Atheist and the Death penalty

[thehedglin]

The only DoJ statistics I could find are here:

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf

It includes this disturbing information:

"The lifetime chances of a person
going to prison are higher for men
(9.0%) than for women (1.1%) and
higher for blacks (16.2%) and Hispan-
ics (9.4%) than for whites (2.5%). At
current levels of incarceration a black
male in the United States
today has
greater than a 1 in 4 chance of going
to prison during his lifetime, while a
Hispanic male has a 1 in 6 chance and
a white male has a 1 in 23 chance of
serving time."

If anyone has some more up-to-date information, I would appreciate a link, and I would be interested in reading it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Argumentum ad populum is still fallacious reasoning.

No one is arguing that more people believing it makes it so, only that it is statistically true.  You apparently don't understand why logical fallacies are logical fallacies.

The last sentence of the quote of yours I posted demonstrates to me that you don't even recognize when you practice them, never mind considering why they are what they are. Clean up your own back-yard, and then we can talk about fallacies. In the meantime, quit practicing them.

Wrongful imprisonment can be at least partially repaired ... wrongful killing, not so much.

No amount of money can ever give back years spent wrongfully behind bars.  None.  Do try again.

Except I never said that it could, which is exactly why I wrote "at least partially".

The name of that fallacy, in case you're curious, is the straw-man fallacy.

You'll do better to answer the points that I make, rather than the ones you impute.

So what you're saying is that it doesn't deter the crime, it prevents recidivism. Those are two entirely different things.

Yep.  I do not think there is a true deterrent for anything.  Put your hand in a fire and it burns right now.  Chances are pretty good that one would not do that again.  But then again, they did do it the first time.  And of course the 'crimes of passion' have no deterrent.

There are some people that just need removed from society for the betterment of all.  But the 'trail of evidence' of evidence needs to be more a lot more solid than it is in a lot of cases, even for extensive prison sentences.  When they sit there with a shit eatin' grin and say "hell yeah!", then burn 'em.  But, IMHO, 20-30+ years in prison is a death sentence in itself.  When they come out (even if they were innocent from the get go), they have no job, skills are old, no family most likely, house, car, bank account all gone and the reputation that will keep them from regaining all that.  The biggest problem there is that when any try to get a job, the "have you been convicted of any felonies"" on the job application, makes it almost impossible to get any 'legal' work.

Quite frankly, I think capital sentences should not have any opportunity for release back into society.

BTW - (capital punishment does keep a previous offender from recidivism.  sounds like a deterrent to me.)

Wrong. A deterrent is " A thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something."

Dead people cannot be discouraged. Ergo, the death penalty is not a deterrent.

Deterrence happens when the person considers committing a crime, and decides against it based on the consequences. You're using the word wrong, because dead people cannot consider anything at all. The death penalty is a preventative for re-offenses, but it clearly does not deter murder.

[IATIA]

Dead people cannot be discouraged. Ergo, the death penalty is not a deterrent.

A deterrent makes you not want to do something.  Dead people do not want to do something.

[Handprint]

I think Cerebus brings up a good point about not being able to replace years lost. After all, years and days of our lives are all we have. But also think about this, even if you are found innocent and released, there will still be a stigma. There will be people who still believe you did it, and still avoid you because they think you are a bad person. maybe by the reason of you being in prison so long and it probably having changed you for the ill.

The world is not kind or accepting of people who have been released from prison. People are not well integrated. They are shunned, and outcasts. Hell, the person might go and re-offend again because they can't live anywhere else besides prison, or all their family is dead etc.

It really isn't good either way you look at it.

Not that I feel my arguments or my voice is going to be heard on this thread. It isn't. People have made their minds up and seem to be trying to bash others over the heads with their perspective, effectively silencing them instead of listening to others.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Everyone will die sooner or later.  But not everyone will go to jail or prison.  Therefore it's a lot worse to send an innocent person to prison than it is to execute an innocent person.   That's because you will have imprisoned an innocent person for the express purpose of executing him.

How is it for you to decide whether imprisonment or death is better or worse? Presumably you're not facing either, and even if you were, it's not your job to decide that for other people.

BTW, just because a person has never been in prison there's no guarantee that he won't end up in an American prison in the future.  Remember, everything is illegal in America.

A. no, it's not.
B. what does any of that paragraph have to do with anything?

This will get you started about everything being illegal in America.http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states.  And since dummies are making new laws everyday if something isn't illegal today it will soon be somewhere.  
People make decisions for others all of the time.  I'm perfectly capable and able to impose imprisonment or death for others if that was my job, such as being a juror.  It's not my job now but I can still express an opinion about it.  In most cases I would show mercy and vote "not guilty" if the charge was a typical run-of-the mill thing.

[rexbeccarox]

I think Cerebus brings up a good point about not being able to replace years lost. After all, years and days of our lives are all we have. But also think about this, even if you are found innocent and released, there will still be a stigma. There will be people who still believe you did it, and still avoid you because they think you are a bad person. maybe by the reason of you being in prison so long and it probably having changed you for the ill.

The world is not kind or accepting of people who have been released from prison. People are not well integrated. They are shunned, and outcasts. Hell, the person might go and re-offend again because they can't live anywhere else besides prison, or all their family is dead etc.

It really isn't good either way you look at it.

Not that I feel my arguments or my voice is going to be heard on this thread. It isn't. People have made their minds up and seem to be trying to bash others over the heads with their perspective, effectively silencing them instead of listening to others.

Wait... so people should die because they could possibly deal with the effects of an imperfect justice system, even if they're innocent?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Dead people cannot be discouraged. Ergo, the death penalty is not a deterrent.

A deterrent makes you not want to do something.  Dead people do not want to do something.

That quite the scorched-earth approach to changing someone's mind, don't you agree?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think Cerebus brings up a good point about not being able to replace years lost. After all, years and days of our lives are all we have. But also think about this, even if you are found innocent and released, there will still be a stigma. There will be people who still believe you did it, and still avoid you because they think you are a bad person. maybe by the reason of you being in prison so long and it probably having changed you for the ill.

The world is not kind or accepting of people who have been released from prison. People are not well integrated. They are shunned, and outcasts. Hell, the person might go and re-offend again because they can't live anywhere else besides prison, or all their family is dead etc.

It really isn't good either way you look at it.

Not that I feel my arguments or my voice is going to be heard on this thread. It isn't. People have made their minds up and seem to be trying to bash others over the heads with their perspective, effectively silencing them instead of listening to others.

Of course the life of the wrongly convicted is changed forever. The point is, at least they still have that life. By this logic, we should euthanize anyone with a malignant tumor, because it might metastasize, running up their medical bills and causing them extreme pain.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I think Cerebus brings up a good point about not being able to replace years lost. After all, years and days of our lives are all we have. But also think about this, even if you are found innocent and released, there will still be a stigma. There will be people who still believe you did it, and still avoid you because they think you are a bad person. maybe by the reason of you being in prison so long and it probably having changed you for the ill.

The world is not kind or accepting of people who have been released from prison. People are not well integrated. They are shunned, and outcasts. Hell, the person might go and re-offend again because they can't live anywhere else besides prison, or all their family is dead etc.

It really isn't good either way you look at it.

Thank you for posting this. I just spent 9 years (flat!) of my life incarcerated on false charges, while the state prosecutors who were behind the conviction on shady "evidence" (and from blocking exonerating evidence by way of a trial judge who had just been elected right out of that District Attorney's office, as often happens) did everything in their power to delay and/or hamper the appellate review process. My conviction was just overturned in late January, with me actually being released in April--you'd think that an appellate victory means immediate release, but it doesn't, as the local judge still has to issue the official finding based on the Supreme Court's ruling, and order the case dismissed and the prisoner released--and even without the "felony box" check-mark on my job applications, and despite having a degree in science, I still can't explain to employers why I haven't had a job in nine years, so I wind up having to talk about my false conviction. They never believe me, as I have yet to receive a call-back from an interview, an issue I never once had, prior to imprisonment. Even the "taint" of a conviction that turned out to be wrongful does not wash off. Luckily, I have managed to self-employ in the shop of an old friend who builds custom bikes, which is now my "new career". I had a relatively easy time in prison, despite being sent to "Maximum Security" camps, because my education allowed me to take up "jailhouse lawyering", working on behalf of inmates oppressed by the system, which rendered me untouchable by the predators of various sorts in there... others are generally not so fortunate, since poverty, lack of family support, and lack of education are primary predictive factors in who is vulnerable to incarceration, and the gang leaders and other predators on the inside know how to spot and recruit or exploit those who are easily misled. The implications for society are staggering; even with my high IQ, mental toughness, family support, and strong educational background, I have myriad symptoms of PTSD that have clearly emerged since being released. I can only imagine what it is like for those without my advantages.

The damage the prison system does to everyone, the guilty and the innocent (which some estimates put as high as 1 in 10, and even the US Department of Justice estimates place at 1 in 50 wrongfully incarcerated, not even counting those who are massively over-charged by prosecutors for petty/minor crimes, as a way of ensuring a plea-negotiation through fear of more serious sentence, if they insist on going to trial and lose), is incalculably deep. It is made worse by the damage we have done to Due Process as a result of trying to "grease the wheels" on behalf of the Drug War, and the system's desire to facilitate its own operation-- in many cases, the prosecutor's chair becomes the path to higher office in state government, where most of the laws are made, so new legislation tends to adopt their peculiar mindset, with regard to laws and their enforcement. When you have a "Public Defender", the overworked free lawyers that are often just doing that job until they can get into the prosecutor's chair, you have little chance of winning at trial, and everyone knows it. Add to the corrupt political arena the money and influence of the for-profit prisons and corporations that profit from the mass incarceration of Americans, and you have a recipe for disaster... which is exactly what we have in this nation.

---

A deterrent makes you not want to do something.  Dead people do not want to do something.

That quite the scorched-earth approach to changing someone's mind, don't you agree?

Heya Thump!

I believe the "theory" (I use that term loosely) behind "deterrence" is the Napoleonic "pour encourager les autres",  in that it's not supposed to be a deterrent to the particular criminal, but to others who might follow in his wake with similar wrongdoing. They believe that if we are just harsh enough  on crime, we can reach a point where others will "see what happened to that guy" and avoid behaving the same way.

Of course, this ignores that most crime is the linked to and/or the direct result of desperate poverty and/or drug addiction, at which point the person thinking of committing a crime is not thinking of what happens to others (in any sense of that term), and ignores that actual predators typically have an "it can't happen to me" mindset. We are, in effect, destroying lives based on a demonstrably false premise. Most other first world nations have already taken note of this fact, and offer sentences far less harsh than equivalent sentences in the USA, and focus more on rehabilitation of the individual rather than warehousing mass numbers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Most other first world nations have already taken note of this fact, and offer sentences far less harsh than equivalent sentences in the USA, and focus more on rehabilitation of the individual rather than warehousing mass numbers.

Yeah, the absence of an attitude of rehabilitation in our system also means it is much more vulnerable to recidivism.