I'm reminded of the Life of Brian "Jehovah" sketch
"You're only making it worse for yourself!"
Seriously, if someone has committed a Capital offence, what incentive do they have not to do it again?
Killers laugh in face of death penalty threat, say US experts
Researchers have concluded there's no concrete evidence that the death penalty has any effect on homicide rates in the United States. The Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty took a look at "conflicting" studies of the threat of capital punishment's influence on would-be murderers since the US Supreme Court ended a …
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 07:33 GMT GitMeMyShootinIrons
Re: I'm reminded of the Life of Brian "Jehovah" sketch
I think the intent is to deter the first offence (no murder is better than one murder after all). Whether deterrence works is always open to debate and interpretation.
As to the cost? Well, this is directly attributable to massively long and expensive appeals processes that can lead to death row inmates being banged up longer than a UK life sentence.
Depending on your perspective, life without parole could be considered a far crueler sentence than death. Can you imagine 70 years or so in a prison, knowing you aren't getting out?
-
Friday 20th April 2012 07:55 GMT Semaj
Re: I'm reminded of the Life of Brian "Jehovah" sketch
"Can you imagine 70 years or so in a prison, knowing you aren't getting out?"
It must be at least something like what those who care about the victim feel, knowing that person is now gone from their lives.
So yeah - sounds like a fitting punishment to me. Much more than the death sentence (life is cheap to those people anyway).
-
Friday 20th April 2012 08:42 GMT Silverburn
Re: I'm reminded of the Life of Brian "Jehovah" sketch
I believe that many on deathrow are psychopaths or psychopathic tendencies. I can't remember where I saw that.
Which means they place no value on life, neither their victims or their own, so I agree - the death penalty is ultimately useless as a deterent.
In an ideal world you'd gene test for the psycho gene, and make the appropriate environment adjustments to ensure that gene doesn't get 'oxygen to burn'. Naturally, some will have moral objections to this, so downvote away...
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
Monday 23rd April 2012 08:56 GMT Silverburn
Re: @Silverburn - I'm reminded of the Life of Brian "Jehovah" sketch
@ AC 20/04 15:25 (and other posters thinking the same)
Actually, I didn't mention gene suppression at all.
If you'd watched the program others have provided the link for, you'd realise that having the gene does not automatically make you a killer. One of the researchers even had the gene, yet was not a killer (though did display some strange behaviours), mainly due to the environment he was raised in. The program theorised that a good percentage of people have the same gene, yet don't become killers, for the same reasons - a nuturing environment.
Which was my point - if you knew someone had the gene, you'd be especially careful to cultivate their enviroment so as not to give 'oxygen to the flame'.
-
-
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 10:46 GMT Lee Dowling
Re: I'm reminded of the Life of Brian "Jehovah" sketch
@Kenno:
The US nearly profits from the prison system. Some ridiculous percentage of "US-made" products are made by in-mates in prisons. We're talking billions of dollars of products every single year. They are effectively used as slave-labour.
Never seen the Shawshank Redemption? The way the prison governor basically blackmails the local craftsmen because all his prisoners can actually steal his work from him any time they want? It's not entirely fiction, and still happens today.
Which is hilarious given that U.S. law has banned imports of goods made in foreign jails since 1890.
-
Friday 20th April 2012 11:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Profits from prison labour
"The US nearly profits from the prison system. Some ridiculous percentage of "US-made" products are made by in-mates in prisons. We're talking billions of dollars of products every single year. They are effectively used as slave-labour".
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175531/tomgram%3A_fraser_and_freeman%2C_creating_a_prison-corporate_complex/
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 17:01 GMT Axel
Re: I'm reminded of the Life of Brian "Jehovah" sketch
The really important benefit of sticking someone in jail for the rest of their natural life rather than executing them is that when a person (e.g. you) is wrongfully convicted (remember the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad) they can be released rather than being dead.
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 13:20 GMT Michael H.F. Wilkinson
Re: Can you imagine 70 years or so in a prison,
knowing you aren't getting out?
Good point. I sometimes wonder if even for the likes of Khadafi or Saddam Hussein, being put in prison for the long haul and being treated as if you were ordinary would not be the worst possible punishment for those types.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 09:14 GMT h4rm0ny
Re: I'm reminded of the Life of Brian "Jehovah" sketch
Well presumably if they've been caught for the first, they shouldn't have much opportunity to commit a second. And if they haven't been caught for the first then it's more or less irrlevant unless they are.
But really, the penalties for murder et al are so high (unless your governments says these people are okay to kill and pays you for it), that you'd already have to be unable to rationally factor in consequences to do it anyway, unless you thought you'd get away with it. Basically, to any person behaving rationally, committing murder or similar is already a bad idea. If someone discards the risks of years in prison, they're almost certainly going to discard the risk of execution.
-
Friday 20th April 2012 13:17 GMT Tom 13
Re: you'd already have to be unable to rationally factor in consequences
actually the converse is true. If you rationally work out the odds of being caught, convicted, and imprisoned for life/executed it's a logical choice, particularly if it is a stab and grab. Of the murders that get solved, they are mostly crimes of passion where victims knew killers or paid hits where somebody bragged.
It's still wrong to kill, but contrary to the popular meme, it's a moral issue, not a logic issue.
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 13:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I'm reminded of the Life of Brian "Jehovah" sketch
The study isn't about recidivism. Nobody said anything about letting murders walk free.
Californian stats based on murders who aren't murdered by the state (and other crimes, quite interesting actually):
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/reports_research/offender_information_services_branch/Annual/RECID2/RECID2d2004.pdf
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Sunday 22nd April 2012 17:18 GMT The People
<< New TV show >> Prison Death Match
Well life in the nick without parole means they will only have each other to kill so that’s ok by us. let them all make each other extinct.
OR
A new TV show :D ... Prison Death Match, where they all fight to the death only one can survive, his reward, he gets to fight another day. Costs can be recouped in adverstising revenue.
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 07:29 GMT Johnny Canuck
The problem I have is that the death penalty should only be used in cases of serial or mass murder where guilt is 100 percent certain - not plain old murder where one person kills one other person (even in cold blood). Also, I'm curious about the cost of someone fighting a life sentence for years versus someone fighting the death penalty for years - is there much of a difference?
-
Friday 20th April 2012 07:33 GMT AndyS
"is there much of a difference?"
Yes, very much - in fact the figure is in the article :) This is due to higher security, less social interaction (meaning more staff and more stressed inmates), higher costs of appeal, etc etc. Remember also there will be a very long time (often 15 or more years) between initial conviction and execution.
I read the figure phrased differently somewhere a couple of years ago, but I think it costs about $1.5 million more to execute an inmate than to jail them for life without parole.
-
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 17:48 GMT Periquet dels Palots
Re: "is there much of a difference?"
Smothering with a pillow?
Seriously, though, this very debate stinks of right wing righteusness. Capital punishment stinks because it turns your country and its citizens into murderers too. The very discussion of the financial details while obviating this is extremely disgusting.
There is no capital punishment in any western european country I can think of, possibly not even for life inprisonment (30 years max in Spain, with posibility of parole), and the assasination rates are lower by far than in the US of A.
-
-
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 08:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
Murder = Murder
State condoned premeditated murder is no example to the rest of society on how to behave and only reinforces the belief that premeditated murder is acceptable. I as a juror could not give a guilty verdict if I knew the penalty was going to be death as mistakes do happen. A good example of such a travesty of justice is Stefan Kiszko (see A Life for a Life 1998) who would have undoubtedly received the death penalty if it had still be on the statute books in the UK.
"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have. "
Will Munny, Unforgiven (1992)
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 12:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Murder = Murder
And a brilliant movie, from start to finish, which is almost guaranteed to change any reasonable person's ideas about death and killing. In my book, Clint Eastwood repaid society for any foolish ideas about vigilante killing he may have spread through the "Dirty Harry" series.
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 12:18 GMT Wize
Re: Murder = Murder
"...only reinforces the belief that premeditated murder is acceptable."
So, you are saying we can't put the mad dogs down. But does that also mean we cannot lock them up, as it would be showing that it is acceptable to hold someone against their will thus promoting kidnapping? Its an extension of your argument.
And we have the Hannibal Lecter types in permanent lockdown. If they get loose and gnaw a guard's face off there isn't much more they can do to them. Safer to everyone if they get humanly put down.
-
Friday 20th April 2012 13:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
@ Wize Re: Murder = Murder
Nice Daily Mail outrage there, however there is nothing humane about premeditated murder no matter what the perpetrators crime and you become the very thing that you demonize.
I suggest you watch the full series of Brass Eye, however I fear it will be over your head and you will take it literally.
PS Hannibal Lecter is a fictional character, he's not real you know.
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 12:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Shame on El Reg
It may or may not deter, but it certainly prevents recidivism. Outside Hollywood horror films, no murderer has ever killed anyone after he was dead.
We have to balance the need to protect potential victims against the need to give the alleged criminal a fair chance. I used to think the death penalty was a good idea in many cases of deliberate cold-blooded murder; then I discovered how often and how easily miscarriages of justice happen. Much as I was a big fan of nuclear power, until I realised how cynical, lazy, dishonest, slipshod and uncaring many of the people responsible for our safety can be.
-
Friday 20th April 2012 13:35 GMT Tom 13
Re: Shame on El Reg
Actually we do, but the anti-death penalty crowd don't want to admit it.
The death penalty does act as a significant and measurable deterrent, but only when it is:
- carried out in close proximity to the time at which the crime was committed (practically guaranteed not to happen in the current environment
- is carried out consistently so it is perceived as a roulette wheel type event
- is public and well publicized
That last one is even more important than the first two even though they are all critical. And given the current environment, guarantees something that could be an effective deterrent isn't.
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 14:58 GMT Figgus
Re: Shame on El Reg
"So, basically you are arguing for Judge Dredd-style in the spot executions, as happened recently in Florida."
Really? Which case was this? The only thing I know of from there is an unresolved self-defense case with no verdict yet that is being used as a political football by wannabe politicians who have nothing to play in their career except the race card.
-
-
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 08:52 GMT Voland's right hand
It can be about deterrent
It can be about deterrent - if the punishment is public. This is valid for any punishment (including the death penalty).
A private "humane" punishment can never be a deterrent because the population does not observe the punishment and does not see exactly what it will go through if it commits the offense. So why on earth can someone expect it to be deterred?
In any case, the system is broken, we should be:
1. Forced labour, not "Hotel Stay twiddling thumbs and learning new techniques" - there are enough yellow fever and malaria breeding grounds swamps to irrigate and minefields to clear worldwide. Regular reports on the public service announcements on TV are essential - there is no better deterrent than watching someone in the last stage of yellow fever kick the bucket (it can be merely cleaning the streets for minor offenses of course). Channels that do not transmit let's say 1 minute during each news bulletin and/or 5 min per day in advert breaks should not get a license.
2. Term in advance - you are welcome to commit any crime you like as long as you serve half of your term first. Want to kill someone, fine, sign the papers and do 7 years of digging trenches in a malaria swamp (if you do not do it in advance you dig 'em 15 years). If you quit early you get nothing (besides the set of diseases and amputated limbs).
-
-
Friday 20th April 2012 07:40 GMT jake
Most murders are gang, drug, alcohol or sex related.
And in that order (at least here in California). I'm talking 95+%.
Not a single one of the killers I'm typing about even thinks about it before doing the deed. Laws, and the threat of punishment don't enter the picture. It's an emotion-based thing, brought on by poor up-bringing (for the most part), IMNESHO.
Might not be politically correct to state it, but the male children of un-married mothers in the inner-cities are by far the largest percentage of murderers here in CA.
Gut feeling is that the worst problem is people living in hamster-habitats. We're built to be small-group hunter-gatherers, not spoon-fed masses.
The other problem is welfare mothers smacking their kids around, thus teaching the kids that violence is a good way to get your point across.
I have no answers.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
