On justice and deterrent

[Darth Wong]

I have often heard that "deterrent does not work", based on a lack of statistically significant improvement in murder rates when the death penalty is implemented. Is there any other evidence to support this claim? Because the conclusion that "deterrent does not work" based on the distinction between life in prison and death is definitely over-reaching. To take an extreme example, if there was no punishment for any crime, the crime rate would certainly skyrocket. So it is clearly wrong to say that "deterrent does not work". At best, one can only say that there is no statistically significant evidence that the death penalty is sufficiently more severe than life imprisonment to have a noticeable deterrent effect (some might even consider life imprisonment to be worse).

So, to play devil's advocate, what if we made the death penalty worse than it is? Say, Roman-style? Would it have a deterrent effect then?

[Colonel Olrik]

It would if applied to minor/medium infractions, I doubt anybody would be speeding if they risked crucification. But most people who actually are willing to kill somebody are already so dearranged or desperate (drug addicts, etc) that it would probably have little influence on them. Does someone who kills his wife or a stranger in the streets for a couple of $$ seriously weight the benefits against the consequences? Either not or just assumes he won't be found and everything be damned.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I have often heard that "deterrent does not work", based on a lack of statistically significant improvement in murder rates when the death penalty is implemented. Is there any other evidence to support this claim?

Well, In anthropology we learned that in several states with strict deathpenality, or certain locations, the crime punishable by death actuallyincreased. I will try to find that when professor emails me back.

To take an extreme example, if there was no punishment for any crime, the crime rate would certainly skyrocket. So it is clearly wrong to say that "deterrent does not work".

You are right though. People who say it' doesn't work are just oversimplifying it. I really don't think they mean that. i think they mean, as I have read, that CP as a deterrant doesn't work any better than Life without parole. It does certainly deterr.

So, to play devil's advocate, what if we made the death penalty worse than it is? Say, Roman-style? Would it have a deterrent effect then?

Like flogging or something? Or that combined with making it more available for public view?

[Ma Deuce]

So, to play devil's advocate, what if we made the death penalty worse than it is? Say, Roman-style? Would it have a deterrent effect then?

I believe the argument that death penalty (or any punishment for that matter) isn't a deterrant stems from the fact that most criminals are morons who believe they will never get caught and punished for their crimes, thus don't care what the penalty is becuase they think they'll never have to face it anyway.

Not that I'm arguing the death penalty isn't appropriate for some crimes (Paul Bernardo, anyone?)...

[Falkenhayn]

This may be off topic, but has anyone ever been in argument for or against capital punishment, where the death penalty is deemed "inhumane", and therefore should be struck down, yet at the same time stating that life without parole is a harsher sentence and therefore more practical for deterrent purposes.

The logic I'm following being that if you move to stop one because it is too cruel yet propose an alternative that you feel is more so, that whats the point? Am I wrong, or is this argument logically inconsistent?

[Nova Andromeda]

--I have to agree with the previous posters. When one says x, y, or z punishment will deter people from committing a certain crime they assume that people will make a judgement that action a isn't worth the risk of x, y, or z punishment. However, people don't necessarily make informed or rational decisions and in the case of severe punishment everyone that is going to be detered (by an even more severe punishment) is probably already detered leaving the people who make poor judgements and the people who can actually get away with it (suicide can be used in cases to cap the punishment at death) left over.
-There is one way to make punishment much more severe and actually impact the decisions made by some in baseline describe above: threaten punishment of the person's family and friends.

[Illuminatus Primus]

So, to play devil's advocate, what if we made the death penalty worse than it is? Say, Roman-style? Would it have a deterrent effect then?

Like flogging or something? Or that combined with making it more available for public view?

No, he said dead penalty Roman-style. I think he means crucifying people publically.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I believe the argument that death penalty (or any punishment for that matter) isn't a deterrant stems from the fact that most criminals are morons who believe they will never get caught and punished for their crimes, thus don't care what the penalty is becuase they think they'll never have to face it anyway.

Not that I'm arguing the death penalty isn't appropriate for some crimes (Paul Bernardo, anyone?)...

I echo that sentiment. If ever more brutal punishments worked, then numerous nations around the world that have such strict doctrines would see little to no major crime, something I'm sure is absurd. No, the problem stems from the inability of the average crook to comprehend that committing a crime today is a very stupid thing to do if you don't know what you're doing. The criminals that get caught, the majority, are the ones who didn't have a clue and thought they could evade the system. Think of all those murder cases that were never closed for instance.

So long as stupid people exist, so will stupid actions such as robbing banks in broad daylight or mugging OAPs for a fiver in cash and then getting put in the slammer for a few years.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I figure, at least in western society, we ahve already deterred who we can, and those who will commit violent crimes will do so regardless of the consequences. Sooo... punish the guilty because they deserve it

[aerius]

So, to play devil's advocate, what if we made the death penalty worse than it is? Say, Roman-style? Would it have a deterrent effect then?

If we're assuming this is in North America, I'd say no, it probably wouldn't work. The vast majority of people who commit capital offences don't care about getting caught or believe they'll never be caught. As long as this is the case, it won't really matter how severe, painful, or cruel the punishment is.

However, this doesn't mean that jailtime & fines are useless, what it means is there's a point of diminishing returns. Below a certain severity of punishments, damn near everyone will commit crimes, once you hit that level, the number drops dramatically and you're reduced to mostly hardcore criminals commiting crimes. Making the punishments more severe will not have a significant effect on the crimerate of the remaining scumbags.

[LadyTevar]

Deterrents like that just mean people work harder not to get caught, just like a child trying to get away with an extra piece of candy.

[salm]

one should also take into consideration, that not all people are the same. some poeple might be less likely to commit violent crimes if the death penalty is enacted. others might not.

maybe society in general gets more used to violence if violence is applied from the official side.

so you´d have to set the amount of people who are less likely to commit such crimes against the general effect on society an check which of both is the lesser evil.

yeah, yeah, lots of maybe´s in all of that but still interesting.

[Lagmonster]

Say that the punishment for murder was a $10,000 fine and imprisonment if you don't pay up. Under such a system, I wonder if murders wouldn't go up - but largely within very specific social groups that could afford it.

[Sea Skimmer]

So, to play devil's advocate, what if we made the death penalty worse than it is? Say, Roman-style? Would it have a deterrent effect then?

Given that humans generally fear pain more then death, I would think it would have at least a slight effect. Making it harder to avoid the death penalty for a murder would probably have a major effect as well. Perhaps we should make it so that when you plead guilty to murder one, that's just to avoid being tortured to death, as opposed to current 'humane' methods. Course that would also mean fewer people woul confess and we'd need more expensive trials.

[Tsyroc]

I think something like public crucifixtion (although impailment would be better, no religious conotation for the wackos) would deter a few more people from potentially committing capital crimes but I think it would contribute to more problems than it would solve.

There would be more reason for people to go out in a hail of gunfire instead of risking the courts. Even though some of these types of people might have been aware of the death penalty as it currently is I think having something as brutal and public as crucifixtion would just cause the really bad people to amp up their own violence and nastiness a notch.

It's one thing to not be afraid to die it's something else to not be afraid of suffering for a long time before you die.

If capital punishment is really about punishement then I think something along the lines of the electric chair is more than brutal enough. If putting someone to death is really about society deciding that there's nothing redeamable about that person and that society as a whole is better off with that person being dead then I think lethal injection is the most humane way to go.

[Tom_Aurum]

Well, most modern american justice doesn't even try to argue for a second about the supposed deterrent effect. Most of them argue, instead that said offender would be safer dead than even in jail with the possibility of escape or parole.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Bring back gladatorial fights. Not only will it pay for itself with admissions, but it is also sufficiently brutal to punish those who deserve to die.

[Gandalf]

Don't the majority of murders occur when a person's emotions are riled up, thus making it harder for them to remember the consequences? I would think this makes deterrent less relevant.

I would think a lifetime of hard labour or some such would make a better deterrent anyway.

[Questor]

Don't the majority of murders occur when a person's emotions are riled up, thus making it harder for them to remember the consequences? I would think this makes deterrent less relevant.

I think so, I came across a refence to a study on Voluntary Man. Vs. Murder during the research for my term paper last semester, it wasn't relevant to my paper so I didn't put it in my notes though.

[Plekhanov]

So, to play devil's advocate, what if we made the death penalty worse than it is? Say, Roman-style? Would it have a deterrent effect then?

In the vast, vast majority of murders no because:

Most murders are not planned but are committed spontaneously often in arguments that turn violent or at times of extreme emotion often under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Deterrence simply isn’t a factor in most murders as there is no forethought.

Deterrence may have some extremely limited effect upon the minority of murderers who plan things in advance, however in most of these cases the murderers fully expect to get away with it so the nature of the potential punishment is of limited import.

The minority of the planning minority who kill for political ends (ie. terrorists) are again unlikely to be affected as they tend to embrace martyrdom or believe that they won’t be caught.

[Guy N. Cognito]

Here's my question, what doe countryies with a very low amount of crime do differently? Japan's crime is very low compared to North America. I believe they do hard labour in prison, which I think is a great deterent for lesser crimes. So many people hate hard work, that they would rather do a little work outside of prison instead of going back into prison for hard labour.

[HemlockGrey]

Here's my question, what doe countryies with a very low amount of crime do differently? Japan's crime is very low compared to North America. I believe they do hard labour in prison, which I think is a great deterent for lesser crimes. So many people hate hard work, that they would rather do a little work outside of prison instead of going back into prison for hard labour.

Japanese culture is also radically different from America's.

[Guy N. Cognito]

True, Japanese culture may be different, but you can still say, wow, what a great deterent. I think I'll try that.

[Skelron]

Okay I'm a little nervous about two minutes ago I left a lecture on Crime and Japan was brought up. Japan according to some theories is an example of reintegrative Shaming, and a Communitarian culture. For a start they are 20 Times less likely to send a convicted criminal to Prison than in the US. Rather they hold Public Apologies for their Crimes all very ritualised and where they put aside the part of them that commited the crime. (I assume some measures are taken to assure the person is sincere.) Once the person has gone through this it is placed behind them and they can start again without having it hang over their heads, preventing a Sub-Culture of Crime forming. The Idea is to shame the Crime not the individual and to provide a sense of closure to both victim and criminal.

(which is what is argued occurs in western attempts at Shaming where we create a situation where a person who commits a Crime is left stigmatised and unable to rejoin mainstream society...)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Here's an interesting related question:

Do extremely harsh punishments short of death have a deterrent effect? For example, that county in Arizona (IIRC) where that sheriff makes his prisoners live in tents, eat bread and water, and work on chain gangs--does it have lower crime rates than other counties in Arizona? Or perhaps lower rates of convicts re-offending?

It seems to me that if prison was a miserable, horrific experience, even idiots would want to not go back there; and thus if they had been caught once, demonstrating their inability to escape, they would not want to reoffend for fear of going back to such a place.