Stroopwafel Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) The first statement is laughable. I actually hope if someone murders someone close to you, you'll think about it more deeply.The second statement is false. The sentence can be extended if he's considered to be a threat at that point. But he's already made his political statement, so why would he be a threat?How about a 1-year sentence for mass murder? Does that satisfy your bizarre logic?The right thing would have been to shoot him in the head as soon as police were on the scene, and toss the body in the sea, to be forgotten with other trash. I'll just say I am glad you are not "in charge". For your consideration: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201402/don-t-confuse-revenge-justice-five-key-differences Edited November 25, 2014 by Stroopwafel
The Nehor Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Question: If capital punishment is not a deterrent why do those who murder go to great effort to conceal their crime?Because they believe it will prevent them from getting caught which is a normal response. The question should be: do criminals work harder at concealing their crime if there is a possibility of capital punishment as opposed to just a long or lifelong prison sentence? I doubt it.
pogi Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 I can think of lots of deterrents for crime, we can torture, cut off hands, or stick them in a cell and make them watch tell teletubbies re-runs for the rest of their life. The ends doesn't always justify the means - especially when the ends means that innocent people will be killed.
Sleeper Cell Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 It is doubtful this is even an issue. Those in prison for life or on death row do not generally interact with other prisoners much.. As far as I know, those in prison for life are not segregated from the general population, absent other factors. Even if they were, many of those serving life are not murderers, nor is there any reason to suppose that there isn’t as great a proportion of innocent people serving life for murder as innocent people on death row. Probably more, as death penalty cases generally get a much more thorough review. I wish one of these anti-capital punishment groups would also do a comprehensive study on prison murders. I agree it isn’t an issue for those on death row. But isn’t that an argument for having a death row? Do you honestly believe that someone weighs the pros and cons of murdering someone before committing a murder? During a crime of passion this isn't considered. Even in cases of premeditated crime studies show there is one primary determinant for whether someone commits a crime: whether they believe they will get caught. They usually believe they won't. Harsher sentences don't seem to factor into people's choices. There might be a few out there who were deterred from killing someone out of fear of the death penalty but the statistics show it is a very small or non-existent group. Murders per capita do not go down in states where the death penalty is legal.I honestly believe that some do. IIRC, crimes of passion are not subject to the death penalty. Generally speaking, can statistics distinguish between a very small group and a non-existent group? Even if we agree that it is a very small group, so is the group of executed people who turn out to be innocent.. If we are going to oppose the death penalty on the grounds that a few innocent people have been executed, shouldn’t we apply the same standard to the proposed alternatives? Or at least make the same effort to identify any instances of the death penalty saving innocent lives as we do to identify instances of the death penalty costing innocent lives. Presumably the studies you reference did not conclude that the death penalty was never a factor (just that it wasn’t the primary factor); otherwise, you probably would have mentioned it. To put it in terms of ourselves think about speeding. Do we slow down more when we are in an area with harsher speeding fines or in areas we believe have a lot of traffic cops on patrol or where there are usually speed traps? For almost everyone it is the latter.Drivers make a risk-benefit judgment. The risk of a fine vs. the perceived benefits of speeding. If there were a death penalty for speeding, I think you would find far fewer speeders. I, for one, would take the bus. 1
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Forgiveness does not mean absolution from consequences. It is irrelevant to whether the death penalty.is imposed or not. What I get from reading the Book of Mormon is that the death penalty became unnecessary after the Cross: Alma 34:11-13 ..now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood... 1
carbon dioxide Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Question: If capital punishment is not a deterrent why do those who murder go to great effort to conceal their crime?It really does not matter if it is a deterrent. We know that prison is not a deterrent to crime. If it does deter crime it is only icing on the cake. 1
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 It really does not matter if it is a deterrent. We know that prison is not a deterrent to crime. If it does deter crime it is only icing on the cake. So prison (or the death penalty) are not deterrents, merely retribution. Vengeance.
Stroopwafel Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) So prison (or the death penalty) are not deterrents, merely retribution. Vengeance. That is exactly what it is. If you're interested, or anyone else for that matter, to dig a bit deeper in this direction, I'd recommend reading a book called Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, by Michel Foucault. Edited November 30, 2014 by Stroopwafel
ERayR Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 So prison (or the death penalty) are not deterrents, merely retribution. Vengeance. No but it is a place to keep them away from society.
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 So prison (or the death penalty) are not deterrents, merely retribution. Vengeance. I wouldn't go that far. Punishment in general serves to deter but the degree of punishment stops having an effect at a certain point. I think the primary motivation behind punishment has to be that the person deserves it. Treat them like a human being and figure out what justice reasonable demands for their actions. Most other motivations lead to injustice. If the primary purpose is to deter criminals then the example does not need to be guilty. People just have to think they are and the example works. If the primary purpose is rehabilitation then the smart thing to do is hold them until they are cured and will not commit the crime ever again. You can release a murderer in a day if you are convinced they will never murder again and hold someone who shoplifts a stick of gum indefinitely because you are unsure if their gum-stealing ways will continue and you need to continue treatment until you are certain. Vengeance is a bad motive because it blows the crime out of proportion and is based primarily on darker emotional impulses based on the desire for other's suffering. God can bring vengeance without malice; we cannot. I think the United States in general punishes people far more then their crimes deserve. There are a few crimes that I think need more serious punishment but they are few. 1
LinuxGal Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) I think the United States in general punishes people far more then their crimes deserve. There are a few crimes that I think need more serious punishment but they are few. Here in the state of Washington we made marijuana possession legal. I don't use it myself, but I consider it fairly harmless, certainly more so than alcohol, and our jails were filling up with users and dealers when we should be putting car thieves in there instead. Edited November 30, 2014 by LinuxGal
The Nehor Posted November 30, 2014 Posted November 30, 2014 Here in the state of Washington we made marijuana possession legal. I don't use it myself, but I consider it fairly harmless, certainly more so than alcohol, and our jails were filling up with users and dealers when we should be putting car thieves in there instead.I work in drug and alcohol testing. Marijuana is reasonably safe as long as you do not drive or do anything dangerous while under the influence. It can ruin lives if it is a crutch and use is excessive but the same can be said of alcohol and marijuanas physical addiction is so weak it is almost non-existent.
emarkp Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 So prison (or the death penalty) are not deterrents, merely retribution. Vengeance.Nope. Consequences. 1
The Nehor Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Nope. Consequences.Man-made and somewhat arbitrary consequences. We all have a vested interest in ensuring they are just and fair or as just and fair as we can make them. Saying they are consequences and people know what they are does not excuse our society for unduly harsh punishment.
LinuxGal Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Man-made and somewhat arbitrary consequences. We all have a vested interest in ensuring they are just and fair or as just and fair as we can make them. Saying they are consequences and people know what they are does not excuse our society for unduly harsh punishment. Alma 34:13, as I cited above, said, "...it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood..." If we are free to ignore the scriptures at will, then what is the point of sending the Elders around with them?
halconero Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Alma 34:13, as I cited above, said, "...it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood..."If we are free to ignore the scriptures at will, then what is the point of sending the Elders around with them?Context matters.This verse refers to the cessassation of sacrifices according to Mosaic Law following the Atonement of Christ. 1
LinuxGal Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 This verse refers to the cessassation of sacrifices according to Mosaic Law following the Atonement of Christ. Precisely. And putting a death a murderer as required in the Mosaic Law amounts to a human sacrifice, forcing him to atone in his own blood. Why am I telling this to Mormons in the Brigham Young tradition?
halconero Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Precisely. And putting a death a murderer as required in the Mosaic Law amounts to a human sacrifice, forcing him to atone in his own blood. Why am I telling this to Mormons in the Brigham Young tradition? Can you show me where execution amounts to sacrifice according to Mosaic Law? 4
The Nehor Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Can you show me where execution amounts to sacrifice according to Mosaic Law?The since-discarded doctrine of blood atonement taught by Brigham Young. He tied it to Old Testament law.
halconero Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 The since-discarded doctrine of blood atonement taught by Brigham Young. He tied it to Old Testament law. I'm not talking about Blood Atonement as taught by Brigham. I'm referring to specifically Old Testament law with the exclusion of later interpretations. There is a big difference between sacrifice and theocratic/governmental execution in the Old Testament. Nor does Jesus Christ's Atonement necessarily abrogate the legal authority of the state to enforce capital punishment due to his being the last sacrifice for sin. 4
emarkp Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Man-made and somewhat arbitrary consequences. We all have a vested interest in ensuring they are just and fair or as just and fair as we can make them. Saying they are consequences and people know what they are does not excuse our society for unduly harsh punishment. And disagreeing with what one believes to be appropriate consequences is not grounds for others to assert that it is vengeance, which is the point I was making. Furthermore, it is the right of a person to kill an assailant who is attempting grievous harm, and thus reasonable justification for that as the punishment if there is sufficient evidence. Capital punishment is thus more reasonably linked to natural law than putting someone in a cage for some arbitrary time. 2
The Nehor Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 And disagreeing with what one believes to be appropriate consequences is not grounds for others to assert that it is vengeance, which is the point I was making. Furthermore, it is the right of a person to kill an assailant who is attempting grievous harm, and thus reasonable justification for that as the punishment if there is sufficient evidence.Capital punishment is thus more reasonably linked to natural law than putting someone in a cage for some arbitrary time.It may not be grounds by itself but it can be a strong hint.I deny your proposition that because something is permissible in extreme circumstances of self-defense it becomes permissible when the extreme circumstances go away.There is no natural law. Even if there was it is probably natural man's law which is not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Guest Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 It was definitely consistent with the gospel of Jehovah.Which is Christ...good point. Indeed man is fallen and if not there would be no need, but until we are no longer fallen there are circumstances that we cannot avoid it.
The Nehor Posted December 1, 2014 Posted December 1, 2014 Which is Christ...good point. Indeed man is fallen and if not there would be no need, but until we are no longer fallen there are circumstances that we cannot avoid it.Counterpoint: There are societies that avoid it.
strappinglad Posted December 2, 2014 Posted December 2, 2014 Although I am in favor of capital punishment in theory, I am against it in practice as currently constituted. Money and good lawyers have placed a thumb on the scales of justice .Minorities without resources have a much greater chance of receiving the death penalty in the US. I have read no studies but removing the death penalty might rebalance the scales somewhat.
Recommended Posts