Death Penalty

We may not agree, you are right. Fortunately for me, the US government agrees with my definition, as we still have a penal code for crimes against individuals and the state. No it has nothing to do with public floggings, and yes, it has everything to do with how US Law defines the word Justice. If you have questions about it, scroll up and re-read my cut and pasted definition of the word penal.

This is where I recommend that you travel a bit and see the system you are supporting in action. Costa Rica has something very similar. I've seen it first hand. Almost any felony that would land you in jail in the US can be gotten out of simply by making restitution to the party with the grievance. Basically, and this is a true story, you can pistol whip someone, break out all their front teeth, and as long as the payment arrangement you make is satisfactory to the person assaulted, the aggressor will not serve a day in jail. What you wind up with is a culture in which the rich are completely above the law. You are welcome to it.

 

You aren't seriously suggesting that US justice is applied equally to rich and poor regardless of race, gender or religion, are you?

It might do you well to spend some time actually examining the system you are so proud of.

Justice in the US is both blind and handcuffed.

The role of police is to close the case, which is done with an arrest. Guilt or innocence may or may not be a factor. Abuse of authority and the trampeling of rights is common. Career advancement is based on the ability to close the case.

The role of the District Attorney is to get convictions. More often than not stiff mandatory sentences are used as a bludgeon to force a plea bargain to lesser offenses. Guilt may or may not be a factor. Career advancement is based on the headcount.

The role of the Judge is to arbirtrate rules in the court room. As long as everyone plays by the rules he has virtually no impact on the proceedings (even sentencing since that is determined by the "guidelines"). Guilt or innocence is certainly not a factor.

The appeals process does not, as most people think, deal with the issue of guilt. The appeals court deals with the technicalities of rules and procedures. At best an innocent person can have their case remanded back for a new trial - and that depends entirely on the lower court having made some sort of procedural error.

Your word "penal" has the same roots as "penitentiary". It is a place where the offender does "penance" - a quaint idea brought to us by the Quakers who thought a little quiet time would lead to people contemplating their wrongs and reforming themselves. At the time (a couple of hundred years ago) it was seen as more humane than public floggings and assorted other punishments. Yes, it was intended as a replacement for punishment.

It is true that the Supreme Court has agreed with the State's right to inflict punishment. At the same time, there are few that have thought carefully about the basis of using punishment within the criminal injustice system.

There are three basic philsophical theories regarding punishment.

1. The utilitarian theory holds that laws that specify punishment for criminal conduct should be designed to deter future criminal conduct. General deterance is that which prevents others from commiting similar crimes by using the convicted as an example. Specific deterence is that which prevents the convicted from committing the same or similar crime in the future. It should be noted that there is no evidence that punishment, not matter how harsh, serves as a deterent either generally or specifically.

2. The retributive theory of punishment holds that offenders are punished for criminal behavior because they deserve punishment. Criminal behavior upsets the peaceful balance of society (the Kings Peace), and punishment helps to restore the balance. The retributive theory focuses on the crime itself as the reason for imposing punishment. Where the utilitarian theory looks forward by basing punishment on social benefits, the retributive theory looks backward at the transgression as the basis for punishment. Retribution against a wrongdoer is justified to protect the legitimate rights of both society and the offender. Society shows its respect for the free will of the wrongdoer through punishment. Punishment shows respect for the wrongdoer because it allows an offender to pay the debt to society and then return to society, theoretically free of guilt and stigma. It should be noted that nowhere in the retributive theory is the interests of victims taken itno account. It is all about the offender and "society" (the State). You will commonly hear this theory reflected in the words of the District Attorney, particularly during sentencing.

3. The denuciation theory of punishment holds that punishment should be an expression of societal condemnation. This is really a melding of the utilitarian and retributive theories.

Punishment may quench society's thirst for vengeance, but I would argue that vengeance is one of our basest desires and in the end is niether healing or curative.

Punishment certainly does not serve as a deterent.

However, if we accept that retributive justice is right and proper, then lets bring back the use of corporal punishment (the death penalty being the logical extreme of corporal punishment). We would save untold billions of dollars. The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world with over 1 of every 100 citizens in jail or prison With approximately 2.3 million people in US jails and prisons the odds are very good that you know or work with someone that is, or has been, incarcerated.

At what cost? For what gain? So that some self righteous redneck can take a slug of beer and say, "Well, they got what was comin'."

What an inefficient waste of time resources and humanity...

 

Of course not. It is not now, nor will it ever be in any country under any legal system. Some just do a bit better job at it than others. I can also appreciate the government not using penal justice as a means to collect taxes/spend taxpayer money. Nevertheless, I've seen what you propose, and the rich are entirely above the law.

I would refer you to incidence of drunk driving deaths prior to and after punitive laws against it were dramatically strengthened. It refutes your statement above entirely, and its hard to argue with.

This story/idea is entirely your fabrication. No where in this thread has anyone but you suggested these types of ideas. I'm not sure why the liberals on this forum figure it is ok to use the "If you are not for us, you are against us" fallacy. "If you are not in favor of this reform, you are in favor of NO reform". "If you are in favor of the death penalty, you are in favor of public flogging". I know you equate the two but that seems to be just you.

 

Does it really? Perhaps you can direct us to the source of this claim?

A common error of logic is to assume correlation is the same as causation - and I suspect that is what you are suffering from here.

During the same period that we have seen the reduction in drunk driving deaths you refer to we have also seen a significant reduction in the number of cigarette smokers.

Punishment was not a factor for tobacco use.

How do you explain the discrepancy?

Perhaps it has to do with changing societal standards? Concurrent with harsher punishment there has been a very intense public message campaign regarding the dangers of driving while impaired (or using tobacco).

How do you filter the effects of one from the other?

The UK has a much lower incidence of drunk driving, yet has no DUI Manslaughter statutes on the books. In fact, those who cause a death while driving impaired in the UK experience much lower sentences than in the US.

So, it is actually pretty easy to argue with.

I have provided you with a great deal of information about retributive justice which you have roundly ignored. That I am the only one that has introduced these ideas need not mean I am some crazy liberal. Just perhaps it reflects 35 years of work in the criminal (in)justice system and the lessons that come from such experience (and education).

We may assuage our guilt and congratulate ourselves for being civilized by using lengthy incarcerations, but in the end retributive justice is based on the same barbaric principals as public floggings, amputations, disfigurements or any other form of corporal punishment.

I am simply suggesting we call a spade a spade.

You will note that I have not taken a position on capital punishment anywhere in this thread. I have only suggested that retributive justice provides a poor justification for it.

 

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-california.html

If you think those statistics don't indicate a causal relationship, you are crazier than I had originally estimated.

As to the rest of your dissertation on the various sorts of "justice" systems, I did not disregard it. It simply didn't merit comment. I have yet to see you present an argument and data to back that argument that suggests a better way of handling it than we already do. By the way, I'm all ears on this, because I think reform is necessary. Like health care, there are many many many improvements that can and should be made. I struggle to understand why people like you dislike so many aspects of America(health care, legal system) to the point that you feel adjustments are impossible, and revolution(complete change out) of these systems is required. I hear arguments like that made for gun control, and frankly, those people are either delusional, have no sense of history, or both.

 

- There is way more to someone becoming an informant than that.

~ Lets hear about it, whatever more you know about the informant / case - The girl had no idea what they were putting her up to and cost her, her life. Now to make amends drug enforcement is attempting to have the petty criminals put to death for a deal they arranged that included the weapon that was used to commit the crime.....of course, the proper role of capital punishment to execute criminals that do not follow script.

 

I've been reading for awhile and for the most part many of you have gone astray to the main point to get into more complex arguments to stump each other, but I think that this quote is probably the worst to me.

I was thinking about how you are talking about how you are fully 100% in agreement with the Gov't, but you say it like it actually makes you more correct because the Gov't is on your side.
The Gov't also has chosen to not enforce the justice system becuase they feel that it isn't worth the effort to control crooked cops and judges.

This isn't because the laws are different in Mexico or whereever. This is becuase there happens to be more crooked cops and judges because the poverty level is higher. Its not a matter of diff. country laws.

Also you are stating that in Costa Rica if you are rich you are completely above the law, but wasn't Michael Jackson in the US when he was acused of raping a little boy? Was he charged?
Nope, he was sued.
Isn't sexual assault a criminal offense?

That was in the US.

 

Do you even read the links you post to?

If tough sentencing laws are the primary factor in reducing drunk driving, then why the "stubborn reversal of the downward trend"?

Further, you statistics contain nothing to support your assertion that punitive sentencing is the primary driver of the changes. My comparison of UK vs US vehicular manslaughter laws might suggest to the open minded that punitive sentencing has little, if any effect.

If you are really open minded about reform, there is a vast body of information out there. NIH regularly publishes current information. Many States are attempting to implement reform within their correctional systems, but they are bucking the desire for retributive justice on the part of citizens that have no understanding, and no desire to understand.

Wiki actually has a fairly accurate summation (the emphasis is mine):

In the most simple terms, about 20% of offenders will never reoffend after they experience their first intervention/sanction (it doesn't have to be incarceration). Another 20% of offenders will reoffend no matter what or how many interventions/sanctions are applied. (These are the ones that need to be locked up forever - not for punishment, but to preserve public safety.)

Then there are the middle 60% that do respond to intervention/sanction to a meaningful degree IF the proper interventions are applied at the proper time in the correct way.

In none of this will you find any evidence that retributive justice is effective on any level.

 

I'm sorry, but, I simply disagree with just about everything you see here. As you have no experience (at least you're not letting on to having any experience) dealing with these types of things, I'll help clue you in.

1. Police officers do not trample all over the rights of the accused. If you knew anything you would know that they, just like the military, take an oath. In that oath is a line to uphold the constitutional values of the US. Why? Well, the biggest influencing factor for a police officer to uphold those rights and not trample them as you say, is money. A civil lawsuit for a police officer can go for upwards of 5 million dollars, plus a lawsuit against the department, city, and state. Police officers are lucky if they have about 1.5 million in civil liability insurance. That is usually saved up for if they wreck a car and hit someone else. You statement saying that police officers shows your ignorance of how a criminal investigation actually is conducted. On top of that, if I trample all over someones rights, as you said, I loose all evidence obtained from that trampling. In law enforcement we call it the fruit of the poisonous tree. Your statement just shows how liberal you are and how ignorant (read: not stupid, just haven't been educated on it) you are of the facts.

2. DA's, DAG's will not take a plea if they have a slam dunk. It just won't happen. Period. Career advancement comes from court room convictions, not from plea bargains. On top of that, a judge can (and it happens a lot) reject a plea deal if it is not fair to the state or the defendant.

3. You are kind of correct about appeals. They are to judge on procedural things. But, also on other facts, such as, if a police officer conducts a quick pat down of the outer layer of clothes on someone that a reasonable person would believe had a weapon, the appeals judge would decide whether or not it was ok. If decisions are appealed again, then they go to SCOTUS (if SCOTUS accepts them). The particular incident I'm talking about is Terry v. Ohio where SCOTUS upheld the cops decision and action. And guess what with that? you can also, based on your training and experience, get a drug arrest out of it if you happen to feel something that resembles drugs.

You see, there are a lot of things you don't actually know about but you assume you do based on your perception which is probably derived from the liberal media.


I'm not for corporal punishment. That ties in with torture, and is considered cruel and unusual punishment now. I never have been for corporal punishment. The death penalty is CAPITAL Punishment, not and extreme of corporal punishment. I'm sure your view on the death penalty would change if something happened to someone close to you.


And I agree with your numbers in the last post about offenders and doing crime again. I'm not saying it's exact, but, it's a fairly good estimate. The death penalty, as you say for locking someone up, is also used to preserve public safety. Sorry, but, you plan a murder, or you attack someone with the sole intention of murdering, in cold blood, than you need to die to preserve public safety.

Please, don't confuse with my agreement with the death penalty with wanting it to be done for everything. I think it should be reserved for premeditated murder and acts of terrorism (even if no one dies, you wanted them to). I don't think it should be used simply for treason. Sorry, but I don't think that going against the state should be considered a capital crime. Unless innocent lives are lost in the process. BEen in the army. If a soldier dies based on an act of treason, I don't think that's grounds for the death penalty. I, as a solider, knew I was volunteering and signing a blank check for anything up to and including my life, for the country. Different if one dies because they are a soldier, not as a person, then there should be no death penalty. Sorry, I don't agree with that part.

I completely respect your opinion, but, your subtle insult towards me about being a redneck etc. will take all that respect away. Why do you think no one cares what stox says? Other than to egg him on for some entertainment lol.

 

You obviously missed the reference to my 35 years working in the Criminal [in]Justice system...

Rights abuses are pervasive and institutionalized. Easy enough if one knows how to play the game.

Let's begin with the presumption of guilt. Police are culturally indoctrinated to presume guilt, and to be suspicious of everyone at all times. Never fool yourself into believing that the police are your friend when a criminal investigation is taking place. They are well trained in interrogation techniques, the first of which is to convince you they are "on your side."

Since I have had opportunity to review thousands of police reports, let me share just one common example of how to keep "poisoned fruit". It all begins with the pretext traffic stop. Any claim will do - an incomplete stop, failure to signal, drifting over the fog line in a turn - just make it believable and include it in the report. Next we need to restrain the suspect for "officer safety". Again, just get into the report the physical signs given off by the suspect - fidgety, darting eyes, evasive, clenched hands, etc. Now that the suspect is cuffed we have to do a pat down search, again for for "officer safety". Observe a bulging pocket, feel a hard object, etc. If the report is written correctly (and there is a LOT of training, formal and informal, on how to write a proper report) you can get away with murder - literally in some jurisdictions.

Prosecuting attorneys will avoid trial at almost any cost. You see, there is no such thing as a "slam dunk". OJ Simpson stands as a shining example, as does Michael Jackson and a few others.

All convictions are "courtroom convictions". That is where the judge drops the gavel after all.

I have a friend that was a very successful prosecuting attorney in New Mexico. He left that career over the very issue of justice. To paraphrase him, if a certain sentence were "just" as part of a plea deal, then the same sentence would be just in a trial. Because he was unwilling to hammer the offender if he were forced to go to trial (with the demand for longer sentences) defense attorneys were unwilling to bargain a plea preferring to take a chance in front of a jury. This led to pressure from within the system to "play the game by the rules". And, the rules have nothing to do with justice. It is all about convictions.

Perhaps you can point us all to a case where a person successfully appealed their case based on guilt or innocence? If you reread my original post I wrote, "The appeals process does not, as most people think, deal with the issue of guilt. The appeals court deals with the technicalities of rules and procedures."

Again, you seem to have missed the fact that I have worked in the Criminal [in]Justice system for 35 years. I would respectfully suggest that I know far more about it than you. I have first hand experience of watching it degenerate from a slightly dysfunctional system to the travesty that we have today. In my opinion, many of the problems we have today are a direct result of the media sensationalism.

The death penalty was, for a brief period, considered cruel and unusual punishment. The term and its definition are labile, as is torture (take waterboarding as an example). Are long prison terms and/or enforced servitude or solitary confinement torturous? How about tent cities?

Your distinction between corporal and capital punishment rings hollow.

corporal (adj.) "of or belonging to the body," late 14c., from O.Fr. corporal, from L. corporalis, from corpus (gen. corporis) "body". Corporal punishment (1580s) is that inflicted on the body.

Capital punishment is the logical extreme of punishment that is inflicted on the body.

So, we agree that "punishment" is a poor justification for the death penalty?

My comment about rednecks was meant to be allegorical, not personal. It was meant to create the mental vision of a bunch of half educated, unshaven, beer drinkin', vicodin snortin', truck drivin' neanderthals sitting around in their wife beating shirts watching NASCAR on TV and talking about Joe's 19 year old kid down the street that just got 5 years for pokin' his 16 year old girlfriend.

That's justice...

 

I was hoping you would have said this at the end of your post here becuase after skimming though this I have a feeling that you have never been arrested or have had dealings with police in your life. Let's go through this.

So you are saying about how cops are not corrupt.
1. Ok, what about the time in Peterborough Ont, when these two guys tried to kill me in a public bus terminal bathroom but I just so happened to fight them off and I was charged because of a small cut under the dude with the knife had even though they freely admitted they were armed to rob me.
2. How about the time in Toronto, Ont. where this welfare couple were having an argument and she called the cops to get her BF arrested, but then they made up 2 minutes before the narcs got there so she pointed on the street at a random person(myself at the time) and said that that person hit her. I was charged but then one week later she wrote a report saying that I was a stranger and told the truth, but the cops didn't drop the charge. They made me go to court for a year about that crap.
3. How about the time in Oshawa, Ont. where someone stole a lawnmower and was going through backyards and I saw flashlights so I went outside in pajama's and it was cops who then arrested me becuase they didn't have anyone else to blame.
4. How about the time in PTBO, ont. when there was a bomb threat in my high school and because I happened to be suspended the previous day they decided it was not worth an investigation, but knew someone had to get busted because of the cost of the SWAT team, so they busted me and said all of this crap about matching hand writing. I did 7 months for that crap and I was not even on the damn property.
5. How about the time in Altona, Mb when I was working at Conquest MFG. and a bunch of employee's with the forman decided it would be a good move to put 8 grams of crack in my lunch and then I ate that crap. I tripped out and one co-worker told the owner and then I was fired because it was not worth losing so many employee's for one person. When the cops found out they said that I would have had to die or be seriously injured for any investigation.

I can go on forever with these stories becuase cops are crooked. They walk different, they talk different, and the list goes on. People with power.....

I've been in several Plea deals and I'll tell you how it works. They tell you that if you plead not guilty you will go to prison for years, and if you plead guilty you give 1/10 of that time. PERIOD. The only way you got a shot with a fair trial is if you got a $50,000 plus lawyer, and they still work with the crown to screw you.

The court system and the cops are just a legal mafia. They work together to screw who they consider is not their type of people. They pick and chose who is guilty freely everyday and all day long. They don't judge based on the situation. They judge based on your looks, your background, and your connections with people.

And this is why people shouldn't be put to death because of a crime.

If you actually worked in that system for that long and didn't run away as fast as possible then I can imagine who badly you've been washed up by this joke of a legal system.

 

I know we are getting completely off the Thread's subject, but I just have to speak up on this. Both of my brothers are retired cops and I grew up around cops. Yes, there are cops out there that are in it for the power trip they get, others are just plain crooked - BUT the vast majority are men and women who want to make a difference. They want to help and protect other people. My brothers are two of the most honest and honorable people I know. Hell, my one brother even gave himself a ticket after he accidently ran a woman off the road during a pursuit.

 

The institution is broken, and in time it breaks almost anyone that joins it.

The police are a brotherhood. You are either an insider or an outsider. If you want to see how systems can corrupt even good people, you should take a look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. Downright frightening!

The worst thing that ever happened to police was giving them cars. Insulated them from the people they are sworn to protect. They no longer are seen or experience themselves as part of the community when they are on the job.

The second worse thing that ever happened was giving them automatic weapons. Turned 'em into a bunch of cowboys. The police are now a paramilitary organization right there in your community.

Third worse thing was giving them Tazers. "Non-lethal" force is just too tempting, and is all too often substituted for communication.

These people believe there is a war out there, and they are the warriors fighting it. Problem with that is that anyone - yes, even you - might be the enemy. The brotherhood will almost always trump family or friendship.

Please note, I am not condmening any individual here. I am pointing to a system that is seriously broken and only getting more so.

 

I do. I noted you took a single sentence out of the entire article to somehow substantiate the idea that the increase in penalties for drunk driving have not had an impact, while every other statistic in the article flys in the face of what you are saying. What can I say to that? You can lead a horse to water...

I'm not sure why you quoted a section from that wiki dealing entirely with re-offense and recidivism. I was under the impression we were talking about threat of penalty preventing crime from being committed in the first place. If you want to talk about how our prison system is a bit like criminal college, you are preaching to the choir.

You've caught me. Argumentum ad populum is argument from fallacy, though in fairness to myself, I did say "fortunately for me". In other words, I'm happy the government sees it my way, right or wrong. You have to admit, absolute right and wrong on this subject, like many other subjects, is a matter of opinion. I'm also of the opinion that the right to own firearms for defense of yourself, your family, and your property creates a politer society with fewer assaults and robberies, despite the occasional kid that kills himself or a friend with his parent's weapon, or the occasional home owner who gets shot with his own weapon. I suspect Willy, and maybe you, disagree with this opinion as well. Once again, I'm happy the government agrees with me.

This is based on ... what? Have you lived in Mexico... or wherever? I was actually referring to Costa Rica. The poverty level is higher, but that doesn't change the FACT that judges are allowed to waive prison sentences in lieu of financial compensation to the victims of almost any violent crime. This has nothing to do with crooked cops and judges

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the US legal system a bit more before posting. OJ Simpson was not convicted by a criminal court of murder, yet a civil court found him guilty of the very same crime. The burden of proof is a lot higher in a criminal court, which is likely why Michael Jackson was never even charged criminally.

 

You've explained the rare and the few good cops, but mainly police cut themselves off away from the public and often only have friends who are other police officers who they can speak to on the same level. This topic is somewhat off topic, but then again its a good argument on why the death penalty should never be put in place.

True, I do disagree with your statement of being able to shoot off rounds at robbers and the reason is clear. The general public should not have the ability to make decisions like that becuase they are not qualified to understand the consequences. For example: You shoot a person in the arm who tries to steal your car, his sister thinks that the punishment doesn't fit the crime so she burns down your house giving a bad burn on your son, Your wife decides to shot her, and it goes on.......

Also, since I am from an area which is pretty much as farm land I know what people are like with shotguns without much laws to control them, and their system is not very civil. You wouldn't like it to know that some farm trash has judgement of right and wrong against you.

I've spend a couple of months in Chihuahua and as long as you got a few bucks in your pocket you can probably get off of a crime unless you did something that affected someone or some building that is powerful. Not all of the time, but maybe 70%.

Judges are allowed to waive anything they want in Canada and the US. They can go view a video proving the guilt of someone and just say it can't be added for evidence and that's that.

Is this some type of internet bullying where you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about so I shouldn't post here, but you should? Seriously, its ridiculosus that you would say something like this. Not that I have not heard it a million times.
Perhaps not. The criminal court system not not need proof to convinct people in both Canada and the US. I've been convicted several times without even any evidence, people I know have been, etc.
Heck, last month Subway decided to move their next door building and they wanted to take a pole with a sign that I was using for my business and I had a recept that proved I paid in full for the pole, the box, and the panels, and the owner ran freaked out and called the cops. The stupid cops decided that they have the right to give it themselves and gave it to this subway owner because he just so happens to be a more of a power business owner. The court threw it out as well due to some mumbo-jumbo about set structures losing ownership(some made up thing to give it to him).

I'm sorry? Did any of you say anything about the courts using evidence & and Proof to make judgement. If so, its not often.

 

The law determines the consequences. If they are on your property without good reason, you can shoot them. Some states require your life to be in immediate danger, others require only that there be sufficient evidence they were trying to rob from you. If someone from their family decides to take vengance for your actions, you have the right to kill them yourself(on your property) and if you don't, the law will punish them. This imagined eternal cycle of payback you are talking to is usually stepped on before it happens by the law.

That tells me pretty much all I need to know about you. I bet you are careful to avoid a situation where "farm trash" can sit in judgement of you, and I think that is a good thing.

You are referring to corruption here, which has little to do with the discussion of legal systems in progress. Every government has corruption to some extent. I was talking about financially compensating victims for violent crimes being considered adequate and legal by the state. Not a practice in the States, regardless of the power of a judge in a court room.

Not surprising.

I'm sure I would be thrilled to hear about your convictions where a jury of your peers found you your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt without evidence. Why don't you provide less bluster and more evidence?

Bummer for you. Its still a civil matter, not a criminal one. What does it have to do with the topic at hand?

Well thanks for all the concrete evidence and links. You've convinced me .

 

Where does one begin?

The page you linked to provides data on traffic fatalities in California, alcohol related fatalities and fatalities involving a person with a BAC of 0.08 or more.

It explicitly states, "It is important to note that the California drunk driving statistics, as shown above, include data from individuals who were in an alcohol-related crash, but not driving a motor vehicle at the time."

Nowhere on that page does it make a direct correlation with the onset of punitive drunk driving laws. In fact, it makes no reference to when laws were changed.

It makes no reference to increases or decreases of licensed drivers in California. (Population size)

It makes no references to improved safety standards for vehicles, when they were adopted, or what impact they might have had on fatalities.

There is no reference on the page regarding education or public service message campaigns, their time of onset, or what impact they may have had.

In short, it is a bunch of numbers to which you have assigned the meaning of your choice while suggesting I am somehow out of touch with reality.

You don't even bother to put forth your assertion as a working hypothesis, simply stating it as fact while suggesting anyone that doesn't agree with your conclusion is a half baked nitwit.

Have I got this right?

 

Fair enough. I'm fairly certain you are entirely familiar with what I am about to post, but I'll post it anyway, since you asked for it.

http://www.dui.com/dui-library/california/related/dui-legislation

Coincidentally, the alcohol related death stats cap out in 1987. I'm sure your argument will continue to be this is not enough to scientifically prove the relationship to be causal but can you at least admit it is more likely to be causal than your "societal changes" argument? I mean, are you really arguing that less people drink now (2009) than then (1987) in California? Really?

To imply that the decrease in death rate might be due to a California population decrease is just claiming idiocy, but hell, I'll play along.

Did you notice the dramatic drop in CA population in the 80s? how bout the 90s?

No, it doesn't. But interestingly, the death rate amongst non alcohol involved accidents did not drop anywhere near as much. Sorry for not digging out the stats for you, as I have to give some of my time to the terrorist sympathizers too.

Yes. But you my friend are a half baked nitwit, so in your case, I am absolutely right! Seriously though, I didn't expect to have to present a series of data points that most people take for granted, like the fact California's population has been continually increasing. Its like having to present evidence the earth is round to have a discussion about satellites. I will also grant you that a skeptic can make a weak argument to imply the legislative changes make up only a small part of the decrease in DUI deaths. What can I say, some people won't let go of a bone. You aren't a 911 truther are you?

P.S. It is funny how arguing with someone about a topic makes you argue a position from a more hard line position that may not accurately reflect your personal views. The DUI "business" in California is a tax generation industry that is out of control, and it really needs to be taken down a notch. I only use it as an example because, in my opinion, it demonstrates a direct correlation between penal consequences for a behavior and a reduction in incidence of that behavior. Yes, I believe when we completely decriminalize pot (which we will), we will have more pot smokers. It goes without saying.

 

Your arguments are coming like oatmeal out of a shotgun - just keep blasting away and see what sticks.

I am therefore forced to dedicate a single post to each one...

As I explained previously, it is the utilitarian theory of punishment that holds that punitive sentencing can reduce crime.

Just to remind you, I wrote, "General deterance is that which prevents others from commiting similar crimes by using the convicted as an example. Specific deterence is that which prevents the convicted from committing the same or similar crime in the future. It should be noted that there is no evidence that punishment, not matter how harsh, serves as a deterent either generally or specifically."

The Wiki article clearly indicates that "specific deterence" is an illusion. Retributive justice actually increases the chances that the individual will commit future crimes. Further, it identifies what does work - things that fall under the category of "social programs", which conservatives choke on.

I am aware of nothing that supports the idea of a general deterent effect of retributive justice. You have tried with DUI data, but your argument has the coherence of a drunk in a liquor store.

Lacking "proof" I can only look at myself and the anecdotal reports of others. The conclusion I draw from that is that any deterence provided by retributive justice is situational at best.

What do I mean by this?

It is not fear of punishment that prevents me from robbing banks, raping, stealing cars, assaulting my wife, wantonly murdering innocent bystanders, using drugs or driving while under the influence. For most of those things I don't have to make a fear based choice because they never enter my mind. (Of course, I am the kind of guy that gives back money when I am given incorrect change.)

The same is true of most people I know.

Further, back in the day when I did experiment with recreational substances the fear of punishment never stopped me. It just made me more careful of when and where I used them.

The same is true of most people I know.

Further, in my work with inmates I have become convinced that fear of punishment is ineffective as a deterent. Existentially, the criminal contemplating crime is face with a simple decision - "Can I get away with it, or is it too scary to try." If it is "too scary" (i.e. the risks are too high) then one of two things happens - more planning to reduce the risk or move on to safer criminal activities. Never once have I talked to an inmate who committed a crime thinking that they would be caught! At the moment of the offense they had convinced themselves that they would get away clean - or the behavior was so ingrained (i.e. they had got away with it so many times previously) that they never gave apprehension a second thought.

In totality, I find nothing to support the idea that retributive justice provides a general deterent to criminal activity.

If you go through life making decisions based on the fear of apprehension and punishment, then I feel sorry for you. I suspect though that you are more like me. You don't need retributive justice to moderate your behavior. You have internal controls. (But, since I don't know you I could very well be wrong!)

Fear did not keep Tiger Woods from philandering, nor did it keep Ted Bundy from murdering. Retributive justice simply has no basis in reality.

Your turn...

 

~ Well, law enforcement got the petty criminal off the street and with more years than they could possibly have hoped for......though in the end they sought a death sentence for premeditation after the premeditated encounter and saw no duplicity for their involvement. The death sentence is a mockery when used to justify a states objective through coercion.