The Russian mafia, the Colombian drug cartels and the large international gangs have been very effective in using the death penalty to enforce discipline. It’s not PERFECT, but it is very effective. Very few prosecutions against those groups when their enforcement is so effective. The death penalty does deter people from testifying against them most of the time.OK, so in other words you can’t make the argument that deterrance works because you’d have to get testimonials of the non-convicts who chose not to commit murders? It still makes my point. You can’t show deterrance works. Statistics are always tricky. Too many reasons could go into why murder rates drop.
The work of the USCCB in pro-life was new to me.USCCB does do a lot of pro-life work, and more for abortion and other pre-birth issues than anything else. Some info is available here: usccb.org/prolife/index.shtml
Actually, deterrence can be shown just though surveys of convicts as a body and whether or not the existence of the death penalty dissuaded them form engaging in particular crimes. You have gone from counting an obviously incorrect pool to simply declaring that establishing a relevant sample couldn’t be done.OK, so in other words you can’t make the argument that deterrance works because you’d have to get testimonials of the non-convicts who chose not to commit murders? It still makes my point. You can’t show deterrance works. Statistics are always tricky. Too many reasons could go into why murder rates drop.
Deterrance does work, but only in limited contexts.I still don’t buy the deterrence argument. Death penalties are only awarded in murder cases. Most murder cases are in the heat of passion, not planned. The murderers don’t stop and think about not doing it because they might get the death penalty. As far as dissuading other criminal activities, I disagree with the argument that death penalty is justified because it deters other crimes. That is truly disproportional.
I’m not sure what I believe, but if you look over some of the work by Lott, which I cited at the beginning of this thread, he makes some reasonable arguments that it does indeed have a deterrence effect and shows some statistical information to back up the statement.I still don’t buy the deterrence argument.
When the death penalty is used with savagery, it is an effective deterrant.I’m not sure what I believe, but if you look over some of the work by Lott, which I cited at the beginning of this thread, he makes some reasonable arguments that it does indeed have a deterrence effect and shows some statistical information to back up the statement.
Interesting points. Deterrence is only one factor in consideration of the death penalty. I still am unpersuaded that it works. Complete tyranny works to dissuade rebellious acts but that doesn’t justify awarding the death penalty to a group of people in a fight where a police officer was killed. Is that justice for each of the people involved? The scenario you described suggests some innocent persons who just happend to be there ended up with the death penalty. There is a fairness issue for the individual convict and another fairness issue for the society.
Death penalty cases involve the detailed facts and circumstances of the offense, and societal goals as a secondary matter. Can you equate the murder Scott Peterson committed on his pregnant wife with a coked-up kid at a party who got mad and hit somebody in the head who died? I think there is too much guess work. We can easily lock people up for life without parole. That protects the society. As far as the individual is concerned, I don’t think mankind is well suited enough to make the judgments judicisously. I think it’s part of the culture of death to be so condemnatory to the convicts. I don’t feel sorry for them. Don’t get me wrong. But it is playing God in a sense to synthesize all of the factors involved and come up with death penalty sentence and be sure of its fairness. I think a judge and jury are not really equiupped for it. Human beings aren’t. And as I’ve said, in these heinous murder cases, our system is actually incapable of delivering justice. People have come to expect that but we can only try, as a goal, to achieve justice. We’ll never really know until the next life.
~ This is simply not true, but then you’ve probably carefully avoided taking a look at the studies by Lott cited early in this thread and mentioned again just a few posts ago.When the death penalty is used with savagery, it is an effective deterrant.
Attempts to build the death penalty into civilised law reduce its deterrant effect to near nonexistance.
Once again, you make proclamations that expose your ignorance of how the system works in the US, as sentencing is determined in a separate phase from the decision to convict, and there are more options on the table for a Capital Murder conviction than just the DP.A secondary, and unfortunate effect is that it can be difficult to get a conviction when the DP is in the ring.
In the US, this leads to 'plea bargaining. This is a denial of justice, effectively under threat, hence torture.
This is uncivilised.
I’m not sure what you mean by “judgmental attitude”. The Church does not disallow judgment, she simply demands that the judgment be made justly and we have thoroughly covered the fact that the statement in the catechism allowing capital punishment only to protect the public is not a Church teaching but is simply the prudential judgment of JPII.No. the Church now teaches that the judgemental attitude to DP should be relegated secondary to the practical necessity of defending the public.
This is your personal interpretation. The Church explicitly teaches that punishment ***must ***be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime.The Church allows the state to execute judgement, but does not detail how.
Our Lord allowed, even commanded that we demand not punishment commensurate, but that we forgive.
‘If a man take your coat, give him also your mantle’
You use terms very loosely. Justice is never to be set aside and mercy can never become automatic. Mercy is not to be offered to the unrepentant or to those who willfully and knowingly committed their crimes.Judgement is to be set aside and replaced with sorrow and mercy.
So, if protecting society is the primary justification for capital punishment then if we acknowledge that this claim is true this would argue not for the elimination of executions but for a major expansion of their use.When the death penalty is used with savagery, it is an effective deterrant.
Priest for Life call for the abolition of the death penalty on their website.The work of the USCCB in pro-life was new to me.
My exposure to pro-life has been from groups such as this:
operationrescue.org/
hli.org/
priestsforlife.org/
all.org/index.php
And some of these:
catholicity.com/links/12/
You simply cannot grasp.[sign] Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
No. the Church now teaches that the judgemental attitude to DP should be relegated secondary to the practical necessity of defending the public.[/sign]I’m not sure what you mean by “judgmental attitude”. The Church does not disallow judgment, she simply demands that the judgment be made justly and we have thoroughly covered the fact that the statement in the catechism allowing capital punishment only to protect the public is not a Church teaching but is simply the prudential judgment of JPII.
[sign]The Church allows the state to execute judgement, but does not detail how.
Our Lord allowed, even commanded that we demand not punishment commensurate, but that we forgive.
‘If a man take your coat, give him also your mantle’[/sign]
No, it is not my personal judgement, it is the word of Our Lord.This is your personal interpretation. The Church explicitly teaches that punishment ***must ***be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime.
[sign]Judgement is to be set aside and replaced with sorrow and mercy.[/sign]
I have already made it plain that these individuals have lost their humanity, some might say the devil has taken their souls. Thus they are no longer human, but beasts.You use terms very loosely. Justice is never to be set aside and mercy can never become automatic. Mercy is not to be offered to the unrepentant or to those who willfully and knowingly committed their crimes.
Finally, regarding all the comments about whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent: ultimately it doesn’t matter. We would hope that there is a deterrent effect - and every reason to believe that one exists - but a deterrent effect alone would not justify executing criminals nor would the lack of such an effect disallow such actions. It is the requirement of justice alone that permits or excludes any punishment.
I did suggest that an increased use of euthanasia might be helpful, but not capital punishment.I think a lot of people would agree with this comment: [sign]When the death penalty is used with savagery, it is an effective deterrant.
Attempts to build the death penalty into civilised law reduce its deterrant effect to near nonexistance.
A secondary, and unfortunate effect is that it can be difficult to get a conviction when the DP is in the ring.
In the US, this leads to 'plea bargaining. This is a denial of justice, effectively under threat, hence torture.
This is uncivilised.
Snipping this out destroyed context, and you know it. [/sign] So, if protecting society is the primary justification for capital punishment then if we acknowledge that this claim is true this would argue not for the elimination of executions but for a major expansion of their use.
The reason we don’t argue for the “savage” use of the death penalty, even though it would provide better protection for society, is because we recognize that it would be unjust.
Ender
I’m not sure how accurate your statements are. According to Dr Lott, who’s data was used to start this thread in my first post, there is no need to use the death penalty “with savagery” for it to be a deterrent.When the death penalty is used with savagery, it is an effective deterrant.
Attempts to build the death penalty into civilised law reduce its deterrant effect to near nonexistance.
A secondary, and unfortunate effect is that it can be difficult to get a conviction when the DP is in the ring.
In the US, this leads to 'plea bargaining. This is a denial of justice, effectively under threat, hence torture.
This is uncivilised.
Forgive the multitude of snips, but its seems we are following the same theme. This is not the third or even the 30th time VpT’s claims have been challenged factually with no indication yet that he going to quit making clearly false claims or even apologize to any of the people he regularly paints in creatively unfavorable ways.I’m not sure how accurate your statements are. …
Further, going back to Dr Lott, he would apparently use his data to also dispute your point about the modern application, under civilized law, drops the deterrent value to “near nonexistance” as you claim.
Third, you state that it is difficult to get a conviction when the death penalty is possible, and that is not based on fact either. …
Your description of plea-bargaining suggest it is more a torture to the victims who were hurt by the criminal on trial than to the criminal. …
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.The death penalty will go away INSTANTLY and without controversy IF the people who oppose it can come up with an effective way of protecting society from “career sociopathic serial killers”.
I have to confess that I am speaking primarily from the British experience.I’m not sure how accurate your statements are. According to Dr Lott, who’s data was used to start this thread in my first post, there is no need to use the death penalty “with savagery” for it to be a deterrent.
Further, going back to Dr Lott, he would apparently use his data to also dispute your point about the modern application, under civilized law, drops the deterrent value to “near nonexistance” as you claim.
Third, you state that it is difficult to get a conviction when the death penalty is possible, and that is not based on fact either. Here we consider guilty or not first. Secondarily, is a separate sentencing hearing. I’ve sat on a jury where the death penalty could have been applied here in my state. It was a non-issue.
Your description of plea-bargaining suggest it is more a torture to the victims who were hurt by the criminal on trial than to the criminal. In fact a criminal would be happy to plea down his crime to a lessor offense, this to me is an injustice to the victims, their families and society.
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.Some have proposed incarceration 24/7. Solitary confinement 24/7.
The courts have forbidden that approach to incarceration.