Support NeoGAF

[HanktheAwesome]

Death Penalty:

• Would-be-killers who are NOT cool with getting the Death Penalty: Deterred
• Would-be-killers who are cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway

Without Death Penalty:

• Would-be-killers who are NOT cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway
• Would-be-killers who are cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway

There's only so much you can do to stop a crazy person from taking lives. But you can at least scare off the cowards with the Death Penalty.

For the record, I'm only for the Death Penalty in cases of 100% certainty of guilt, which almost never happens. It's only for the truly evil.

 

[Red Comet]

I don't like this. It is probably what he wanted anyway.

 

[Pyrrhus]

That's an indictment of America, not Norway.

On that we agree. My point is that he lives better than millions of people who have not murdered scores of kids and that sits wrong with me.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Can anyone honestly say the death penalty doesn't deter anyone from murder?

I don't know, you tell me.

 

[Blader]

I'm generally opposed to the death penalty and would've preferred Tsarnaev get a life sentence instead, but I find some of the cries of civilized/uncivilized and barbarism in here to be pretty...misguided. The alternative in this case is decades spent rotting in arguably the worst prison in America. I don't think you can claim the moral high ground of civility here if you're advocating for a life of suffering for him.

I don't know what would have been worse. Death or being sent to Florence for life.

Is Italy really that bad?

 

[Buzzati]

Sounds like he should have done his homework and killed Norweigans instead of Americans. Gotta do that homework, bro!

 

[entremet]

Seems to be the wrong case to cry about the death penalty.

Call it blood lust, revenge, or whatever. So what. I don't know why anyone expected different here.

Basically.

Tsarneav dug his own grave.

 

[TheGreatMightyPoo]

I'm generally opposed to the death penalty and would've preferred Tsarnaev get a life sentence instead, but I find some of the cries of civilized/uncivilized and barbarism in here to be pretty...misguided. The alternative in this case is decades spent rotting in arguably the worst prison in America. I don't think you can claim the moral high ground of civility here if you're advocating for a life of suffering for him.



Is Italy really that bad?

It is when the cast of Jersey Shore is there.

 

[NullPointer]

* Kill him and you give him what he allegedly wants in making him a martyr.

* Imprison him and his imprisonment can be used as justification and his release can be demanded as ransom for future murderous acts.

* Hold him indefinitely in some black site somewhere in the world and you've only subverted your own justice system while providing recruitment propaganda showcasing just how fucked up we can be as a nation.

I don't think we should make special exemptions for suicidal maniacs. Let the process work in the light of day as it has here, regardless of what martyrs-to-be think of it. What matters is whether we follow our own laws both in letter and spirit.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

The death penalty is not a deterrent. The last thing you're thinking about when you're in the act of murdering someone is what the potential legal punishment might be in the relevant jurisdiction if/when you're caught and found guilty.

States without a death penalty had a lower murder rate than those with the death penalty.

Also, a 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder.

 

[Pepiope]

Well, I should have said I think it's a "factual assumption".

Can anyone honestly say the death penalty doesn't deter anyone from murder?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

This link states that murder rates in states with the death penalty is actually higher than states without it.

Edit: His post is nicer^^^

 

[kirblar]

My point is that the death penalty is the law and is there to punish mass murderers, like Tsarnaev, and to hopefully deter anyone like him thinking the same thoughts.

Is it perfect or guaranteed? Of course not.

But does it in fact deter MOST potential killers? Of course it does.

There's no proof of this: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11982

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Seems to be the wrong case to cry about the death penalty.

Call it blood lust, revenge, or whatever. So what. I don't know why anyone expected different here.

No its not. There is no wrong case against the death penalty. They all are equally shocking in that the state decides it has the authority to kill someone who poses no further threat to anyone (he's in prison)

 

[Arkeband]

Death Penalty:

• Would-be-killers who are NOT cool with getting the Death Penalty: Deterred
• Would-be-killers who are cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway

Without Death Penalty:

• Would-be-killers who are NOT cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway
• Would-be-killers who are cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway

There's only so much you can do to stop a crazy person from taking lives. But you can at least scare off the cowards with the Death Penalty.

For the record, I'm only for the Death Penalty in cases of 100% certainty of guilt, which almost never happens. It's only for the truly evil.

"Uncle Joe really wants to kill someone and wear their face, but unfortunately he lives in a state with a death penalty, so he begrudgingly lives a well-adjusted life."

edit: nevermind, you guys have been beat over the head with enough raw data that now it's your fault if you still parrot this ideology.

 

[RELIGHT]

Hopefully they televise it. People who contemplate terror need to know what their fate will be if they fuck with innocents.

 

[Arthr2ShdsJcksn]

No its not. There is no wrong case against the death penalty. They all are equally shocking in that the state decides it has the authority to kill someone who poses no further threat to anyone (he's in prison)

Yes, this. Exactly.

What does killing accomplish? Revenge?

 

[Netherscourge]

I don't know, you tell me.

The opposite is true too. But it's harder to do a study on it.

Because, you know... it's kinda hard to find people who are willing to admit they wish they could murder someone else, but don't because of the death penalty. I would think once you got to the murder part, the study would end and the police would be called.

See what I'm saying?

How do you interview people who WISH they could commit murder, but don't out of fear of their own death? How do you get them to admit that without immediately raising a red flag and calling the police?

I'm not sure how I can explain this without sounding crazy lol.

Sure, there are studies that shows not everyone cares about the death penalty and kills anyway. It's obvious - religion, revenge, hate, etc.. enables people.

But how can you do a study to get people to admit that the death penalty is holding them back from killing someone they REALLY wish they could kill without incriminating themselves?

 

[Alienous]

I don't like this. It is probably what he wanted anyway.

I don't mind.

Fuck. What. He. Wants.

That isn't to say do the opposite of what he wants as a final jab. Fuck it. His wants might as well be the inky paw print of a cat. Fuck it. Him getting what he wants, or not getting what he wants, is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with him.

This isn't directed to you individually, I've just seen that notion pop up a few times.

 

[entremet]

No its not. There is no wrong case against the death penalty. They all are equally shocking in that the state decides it has the authority to kill someone who poses no further threat to anyone (he's in prison)

Technically this was the federal government that is deciding on the penalty. Mass has no death penalty, but he was tried by the Feds, not the State of Massachusetts.

I think the DP is gross. But we need SCOTUS intervention to abolish it completely.

 

[Syder]

Death Penalty:

• Would-be-killers who are NOT cool with getting the Death Penalty: Deterred
• Would-be-killers who are cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway

Without Death Penalty:

• Would-be-killers who are NOT cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway
• Would-be-killers who are cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway

There's only so much you can do to stop a crazy person from taking lives. But you can at least scare off the cowards with the Death Penalty.

For the record, I'm only for the Death Penalty in cases of 100% certainty of guilt, which almost never happens. It's only for the truly evil.

I'm sorry but capital punishment doesn't deter people from killing. Most people don't think about the consequences of their actions until they've already committed a crime.

'The US had a 2012 murder rate of 4.8 victims per 100,000—meaning that nearly 15,000 people were victims of homicide that year. Capital punishment does not appear to be doing its job; it doesn’t seem to be changing every criminal’s mind about killing innocent people. If it does not dissuade, then it serves no purpose. The warning of life in prison without parole must equally dissuade criminals.'

Tsarnaev committed his crime at age 19. I think if you offer most 19 year old's life imprisonment or the death penalty we all know what they'd pick. What do you think life in a US prison for a terrorist is like?

 

[Siegcram]

Hopefully they televise it. People who contemplate terror need to know what their fate will be if they fuck with innocents.

Religious extremists usually have already come to terms with their own mortality.

It stuns me that in 2015 people still trot out bullshit like the deterrence argument.

 

[NullPointer]

No its not. There is no wrong case against the death penalty. They all are equally shocking in that the state decides it has the authority to kill someone who poses no further threat to anyone (he's in prison)

We have police and standing armies (force employed by the state) and yes, even executions. The state having the authority to kill convicted criminals has always been the case, back to the very origins of the state.

I can understand and even empathize with modern movements to reduce or ban capital punishment outright but lets not act surprised by it.

What does killing accomplish? Revenge?

Removal.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Hopefully they televise it. People who contemplate terror need to know what their fate will be if they fuck with innocents.

Even for this asshole, making a live murder of a human being a living room spectacle is something I find detestable, he's already going to die, there's no point in flourishing it.

 

[D4Danger]

Yes, this. Exactly.

What does killing accomplish? Revenge?

justice.

if your heart is bleeding for this guy just remember he put a bomb behind an 8yr old child.

 

[Ayato Kanzaki]

Death Penalty:

• Would-be-killers who are NOT cool with getting the Death Penalty: Deterred
• Would-be-killers who are cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway

Without Death Penalty:

• Would-be-killers who are NOT cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway
• Would-be-killers who are cool with getting the Death Penalty: Kill anyway

There's only so much you can do to stop a crazy person from taking lives. But you can at least scare off the cowards with the Death Penalty.

For the record, I'm only for the Death Penalty in cases of 100% certainty of guilt, which almost never happens. It's only for the truly evil.

Decades of prison is just as effective as a detterent (as in, not really effecive at all, since criminals tend to think they won't get caught) as death penalty.

One look at criminality stats in the US and in europe or other developped countries is enough to get an idea of the value of death penalty as a detterent, be it death after trial, or death when breaking into the house of someone with a gun.

 

[Netherscourge]

I'm sorry but capital punishment doesn't deter people from killing.

Not ALL people, but I would think MANY are deterred. You can't make a blanket statement like this and then call other out for stating the opposite, when there is no definitive proof one way or the other.

As I mentioned above, most studies are done to support one side of an argument. While the other side can't be supported since it would require people to incriminate themselves.

 

[Ferrio]

Not ALL people, but I would think MANY are deterred. You can't make a blanket statement like this and then call other out for stating the opposite, when there is no definitive proof one way or the other.

As I mentioned above, most studies are done to support one side of an argument. While the other side can't be supported since it would require people to incriminate themselves.

So the classic ignore the facts and uphold your preconceived notions. Gotcha.

 

[mjc]

Yes, this. Exactly.

What does killing accomplish? Revenge?

What does letting him rot in prison with no hope of getting out accomplish?

Neither side is the right one, necessarily.

 

[Siegcram]

Not ALL people, but I would think MANY are deterred. You can't make a blanket statement like this and then call other out for stating the opposite, when there is no definitive proof one way or the other.

As I mentioned above, most studies are done to support one side of an argument. While the other side can't be supported since it would require people to incriminate themselves.

Saying "I'd kill if the death penalty wouldn't exist" isn't incriminating.

And you can't just re-define how scientific studies work. One side literally has definite proof (as definite as behavioral studies get) and you're talking out of your ass.

 

[NullPointer]

As I mentioned above, most studies are done to support one side of an argument. While the other side can't be supported since it would require people to incriminate themselves.

So.... this can only be a conversation between people's gut feelings? No facts allowed?

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Wow. Fox is trying to turn this into OBAMA WILL USE THIS TO CLOSE GITMO.

Pathetic.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

So the classic ignore the facts and uphold your preconceived notions. Gotcha.

All the facts and experts say that I'm wrong? Could this be a moment to reflect on my position and think critically about why I support this policy? Nah it must be a conspiracy just like global warming.

 

[Arkeband]

Not ALL people, but I would think MANY are deterred. You can't make a blanket statement like this and then call other out for stating the opposite, when there is no definitive proof one way or the other.

As I mentioned above, most studies are done to support one side of an argument. While the other side can't be supported since it would require people to incriminate themselves.

There's lots of proof "one way" that actually proves "both ways", you're just having a really hard time accepting it.

It's that psychological thing where people retreat into their shells and believe their gut even more when faced with hard data. You're literally living this phenomenon right now.

Accept!

 

[Ferrio]

All the facts and experts say that I'm wrong? Could this be a moment to reflect on my position and think critically about why I support this policy? Nah it must be a conspiracy just like global warming.

Not even talking to you bud. Not sure if you quoted the wrong person or what.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

The opposite is true too. But it's harder to do a study on it.

Because, you know... it's kinda hard to find people who are willing to admit they wish they could murder someone else, but don't because of the death penalty. I would think once you got to the murder part, the study would end and the police would be called.

See what I'm saying?

How do you interview people who WISH they could commit murder, but don't out of fear of their own death? How do you get them to admit that without immediately raising a red flag and calling the police?

I'm not sure how I can explain this without sounding crazy lol.

Sure, there are studies that shows not everyone cares about the death penalty and kills anyway. It's obvious - religion, revenge, hate, etc.. enables people.

But how can you do a study to get people to admit that the death penalty is holding them back from killing someone they REALLY wish they could kill without incriminating themselves?

This is some seriously flawed logic.

First off, most people who murder don't even get the death penalty.

People who are going to commit murder usually act on the assumption they can get away with it, so to say that the death penalty deters from the act means that they are acting on the assumption they will get caught.

Regardless of what people think when going through major crimes, the numbers simply show it's not a deterrent and never has been, why people try to ignore this fact kinda baffles me.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Not even talking to you bud. Not sure if you quoted the wrong person or what.

methinks he's talking about the person you're quoting

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Not even talking to you bud. Not sure if you quoted the wrong person or what.

No I was building off your comment, thought it would be clear given the context of my earlier posts.

 

[HanktheAwesome]

"Uncle Joe really wants to kill someone and wear their face, but unfortunately he lives in a state with a death penalty, so he begrudgingly lives a well-adjusted life."

edit: nevermind, you guys have been beat over the head with enough raw data that now it's your fault if you still parrot this ideology.

Breh I addressed Uncle Joe in my post. Uncle Joe is gonna wear that face and wear it proud. No amount of death penalty can stop Uncle Joe. But it might stop Aunt Jenny from doing the same if she's a giant coward.

Also I saw the graphs, it's compelling data. Unfortunately I don't think we can measure "Number of people who will admit to having gone out and killed someone if it weren't for the death penalty" so until we can, I'll hold on to what I'll lovely refer to as my common sense point of view.

I've got nothing against you or anyone who holds your point of view. We live in a society where enough people think the Death Penalty is a tool we should have in our toolbox, and so, for now, we get to use it. That could change. And that's great. It's good to have different points of views.

 

[btrboyev]

I'm not for the death penalty at all. Terrible ruling and decision.

 

[Arthr2ShdsJcksn]

What does letting him rot in prison with no hope of getting out accomplish?

Neither side is the right one, necessarily.

Maybe letting him rot in prison isn't right, but killing is definitely wrong.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Breh I addressed Uncle Joe in my post. Uncle Joe is gonna wear that face and wear it proud. No amount of death penalty can stop Uncle Joe. But it might stop Aunt Jenny from doing the same if she's a giant coward.

Also I saw the graphs, it's compelling data. Unfortunately I don't think we can measure "Number of people who will admit to having gone out and killed someone if it weren't for the death penalty" so until we can, I'll hold on to what I'll lovely refer to as my common sense point of view.

I've got nothing against you or anyone who holds your point of view. We live in a society where enough people think the Death Penalty is a tool we should have in our toolbox, and so, for now, we get to use it. That could change. And that's great. It's good to have different points of views.

That's not an argument, you're just making up a number that literally can't be proven to support your side.

So at this point we have one side that has hard data and decades of basic proof that shows zero correlation with a drop in crime and the application of the death penalty. The other side has the "common sense", using an unmeasurable number based on a hypothetical situation.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[btrboyev]

What does letting him rot in prison with no hope of getting out accomplish?

Neither side is the right one, necessarily.

He can be put to use in prison and can be rehabilitated. He's barely an adult. I don't think death is the right penalty. I don't think it benefits anyone.

 

[Cymbal Head]

My inclination is to be against the death penalty, but I think I could be persuaded that it's acceptable in the case of (a) unrepentant (b) mass murderers who (c) are guilty without a doubt and (d) don't have any kind of cognitive disability. But only given that (e) there's no chance of rehabilitation, (f) the method of execution is humane and (g) it costs significantly less than keeping the offender in prison for life.

It seems like Tsarnaev likely fits a-d, but I'm not sure about e, and neither f nor g applies to the way we exercise capital punishment in the US right now.

 

[entremet]

Maybe letting him rot in prison isn't right, but killing is definitely wrong.

So what punishment should he get? He broke countless laws and killed a few in the process.

Unlawful actions have consequences.

 

[mjc]

Maybe letting him rot in prison isn't right, but killing is definitely wrong.

Which begs the question: What's the alternative to either of those, then? (Not trying to start an argument, just discussion)

 

[NullPointer]

He can be put to use in prison and can be rehabilitated.

He doesn't deserve rehabilitation. You can go too far and cross the line to the point where there is no coming back.

Today's judgment is an example.

 

[Siegcram]

That's not an argument, you're just making up a number that literally can't be proven to support your side.

So at this point we have one side that has hard data and decades of basic proof that shows zero correlation with a drop in crime and the application of the death penalty. The other side has the "common sense", using an unmeasurable number based on a hypothetical situation.

Sounds reasonable.

Next census needs a "are you a potential mass murderer, only held back by the loom of the death penalty? Hypothetically, of course."-box.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Also I saw the graphs, it's compelling data. Unfortunately I don't think we can measure "Number of people who will admit to having gone out and killed someone if it weren't for the death penalty" so until we can, I'll hold on to what I'll lovely refer to as my common sense point of view.

If you truly thought it was compelling data you wouldn't discount it. There's lots of data that there is no deterrent effect and zero data there is a deterrent effect. Welp 50/50 split, who can say what it means.

This "missing stat" is not even missing. It is intrinsically included in comparisons of the murder rate between states with the death penalty and those without. If the number was large enough to make a difference, you would see the murder rate stats be reversed.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

No its not. There is no wrong case against the death penalty. They all are equally shocking in that the state decides it has the authority to kill someone who poses no further threat to anyone (he's in prison)

He is absolutely still a threat to guards and other inmates.

 

[btrboyev]

He is absolutely still a threat to guards and other inmates.

The fuck??? How so?