Is the death penalty moral/ethical?

[Broomstick]

On Monday, February 2 the following appeared in this thread:

Furthermore, prove that privacy increases the crime rate. Merely saying that it does won't cut it.

You don't believe that increasing the rate of convictions and successful arrests will reduce crime. I honestly don't know how to respond to that.

Samuel - provide EVIDENCE of your assertion that increased surveillence in public places either reduces crime or increases convictions. That is what he is asking for. It also what I am now asking for

As it is now February 7 and Samuel has arsed himself to appear again in this thread I feel sufficient time has passed for him to provide some back up to his claims. I'm getting formal now. Samuel - in accordance with Debating Rule #6, which reads:

If you are asked for evidence to support a claim you've made, you should either produce this evidence or concede the point until such time as you can produce this evidence. People who consistently ignore requests for evidence to support their claims (particularly contentious claims) are not looked upon kindly here.

Provide evidence to back up your claims regarding public surveillance either decreasing crimes or increasing convictions or concede you haven't a goddamn clue and SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Darth Wong]

What the hell are you talking about, Broomie? Every single time a criminal has been convicted with footage from security cameras watching the street, that is an example of public surveillance (albeit jury-rigged haphazard public surveillance) increasing convictions, because that guy wouldn't have been caught without it.

Do you figure it doesn't count if police confiscate store security camera footage, instead of having their own cameras?

[Broomstick]

No - Samuel was asked to provide evidence for his claims. He has not done so. Whether I agree with his claims or not is immaterial, isn't it?

Also, the claim was not just for increased evidence collecting but also for reducing crime. I can see an argument being made for increased convictions due to the additional evidence provided by video surveillance (haphazard or not) but what about his claim that it reduces crime? Does it? I say he should provide some sort of evidence that this is, indeed the case. Something showing crime rates decreasing in an area as surveillance increased, or decreased over time with steady surveillance.

My area has recently seen an INCREASE in bank robberies although it is very well known that every time you step up to a bank teller you're on camera. Samuel says 24/7 surveillance would reduce crime but apparently that doesn't work so well in Chicago area banks. There was also a rather significant incident in Chicago when someone took a backhoe to an airport runway, defeating the security cameras by the simple expedient of shining a bright spotlight into them, rendering them useless. Although security cameras do have a role to play in modern life they will not magically solve or eliminate all crime. As far as I'm concerned anyone advocating increased surveillance should make a fact-based case for it. In some instances that will be easy. In others, not so much.

[Darth Wong]

My area has recently seen an INCREASE in bank robberies although it is very well known that every time you step up to a bank teller you're on camera. Samuel says 24/7 surveillance would reduce crime but apparently that doesn't work so well in Chicago area banks. There was also a rather significant incident in Chicago when someone took a backhoe to an airport runway, defeating the security cameras by the simple expedient of shining a bright spotlight into them, rendering them useless. Although security cameras do have a role to play in modern life they will not magically solve or eliminate all crime. As far as I'm concerned anyone advocating increased surveillance should make a fact-based case for it. In some instances that will be easy. In others, not so much.

Frankly, this paragraph is a case study in horrible logic. First you conclude that bank teller video security cameras have no effect on crime because the crime rate has recently gone up, thus assuming that no other factors are in play and nothing else has changed recently (note: ATMs have had video security cameras for a looong time). Then you cite an incident where someone defeated security cameras, as if you can refute the idea of a crime-reduction measure by simply pointing out that it is not impervious to countermeasure (by that logic, since police are also not impervious to defeat, then they also have no effect on crime). And then you construct a ridiculous strawman where it is believed that public-area video surveillance alone would somehow eliminate all crime, as if anyone seriously believed it would.

[Broomstick]

Samuel is the one claiming that security cameras in all public places will eliminate crime, that people who know they are being observed will behave. I gave two examples where this is not true. I am well aware that there are multiple factors at play, my point being that if well-known cameras in banks aren't stopping bank robberies then simply adding more cameras aren't likely to stop them, either.

Samuel claims that increased surveillance has great benefits. If that is true then he should be able to support that statement with some sort of statistic or evidence. By now we have public places with the surveillance he advocates, if cameras are such huge deterrents surely there is evidence of it by now. Explain to me why it is unreasonable that he should support his claim that constant surveillance of all public places will reduce crime. If this is as obvious a truth as you think then it should be child's play for him to provide this support to his side of the discussion, shouldn't it?

[Darth Wong]

Samuel is the one claiming that security cameras in all public places will eliminate crime, that people who know they are being observed will behave.

Did he actually claim that security cameras would completely eliminate crime, or is there some communication problem going on here?

Samuel claims that increased surveillance has great benefits. If that is true then he should be able to support that statement with some sort of statistic or evidence. By now we have public places with the surveillance he advocates, if cameras are such huge deterrents surely there is evidence of it by now.

I already pointed out that police routinely use security camera footage to nab criminals. That's a benefit, is it not? I suppose one could argue that an increased likelihood of getting caught has no deterrent value, but that seems a little hard to swallow.

Explain to me why it is unreasonable that he should support his claim that constant surveillance of all public places will reduce crime. If this is as obvious a truth as you think then it should be child's play for him to provide this support to his side of the discussion, shouldn't it?

It seems obvious because the police routinely use public surveillance to nab people. What kind of greater evidence are you demanding, and why is this inadequate?

[Samuel]

Samuel is the one claiming that security cameras in all public places will eliminate crime, that people who know they are being observed will behave.

First comment by me on the subject, page 3

The argument in favor is all criminal cases, not just capital crimes. It becomes insanely hard to commit crimes if the police can just look it up. If we get sophisticated enough AIs, we can catch people in the act. Next- ID chips.

So if a person knows they will be caught, they commit crimes anyway? Right... criminals are that stupid you know.

Yeah it will happen- once for each case, not again and again.

Well, aside from making programs to search through the files, you could just look them up when crimes occur.

page 4

No, I was refering to people being caught the first time they commit a crime in public. So you don't get crime sprees, serial killers, etc.

When AI tech gets good enough, we can. Until then it isn't feasible to moniter the entire country similtaneously. For the US, cameras probably could only cover the cities.

Actually they have systems in the pipeline to do this- it doesn't need to be self-aware, just a very good pattern matcher. As it is we will "only" be able to have a record of crimes.

Only the second sentance could concievably be taken as "there will be no crime" and the context was:

Your solution merely means more convictions.

In short, I was asserting there would be a deterrence affect. If the cameras are prevasive enough, crime will drop if only by simply preventing repeat offenders.

Can we cash in if the recodings Big Brother makes of us are aired on TV? I wouldn't mind that. What a reality show that would make! No, and I wouldn't mind at all (as long as they keep the bathroom private).

Sadly, no. There is probably too much footage for anyone to go through. You could have people call in funny things and cameras used to give alternate angles, or a version of google Earth, but for the most part, a person's life would be boring.

You really need to look at the analogy again, because it was about the principal of preemptively getting information and comparing that to preemptively shooting all dogs on sight. NOT comparing the tyoes of abuse going on here. But, as we have already established that you are too stupid to live and illiterate to boot, good bye.

The census- proof of the evil government conspiracy! What other terrors do mass surveys hold in store for America! After all, the first step towards killing someone is knowing where they are!

Well that's the thing, isn't it? Samuel never said anything about letting the information be free to access. In fact, when I started this exchange, I actually admitted that allowing the people access to that data would go a great distance towards making this system hard to abuse. For one thing, it would be, get this, a way of creating accountability because now its use is held accountable to the people. But if we let it all into the hands of one one group of people, and only one group of people as Samuel has implied throughout, that group becomes impossible to manage.

You mean you basically want the videos available of the internet? Yeah, there is no way they could be used for stalking. The police might abuse their power, but they will do it under the video cameras- having it availble where people aren't being watched seems like a bad idea. If you want it so that several of the recording centers per city are open to the public, that might work. Maybe. As for one group, I did just mention I want multiple copies and storage locations with the attendant access that goes with it.

[Broomstick]

Would cameras actually deter crime? In some cases, yes, but I question that it will do so all the time. They will certainly change behavior, but that doesn't necessarily mean less crime.

It certainly hasn't stopped bank robberies, and video footage hasn't even prevented repeat offenses in that case, even when no disguise is used by the robber. Typically many bank robberies occur by the same offender before he/she is caught, and with a good disguise he/she can actually get away with it sometimes. Video does not guarantee capture or conviction for bank robberies.

I had co-worker who was raped and brutally beaten in front of a security camera operated by the city of Chicago. The camera certainly captured footage of the crime, but apparently no one was watching it because 911 was never called by anyone on the other side. She lay unconscious and bleeding for 40 minutes until someone else happened upon her and called for help. The video certainly didn't prevent that crime. Because the criminal wore a disguise the video also did not identify him, nor did the police ever make an arrest, so no conviction either.

Because of circumstances such as the above, I question just how effective cameras really are at either preventing crime or securing convictions. For my raped co-worker, government investment in a DNA database might have been a better use of government funds than a camera network, since they did get the criminal's sperm and could have used that to identify him except, of course, we don't have a DNA database on all citizens.

So...yes, I would like to see some actual numbers on just how effective camera surveillance is in either deterring crime or securing convictions after the fact rather than everyone just standing around saying "it's obvious!". Yes, it's obvious that if you get a really good picture of a criminal your odds of identifying said criminal go up, but apparently you don't always get that really nice portrait. Given that security cameras aren't new and we have some parts of some cities under observation there really should be some numbers on this by now, shouldn't there? Are they really a serious deterrent or are they more like locks on doors - they discourage petty criminals and catch idiots, but have little effect on serious crime and professional criminals?

So, Samuel - show us the numbers. Imagine you're trying to convince City Hall to buy more cameras and install them. The city council has a limited budget. You need to convince them buying cameras is a good use of funds. How effective are they? Why spend money on cameras rather than more detectives or DNA databases or foot patrols?

[Darth Wong]

You're like pro-smoking advocates, demanding a particular kind of proof that you know is impractical to get. Obviously you can't produce a nice pat number for how many criminals got convicted with video camera footage that couldn't possibly have been convicted otherwise, just like you can't do the same for fingerprinting. Does this mean fingerprinting has no effect on crime or convictions? It should be enough to show that it's a functional method.

[Broomstick]

What is so hard to understand about a request for actual data on the actual effect camera surveillance has on crime? I am in no way denying it has ANY effect, I want to know the actual effect. How much does it affect crime rate? Does crime go down, or do criminals start covering their faces? Sure, if you can get a clear shot of Mr. Bad Guy that lets you identify him - IF you can attach a name, locate him, or otherwise get Mr. Bad Guy. That is, of course, one reason a clear head shot is sometime shown on TV, to ask "Does anyone recognize this asshole?"

As an example - if you ask Mr. Walsh of America's Most Wanted how many Bad Guys his show has brought in he can say "Over the years XXX number of bad guys have been brought in with the aid of our viewers". He doesn't just say "we help catch crooks" he can attach a number to it. While there isn't anyway to know which of these criminals would have been caught without viewers giving tips, the fact that tips were given in XX number of cases that were then successfully prosecuted lends credence to the idea the show is helpful in solving crime.

So, again - we've had surveillance cameras up in various cities for awhile. What has been the ACTUAL effect on crime? You and Samuel maintain crime rates go down when an area is equipped with cameras. Very well - how much does it go down? Samuel has stated that cameras will prevent multiple offenses by the same criminal. Very well - how many people are caught after the first offense vs. people who are caught several times on camera committing a crime? In what percentage of convictions is video footage part of the evidence? If it's 60% yeah, that's significant and an argument for more cameras. If it's 5% maybe cameras are not as important as something else and we should invest in that something else except where cameras clearly make a difference.

Why is there a resistance here to actually putting the numbers on the table? Or are we paying for camera systems and their upkeep without really knowing what effect they are actually having? I would think that proponents of these systems would be crowing about the number of people captured or how crime rates have gone down ##% in areas where they are installed. In particular, if cameras really do have a deterrent effect then there should be a notable drop in crimes where they are installed.

It's not so much that I feel Samuel is wrong as that I want him to back up his statements implying this is the next best thing to sliced bread. While I believe camera systems, like locks on doors, are useful I don't think they're a panacea.

[Samuel]

Samuel has stated that cameras will prevent multiple offenses by the same criminal.

Actually, I stated that if the entire city was blanketed by cameras.

Typing in cameras, crime rate convictions into google... gets this page
Aside from that you get things like this:

anti
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Top-N ... ns/1$43977

http://www.notbored.org/cameras-not-effective.html

pro
http://www.sightmind.com/resources-tool ... duce_crime

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 725317.stm

http://www.lbp.police.uk/publications/a ... htm#review

Dalkeith and Penicuik are both reaping the benefits of town centre closed circuit television systems. With over 50 incidents recorded on camera this year and a 100% conviction rate in the courts, the cameras are undoubtedly helping deter anti- social behaviour on our streets.

In Dalkeith alone, the system has detected 13 acts of vandalism, three driving offences and seven people urinating in public. We will continue to support the use of CCTV to make our communities safer.

?
http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_3319969

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001930.html

Of course the New Orleans case was a screw up- they only installed 31 cameras.
http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/NewOrlean ... __3018.asp

Notably one of the problems with camera systems is the divert criminals- which isn't a problem if they are everywhere. Or if they are at places you really don't want criminals.

[Darth Wong]

What is so hard to understand about a request for actual data on the actual effect camera surveillance has on crime?

Apparently, you do not understand the term "uncontrolled variables". You cannot generate such a number without a shitload of caveats and unknowns buried in it, any more than you could for fingerprinting. Do you honestly not understand this, or are you just being obstinate?

[Formless]

Broomstick, I wouldn't belabor that particular point. For one, it never was the most contentious one, for another it seems he has finally brought forth some sources you can look into if you are so intent on carrying on this debate (I'm not, I lost interest days ago before I gave up.).

Besides, there's this:

If you want it so that several of the recording centers per city are open to the public, that might work. Maybe. As for one group, I did just mention I want multiple copies and storage locations with the attendant access that goes with it.

So I guess we're on the same page now. (if he'd just said something like this sooner we could have avoided this whole flamewar! oh well...)

Not that I don't still think he's an idiot, but that has more to do with his inability to comprehend what I write. Seriously, freedom of information = videos on the internet now? the census (a once every ten year affair) is the same thing as constant surveillance? I think a certain someone has overdosed on stupid recently. But then, none of that is either here or there...

Edit: fuckn typos.

[Samuel]

So I guess we're on the same page now. (if he'd just said something like this sooner we could have avoided this whole flamewar! oh well...)

You could have just said that 3 pages ago instead of harping on privacy. Or do you now admit that the system is fine and its just how it is accessed that you have problems with?

Not that I don't still think he's an idiot, but that has more to do with his inability to comprehend what I write. Seriously, freedom of information = videos on the internet now? the census (a once every ten year affair) is the same thing as constant surveillance? I think a certain someone has overdosed on stupid recently. But then, none of that is either here or there...

because it was about the principal of preemptively getting information

The census fits that pretty well Formless. I won't use such stupid examples if you don't use such insanely over broad statements.

And yes, having video files availble to the public means there is the possibility they can be copied and put on you tube unless it is rigidly controlled.

As for responding and providing evidence, it wasn't until this page that I was asked to show efficicency and not just effect (which is beyond doubt).

[Formless]

You could have just said that 3 pages ago instead of harping on privacy. Or do you now admit that the system is fine and its just how it is accessed that you have problems with?

I did. Right here:

Granted, if the information were allowed to be free (I.E. allow the populace to see surveillance recordings as well in cases of police abuse of power etc.), then the system would be more fair. But as it is you are giving the government the ultimate power to enforce its agenda, even if said agenda isn't necessarily lawful or ethical. And don't tell me that that can't happen, there are too many historical precedents of totalitarian governments doing similar things to throw out the possibility.

Emphasis added.

And yes, having video files availble to the public means there is the possibility they can be copied and put on you tube unless it is rigidly controlled.

Conceded, although I can easily think of ways to keep that from happening, like only allowing viewing at the center or attaching a big deterring punishment to offenders. In a way this is already happening with the huge numbers of videos of public events that make it to Youtube at present, so depending on how damaging you think this is to society a solution should be thought of soon anyway.

[Samuel]

Okay, you got me. Can someone split the thread? We have long stopped talking about capital punishment and most of our residents have given their two cents.

Conceded, although I can easily think of ways to keep that from happening, like only allowing viewing at the center or attaching a big deterring punishment to offenders. In a way this is already happening with the huge numbers of videos of public events that make it to Youtube at present, so depending on how damaging you think this is to society a solution should be thought of soon anyway.

Honestly, the easiest way to deal with this would be to make the tracking controls available to the public insanely counter-intuitive. So you can use it anywhere... but you can't track other people. No, it probably isn't a workable idea, but it allows us to get the people behing RE5 to stop making games.

[Broomstick]

You could have just said that 3 pages ago instead of harping on privacy

Actually, I was probably the one "harping" on privacy the most - but then I also stated that I was willing to accept greater personal risk for more privacy whereas you were not. As you pointed out, that gets down to personal values and is not really suited to logic-driven arguments.

Thank for you the links Samuel.

[Broomstick]

What is so hard to understand about a request for actual data on the actual effect camera surveillance has on crime?

Apparently, you do not understand the term "uncontrolled variables". You cannot generate such a number without a shitload of caveats and unknowns buried in it, any more than you could for fingerprinting. Do you honestly not understand this, or are you just being obstinate?

Possibly a little obstinate, but mostly yes, I do understand "uncontrolled variables" as a concept and I also know that you can study something containing them. The results are not as definite as anyone would like, but there are cases where, despite uncontrolled variables, something has such a marked effect you can largely discount them. It's a common problem in medicine, which is chock full of "uncontrolled variables" but nonetheless attempts to study the effects of various treatments on variable human beings. Putting up cameras in just one city park in just one city doesn't really prove the true utility of public cameras, but we have now had such a variety of camera systems installed in cities world wide that a large enough pool of data exists to allow some conclusions. I don't have the time for it right now, but I'd be interested in knowing if in some circumstances public cameras don't affect crime rates, because that would be an extremely interesting question - is it because the crime rate in an area is so low cameras have no effect? If it's a high crime area where cameras have no effect that would be even more interesting - if such places even exist. In regards to bank robberies, wouldn't be interesting if cameras affected the rate of convictions but had no impact on the frequency of robberies?

To clarify, I am not inherently opposed to surveillance cameras, but I do have issues with privacy, abuse of power, and true effectiveness. In the real world there are other worthwhile crime-fighting tools that should also be invested in, and I'd hate to seem the neglected because someone thinks public cameras are a cure-all. They aren't. They are one tool among many. Simply installing cameras willy-nilly without thought is just more feel-good window-dressing security, of which I have had a bellyful these past 8 years.

If it makes anyone feel better I could take the opposite side and argue FOR public cameras, too.

[Darth Wong]

Oh, wait - my position on this.

Under my ethical system (which may or may not be your ethical system) the only justification for killing a human being is self-defense. If a murderer can be contained and rendered harmless (presumably by imprisonment) then there is no justification for killing him. If, however, he can not be contained, or escapes, then for the defense of others in society shooting to kill is justified if there is no other practical means to recapture or restrain him before he harms someone else.

It seems to me that this argument is based upon binary logic. Either this happens or that happens, 1 or 0. If it's 1, you do this. If it's 0, you do that. What about probabilities and risk factors? There is a risk that such a person will escape. And you're condemning people to the thankless task of holding and watching these people indefinitely; guards are thankless victims of the incarceration system. They work in horrid conditions, deal with dangerous, hateful, and psychotic criminals who wish to do them harm and all too often succeed, and we do not even try to take them into account when declaring how many people should be locked up.

[K. A. Pital]

If a murderer can be contained and rendered harmless (presumably by imprisonment) then there is no justification for killing him.

The problem of deterring others is also ignored explicitly. What if the death of one prevents a potential several similar acts from happening by virtue of fear and the pressure on a would-be criminal to better conceal his crime (of which not all are capable)? Hell, even if a single death of a criminal prevents nothing more than a single crime of murder, that's quite an equivalent exchange to me.

[Broomstick]

Oh, wait - my position on this.

Under my ethical system (which may or may not be your ethical system) the only justification for killing a human being is self-defense. If a murderer can be contained and rendered harmless (presumably by imprisonment) then there is no justification for killing him. If, however, he can not be contained, or escapes, then for the defense of others in society shooting to kill is justified if there is no other practical means to recapture or restrain him before he harms someone else.

It seems to me that this argument is based upon binary logic. Either this happens or that happens, 1 or 0. If it's 1, you do this. If it's 0, you do that. What about probabilities and risk factors? There is a risk that such a person will escape. And you're condemning people to the thankless task of holding and watching these people indefinitely; guards are thankless victims of the incarceration system. They work in horrid conditions, deal with dangerous, hateful, and psychotic criminals who wish to do them harm and all too often succeed, and we do not even try to take them into account when declaring how many people should be locked up.

I suppose the risks you mention would have to be taken into account. If you have someone with a history of escaping, or who has managed to organize/instigate a murder from prison, then you may have to execute him (or her) for the good of all. A murderer who won't behave in prison may also need to be executed because, as you point out, prison guards are people, too, and harming or killing them is just as wrong as killing members of the general public. This would also mean that some people who are now classed "mentally ill" and are currently not "eligible" for execution in the US might also be executed under the above mentioned system if they are too dangerous to hold safely.

On the other hand, even a serial killer may be well-behaved as a prisoner. Merely being a murderer does not mean a person is uncontrollable while confined, or more prone to escape than others. There are also some very violent people in prisons who haven't killed anyone.

In my mind "what a prison should be" and "who should society kill?" are two different (although related) questions.

[Broomstick]

If a murderer can be contained and rendered harmless (presumably by imprisonment) then there is no justification for killing him.

The problem of deterring others is also ignored explicitly. What if the death of one prevents a potential several similar acts from happening by virtue of fear and the pressure on a would-be criminal to better conceal his crime (of which not all are capable)? Hell, even if a single death of a criminal prevents nothing more than a single crime of murder, that's quite an equivalent exchange to me.

Does execution in fact deter crime? No question the offender in question will not kill again, but then not everyone who commits murder kills more than one person in a lifetime, either, whether caught or not. I suppose we could reserve it for those who kill two or more people, but outside of pre-meditated murders the crime is often one of "passion" and impulsive. There are also criminals who are primarily, say, thieves but inadvertently kill someone while committing another crime. That's still murder under our laws, but it's a case where the criminal was not intending to kill anyone so how could the possibility of execution be a deterrent in that case? By executing someone who kills one person there is no guarantee you have prevented a future murder (maybe this person would not have killed again) and since such crimes can be committed in a highly emotional state it is unlikely that knowing others have been executed for it will cause the perpetrator to stop before a lethal blow. If you're looking at Jeffry Dahmer you can be reasonably certain executing him would prevent future crimes because the man was a serial killer who knew it was against the law and did it anyway (although in real life the state of Wisconsin has no death penalty so he received life without parole) but such serial killers are a minority of murderers. I would argue that you have a to make a solid case that the person in question would kill again if released. The commission of one murder, even a premeditated one, is not a guarantee of that (see the case of Nathan Leopold mentioned much earlier in this thread) although the circumstances under which a murder occurred might lend some weight to the argument.

[kinnison]

"There are also criminals who are primarily, say, thieves but inadvertently kill someone while committing another crime. That's still murder under our laws, but it's a case where the criminal was not intending to kill anyone so how could the possibility of execution be a deterrent in that case?"

Simple really; in such a legal system, criminals are less likely to set off on their criminal missions carrying weapons if they think they might be executed in the case of such weapons being used.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that when the death penalty was in force in the UK, criminal gangs off to do something like a bank or warehouse job frisked each other for weapons before setting out. This was because if one of them was carrying a weapon, the job went wrong and the weapon got used, and someone died, the crime changed from burglary to murder for the user, and to conspiracy to commit murder for all the others.

[Broomstick]

That would only work if weapons were the sole means of accidentally killing someone while committing another crime. They aren't. Even if criminals left all the guns and knives at home there would still be inadvertent murders. That could be running someone over with a get-away car, beating a mugging victim sufficiently for them to die (which may not take much if the victim is elderly or in poor health), or any of a number of other ways in which you can kill a person without a gun or knife being used.

Also, in the US the "burglary turned into murder" laws were the same and yet criminals continued to carry weapons. No doubt this is connected to the greater acceptance/use of guns in American society in general, but clearly the possibility of execution will not stop these instances entirely. I suppose the question then becomes would the deterrent value be sufficient to justify society-condoned killing of people? I doubt it, and until I see some numbers regarding it unlikely to change my mind (and perhaps not even then).