Capital punishment.

[unadulteratedawesome]

First of all the whole ARGUEMENT itself is not fact by any means

No, but there's a huge difference between arguments based on facts and arguments based on nothing.

Facts can be misleading, especially if you believe everything you read

I don't because I do what's known as fact checking and cross-referencing sources.

and that facts can be changed, and are always changed...

You're correct. People can misrepresent or misinterpret data and come to an illogical conclusion. The article you posted and your implied conclusion are good examples of this.

HOWEVER, since you are hellbent on facts and evidence, explain this... regarding ONLY the subject of deterrance.
http://www.eai.nus.edu.sg/BB412.pdf
. . . And the PEOPLE, also agree with this situation by about 95% or more.

It doesn't really matter what the majority considers when we're discussing the efficacy of the death penalty. Hell, this comes from the same article you posted:

" However, historical and cross-national research suggests that public opinion on the death penalty has no correlation with the death penalty status of a nation."

Regarding the issue of deterrence:

You say that detterance proves non effective, but if you look outside your own borders you will realize that it has already been proven effective in other places.

That's only true if you can demonstrate a link between the rate of crime and the death penalty. In that same article they mention this:

"Moreover, empirical research found mixed results about the deterrent effects of the death penalty. It was suggested that if life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is made available, and prison sentence is lengthened (currently it is 15 years), abolishing the death penalty could be realized without compromising public safety and public morale."

Furthermore, the existence of the death penalty, the way it's performed, and the public's view of it is largely impacted by culture. What works for China does not necessarily work for a western-European country or even another Asian country. This is similar to the topic of gun control. Gun control doesn't appear to have any correlation to the rate of violent crime. People won't be deterred from killing each other if they wanna kill each other.

For me (and I imagine most people), any discussion involving the death penalty is married to the status of the death penalty within my own country, which happens to be the United States. Here's some empirical evidence regarding the death penalty in the states:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout

Essentially, from 1990-2009, the murder rate was higher in states with the death penalty than those without. Sometimes significantly so. How does that support deterrence?

Furthermore after spending a year and a half here I feel safer in the darkest places of the big city in a foreign land then I would in my own country. It has brought an air of comfort, peace and community... for gods sakes the cops do not even carry guns. I am not afraid to give credit where credit is due, and acknowledge a good idea when I see one.

That's great, but that doesn't mean it's thanks to the death penalty. You're drawing a connection without any evidence to support it.

Ignoring the practical aspects of the discussion, China's hardly a good role model for use of the death penalty. I do like to think that a punishment should fit the crime, yet you can be killed for theft and many other non-violent or even non-health threatening crimes. It's also rather odd to take a country as an example when one of their chief goals is to limit frivolous killings. Even the government recognizes that they're a little quick to kill people. Add into that mix a totalitarian government and political dissent being crushed with an iron fist, and, well, you have a pretty terrible example regarding the death penalty.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

No, but there's a huge difference between arguments based on facts and arguments based on nothing.


Well of course there is

I don't because I do what's known as fact checking and cross-referencing sources.


Then you must be sure to cross reference everything, or provide these refrences supporting your opinions

You're correct. People can misrepresent or misinterpret data and come to an illogical conclusion. The article you posted and your implied conclusion are good examples of this.


I don't think you cross referenced any of that article. Further more if you tried I think you would be only able to locate english and western articles and opinions... which WILL be biased, unless you can read chinese or pinyin.

It doesn't really matter what the majority considers when we're discussing the efficacy of the death penalty. Hell, this comes from the same article you posted:

Deterrance is what I am talking about

That's only true if you can demonstrate a link between the rate of crime and the death penalty. In that same article they mention this:

And if you investigated, lived, or conversed and researched the effects and rapid change of a country like China and its laws, you would see that these laws do indeed demonstrate a direct connection.


Furthermore, the existence of the death penalty, the way it's performed, and the public's view of it is largely impacted by culture. What works for China does not necessarily work for a western-European country or even another Asian country. This is similar to the topic of gun control. Gun control doesn't appear to have any correlation to the rate of violent crime. People won't be deterred from killing each other if they wanna kill each other.


Its true, it may not work in a different country, but who are you or me to say it would not, its all based on a one sided arguement. In America, ONE out of 300 killers recieve the death penatly, in China... they all do. My money is guessing difference would exsist if we had it that way.

For me (and I imagine most people), any discussion involving the death penalty is married to the status of the death penalty within my own country, which happens to be the United States. Here's some empirical evidence regarding the death penalty in the states:

Essentially, from 1990-2009, the murder rate was higher in states with the death penalty than those without. Sometimes significantly so. How does that support deterrence?


However the death penalty when enforced, is enforced weakly in America, you should know this. Even if sentanced it takes forever to take effect, you could argue that the murder rate would have been even higher in those years without it, how are you or me to know? I mean god, the crime is always rising.

That's great, but that doesn't mean it's thanks to the death penalty. You're drawing a connection without any evidence to support it.


If you ask the Chinese people, you would find out very differently. When you compare the last few decades with the last couple hundred years its pretty apparant. Just do some of that cross information investigating you talked about. Also you cannot prove that people do not back out on crimes for the fear of their lives any more then I can prove they do. The only evidence I can offer is this... If I was going to rob a bank because I was broke, my mind would be changed by the fact that I could be killed a month after being caught... there...I was differed!

Ignoring the practical aspects of the discussion, China's hardly a good role model for use of the death penalty. I do like to think that a punishment should fit the crime, yet you can be killed for theft and many other non-violent or even non-health threatening crimes. It's also rather odd to take a country as an example when one of their chief goals is to limit frivolous killings. Even the government recognizes that they're a little quick to kill people. Add into that mix a totalitarian government and political dissent being crushed with an iron fist, and, well, you have a pretty terrible example regarding the death penalty.



I fail to see how it is not a good role model (or rather example). It is one of the most populated countries in the world, with one of the lowest murder rates, and the highest amount of death penaltys, and all of this includes the people who still WANT this system. How in the great world of wonder is that a bad argument? I think its only fair that we can compare a country that has become very succesful enforcing the death penalty, to our own countries which contain much more violent citizens, and much less success with punishment.
Crime IS crime. If you obey the law then why should you fear a strict government... I like this. P.S most of those laws like theft and bribery are not handled with death unless it was severe.


It may seem barbaric from afar and from the news and internet, but please, do travel to those over populated cities, and become amazed by how peaceful you can feel. One day America's cities will be just as over run, and maybe we will not be able to control it as well.



I know you are talking about America, but I am talking about Detterance being succesful in China. If you say it has not worked there, then I must inform you that you are wrong. Its almost impossible to conclude that countries like America wouldn't have the same result if it was taken more serious. I don't want to sound like an ass, but I have had intensive studies and education on the east (considerably China), along with a lot of time spent here, and I know what I am talking about Hell I am engaged to a Chinese history major, who wont shut up.


This simply rests my case that deterrance CAN be obtained if done correctly. I have previously debated costs with others, and I have promoted my moral opinion on the matter and compared it with others. So thats that for the main views and debating substance for me I think, unless someone pops in here and says nonesense.

So case rested! feed them to the snakes! I mean we are sending them to azkaban with the demontors anyhow, why not just put them out of their misery.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Further more if you tried I think you would be only able to locate english and western articles and opinions... which WILL be biased, unless you can read chinese or pinyin.

If you're going to cast out all western articles as biased, then how are Chinese articles miraculously . Hell, yours comes from Amnesty International, which was founded by westerners. And it's difficult to get any accurate information in or out of the country, because the Chinese government outright lies about things like this.

And if you investigated, lived, or conversed and researched the effects and rapid change of a country like China and its laws, you would see that these laws do indeed demonstrate a direct connection.

And if you asked many people in the United States, they would say there's a direct connection. But that doesn't mean there is. Anecdotal, layman opinions are a far cry from empirical data. All of the empirical research I've seen has been inconclusive or demonstrated the exact opposite.

Crime IS crime. If you obey the law then why should you fear a strict government...

Because the government is not always correct, because China rushes its death penalty trials, because the punishment does not fit the crime, etc. I barely trust the government with my taxes - and you trust them with your life?

Also you cannot prove that people do not back out on crimes for the fear of their lives any more then I can prove they do. . . . If you say it has not worked there, then I must inform you that you are wrong.

All of the 'evidence' you gave was entirely subjective and anecdotal. You have proven nothing. I already pointed out that even the article you linked stated that there was no clear evidence for deterrence. Here's some more empirical evidence against it: Article here. The author had a Masters in Criminal Justice at the time of writing the article and is Chinese.

"As mentioned earlier, the execution number increased sharply during “Strike Hard” campaigns. Thus, the homicide rate should have decreased during these periods if the death penalty deters. However, the crime data from the Chinese Law Yearbook showed a relatively steady increasing trend in the homicide rate in spite of the increased executions during “Strike Hard” campaigns in 1983 and 1996. Liu and Messner (2001) also examined the trend and reported that the homicide rate in 1978-1998 was significantly increased. It appeared that other violent crimes rates, such as rape, assault, and robbery, decreased following the “Strike Hard” campaign in 1983, but it provided no evidence of a deterrent effect of the death penalty. First, compared to homicide, these offenses were less likely to be sentenced to death. Second, the data for these crimes were aggregated, which included many non death-eligible crimes. For instance, only very serious rapes were death eligible, but the rape rates included a large number of ordinary rapes. Third, these crime rates had large fluctuations. The rape rate, for example, decreased in 1992 and increased again in 1996."

The article goes on to examine how it effected the rates of other crimes, and it didn't even deter drug smuggling! Other countries that adopted a death penalty for drug smuggling also didn't see any improvement. The article also sums up my views on why using China as an example for the death penalty is a bad idea:

"Also, Svensson (2001) pointed out that several preconditions of a deterrent effect cannot be met in China due to the low certainty of offenders being caught and arrested, the lack of legal knowledge by the public, and the lack of respect for law."

Couple this with having a very fast trial time and a limited chance for appeal, and you end up with a system where the government hides most of the executions and rushes through them at the cost of accuracy and justice. The reason the death penalty is so rarely used and takes so long to use in the US is because we are actually concerned with not killing innocent people, a stance I can't say the Chinese government is all that concerned about, when you look at their policies. Just look at the recent train incident - is this a government you want to have legal jurisdiction over life and death?

Lastly, socio-economic conditions and culture have the largest effects on crime. China's transitioning to a market economy, so economic crimes are going to increase (and are increasing). And they continue to increase, despite the possibility of execution. You can talk all you want about how you would be deterred from committing a crime because of the threat of death - but are you a criminal? Have you ever committed a serious crime? You seem like a pretty average person, meaning that deterrence is kind of meaningless where you're concerned because there's barely any chance you'd commit the crime in the first place.

So case rested! feed them to the snakes! I mean we are sending them to azkaban with the demontors anyhow, why not just put them out of their misery.

Because, smartass, if I had the option of a life sentence or death, I'd much prefer the life sentence. That catch-all "Put me out of my misery" thing doesn't apply to everyone, making it a terrible argument.

So, are you going to continue saying things like "If you say it has not worked there, then I must inform you that you are wrong" or are you actually going to refute any of my points? Stating things louder and louder doesn't really make up for lack of reasoning or evidence.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

If you're going to cast out all western articles as biased, then how are Chinese articles miraculously . Hell, yours comes from Amnesty International, which was founded by westerners. And it's difficult to get any accurate information in or out of the country, because the Chinese government outright lies about things like this.

I am casting the western articles as biast when dicussing succes of detterance for the death penalty thats not their own country. Not me thought, because I agree with them. And how do you know what they lie about? I mean all goverments lie. Did the PRC tell you about their lies or are you just guessing and opinionating (which is what you got on pro people for to begin with). If their people have a hard time telling what they are being honest about then I sure Americans would have a much harder time. Besides, America is biast when it comes to dealing with China because we are trying outsource them and are great friends with Taiwan(which rightfully belongs to China) and Japan.

And if you asked many people in the United States, they would say there's a direct connection. But that doesn't mean there is. Anecdotal, layman opinions are a far cry from empirical data. All of the empirical research I've seen has been inconclusive or demonstrated the exact opposite.

I was discussing the aspect of ditterance being succesful in China. Have you stumbled across many articles that say it has not worked there? You have posted me 1 immagrants essay in English... the thing is I can read pinyin, and I have some articles myself. Ditterance is what I am talking about... all I am saying is that I believe detterance possible to acheive. It just makes sense to me man, no offense if you really do not want to admit it, we can disagree forever.

Because the government is not always correct, because China rushes its death penalty trials, because the punishment does not fit the crime, etc. I barely trust the government with my taxes - and you trust them with your

We have different standards for which fits a death penalty, sure I do not think blackmail should go down for the death penalty, but then again I am not blackmailing so I don't have to worry about it. I trust my goverments concern for my well being more then my fellow citizens concern...one of them has the job to care


All of the 'evidence' you gave was entirely subjective and anecdotal. You have proven nothing. I already pointed out that even the article you linked stated that there was no clear evidence for deterrence. Here's some more empirical evidence against it: Article here. The author had a Masters in Criminal Justice at the time of writing the article and is Chinese.

Come on, this is just like you saying the crime rate in America went up so detterance is not real, except I am saying the crime rate went down drastically with "stricter" death penalty in China, so detterance is real. Its the same contradiction on both sides, so whose is right? That link I sent was merely to show the rules more or less, and the article even states that it is not likely they will abolish the death penalty for along time coming... must mean somethings working right?

"As mentioned earlier, the execution number increased sharply during “Strike Hard” campaigns. Thus, the homicide rate should have decreased during these periods if the death penalty deters. However, the crime data from the Chinese Law Yearbook showed a relatively steady increasing trend in the homicide rate in spite of the increased executions during “Strike Hard” campaigns in 1983 and 1996. Liu and Messner (2001) also examined the trend and reported that the homicide rate in 1978-1998 was significantly increased. It appeared that other violent crimes rates, such as rape, assault, and robbery, decreased following the “Strike Hard” campaign in 1983, but it provided no evidence of a deterrent effect of the death penalty. First, compared to homicide, these offenses were less likely to be sentenced to death. Second, the data for these crimes were aggregated, which included many non death-eligible crimes. For instance, only very serious rapes were death eligible, but the rape rates included a large number of ordinary rapes. Third, these crime rates had large fluctuations. The rape rate, for example, decreased in 1992 and increased again in 1996."


The only reason rape increased is because they became more leniant with the death penalty in the later 90's and allowed protistution to settle under their wings with a blind eye. Besides it seems the death penatly works pretty suberbly for all of the lower rated crimes. This is just one piece of information regarding one mans account. The evidence is pretty apparant when you compare country to country, population to popultion, and wealth to wealth. I mean sure these guys executed a lot of people, but how many wars have they stepped into in the last 40 years, how many people not of their own race have they killed. At least they are keeping business in their own. They have done a very good job stabilitating a country that was off its rocker in madness and riot, and with damn good speed.

The article goes on to examine how it effected the rates of other crimes, and it didn't even deter drug smuggling! Other countries that adopted a death penalty for drug smuggling also didn't see any improvement. The article also sums up my views on why using China as an example for the death penalty is a bad idea:

I have seen no Chinese drug addicts, they probably know they will lock you up for it, so they don't do it. China does not have a very big drug market.

If you go there then you will notice its the safest feeling place you may have been to, including both the police and the public. I cannot argue agaisnt an entire population that is "for" it. I think they have an idea about "their" country...don't you? I asked 10 co workers before I left work last night, and they all said... we agree. I am sorry but I am for it, we just have a different opinion. I cannot say this system is for America... but then again I was not trying to.


Couple this with having a very fast trial time and a limited chance for appeal, and you end up with a system where the government hides most of the executions and rushes through them at the cost of accuracy and justice. The reason the death penalty is so rarely used and takes so long to use in the US is because we are actually concerned with not killing innocent people, a stance I can't say the Chinese government is all that concerned about, when you look at their policies. Just look at the recent train incident - is this a government you want to have legal jurisdiction over life and death?

So this is perspective. Would you risk thousands being killed over a few years on the street, or 3 falsly accused or framed people? I will take my chances and you may not agree. The odds are in my favor.

The train issue resulted in the people responsible being executed, and if you know their situation then you know they HAVE to move fast. Its not that they don't care about human life, its that they care about their country so much that they are breaking their backs to help them prospher and find their place.

Lastly, socio-economic conditions and culture have the largest effects on crime. China's transitioning to a market economy, so economic crimes are going to increase (and are increasing). And they continue to increase, despite the possibility of execution. You can talk all you want about how you would be deterred from committing a crime because of the threat of death - but are you a criminal? Have you ever committed a serious crime? You seem like a pretty average person, meaning that deterrence is kind of meaningless where you're concerned because there's barely any chance you'd commit the crime in the first place.


Haha I plead the 5th. but I will allow you to do some more research on China, because the death penalty has been around for a while now, while the increase has been around for about a decade or two. Just keep researching. Do you really think if you abolished the death penalty that they would only stay the same, if you think this way then I have to disagree. I mean those people who commit business crimes, most of the time... are average people

Because, smartass, if I had the option of a life sentence or death, I'd much prefer the life sentence. That catch-all "Put me out of my misery" thing doesn't apply to everyone, making it a terrible argument.

I am not being a smartass, thats the second time I told that joke. And good for those killers who want the life sentance, you do not see me shedding a tear for them.

So, are you going to continue saying things like "If you say it has not worked there, then I must inform you that you are wrong" or are you actually going to refute any of my points? Stating things louder and louder doesn't really make up for lack of reasoning or evidence.

I responded to all of your points. you don't need to get all angry, I mean you choose to debate with me in "every" one of my debates on your own accord, knowing already where you stand and where I stand. I will also mention that when you came into this discussion you put us all down at once without rebuttaling any points.

We just disagree =)

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

And how do you know what they lie about?

Pardon, lying was the incorrect word to use. Withholding. And it's clear that they're withholding the number of people executed because the estimated number of executions (by international organizations) is astronomically higher than the confirmed number. Even with the lower, confirmed numbers, the effects of deterrence are disproven. The case for deterrence gets worse the more deaths are confirmed, because the lack of relation gets even more apparent.

You have posted me 1 immagrants essay in English... the thing is I can read pinyin, and I have some articles myself.

Then post them? Even a sloppily translated one is better than nothing. I'd like to see actual contrary evidence because I've never found a reliable source that contradicted my point. You've only produced one article which didn't even support your point.

sure I do not think blackmail should go down for the death penalty, but then again I am not blackmailing so I don't have to worry about it.

What a weak position. I don't drink alcohol, but I'm still concerned with drunk driving laws.

except I am saying the crime rate went down drastically with "stricter" death penalty in China, so detterance is real.

Except that's not at all what happened or what I'm saying. The amount of murder in China steadily increased. During this time period, they began a more aggressive approach to capture and execute offenders and did indeed execute way more people. Despite this, there was no noticeable change in the increase in violent crime. If executions actually deterred people or prevented repeat offenses, there should have been a marked decrease in violent crime during this.

it is not likely they will abolish the death penalty for along time coming... must mean somethings working right?

How does that indicate it's working or a good law? We're still flooding prisons in the states with people who've committed very minor drug offenses - the fact that the laws still exist and are enforced doesn't mean it's doing anything to help.

The evidence is pretty apparant when you compare country to country, population to popultion, and wealth to wealth.

Yes, as far as violent crime (and other forms of crime) are concerned, China's doing very well compared to other countries (especially the US). That doesn't mean it's the work of the death penalty. You're drawing unsupported connections.

I think they have an idea about "their" country...don't you?

Not really, no. The majority rarely knows what's good for itself and others, regardless of where you are.

Would you risk thousands being killed over a few years on the street, or 3 falsly accused or framed people? I will take my chances and you may not agree. The odds are in my favor.

The odds aren't in your favor because you're pulling those numbers out of your ass.

because the death penalty has been around for a while now, while the increase has been around for about a decade or two. Just keep researching.

The number of executions has also fluctuated, with no apparent effect on the increasing rate of crime. So the death penalty is either so ineffective as to be impotent, or simply not related at all.

you don't need to get all angry

Just because my avatar is a rage face doesn't mean I'm mad. Perhaps if I change it to a smiley face people will always interpret my posts as condescendingly joyous?

I will also mention that when you came into this discussion you put us all down at once without rebuttaling any points.

That was because all of the points were already refuted by other people.

We just disagree =)

I will always disagree with a DIRTY COMMUNIST. (a jest)

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Hmm I think me and you are done. You missed most of my lines though, but I guess I don't really care much anymore. You have this habit of disregarding almost every single line I post, without acknowledgment or credit, and pull apart the only things you want to debate agaisnt. I give you credit for points you have or at least quote the whole thing. It leaves about 2% each time.

I don't think communist is a bad word

I think ditterance is in China is real, I rest my opinion on the matter. I feel and see the difference, not only "read" about it.

And I am in favor for the death penalty for many reasons which I previously posted before this off topical rambling, because even if ditterance wasn't real, even if the costs were lower, and even though the judicial system has some flaws, I still would agree with it. I guess thats just who I am. However it was nice to exchange views about the country I reside in with you.

 

[asm]

Criminals aren't put on death row unless there is overwhelming evidence to support. There is of course still room for error. I can see where you're coming from, wanting to save an innocent life even if it means thousands of murderers get to live. I respect that, but I still believe the death penalty has a place in the justice system. I don't advocate the murder of innocents, ever, as you insinuate. I'm trusting that the system will only go so far as to execute a criminal if they are without a doubt guilty.

What is this based on? If there is overwhelming evidence to support giving death penalties, why are there documented cases of innocent people being put to death?

I am not. You assume that I am. You are putting words into my mouth (or anyone who is not decidedly against the death penalty).

Some people specifically said innocent people might be put to death with the actual criminals but thought this is irrelevant. If you didn't say that, perhaps you shouldn't get offended when someone replies to such a comment. I guess it's pretty hard though, considering threads like these get garbled.



PS. For the record, you don't have to go further than Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

 

[Tmoo]

What is this based on? If there is overwhelming evidence to support giving death penalties, why are there documented cases of innocent people being put to death?

PS. For the record, you don't have to go further than Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

I'm basing that off all the legalities that need to be addressed before someone's put onto Death Row. There isn't overwhelming support for the DP, but in some criminal cases there can be for the individual criminal. I'd have to read a law book to be concrete, so admittedly I could be wrong here.

There is a chance for innocents to be put to death, I'm not brushing that off. But no one in the judiciary system wants that to happen (or I would hope they don't), hence all the paperwork and obstacles to being put on the death sentence in the first place. The DP is only for the worst of the worst, I'm in no way saying every Tom, Dick, and Harry should be offed like cattle. If someone dies who shouldn't have, then something went wrong during the trial process and that needs to be analyzed and revised.

EDIT:

Some people specifically said innocent people might be put to death with the actual criminals but thought this is irrelevant. If you didn't say that, perhaps you shouldn't get offended when someone replies to such a comment. I guess it's pretty hard though, considering threads like these get garbled.

Yeah, when I made that post, I replied to every comment, which was a mistake. There are a lot of arguments flying around.

 

[asm]

Just for news sake, "the west memphis three" if you've heard of them, are upto something.

In that sense I guess we agree on a lot of things, pro or con death penalty. It's very hard to determine what the actual truth in the west memphis 3 case is, but it seems like the guy who got the death penalty is getting his freedom...? Hard to say since it's only rumours and news items with little actual information.

So in that sense, the appeal system seems to have worked!


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/18/arkansas.child.killings/

 

[Tmoo]

Assuming they're innocent from no DNA evidence, that's great news. Hopefully it pulls through.

In that sense I guess we agree on a lot of things, pro or con death penalty.

I debate a lot, but I try to keep myself reasonable, mostly.

 

[asm]

Assuming they're innocent from no DNA evidence, that's great news. Hopefully it pulls through.

I debate a lot, but I try to keep myself reasonable, mostly.

Yeah! Seems like the system *did* work right for them afterall.