Capital Punishment --- For or Against?

real, Innocents are not always protected legally from predators.

0 Replies

real life wrote;

Quote:

If an individual has the right of self defense, including killing a predatory criminal if need be to protect oneself, then why does society collectively not have the same right of self defense, subject to restrictions put in place by due process?

An individual must follow guidelines of self-defense as follows. What makes you think society should not follow similar rules ???

As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote;

Quote:
If an individual has the right of self defense, including killing a predatory criminal if need be to protect oneself, then why does society collectively not have the same right of self defense, subject to restrictions put in place by due process?

An individual must follow guidelines of self-defense as follows. What makes you think society should not follow similar rules ???

As to the extent of the right: First, when threatened violence exists, it is the duty of the person threatened to use all prudent and precautionary measures to prevent the attack; for example, if by closing a door which was usually left open, one could prevent an attack, it would be prudent, and perhaps the law might require, that it should be closed in order to preserve the peace, and the aggressor might in such case be held to bail for his good behaviour. Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger.

Further down the page on your link is:

"As a general rule no man is allowed to defend himself with force if he can apply to the law for redress, and the law gives him a complete remedy."

So, what is the 'complete remedy' the law provides for one who has been murdered or lost a family member to a murderer?

There is no redress. The law is not able to bring the dead to life again. The injury cannot be 'made right', nor the dead 'made whole'.

Society has a right, no a responsibility to protect the innocent from predatory criminals.

Let's take a look at your position that CP is not a deterrent to crime.

Now a more ridiculous position could scarce be imagined.

Is a one day sentence or a 10 year sentence a more effective deterrent to crime?

Common sense will tell us that the more severe penalty is a greater deterrent in any and all cases.

Apply this to CP.

How can any say that CP would not be a greater deterrent to heinous crime? Or any crime?

If speeding carried the death penalty, would you speed?

0 Replies

Don't change the subject real life, answer the question.

You ask if society has a right to defend itself...I answer that it should follow the same restrictions that apply to individuals, and you deviate to the subject of revenge and redress just because it's on the same website.

You want to talk about revenge, fine...after you answer the question.

0 Replies

No, the same rules do not apply specifically to individuals in the same way that they apply to societies.

We allow society to imprison a person.

We don't allow an individual to do so.

We allow society to fine a person.

We don't allow an individual to do so.

Are you unaware of this?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If an individual has the right of self defense, including killing a predatory criminal if need be to protect oneself, then why does society collectively not have the same right of self defense, subject to restrictions put in place by due process?

0 Replies

Thanks for quoting me.

What's your point?

I am assuming that you have probably misunderstood my post (the one you quoted) , and so think it conflicts with my post that precedes it. It doesn't.

Both say the same thing.

Individuals and societies are subject to different rules. It doesn't mean that one hasn't got the same right of self defense as the other.

For instance, an individual may kill an attacker in self defense, without giving him due process.

Society must give due process before executing a criminal.

Do you see the difference?

------------------------------------

Now address the issue of deterrence.

Can you, with a straight face, make the claim that a more severe penalty has no effect in deterring crime?

Our whole system of giving longer sentences for more severe crimes is built on the idea that a more severe punishment is a greater deterrent to crime.

If speeding were a capital crime, would you speed?

If murder only carried a 1 day sentence instead of life in prison ( or CP ) do you think the 1 day sentence as strong of a deterrent as the more severe penalty?

0 Replies

real life,

If your concern is to deter crime then would you also be in favor of burning murderers at the stake? What about public stoning? We could dip them in honey and pour ants on them. We could bury them alive. By your "common sense" logic these punishments would be a great benefit to our society.

0 Replies

Exactly echi. It's an "end justifies the means" argument.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

real life,

If your concern is to deter crime then .........

Do you agree that a more severe sentence does deter crime? Yes or No?

Do you agree then that CP is a deterrent to crime? Yes or No?

Traditionally , CP opponents have denied the obvious truth of the deterence aspect.

Are you off the reservation on this, or hangin' with the pack?

0 Replies

It's not neccessarily a greater deterent than life in prison. Otherwise there would be no suicide in prison, and people who open fire in schools would never turn the gun on themselves to escape capture. It may be a greater deterent to some...a more attractive option to others.

It may even encourage more severe crime (eg silencing of witnesses)

It's certainly not a strong enough reason to justify killing people.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

echi wrote:
real life,

If your concern is to deter crime then .........

Do you agree that a more severe sentence does deter crime? Yes or No?

I understand the assumption, but I don't think it's necessarily true. To my knowledge, the evidence is not clear one way or the other. Also, my "common sense" tells me that the killing of prisoners by the state sets a bad example for the whole society.

Quote:

Do you agree then that CP is a deterrent to crime? Yes or No?

I don't know. For me, it makes little difference. As Eorl pointed out, the ends do not always justify the means.

Quote:

Traditionally , CP opponents have denied the obvious truth of the deterence aspect.

Are you off the reservation on this, or hangin' with the pack?

(I wish I could find a pack to hang with, real life.)
I suspect that many CP opponents make such claims in efforts to deflate the arguments made by your pack. As I have already stated, this is not my primary concern.

Can you imagine any punishment that might serve as a greater deterrent than those already in use?

0 Replies

I don't think any penalty serves as a deterrent to those that intend to do the crime... gang members don't say, "Oh wait, I might wind up in solitary if I off this guy" prior to shooting someone at a night club... likewise, an angry, drunk man doesn't rationalize his behaviour prior to beating the pulp out of his wife.

The only real benefits prisons have is a) they keep violent people from perpretrating more crimes, and b) they provide employment.

0 Replies

Deterrent? Hell no CP is in no way a deterrent. It is what the word suggests. Punishment for your actions. The puishment in my view should fit the crime.

0 Replies

I agree that CP is punishment that fits the crime.

But to deny it's deterrent effect is simply unsupportable.

Common sense will tell you that a more severe penalty is a greater deterrent than a lesser penalty.

CP critics cite numerous 'studies' that show 'without doubt' that CP is not a deterrent.

These studies are fatally flawed for two basic reasons:

They compare states and their crime statistics as if they were comparing nuts and bolts and not human actions.

If human actions could be compared in this way, then states with identical population figures would have identical crime stats. Well, they don't.

Second, these studies DO not tell, in fact CAN not tell us the one thing that WOULD make a valid comparison:

What would the crime stats of the same state have been IF IT HAD NOT HAD capital punishment?

That type of hypothetical is, of course, impossible to answer.

But it is the very thing that anti CP advocates think they can tell you.

0 Replies

Real life, fine. Show us the studies that prove the opposite...that CP is a greater deterent. (I'm sorry, but your common sense is very, very different to mine.)

Does that same common sense tell you that the harder you hit a child, the better behaved it will be? It's obvious isn't it?

0 Replies

If the crime is committed in the heat of emotion, then it follows that the criminal is consumed with his crime, not the deterrent aspect. Life in Prison/CP - virtually no diff to a lifer. If he's going to get the guy, he's going to get the guy - life or no life.

0 Replies

Mame wrote:

If the crime is committed in the heat of emotion, then it follows that the criminal is consumed with his crime, not the deterrent aspect. Life in Prison/CP - virtually no diff to a lifer. If he's going to get the guy, he's going to get the guy - life or no life.

I think you're right, Mame. It is a bit absurd to expect a criminal to possess or utilize any "common sense".

real life,

Can you imagine any punishment that you think might serve as a greater deterrent than CP?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Real life, fine. Show us the studies that prove the opposite...that CP is a greater deterent. (I'm sorry, but your common sense is very, very different to mine.)

You miss the point, Eorl.

Since a study cannot show what the crime stats of a state with capital punishment WOULD HAVE BEEN without it......

and cannot show what the crime stats of a state without capital punishment WOULD HAVE BEEN with it...........

there is no valid basis of comparison either way.

Common sense will tell you however ( and we have built our entire system of sentencing on it) that a more severe penalty is a greater deterrent than a lesser penalty.

Would the prospect of a 1 day sentence pose the same deterrence as a 20 year sentence, if you were contemplating the comission of a crime?

Of course not, and you dont need a study to tell you so.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Mame wrote:
If the crime is committed in the heat of emotion, then it follows that the criminal is consumed with his crime, not the deterrent aspect. Life in Prison/CP - virtually no diff to a lifer. If he's going to get the guy, he's going to get the guy - life or no life.

I think you're right, Mame. It is a bit absurd to expect a criminal to possess or utilize any "common sense".

real life,

Can you imagine any punishment that you think might serve as a greater deterrent than CP?

No. Can you?

0 Replies

Capital Punishment --- For or Against?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know