The Mobius Forum

matthayter700 wrote:To be fair, there's a difference between "a life for a life" and "a life for several thousand lives."

Even at that, IIRC he was shot because they weren't sure if they could take him alive. Even if they did, I'm pretty sure support for executing him would have been overwhelming.

Oh, and Xemesis, on what basis do you claim that having the death penalty reduces crime?

Heard it on the news when they were having a death penalty vs. non death penalty topic.

Simple basis really.  Animals only innate fear is pain.  So no matter the person, the threat of pain and/or death is much more persuasive than living for free in a cell.  


~Tobe

Toby Underwood wrote:Simple basis really.  Animals only innate fear is pain.  So no matter the person, the threat of pain and/or death is much more persuasive than living for free in a cell.  

You would think that, in theory, but in practice it is not that simple.

And Xemesis, "someone on the news" does not cut it. Was it the reporter? Was it an interviewee, and if so, was it some arbitrary social activist or an actual scientist in a relevant subject like psychology? (Not that even that would confirm it, as even scientists have biases, but being more specific would be a step up from your previous answer.)

matthayter700 wrote:

Toby Underwood wrote:Simple basis really.  Animals only innate fear is pain.  So no matter the person, the threat of pain and/or death is much more persuasive than living for free in a cell.  

You would think that, in theory, but in practice it is not that simple.

And Xemesis, "someone on the news" does not cut it. Was it the reporter? Was it an interviewee, and if so, was it some arbitrary social activist or an actual scientist in a relevant subject like psychology? (Not that even that would confirm it, as even scientists have biases, but being more specific would be a step up from your previous answer.)

I don't remember all of it now. But they were researchers looking are crime statistics and noticed that crime was dramatically lower in areas where the death penalty was allowed opposed to where it wasn't allowed. They said it was a wide statistic and it was proven places with death penalty blah blah blah. you get it.
I would just google it somewhere.

Xemesis wrote:

matthayter700 wrote:

Toby Underwood wrote:Simple basis really.  Animals only innate fear is pain.  So no matter the person, the threat of pain and/or death is much more persuasive than living for free in a cell.  

You would think that, in theory, but in practice it is not that simple.

And Xemesis, "someone on the news" does not cut it. Was it the reporter? Was it an interviewee, and if so, was it some arbitrary social activist or an actual scientist in a relevant subject like psychology? (Not that even that would confirm it, as even scientists have biases, but being more specific would be a step up from your previous answer.)

I don't remember all of it now. But they were researchers looking are crime statistics and noticed that crime was dramatically lower in areas where the death penalty was allowed opposed to where it wasn't allowed. They said it was a wide statistic and it was proven places with death penalty blah blah blah. you get it.
I would just google it somewhere.

Did this happen to be Fox News?

Hukos wrote:

Xemesis wrote:

matthayter700 wrote:You would think that, in theory, but in practice it is not that simple.

And Xemesis, "someone on the news" does not cut it. Was it the reporter? Was it an interviewee, and if so, was it some arbitrary social activist or an actual scientist in a relevant subject like psychology? (Not that even that would confirm it, as even scientists have biases, but being more specific would be a step up from your previous answer.)

I don't remember all of it now. But they were researchers looking are crime statistics and noticed that crime was dramatically lower in areas where the death penalty was allowed opposed to where it wasn't allowed. They said it was a wide statistic and it was proven places with death penalty blah blah blah. you get it.
I would just google it somewhere.

Did this happen to be Fox News?

I totally don't remember.

So, you say it was "researchers" on some news story, without specifying the specialization, claim you can't even remember what channel it was on, and then you expect me to google it (as if your vague description narrowed it down precisely) instead of citing it for your own case, and without addressing the argument made in my own link? Excuse me for not finding that convincing. o.o

Anyway, back to the subject at hand, I think it's pretty telling that some arguments against "being cruel to cruel people" revolve around simply blurring the distinctions between kind people and cruel people. Yes, people are more complicated than one label, but that doesn't erase the point that some people are simply more kind than others; it's just that the difference are more along a spectrum than any all-or-nothing scenario. And so, when the choice comes down to something like who to help in a given scenario, I would side with the more deserving ones. This isn't to say that "being cruel to cruel people" should be thought of as an end in itself, but if it's a means to benefit the more deserving ones? Probably worth it.

Xemesis wrote:I support the death penalty completely, simply having it reduces crime. I can't fathom why so many here seem to be against it. If the individuel did something bad enough to get such punishment, That there is justice.
This punishment also eases alot of the hate and grief of the victims families.

---

While I have personal beliefs against the death penalty, I never use them because I don't need to go there. The reason I'd never support the death penalty is that if you can't even guarantee that you put the right people in jail for non-violent crimes, then I don't trust your ability to put the correct people on death row for violent crimes either. It does not help knowing about the numbers of people released from death row that were innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. I know matt's been asking for your research information, but I would be interested in it as well. Most crimes don't reach the level of requiring the death penalty and many of the ones that do are usually in one of the following categories: personal (or domestic) in nature, caused by "professional" criminals (gangs, etc.), or by those who most consider to be "unbalanced" (and therefore aren't going to care about the death penalty or might not be subjected to it due to being "legally insane"). Obviously there are crimes that don't fit in those 3 main categories of crimes that can result in the death penalty, but those 3 are very common. Additionally, one of the most common crimes that results in death where people are almost never sent to death row is driving while drunk and accidentally killing someone. So, personally, I'd be hard pressed to believe that it is possible to prove the death penalty deters or doesn't deter crimes in general.

True Red wrote:

Xemesis wrote:I support the death penalty completely, simply having it reduces crime. I can't fathom why so many here seem to be against it. If the individuel did something bad enough to get such punishment, That there is justice.
This punishment also eases alot of the hate and grief of the victims families.

---

While I have personal beliefs against the death penalty, I never use them because I don't need to go there. The reason I'd never support the death penalty is that if you can't even guarantee that you put the right people in jail for non-violent crimes, then I don't trust your ability to put the correct people on death row for violent crimes either. It does not help knowing about the numbers of people released from death row that were innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. I know matt's been asking for your research information, but I would be interested in it as well. Most crimes don't reach the level of requiring the death penalty and many of the ones that do are usually in one of the following categories: personal (or domestic) in nature, caused by "professional" criminals (gangs, etc.), or by those who most consider to be "unbalanced" (and therefore aren't going to care about the death penalty or might not be subjected to it due to being "legally insane"). Obviously there are crimes that don't fit in those 3 main categories of crimes that can result in the death penalty, but those 3 are very common. Additionally, one of the most common crimes that results in death where people are almost never sent to death row is driving while drunk and accidentally killing someone. So, personally, I'd be hard pressed to believe that it is possible to prove the death penalty deters or doesn't deter crimes in general.

To be fair, that alone doesn't quite cut it. One major counterargument to that is the point that a murderer who escapes from prison could kill again, so in some cases NOT administering the death penalty would lead to the death of innocents. Even as prisoners are sent to higher-security prisons, the risk is still there. This is why issues like the moral implications of killing even those who did commit the crime are relevant anyway.