Punishment.

[Trakar]

Beg pardon? What "false dichotomies" and "unsupported assertions" do you see in my post?

That's a serious question - what assertions do you think I'm making? What are the dichotomies, false or otherwise?

I characterized the types of false dichotomies in the post you snippet quoted. Specifically you seem to be
asserting without providing any supporting evidences, that the death penalty keeps people who would otherwise commit some crimes from committing those crimes. Then you seem to make excluding the middle arguments claiming that if recidivism issues are a valid argument then killing everyone convicted of any crime would be the best solution as it eliminates the potential of them committing any future crime. I've no problem discussing this on a serious level, but I've no interest in the personal tone and rhetorical sniping that You brought into the exchange.

[Swift]

I've no problem discussing this on a serious level, but I've no interest in the personal tone and rhetorical sniping that You brought into the exchange.

Don't play moderator or I will demonstrate punishment. If you have a problem with another member's post, you report it, though frankly, I don't see any "tone" problems with SeanF's post.

[Trakar]

Don't play moderator or I will demonstrate punishment. If you have a problem with another member's post, you report it, though frankly, I don't see any "tone" problems with SeanF's post.

I apologize to you and any others who may have interpreted my remarks as attempting to play moderator, that was neither my intent nor goal.

[SeanF]

I characterized the types of false dichotomies in the post you snippet quoted. Specifically you seem to be
asserting without providing any supporting evidences, that the death penalty keeps people who would otherwise commit some crimes from committing those crimes.

All I have said about the death penalty is that its recidivism rate is zero, which i think is self-evident enough to not require any support. I also pointed out the same thing about the death penalty's success as a deterrent (or lack thereof) that I previously pointed out about other deterrents - it is illogical to dismiss it as a deterrent merely because some people are not deterred by it.

Then you seem to make excluding the middle arguments claiming that if recidivism issues are a valid argument then killing everyone convicted of any crime would be the best solution as it eliminates the potential of them committing any future crime.

No. I pointed out that if recidivism were a primary metric, then the death penalty would be the "winning" solution. That's not an argument in favor of the death penalty, it's an argument against using recidivism as any kind of significant metric.

[Trakar]

All I have said about the death penalty is that its recidivism rate is zero, which i think is self-evident enough to not require any support. I also pointed out the same thing about the death penalty's success as a deterrent (or lack thereof) that I previously pointed out about other deterrents - it is illogical to dismiss it as a deterrent merely because some people are not deterred by it.

It is illogical to assert that any deterence exists without evidence compellingly suggesting or supporting such deterence, which is what I have repeatedly requested.

[SeanF]

It is illogical to assert that any deterence exists without evidence compellingly suggesting or supporting such deterence, which is what I have repeatedly requested.

Well, luckily for me, I made no such assertion. I am disagreeing with your logic, not arguing against your conclusion.

In short, you're asserting that A proves B. I'm claiming that A doesn't actually prove B, but I am not claiming that B is false.

(In this case A is "we still have crime" and B is "punishment is not a deterrent").

[Trakar]

Well, luckily for me, I made no such assertion. I am disagreeing with your logic, not arguing against your conclusion.

In short, you're asserting that A proves B. I'm claiming that A doesn't actually prove B, but I am not claiming that B is false.

(In this case A is "we still have crime" and B is "punishment is not a deterrent").

Your current assertion does not appear to address the assertions I mentioned:

Initial assertion - "In order for the threat of punishment to work, there has to be people who don't commit crimes because of the threat of punishment. But in our society, you're going to find those people among those who have not committed crimes, not among those who have."

That there are people who do not commit crimes, does not support your implicit assumption that there are citizens in our society whose primary motivation to not commit crimes revolves around a fear of being convicted and sent to prison. I know of no compelling evidence in support of this assumption.

Next iteration - "On the contrary. If fear of consequences is a valid deterrent, we would have a lesser (but not necessarily zero) need for prisons or executions. Lesser, that is, than we would have if we didn't have consequences. Prison clearly does not deter everybody, but that doesn't mean it deters nobody."

I am aware of evidence (recidivism) indicating that such does not seem to be a significant deterrent to most criminals, I am not aware of any compelling evidence indicating that prison is a significant deterrent keeping non-criminals from committing crimes.

Third instance - "Third, you are engaging in the same false equivalency fallacy as before. Capital punishment does not deter everybody, but that is not nearly the same thing as not deterring anybody."

Again, I am not aware of any support for the idea that a fear of capital punishment/going to prison is a primary deterrent for anyone who might commit a crime.

Fourth instance - "I also pointed out the same thing about the death penalty's success as a deterrent (or lack thereof) that I previously pointed out about other deterrents - it is illogical to dismiss it as a deterrent merely because some people are not deterred by it."

I have yet to see any evidence supporting that the death penalty/prison is a primary deterrent for anyone.

[SeanF]

Again, I have not made the assertion, implicit or otherwise, that either punishment in general or capital punishment specifically has a significant deterrent effect.

Other people, however, have made the assertion that they have little or no deterrent effect. I have asked for supporting evidence for that assertion, and I have pointed out what I see as flaws in the offered supporting evidence.

In every one of your quoted examples, someone had essentially claimed that we can tell that punishment does not have a deterrent effect because of some particular facts, and I have responded by pointing out that those particular facts do not necessarily indicate a lack of deterrent effect. That's all.

[Trakar]

Again, I have not made the assertion, implicit or otherwise, that either punishment in general or capital punishment specifically has a significant deterrent effect.

Other people, however, have made the assertion that they have little or no deterrent effect. I have asked for supporting evidence for that assertion, and I have pointed out what I see as flaws in the offered supporting evidence.

In every one of your quoted examples, someone had essentially claimed that we can tell that punishment does not have a deterrent effect because of some particular facts, and I have responded by pointing out that those particular facts do not necessarily indicate a lack of deterrent effect. That's all.

So, you have no evidence in support of the contention that prison or the death penalty has any significant deterrent effect on anyone?

[R.A.F.]

...you have no evidence in support of the contention that prison or the death penalty has any significant deterrent effect on anyone?

The death penalty certainly had a "deterrent effect" on Ted Bundy...

[SeanF]

So, you have no evidence in support of the contention that prison or the death penalty has any significant deterrent effect on anyone?

Since I have not made that contention, I don't see why I'd be expected to have evidence to support it.

You offered the fact that we still have murderers after all these years with the death penalty as evidence that there is no significant deterrent effect to the death penalty. Do you still contend, not only that there is no significant deterrent effect, but that the continued existence of murderers is evidence of such?

The death penalty certainly had a "deterrent effect" on Ted Bundy...

But that's technically a recidivism effect. A deterrent effect, generally, means that the threat of punishment prevents a person from engaging in the activity in the first place.

[DonM435]

So, you have no evidence in support of the contention that prison or the death penalty has any significant deterrent effect on anyone?

But, to support Sean's argument, we'd only have to find one (1) example of a person who wanted to commit a capital crime but decided not to because he might be executed. Or would you demand more than one? How many?

[R.A.F.]

But that's technically a recidivism effect.

Well, technically, Trakar didn't qualify his statement...he posted "deterrent effect on anyone". I provided an example of "anyone".

A deterrent effect, generally, means that the threat of punishment prevents a person from engaging in the activity in the first place.

Of course...if I were confining myself to speaking "generally"...however I am not...

Ted Bundy would have killed again given the chance. He was "detered" from doing so by his execution.



Yeah, it's a "nitpick", but it's also the truth of the matter.

[Solfe]

I personally don't think too many people would admit that they considered the punishment at the time of the crime but it is possible that they do. The reason for the lack of admission is some crimes take intent into account. If you intended to do harm/kill someone, that is one crime. If you intended to break up a fight and killed someone through some incredibly poor choices, that is a different crime. And so on.

On the other hand, there are some people who start a crime and can't carry it out. Perhaps some of them had a little fear or a little conscience at the last second.

The police sometimes cuff people even if they are being cited as opposed to arrested. A small segment of the population fear that this small offense will be front page news and they will run for it or do other crazy things.

[swampyankee]

There is, I think quite sufficient evidence to show that the death penalty does not significantly reduce murder rates. While it's very difficult to compare crime statistics between states within the US, let alone trans-nationally, the US states where the death penalty is most often used tend to have higher murder rates than those without, e.g., the murder rate in Texas is about 6 times that in Vermont and about 2.5 times that in Massachusetts. The overall US rate is (according to data from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) about 4.8 per 100,000, vs about 1.2 per 100,000 for Western Europe. Yeah, the threat of the death penalty really works.

[DonM435]

There is, I think quite sufficient evidence to show that the death penalty does not significantly reduce murder rates. While it's very difficult to compare crime statistics between states within the US, let alone trans-nationally, the US states where the death penalty is most often used tend to have higher murder rates than those without, e.g., the murder rate in Texas is about 6 times that in Vermont and about 2.5 times that in Massachusetts. The overall US rate is (according to data from http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) about 4.8 per 100,000, vs about 1.2 per 100,000 for Western Europe. Yeah, the threat of the death penalty really works.

This could be confusing the cause and the effect: of course the states that have a problem with high murder rates are going to consider harsher penalties.

[swampyankee]

I remember reading an article -- iirc, it was in the NY Times -- that Finland made its prison regime much less harsh and punitive and their rate of recidivism dropped. I suspect that there are some complex, and counter-intuitive, psychological reasons for this.

[danscope]

One statistic we may mention is that 99% of those murderers who are put to death never kill again.

[DonM435]

One statistic we may mention is that 99% of those murderers who are put to death never kill again.

With a 1% margin of error, yes.