freeman3 wrote:Well, I guess death row facilities do not qualify "as the kind of prisons we have in the western world."

You're getting borderline dishonest here. My comment was specifically to Sass' comments about the death penalty not being appropriate, but life without being sufficient.

Life without parole sentences are not served in death row facilities. Please stop.

Honestly, I am getting tired of this kind of stuff. I don't need it. The meaning of western prisons seems pretty clear on its face. If you meant something differently fine--I suspect that I'm not the only reader who did not catch that nuance. But going to the liar card is BS. I think I might want to take a break from this nonsense.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Doesn't the fact that crime rates going down both in countries that have and don't have the death penalty reduce that as a factor?

Well it certainly undermines the idea that putting people to death makes a difference.

Or that it doesn't...

No, brad, that's not how logic works. If crime rates are falling regardless of death penalty, then it suggests that it does not make a difference. How would you possibly extrapolate that this would undermine the idea that it does not make a difference.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I would only add that I'm (likely) more familiar with the criminal mind than most here. The kind of prisons we have in the Western world don't frighten them or fret them . . . not even a little.

I think the problem is here that the police don't actually understand criminals or criminality as much as they like to think they do.

Well then, please enlighten me.

I can't reason you out of a prejudice you did not reason yourself into.

This is not an issue where the usual Redscape standard of debate is appropriate in my view, so it would be nice if everybody could stop sniping. Generally speaking those pro and anti capital punishment are arguing from principled positions which can be justified and it would be nice if we could make an exception to the usual bitchfest and show a little more respect for that.

Anyway...

I am not sure what you mean by pseudo-science, Sass. Most (if not all)political beliefs cannot be reduced to some kind of scientific certainty. And beliefs regarding the appropriateness of capital punishment are no different. You look at the world, look at the data you can, and make a determination.

The problem is that it's not scientific in any way, you've just identified a tenuous correlation and then speculated that there could be a causal link. It doesn't seem to make intuitive sense to me that opposition to capital punishment makes you less likely to be a killer, which is effectively what you're arguing (or at least speculating about). I suppose it might have some effect in the sense that many opponents of capital punishment strongly believe that it's wrong to take a life in any circumstances and apply that to the state as well as the individual, but it's a bit of a reach and you'd then have to believe the converse to be true, that supporting the death penalty inclines you to become a killer yourself. I don't think this really passes Occam's razor, there are simpler explanations. In fact it's far more likely that falling murder rates lead to declining support for capital punishment than the other way round.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Sassenach wrote:I very much doubt there's a lot of joy in the air in your average high security prison.

Not all convicted murderers remain cold-hearted sociopaths until the day they die. Serving a lifetime in prison gives them all the time they need to experience the full weight of remorse for their actions.

I don't accept that it's not about catharsis, and neither do I accept that the only just punishment for taking a life is the taking of another life. We're obviously never going to agree on this point, but I don't think either of us has the wisdom of Solomon (apologies for the biblical reference, but it seemed appropriate). One man's justice may differ sharply from another man's justice. This self evident truth is why I think this is mostly about catharsis. Those who share your conception of justice want to feel that justice (as you define it) has been done. I can't criticise you for that, but I can respectfully disagree.

Nicely put.

I would only add that I'm (likely) more familiar with the criminal mind than most here. The kind of prisons we have in the Western world don't frighten them or fret them . . . not even a little.

Freeman3, this is the context of my comment about Western prisons. I was responding to Sass. He was not talking about spending time in death-row cells and neither was I. When I said it was "borderline dishonest," it was because you are shifting to another level. No one is speaking about solitary confinement on death-row for decades. We were discussing life without the possibility of parole as it happens in actuality.

I did not call you a "liar." However, no one, and I do mean NO ONE, can look at the context and suggest it was along the lines that you subsequently suggested.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I would only add that I'm (likely) more familiar with the criminal mind than most here. The kind of prisons we have in the Western world don't frighten them or fret them . . . not even a little.

I think the problem is here that the police don't actually understand criminals or criminality as much as they like to think they do.

Well then, please enlighten me.

I can't reason you out of a prejudice you did not reason yourself into.

Actually, you have no rational basis for your statement and are thus bailing. That's fine. Disingenuous, but fine.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Doesn't the fact that crime rates going down both in countries that have and don't have the death penalty reduce that as a factor?

Well it certainly undermines the idea that putting people to death makes a difference.

Or that it doesn't...

No, brad, that's not how logic works. If crime rates are falling regardless of death penalty, then it suggests that it does not make a difference. How would you possibly extrapolate that this would undermine the idea that it does not make a difference.

Owen, I think we are agreeing here. Each of us are saying that the death penalty doesn't make a difference in the reduction or increase of crime around the world.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Doesn't the fact that crime rates going down both in countries that have and don't have the death penalty reduce that as a factor?

Well it certainly undermines the idea that putting people to death makes a difference.

Or that it doesn't...

No, brad, that's not how logic works. If crime rates are falling regardless of death penalty, then it suggests that it does not make a difference. How would you possibly extrapolate that this would undermine the idea that it does not make a difference.

Owen, I think we are agreeing here. Each of us are saying that the death penalty doesn't make a difference in the reduction or increase of crime around the world.

In which case, I think your response is what confused me, as it was in response to me essentially saying that the case that it does make a difference (and by implication that is EITHER a positive or negative correlation) is undermined by the data.

So, as we agree that the death penalty does not seem to have an impact on criminality, why carry it out?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I would only add that I'm (likely) more familiar with the criminal mind than most here. The kind of prisons we have in the Western world don't frighten them or fret them . . . not even a little.

I think the problem is here that the police don't actually understand criminals or criminality as much as they like to think they do.

Well then, please enlighten me.

I can't reason you out of a prejudice you did not reason yourself into.

Actually, you have no rational basis for your statement and are thus bailing. That's fine. Disingenuous, but fine.

Actually, I do. it is called "observer bias".

As a police officer / corrections officer, you come into contact with criminals. Clearly these are people who were not sufficiently deterred by the prospect of penalties to not commit the crime.

However, criminals are not separate from the rest of humanity, they are people. The difference is in behaviour, but it is not necessarily a permanent state of mind. There are those who are habitual criminals, and maybe you can claim these have a "criminal mindset". But there are aslo reformed criminals. And there are people who commit a criminal act once for all kinds of reasons and when those reasons go away do not do so again. Or who gain an extra reason (living through the repercussions of their crime, for example) to not do so again.

But even so, your observation of criminals misses the point that people who don't commit crime (including those who did before and have stopped), are not going to be convicted.

So you are only seeing one side of the "failure" of the deterrent effect, and not those who actually are deterred.

The question then is this:

We are talking about the death penalty, and your response is that prison is not a deterrence. OK. So can you show me that the death penalty is a deterrence?

And further, can you show that it is more of one than life imprisonment?

Because if it is not, then the question of whether prison deters crime is utterly irrelevant when we are actually talking about the death penalty.

That would take some comparative data. Not subjective application of your cod-psychological assessment of a subset of people - a subset that let it be clear, your work was all about being in opposition to, and so there is another possible source of unconscious bias at play.

And the discussion that we had which bbauska joined in on was observing that there has overall been a fall in crime (and murder) regardless of whether a death penalty was in place. Which means that whatever it is that is stopping criminal acts, it seems unlikely that it is the prospect of death penalties. Even if "common sense" tells you that it should be a significant factor, the data suggests that it is not.

When reality conflicts with a conjecture, the scientific / logical approach is to challenge that conjecture.

I will leave you with this. If you want to argue that prison can't be much of a deterrent because criminals still commit crime, then the death penalty is also failing because in Connecticut and in Georgia the death penalty was in force at the time of the crimes of murder we have been looking at.

Connecticut reinstated the death penalty in 1973, and had last executed someone in 2005, before the Cheshire murders in 2007. The death penalty was abolished only this year (in 2012 it was abolished but not for those already on death row).

Georgia reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Between 1983 and 1997 (ie: before Gissendaner's crime), the state had executed 22 people.

danivon wrote:Actually, I do. it is called "observer bias".

If you wish. Others call it "experience."

However, criminals are not separate from the rest of humanity, they are people. The difference is in behaviour, but it is not necessarily a permanent state of mind. There are those who are habitual criminals, and maybe you can claim these have a "criminal mindset". But there are aslo reformed criminals. And there are people who commit a criminal act once for all kinds of reasons and when those reasons go away do not do so again. Or who gain an extra reason (living through the repercussions of their crime, for example) to not do so again.

This is, sadly, not as many as we would like to see.

But even so, your observation of criminals misses the point that people who don't commit crime (including those who did before and have stopped), are not going to be convicted.

Right. How odd for me not to take into account those who don't commit crime.

So you are only seeing one side of the "failure" of the deterrent effect, and not those who actually are deterred.

Immeasurable and unknowable.

The question then is this:

We are talking about the death penalty, and your response is that prison is not a deterrence. OK. So can you show me that the death penalty is a deterrence?

And further, can you show that it is more of one than life imprisonment?

I don't need to show it because I've not made either argument. I'm indifferent. The death penalty ought to be applied in some situations because it is the only means of justice.

That would take some comparative data. Not subjective application of your cod-psychological assessment of a subset of people - a subset that let it be clear, your work was all about being in opposition to, and so there is another possible source of unconscious bias at play.

Absolutely wrong. If I were "all about being in opposition" to criminals, I would never understand them. Empathy, in some measure, is an absolute necessity. One must listen and at least try to understand the reasoning.

And the discussion that we had which bbauska joined in on was observing that there has overall been a fall in crime (and murder) regardless of whether a death penalty was in place. Which means that whatever it is that is stopping criminal acts, it seems unlikely that it is the prospect of death penalties. Even if "common sense" tells you that it should be a significant factor, the data suggests that it is not.

Again, this is erring in terms of there being a connection between the two. Again, I don't care about the deterrence value of the death penalty. Some people are so evil that a visit from God Himself would not change their course.

I will leave you with this. If you want to argue that prison can't be much of a deterrent because criminals still commit crime, then the death penalty is also failing because in Connecticut and in Georgia the death penalty was in force at the time of the crimes of murder we have been looking at.

The death penalty, if actually carried out in a timely manner, might be a deterrent. However, we have no way of knowing because our system has become so convoluted.

That said, to compare prison life to the death penalty is a tough road. Criminals are not afraid of prison, but they might not have the same low regard for death--if they knew it was not decades away.

Connecticut reinstated the death penalty in 1973, and had last executed someone in 2005, before the Cheshire murders in 2007. The death penalty was abolished only this year (in 2012 it was abolished but not for those already on death row).

Georgia reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Between 1983 and 1997 (ie: before Gissendaner's crime), the state had executed 22 people.

Great. You've proven that the death penalty, rarely applied and then only after many years of appeal, is not necessarily a deterrent. So what? I've not argued that it is.

However, if it is applied, we know the recidivism rate is extremely low. Every study shows that.

danivon wrote:So, as we agree that the death penalty does not seem to have an impact on criminality, why carry it out?

For the sake of justice. Not the sake of society's desire to have warm happy feelings. To not value the life of a victim ABOVE that of the criminal convicted is a perversion of justice.

I want to state that not all murder should be getting the death penalty. There are those who act in passion w/o forethought. For someone deserving I use a great example of the CT murders of the 3 ladies after raping them.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:So, as we agree that the death penalty does not seem to have an impact on criminality, why carry it out?

For the sake of justice. Not the sake of society's desire to have warm happy feelings. To not value the life of a victim ABOVE that of the criminal convicted is a perversion of justice.

I want to state that not all murder should be getting the death penalty. There are those who act in passion w/o forethought. For someone deserving I use a great example of the CT murders of the 3 ladies after raping them.

So what is "justice".

Punishment? Redemption? Atonement? Revenge?

Justice:
the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

Punishment? Yes
Redemption? Not my concern. That is between the criminal and his/her higher power
Atonement? Not my concern. That is between the criminal and his/her higher power
Revenge? Never! Just as with children, there should not be punishment meted out of revenge.

Brad, that isn't an answer. The question is what constitutes appropriate or sufficient punishment. Opinions will always vary on that question, and there isn't any objective standard by which it can be judged. This is why the two of us will never agree on the issue of capital punishment.