Another look at the DEATH PENALTY

[Voco_proTatiano]

I wouldn’t be too sure of that. My support for the death penalty is not determined solely by the protection of society so even if that problem was resolved it would not resolve the issue for me. I will drop my support of it only if it can be shown that it is not required as a matter of justice … and perhaps not even then.

Dear Ender,
So now you admit it.
It is retribution that you demand.
Only the extremist fundamentalist Paulinist churches of the Southern States continue that demand.
Even the Jews, upon whose laws you depend, have turned there back on that principle, look at:
religioustolerance.org/execut4.htm

Part of the protection society receives from the execution of one felon is the deterrence effect on others. The claims that there is no deterrent effect from executions seems weak; from studies claiming deterrence exists to our own sense that the threat of punishment deters in other cases, why not here? The claims that most murders are heat of the moment actions doesn’t stand up: those types of murderers are rarely given the death penalty. I’m guessing that capital punishment usually requires some degree of premeditation. So - if executions deter murders and we are serious about protecting society - we should not eliminate the death penalty even if convicted killers could be safely warehoused for the remainder of their lives.

Ender

You obviously prefer gut feelings to the greater evidence that is produced, even by police officers.
What evidence exists from statistics, though deeply buried is statistical noise due to the tiny size of the sample, is that the correlation between murders and the DP is if anything, negative.
That is, DP states have more murders than non DP states, with the premeditated murder spectrum being relatively constant across the samples.
Non fundamentalist religions do not support DP,
Police federations do not support DP,
What reliable statistics we have do not support DP.
Civilised countries do not support DP.

 

[Al_Masetti]

You have said this before, but I have never heard or seen this. Can you tell us when and how solitary confinement was illegalized? As far as I know it is still being used, and some folks go to “super-max” prisons were they are kept in solitary 24/7.

It looks like it will be easy to find.

Here is one article:

newyorker.com/archive/2004/02/16/040216on_onlineonly01

It says that even in “super-max” prisons, confinement is “nearly” 24/7.

In other words, it’s not really solitary.

I’m sure with a little diligent homework, more articles will be found. This was using a simple Google search. Perhaps someone with Lexis/Nexis or more time can find more references.

 

[melensdad]

As for the DP having any deterrent effect, what evidence there is seems to have a generally negative correlation.

But Dr Lott seems to offer a more comprehensive view, and seems to disprove the negative correlation.

Please read his work.

 

[pnewton]

You have said this before, but I have never heard or seen this. Can you tell us when and how solitary confinement was illegalized? As far as I know it is still being used, and some folks go to “super-max” prisons were they are kept in solitary 24/7.

Yeah, we can’t do the 24/7 lock up. Inmate rights include enough opportunities to interact with others, both inside and outside the prison.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

I will drop my support of {capital punishment} only if it can be shown that it is not required as a matter of justice

Dear Ender,
So now you admit it.
It is retribution that you demand.

Debating with you is unproductive as we end up not discussing ideas but playing word games. I see little point in continuing to argue the issue with someone who disparages the concept of justice.

melensdad:

But Dr Lott seems to offer a more comprehensive view, and seems to disprove the negative correlation.

I seriously doubt that there is a negative correlation with the deterrence of others but even if there were it is a certainty that there is a 100% deterrent affect on those who are executed.

The catechism offers only one argument against the use of the death penalty: it is not necessary to protect society, but it is in fact unarguable that executing killers better protects society than releasing them after they have served their time or warehousing them even in maximum security prisons. If the protection of society is the single determinant for the use of the death penalty then we should expand its use, not eliminate it.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

But Dr Lott seems to offer a more comprehensive view, and seems to disprove the negative correlation.

Please read his work.

Having just heard the news of the latest nuthead on the loose with a legally owned gun in Nebraska, I view the science of Dr Lott with deep suspicion.
A skilled debater and orator he may be, but those skills do not guarantee his veracity and wisdom, they only help to disguise the lack thereof.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Having just heard the news of the latest nuthead on the loose with a legally owned gun in Nebraska, I view the science of Dr Lott with deep suspicion.
A skilled debater and orator he may be, but those skills do not guarantee his veracity and wisdom, they only help to disguise the lack thereof.

1. Continuing to introduce Red Herrings about unrelated issues is wholly inappropriate considering the number of times you have been previously warned about your habit of doing so.
2. This is a thread about the Death Penalty, not Gun Ownership.
3. Dr. Lott is a researcher, not a “debater and orator”, and you making a claim like that shows you still have not bothered to look at his research.
4. Personal attacks still do not constitute a legitimate argument or criticism.

You have now made the most convincing argument yet that you are incapable of remaining on topic and are intentionally trying to disrupt this discussion.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

1. Continuing to introduce Red Herrings about unrelated issues is wholly inappropriate considering the number of times you have been previously warned about your habit of doing so.
2. This is a thread about the Death Penalty, not Gun Ownership.
3. Dr. Lott is a researcher, not a “debater and orator”, and you making a claim like that shows you still have not bothered to look at his research.
4. Personal attacks still do not constitute a legitimate argument or criticism.

You have now made the most convincing argument yet that you are incapable of remaining on topic and are intentionally trying to disrupt this discussion.

Sorryeeee

I checked out Dr Lott on the net, and that was the material which headed the list from Google.
If his judgement on gun control is so hair-brained, how will I trust his judgement on DP.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Sorryeeee

Based on how you said it and your consistent pattern of posting so far - including in the statement you made immediately after this - I seriously doubt you are.

I checked out Dr Lott on the net, and that was the material which headed the list from Google.
If his judgement on gun control is so hair-brained, how will I trust his judgement on DP.

How, exactly, are the statistics cited in the opening post of this thread “hair -brained” (ad hominem) considering he was studying rates in populations as a whole and not individual instances?

You’ve gotten your facts all wrong again on the example you are using to bash Mr. Lott anyway. Not that your blowing of easily checked facts so astoundingly is unusual, but that you keep expecting others to buy the false statements you are habitually making is insulting to the intelligence of everyone else reading along.

1. The gun was not owned by the shooter and he did not have permission to have it in his possession (i.e. it was stolen). ketv.com/news/14782867/detail.html
2. If you had bothered to check Nebraska’s firearms laws before spouting off once again with yet another assumption that had no basis in fact, you’d have noticed that concealed weapons are not permitted there, which means that even if he had legally owned the gun, it wasn’t legal to possess where he had it. crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/f/gunlaw_ne.htm
3. The prohibition against legal concealed carry also means no law abiding citizen was equipped to try to stop him, which actually happens to be the central theme in what Dr. Lott has found is accomplished by increase legal firearm possession.

The Nebraska tragedy wasn’t a counter-example to Lott’s findings on gun control, but a case in point. If you want to dispute it further, take it to a new thread.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Based on how you said it and your consistent pattern of posting so far - including in the statement you made immediately after this - I seriously doubt you are.

How, exactly, are the statistics cited in the opening post of this thread “hair -brained” (ad hominem) considering he was studying rates in populations as a whole and not individual instances?

You’ve gotten your facts all wrong again on the example you are using to bash Mr. Lott anyway. Not that your blowing of easily checked facts so astoundingly is unusual, but that you keep expecting others to buy the false statements you are habitually making is insulting to the intelligence of everyone else reading along.

1. The gun was not owned by the shooter and he did not have permission to have it in his possession (i.e. it was stolen). ketv.com/news/14782867/detail.html

That little detail was not on our news, but that he so easily got his fingers on , what was it? an AK47?, is utterly beyond belief.
And this was on Lott’s 'home turf - loose gun control state.

1. If you had bothered to check Nebraska’s firearms laws before spouting off once again with yet another assumption that had no basis in fact, you’d have noticed that concealed weapons are not permitted there, which means that even if he had legally owned the gun, it wasn’t legal to possess where he had it. crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/f/gunlaw_ne.htm

How do you conceal an AK47?

1. The prohibition against legal concealed carry also means no law abiding citizen was equipped to try to stop him, which actually happens to be the central theme in what Dr. Lott has found is accomplished by increase legal firearm possession.

So you/he wants everyone to walk about with a colt 45 strapped on their thigh?
I guess that might suit Texas!
Are you, is he serious, or seriously touched?

The Nebraska tragedy wasn’t a counter-example to Lott’s findings on gun control, but a case in point. If you want to dispute it further, take it to a new thread.

Oh help me,
Have you no imagination?
Can you not picture what would have happened?

If everyone had been armed, following the first shot, everyone would let fly at anyone carrying a gun.
The slaughter would be beyond imagination.

Even in your armies, where gun discipline is supposed to be taught, when a shot goes off in Iraq, more innocents are shot that insurgents, and that is not by the insurgents.
Everyone lets fly, and ‘friendly-fire’ is now an oxymoron among morons.
Lott is not to be trusted, but then, I guess he is among friends.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

That little detail was not on our news,

As has been repeatedly been pointed out, perhaps you ought to start checking the facts on your own before making them up or simply parroting slams you’ve heard elsewhere.

but that he so easily got his fingers on , what was it? an AK47?

How do you conceal an AK47?

As far as I can tell, it is only CNN referring to it as an AK-47; everyone else (BBC, AP, Fox - added: even Pravda) is clear that it was an SKS. Either way, it was semi-automatic, not full, and it a reasonably popular hunting rifle because of its combination of accuracy, reliability, and effective stopping power (in contrast, the M-16/AR-15 is only used in anti-personnel situations because it is not very accurate).

A light rifle (esp with a folding stock) can be quite effectively hidden slung underneath a coat; this was not a large gun as rifles go.

Again, as has been repeatedly been pointed out, perhaps you ought to start checking the facts and thinking things through before making up presumptions that are not going to pass even a trivial review.

And this was on Lott’s 'home turf - loose gun control state.

Considering I just pointed to you to a source that revealed CCL was not legal there, again, perhaps you ought to start checking the facts before making them up. It is rather odd that you are simultaneously both so aware of little details to harp on but chose to feign ignorance so often when caught repeating broad factual errors.

So you/he wants everyone to walk about with a colt 45 strapped on their thigh?
Are you, is he serious, or seriously touched?

Thank you for proving that you still haven’t looked at Lott’s research beyond just grabbing headlines to try to insult it without knowing what it says.

You know what my actual position is from prior threads on gun possession in which we’ve both participated, so you have no excuse for this attempt to paint a straw man of my position, and your refusal to actually read Dr. Lott’s research gives you no more of an excuse to malign him. Neither Lott or I are “touched”, but again, you’d have figured that out if you start checking the facts yourself before making things up.

Oh help me,
Have you no imagination?
Can you not picture what would have happened?
If everyone had been armed, following the first shot, everyone would let fly at anyone carrying a gun.
The slaughter would be beyond imagination.

Our difference of perspective here is that I am not placing my own imagination as having more relevance than what has been shown to take place in actuality.

Based on what has ACTUALLY happened in every single instance of attempts for events like this to unfold where open CCL regulations are in place, the event ended up not making more than a blip on the national news as the only “slaughter” was that of the would-be mass murderer. Mass murderers are usually very poor shots, an even halfway decent shot would have had 2 times the casualty count with the number of shots this shooter fired, even just using the iron sights built onto an SKS, and you have to be better than that to qualify for a CCL, but again, you’d have known that if you would start checking the facts before making up presumptions that are not going to pass even a trivial review.

Even in your armies, where gun discipline is supposed to be taught, when a shot goes off in Iraq, more innocents are shot that insurgents, and that is not by the insurgents.
Everyone lets fly, and ‘friendly-fire’ is now an oxymoron among morons.

Of this, the parts that are not simple insults are patently false. Not that you’ve apologized for or retracted any of the previous instances that you’ve resorted to muckraking, but its getting tiring, and yet another attempt at redirection on your part.

Lott is not to be trusted

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[TMC]

It looks like it will be easy to find.

Here is one article:

newyorker.com/archive/2004/02/16/040216on_onlineonly01

It says that even in “super-max” prisons, confinement is “nearly” 24/7.

In other words, it’s not really solitary.

I’m sure with a little diligent homework, more articles will be found. This was using a simple Google search. Perhaps someone with Lexis/Nexis or more time can find more references.

This article demonstrates that there are super-max prisons where people are kept in solitary all the time. It says that some advocates are against that, but it doesn’t say it has ever been made illegal. There is just no basis for the claim that we can’t keep people locked up 24/7. Its not true.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

This article demonstrates that there are super-max prisons where people are kept in solitary all the time. It says that some advocates are against that, but it doesn’t say it has ever been made illegal. There is just no basis for the claim that we can’t keep people locked up 24/7. Its not true.

Is doing so actually allowable under Catholic teaching on human rights? This is something that comes up regularly in discussing this issue, in that several of the means probably necessary to actually protect society from the most dangerous without use of the death penalty are themselves considered to be inhumane by the Catholic Church. In contrast, use of the Death Penalty has a significant allowable basis.

 

[Al_Masetti]

This article demonstrates that there are super-max prisons where people are kept in solitary all the time. It says that some advocates are against that, but it doesn’t say it has ever been made illegal. There is just no basis for the claim that we can’t keep people locked up 24/7. Its not true.

I re-read the article twice. Slowly and carefully. At no time does the article imply or demonstrate that there are super-max prisons where people are kept in solitary all the time.

 

[BrianK2007]

I spent nearly two years in prison for a crime I didn’t commit. Thanks to some “late” discovery I get my life back losing nothing but 30 months. How do you give someones life back after it’s been taken from them? People don’t like to hear this but it’s a sad truth, juries convict on the “say so” of the DA and the DA gets re-elected on convictions.

And by the way you can keep someone locked up 24/7 it’s called an “institution wide administrative lock-down.” I spent 24 hours a in a 7x5 foot cell with another man for 63 days at DVI. The second time it happened it was for 118 days at Corcoran, but I was in a dorm so I could get up and walk to the bathroom to stretch my legs so that wasn’t so bad. If you can tell 312 inmates (ain’t no convicts in a dorm) to share 4 toilets you don’t really need to worry about keeping them locked down because no one cares about prisoners.

You have 19-year-old kids being “struck out” for petty non-violent crimes and what are you worried about? Are these poor mixed up kids who will never breath free air again suffering enough. Please don’t come back and say that three strikes applies to violent crimes because that is not the case in most states. Only the first conviction has to have violence in the controlling case. Strikes 2 and 3 can be traffic violations if you get the right judge.

I’ve only skimmed through this thread the ignorance is sickening, but not at all surprising. One of the things that is supposed to separate Catholics from Protestants is a belief in the value of human life and need for compassion. Compassion for prisoners being in the forefront.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Brian,

Since you are probably the only person with some actual even remotely relevant experience on this thread, what can be done to stop serial killers who continue to kill even when in prison?

• Al

 

[BrianK2007]

I’ve rather be celled up with a serial killer than with a dope feen (so much cleaner.) Speaking for California (all I can speak for.) A “high power” serial killer is going to be on “walk alone.” In plain English that means no physical contact with other inmates. Stabbings do happen, but it’s often over drugs or gambling, sometimes prostitution. The yard I was on was Level I and II so there were fights but people were not getting killed. If you are in California please donate clothes to Catholic Charities because a’lot of these guys are paroling with nothing and getting dress outs can really make a difference to someone starting off. Not every person paroling is going to go out and “catch another number.”

I also want to point out if you hire someone on parole with in the first year of release you can get a $8,500 tex credit.

 

[pnewton]

And by the way you can keep someone locked up 24/7 it’s called an “institution wide administrative lock-down.”.

That may be true in California, but not Texas. Texas prisons are still under a federal mandate.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Debating with you is unproductive as we end up not discussing ideas but playing word games. I see little point in continuing to argue the issue with someone who disparages the concept of justice.

Dear Ender,
I have kept out of this thread so that I might cool down, and be more objective.
I have though, from another thread, been invited to read EV, or at least endeavour to plough through it.
Th opening of EV is quite clear that JPII is speaking as the heir of Petrus Sanctus, and so has the charism of ex cathedra infalibility as I understand it.
All the arguments therein are introduced as matters of faith and morals, and the clear gist is that “eye for eye” is superseded by “love your enemies, and pray for them that hate you”.
The arguments on DP for punishment are entirely divorced from any question of retribution or restoration of order. They are purely concerned with defence of society.
Thus concepts of justice are irrelevant to this argument.
That is the end of this argument on this particular point to anyone who respects the teaching of Mother Church.

I seriously doubt that there is a negative correlation with the deterrence of others but even if there were it is a certainty that there is a 100% deterrent affect on those who are executed.

I fully accept that with the DP there is zero recidivism, but there is not deterrance, for the dead are not deterred, they are dead.
The problem with the deterrance argument, is that it is only effective against rational professional murderers. This is a very small population of professional ‘hit men’.
The most dangerous murderers are the disturbed and the incompetent. These people are troubled by the DP, but the presence or otherwise thereof has no place in their disturbed and incompetent minds.
Yes, I agree that such as these should be euthanased, but not as evil humans, but as dangerous beasts which cannot be humanely detained for as long as they remain dangerous, ie, for the duration of their lives.
This is not an argument for justice, or vengeance, or any kind of revenge, it is from mercy and utility.
There should not be the smallest trace of inhumanity in the procedure.
It should be clean, merciful, and compassionate.
Yes, this too is contrary to the teaching of Mother Church, but she cannot have it both ways.
If you cannot have merciful euthanasia for the incurably dangerous, who cannot be humanely detained, then you cannot have the DP in any shape or form, for any reason at all.
That is simple, and plain logic.

The catechism offers only one argument against the use of the death penalty: it is not necessary to protect society, but it is in fact unarguable that executing killers better protects society than releasing them after they have served their time or warehousing them even in maximum security prisons. If the protection of society is the single determinant for the use of the death penalty then we should expand its use, not eliminate it.

Ender

No, you have got it entirely upside down.
The Church offers only one satisfactory reason for employing the DP, and that is that there is no other effective way to protect society.
We all accept that executing killers protects society from the killers you have executed, but it actually serves no other purpose in a civilised society.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Th opening of EV is quite clear that JPII is speaking as the heir of Petrus Sanctus, and so has the charism of ex cathedra infalibility as I understand it.
All the arguments therein are introduced as matters of faith and morals, and the clear gist is that “eye for eye” is superseded by “love your enemies, and pray for them that hate you”.
The arguments on DP for punishment are entirely divorced from any question of retribution or restoration of order. They are purely concerned with defence of society.
Thus concepts of justice are irrelevant to this argument.
That is the end of this argument on this particular point to anyone who respects the teaching of Mother Church.

JP II’s failure to mention points relating to justice in EV does not invalidate prior Church teaching on those points. Catholics do not selective proof-text in developing theology in a way that contradicts existing teaching. This is not the first time you have attempted to build up a false framework in this manner, so doing so again is simply not acceptable.

I fully accept that with the DP there is zero recidivism, but there is not deterrance, for the dead are not deterred, they are dead.

The problem with the deterrance argument, is that it is only effective against rational professional murderers. This is a very small population of professional ‘hit men’.
The most dangerous murderers are the disturbed and the incompetent. These people are troubled by the DP, but the presence or otherwise thereof has no place in their disturbed and incompetent minds.

I would be very interested in seeing any science backing that claim up, as proving such a claim would lead to a revolution in the understanding of the criminal mind and invalidate decades of research on this subject. However, I’m predicting you have no research to cite, just as in all the other times you’ve made wild claims on this subject… Again, this is not acceptable.

Yes, this too is contrary to the teaching of Mother Church, but she cannot have it both ways.

Considering the extent to which your position deliberately misrepresents both what is know about the criminal mind scientifically and the actual position of the Church, this type of declaration amounts to a nonsense statement as it is simply not believable even as a false dichotomy,

The Church offers only one satisfactory reason for employing the DP, and that is that there is no other effective way to protect society.

This is quite simply not true, as you were quite aware of the full scope of Church teaching on this subject before making this post and chose to limit your material to just one source as if it was exhaustive while knowing it was not.