Gun Control

[funhusker]

8 minutes ago, teachercd said:

We don't know if it is a deterrent.  This is what we know

 

1.  People still kill people

2.  100% of people that have been executed have never hurt anyone again

 

What we don't know and can't know is how many people decided NOT to kill because they were worried about being sentenced to death, that is information we really can't know.  For all we know there could be thousands and thousands of people that have not killed because they did not want to face the consequence. 

 

There are tons of things I don't do because I don't want to deal with the consequence, I bet the same is true for you.  We just don't really have data on it. 

Actually....

 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 minutes ago, teachercd said:

We don't know if it is a deterrent.  This is what we know

 

1.  People still kill people

2.  100% of people that have been executed have never hurt anyone again

 

What we don't know and can't know is how many people decided NOT to kill because they were worried about being sentenced to death, that is information we really can't know.  For all we know there could be thousands and thousands of people that have not killed because they did not want to face the consequence. 

 

There are tons of things I don't do because I don't want to deal with the consequence, I bet the same is true for you.  We just don't really have data on it. 

 

Well you and I can trade our personal and anecdotal feelings on the subject. I know that if I was contemplating murder in a state without a death penalty, I wouldn't go "whew! at least I'll only spend life in prison!"

 

Or we could do a simple Google search and within seconds find out that smarter and more motivated people have done the studies and no, the death penalty is not a deterrent. This is the first one. There are pages and pages of others.

 

Frequently Asked Questions raised by the public about Capital Punishment
Q: Doesn’t the Death Penalty deter crime, especially murder?
A: No, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates.

The death penalty has no deterrent effect. Claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been thoroughly discredited by social science research. People commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts. The few murderers who plan their crimes beforehand — for example, professional executioners — intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. Some self-destructive individuals may even hope they will be caught and executed.

Death penalty laws falsely convince the public that government has taken effective measures to combat crime and homicide. In reality, such laws do nothing to protect us or our communities from the acts of dangerous criminals.

[teachercd]

4 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Well you and I can trade our personal and anecdotal feelings on the subject. I know that if I was contemplating murder in a state without a death penalty, I wouldn't go "whew! at least I'll only spend life in prison!"

 

Or we could do a simple Google search and within seconds find out that smarter and more motivated people have done the studies and no, the death penalty is not a deterrent. This is the first one. There are pages and pages of others.

 

Frequently Asked Questions raised by the public about Capital Punishment
Q: Doesn’t the Death Penalty deter crime, especially murder?
A: No, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates.

The death penalty has no deterrent effect. Claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been thoroughly discredited by social science research. People commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts. The few murderers who plan their crimes beforehand — for example, professional executioners — intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. Some self-destructive individuals may even hope they will be caught and executed.

Death penalty laws falsely convince the public that government has taken effective measures to combat crime and homicide. In reality, such laws do nothing to protect us or our communities from the acts of dangerous criminals.

 

 

You would need to interview everyone and ask them if they ever wanted to kill and if so, why they did not.  

 

If one person, just one, answered "I am scared of the consequence" then we know that it does in fact deter.  

 

I for one would not kill anyone ever because of the fear of being executed.  It is 100% a deterrent for me.  

 

 

[teachercd]

12 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Actually....

 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

Ohhhhh, I use that one in a class I teach!

[Lorewarn]

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

I am super for the death penalty (as are most people with common sense)

 

 

Common sense easily leads to being against the death penalty. Too many people wrongly murdered by the government, and it's more expensive than just keeping them locked up. 

[commando]

they might finally have this rat cornered

 

 

[Ulty]

I guess it's time to find this post again...damn, I wrote this almost 10 years ago and have pasted it a couple times since then whenever a death penalty argument comes up. It usually ends the debate.

 

I don't know if the links still work or if the data is up to date, but as others have already posted, the evidence certainly does show that the death penalty is not a deterrence, and there is no practical reason to keep it around. The only purpose of the death penalty is for our primitive sense of vengeance.

 

On 5/1/2014 at 1:41 PM, Ulty said:

Now let's talk about the deterrence issue. Deterrence is hard to measure, but there is certainly more evidence to show that the death penalty is not a deterrent. In fact, the conclusion should be pretty damn clear.

 

Dusting off the old criminal justice notes from college, the theory of deterrence posits that in order for any punishment to be an effective deterrent, the punishment must be swift, certain, AND severe. All three must be present. Of course, there is no perfect deterrent, partially due to our justice system (rights of the accused, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, etc). Swiftness dictates that you are quickly punished after the crime occurs, which almost never happens, and in fact it is rare to even be caught quickly after committing a crime. Certainty of punishment would mean that you are certainly going to get caught and punish if you commit the crime, but we all know that a large number of crimes, including murders, go unsolved. In terms of a severe punishment, it doesn't get any more severe than the DP, but without the other elements of swiftness and certainty, deterrence isn't going to happen. Then of course you can argue whether or not life in prison is on par with DP in terms of severity, or if it is a big enough difference to matter in terms of deterrence. I'd argue that life in prison without possibility of parole is pretty severe.

 

To reinforce this point, if the death penalty was an effective deterrent to committing murder, you might expect that the murder rates in states that use the death penalty would be lower than states that don't use capital punishment. Nope.

 

States that do not use the death penalty have significantly lower murder rates.

 

http://www.deathpena...er-murder-rates

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/murderratesdpvsnodp.jpg

 

This is not totally conclusive, you can argue correlation/causation or whatever else, but the people who really study this stuff agree:

http://www.deathpena...d-death-penalty

 

There's also this little theory called the "Brutalization Effect," which suggests that executions actually lead to (or at least correlate with) an increase in crimes:

http://www.e-archive...ime_control.htm

 

That same article also says this about deterrence:

 

Finally, there is another kind of deterrence. I've been talking about general deterrence here, the idea that the notion of punishment will have a deterring effect on the general population. There is also specific deterrence, which means that when you punish someone, you deter that specific person from committing the same offense again. The death penalty is a damn effective form of specific deterrence; that person is not going to kill anyone else. But that same objective can be achieved with life in prison without parole.

 

So there you go. Feel free to provide an argument to show that the death penalty has any added benefit.

 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

51 minutes ago, teachercd said:

 

 

You would need to interview everyone and ask them if they ever wanted to kill and if so, why they did not.  

 

If one person, just one, answered "I am scared of the consequence" then we know that it does in fact deter.  

 

I for one would not kill anyone ever because of the fear of being executed.  It is 100% a deterrent for me.  

 

 

 

Or............we could turn to the people who study the issue professionally.  

 

 

And don't worry so much about killing people. There are many states, like nearby Iowa, that don't have the death penalty, allowing you to blissfully kill without consequence beyond the complete loss of freedom and a lifetime in prison. 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Or............we could turn to the people who study the issue professionally.  

 

 

And don't worry so much about killing people. There are many states, like nearby Iowa, that don't have the death penalty, allowing you to blissfully kill without consequence beyond the complete loss of freedom and a lifetime in prison. 

But I also find that to be a deterrent.  

 

And I agree, we should turn to the people that study it, thank you.

[Archy1221]

11 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Or............we could turn to the people who study the issue professionally.  

 

 

And don't worry so much about killing people. There are many states, like nearby Iowa, that don't have the death penalty, allowing you to blissfully kill without consequence beyond the complete loss of freedom and a lifetime in prison. 

How about a happy medium…. No death penalty but instead a life sentence of solitary confinement for those types of cases equipped with 5 ft of cloth (in case they get dirty and want to wash themselves) and a sturdy accessible pipe (to hold up the ceiling from rain water obviously).  
 

who knows, the inmates may not like solitary. 
 

 

 

(just a joke)

[teachercd]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Or............we could turn to the people who study the issue professionally.  

 

 

And don't worry so much about killing people. There are many states, like nearby Iowa, that don't have the death penalty, allowing you to blissfully kill without consequence beyond the complete loss of freedom and a lifetime in prison. 

I agree

[BigRedBuster]

Maybe others need to have a “come to Jesus moment” here. 
 

 

[teachercd]

So is an AR just any gun that can fire multiple rounds?  

[Archy1221]

29 minutes ago, teachercd said:

So is an AR just any gun that can fire multiple rounds?  

I don’t care either way if AR’s get banned.  Probably actually lean towards a ban on them, but everyone calling for a ban on them is disingenuous unless they also call for a ban on handguns which cause way way way more killings in the US than AR type guns.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

8 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I don’t care either way if AR’s get banned.  Probably actually lean towards a ban on them, but everyone calling for a ban on them is disingenuous unless they also call for a ban on handguns which cause way way way more killings in the US than AR type guns.  

 

I'm not sure it's disingenuous. You can make a case for handguns as personal protection, and because they are cheaper, more common and can fit in your pocket, they are going to have bigger total fatality numbers. But assault rifles are specifically made to kill as many people as quickly as possible, and are thus the preferred weapon for these mass killings having nothing to do with hunting animals or protecting your convenience store.

 

Reasonable people might agree an AR ban makes sense, doesn't infringe on our freedoms, and answers the outcry about politicians doing nothing. But if you treat handguns the same way and apply the same restrictions, you will immediately lose support for that reasonable AR ban. But you already knew that.