, terrorist, etc.) who would keep on killing no matter what the penalty is. These are just sick killers that aren't affraid of death anyway.
I am for death penalty for the last group. Not as a prevention, but just because there is nothing to do with these one. Sentencing for life gives nothing more than filling the jails.
As for the first group, I think that they deserve jail sentences without the right to get out before they've proven that they change, no matter how long the sentence.

A good exemple is "Clermont Bégin" here in Quebec. He was sentenced for eleven years for the ra** of a young lady. After eleven years he as the right to get out, even if he says that he would do it again. I don't know if he should have be sentenced to death, but he sure should not be walking in the streets.

 

[Fifty2One]

This may be good as prevention, but...
If someone already killed someone else and there is a death penalty where he reside, he would probably do anything to be sure not to get caught, including more kills. It is also true without death penalty, but I am sure that it is more present with than without.
Of course this is true for what I call «Killer with a "reason"» (ie: Killing cheating wife/husband, killing associate who get the new job, killing the guy who hurt a child, etc.), but with do nothing more or less to a «Killer without a "reason"» (ie: serial killer, thrill killer, terrorist, etc.) who would keep on killing no matter what the penalty is. These are just sick killers that aren't affraid of death anyway.
I am for death penalty for the last group. Not as a prevention, but just because there is nothing to do with these one. Sentencing for life gives nothing more than filling the jails.
As for the first group, I think that they deserve jail sentences without the right to get out before they've proven that they change, no matter how long the sentence.

A good exemple is "Clermont Bégin" here in Quebec. He was sentenced for eleven years for the ra** of a young lady. After eleven years he as the right to get out, even if he says that he would do it again. I don't know if he should have be sentenced to death, but he sure should not be walking in the streets.

If they had public execution and dismemberment for certain criminal elements not only would it cull the bad from the herd but it the admission charge could go to a fund for the victims of crime and crime prevention programs...

Even if the government put the money into the general coffers, the public flogging of Clermont Bégin probably would have paid off the Big O ahead of time...

 

[GaryPanic]

Guys - I like it that this seems to be going down the route of culling the herd -rather than punishment .g

 

[Newman]

«Oye Oye, You can give this man one shot of whip for 1$, 3 shots for 2$. All the money raised will go to his victim.»
Would probably raise more money than with any telethon.

Seriously, some people are saying that he will get kill somehow, maybe by some bikers that would be disgussed about what he did.

 

[ColinEssex]

Seriously, some people are saying that he will get kill somehow, maybe by some bikers that would be disgussed about what he did.

are you saying that bikers are killers? I'd be interested in your references to that comment.

Col

 

[Newman]

Sorry, I didn't mean "bikers" as someone who rides a bike, but as some gangs of bikers that formed outlaw groups. Here, we just call them "bikers". What you call "bikers" we call "riders". Cultural error here, never meant to call you a killer.

 

[ColinEssex]

Sorry, I didn't mean "bikers" as someone who rides a bike, but as some gangs of bikers that formed outlaw groups. Here, we just call them "bikers". What you call "bikers" we call "riders". Cultural error here, never meant to call you a killer.

We have gangs of bikers here - they are usually the Hells Angel types you are referring to. Oddly, here, they do alot of charity work and "protection" duties at events.
Killing is not one of they're specialties - that must be an American thing that's spilled over the border.

Col

 

[KalelGmoon]

We have gangs of bikers here - they are usually the Hells Angel types you are referring to. Oddly, here, they do alot of charity work and "protection" duties at events.
Killing is not one of they're specialties - that must be an American thing that's spilled over the border.

Col

there are some groups who are the "ruffians" but also we have groups at least here anyway who do the protection thing, like a t funerals for soldiers when Fred Phelps thinks he needs to send his pinhead followers out to protest them. the families have enough to deal with without these idiots adding to it. they also do charity things like toy runs at christmas and the holidays

 

[Fifty2One]

«Oye Oye, You can give this man one shot of whip for 1$, 3 shots for 2$. All the money raised will go to his victim.»
Would probably raise more money than with any telethon.

Seriously, some people are saying that he will get kill somehow, maybe by some bikers that would be disgussed about what he did.

Its a good thing for some criminals that Newman and I are not in any position of power to create policies regarding the treatment of inmates.


My other thoughts on crimes against women and children would be to just tatoo "Child Molester" or "Rapist" etc on the criminals forehead and just let him loose in the general population of the penetentiary... just call it the DEAL WITH IT law...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I've thought long and hard about this because of some of the more reactionary politicions I've had to consider in elections. Voting for someone who favors harsh punishment but generally high levels of civil rights can be a tough choice over here.

I believe that every state, every nation, should have a sentence that says "out of society forever." It is clear that a death penalty law would have that effect. But I would say it is OK as long the sentence is a true equivalent to LIFE WITH NO PAROLE, PARDON, OR COMMUTATION. In other works, lock up the perp and toss the key. If new evidence comes along to prove the wrong man is behind bars, well and good. And if not, let the perp sit in the cell and rot.

The problem with prisons that they don't seem to be effective in terms of rehabilitating the hard-core killers. The violent types are not cured by a stay in the slammer. No justice can occur in such cases because the tough guys come out and are ready to kill again. The victim is still dead, the family has no closure, and the perp walks. To me, prison is the only safe place to put someone who won't (or can't) be rehabilitated.

So I take the view, similar to "clling the herd" but perhaps a little different, that states or nations have the right to simply protect their people from intractable predators. Who CARES if the prison conditions are deplorable. That might be the ONLY deterrent available. Let folks see just how really bad the prisons are. Make it clear that you don't want to go to a prison.

These days, a sentence of "life in prison" doesn't deter so much as it makes a person fall into the "out of sight, out of mind" category. Deterrence isn't an issue with a truly hard-core "gang-banger" (for our UK friends, that's slang for an active member of a violent street gang). They can come right out and start getting violent all over again.

I take a different view than some regarding death penalties in another sense. We sanitize it too much. The "cruel and unusual" punishment clause, though it is a significant part of my nation's legal foundation, is sometimes wrong. I'm more of a "let the punishment fit the crime" kind of guy. And a proponent of one other idea that isn't really very popular.

If you are going to execute someone, make it public. REALLY public. Don't molly-coddle kids so that they don't learn anything. Let them watch as the killers fry, jerk, and twitch in the electric chair; dangle, jerk, and twist from a noose; choke and maybe even puke while straining at the straps due to lethal gas; or go into uncontrollable spasms from lethal injection.

Yes, it will give the kids nightmares. Darned if that's a bad thing. Let them forever be scarred by the sight of someone dying before their eyes so they will THINK ABOUT IT before they do something that would earn them their few seconds of fame at an executioner's hand. Make the condemned person a good example if nothing else good can come of it.

But then again, given the special effects on TV and movies these days, the kids would probably think it was a bit tame. Much more's the pity.

 

[Newman]

Deterrence isn't an issue with a truly hard-core "gang-banger" (for our UK friends, that's slang for an active member of a violent street gang).

I am glad that you gave your definition, because here it means "someone who has sex with many people at the same time". I was wondering where you were going to, until I read your definition.

 

[ColinEssex]

I am glad that you gave your definition, because here it means "someone who has sex with many people at the same time". I was wondering where you were going to, until I read your definition.

In the UK a "gang bang" is when a gang of men force a girl to have sex repeatedly with each of them in turn.

Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The "group sex" definition also applies in the deep South of the USA, but it has slowly been replaced by the gang-violence definition. Twenty years ago the sexual definition would probably have been the only one in use. Today, sadly not so.

We still talk about "gang ra**" in that older sense because it is unequivocal. But the violent street gang members have started to be referred to under the aegis of "gang bangers."