Deborahmac09 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 6:41pm:


Why? because it can be amply proved that once penatlies reach a certain level then increases make no difference at all. Use the examnple of the USA that has vastly hevaier sentences than ours yet a crime rate that is staggeringly higher. and they have the death penalty. increasing penalties DOES NOT WORK. and that isnt my opinion. it is the judical systems opinions and all those who have researched the question.

dudleysharp wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 7:53pm:


You ARE in high school! only someone that age could be so blatantly foolish as to believe that. 'Crimes of passion' are not subject to deterrance to the degere you seem to think. But you stay in your delusion. Proper studies (ie not blogs and victims forums or Oprah) show that increasing penalties do not generally deter crime and the death penalty does in fact usually INCREASE the murder rate. Th reasons are varied and not well understood, but it doesnt change the fact. You ahve a very naive view and one that has been developed by listening and identifying with victims rather than seeking the truth.

Deterrence & The Death Penalty

All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.

No matter the level of violent crime, be it high or low, legal sanctions deter some from committing crimes (1).

Based upon some recent deterrence studies, even "heat of the moment" murders can be prevented by deterrence (2). No matter how excited or enraged, most of us bring ourselves back from that abyss, to a more sensible approach. One reason for that is deterrence, either thoughtful or instinctive.

Most criminals do think about things. That is why, before their crimes, the usually choose locations other than police stations to commit them. Criminals nearly always use some form of stealth before and during the crime, to avoid witnesses and to lower the probability of being caught, just as they use such stealth to withdraw after the crime.

We know this to be true.

Such is based upon a fear of being apprehended. There is no fear of being caught unless there is a fear of sanction.  Only sanction can put fear into being caught.

There are those who argue the death penalty is no greater a deterrent than a life sentence.

Even if the death penalty is only equal in value as a life sentence, as a deterrent, then the death penalty is an important deterrent.

There are several major tiebreakers in this "equality".

First, look at murderers not deterred. About 99.9% of all of those murderers who face the death penalty either plea bargain to a life or lesser sentence, go to trial seeking a life sentence, not death, in the punishment phase of their trials and fight a, seemingly, never ending appellate battle to stay alive while they are on death row.

Reason tells us that if 99.9% of a less rational group, those who commit murders, fear death more than life, that there must be some, more rational folks, those potential murderers who chose not to murder because they feared death more than life.

Do the experts denouncing deterrence say "the death penalty deters no one? Of course not. They can't.

There are a number of real life stories of potential murderers who have stated that it was the death penalty that prevented them from committing murder. This is known as the individual deterrent effect. In these cases, the death penalty was an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence. Meaning these were cases whereby the potential murders were deterred from murdering because of the death penalty, who would not, otherwise, have been deterred by a lesser sanction.  (3)

In addition, individual, enhanced deterrence cannot exist without general, enhanced deterrence. Therefore, there is a general, enhanced deterrent, because individual deterrence could not exist without the general deterrent effect. (3)

If we are unsure about deterrence, there is no "equality" in the results of our choices.

If there is deterrence and we execute, we save innocent lives via deterrence and by preventing murderers from ever harming again. If there is deterrence and we fail to execute, we sacrifice more innocent lives by reduced deterrence and, additionally, we put more innocents at risk, because living murderers are always more likely to harm again, than are executed ones. If there is no deterrence and we execute, we protect more innocents because of enhanced incapacitation. If there is no deterrence and we don't execute, more innocents are at risk because the murderers are still alive. (3)

I repeat my position that it is irrational to say that none are deterred by the death penalty.

The weight of the evidence is that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence and any deterrence is significant in that it spares innocent lives.

If unsure about execution deterrence, the "risk" is saving innocent lives by the deterrence of execution vs the "risk" of not saving innocent lives and choosing not to execute. The risk to take is to execute, to save innocent lives that deserve to be saved. (4)

We do not execute or impose other sanctions based upon deterrence. We must base sanctions on them being a just and appropriate response to the crimes committed, the same foundation of support used for all criminal sanctions.

The reason for sanction is justice. Deterrence is a secondary reason for and a beneficial by-product of all sanctions, inclusive of the death penalty. 

(1) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

(2) 25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

(3)  This is a bit out of date, but corrects an number of the misconceptions about deterrence.
        "Death Penalty and Deterrence"
        http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-as-a-deterrent--confirmed--seven-recent-studies-updated-61204.aspx

(4)  "The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

Some wrongly state that executions are a human rights violation.

The argument is as follows: Life is a fundamental human right.  Therefore, taking it away is a fundamental violation of human rights.

Those who say that the death penalty is a human rights violation have no solid moral or philosophical foundation for making such a statement.  What opponents of capital punishment really are saying is that they just don't approve of executions.

Certainly, both freedom and life are fundamental human rights.  On this, there is virtually no disagreement.  However, again, virtually all agree, that freedom may be taken away when there is a violation of the social contract. Freedom, a fundamental human right, may be taken away from those who violate society's laws.  So to is the fundamental human right of life forfeit when the violation of the social contract is most grave.

No one disputes that taking freedom away is a different result than taking life away.  However, the issue is the incorrect claim that taking away fundamental human rights -- be that freedom or life -- is a human rights violation.  It is not.  It depends specifically on the circumstances. 

How do we know?  Because those very same governments and human rights stalwarts, rightly, tell us so.  Universally, both governments and human rights organizations approve and encourage taking away the fundamental human right of freedom, as a proper response to some criminal activity.

Why do governments and human rights organizations not condemn just incarceration of criminals as a fundamental human rights violation?  Because they think incarceration is just fine.

Why do some of those same groups condemn execution as a human rights violation? Only because they don't like it.  They have no moral or philosophical foundation for calling execution a human rights violation.

In the context of criminals violating the social contract, those criminals have voluntarily subjected themselves to the laws of the state.  And they have knowingly placed themselves in a position where their fundamental human rights of freedom and life are subject to being forfeit by their actions.

Opinion is only worth the value of its foundation.  Those who call execution a human rights violation have no credible foundation for that claim.  What they are really saying is "We just don't like it."

so where are your supporting arguments from OTHER researchers??

none?

Quote:

So shall we force people to be on those juries?

isnt this funny... DUDley is unable to come up with any support other than his own opinions.

not surprising.