Also, most serial murderers and disturbed enough people to make atrocities huge enough for us wanting them to be killed don't give a shit about dying or not. Executing them is too easy.

Like someone else said, I don't really want revenge. If you want, maybe torture them a little in the same way they tortured someone, but otherwise, no.

For the stats of either death penalty saves or not lives, just cross countries who allow the death penalty to be sentenced and the crime-rate on them. As you can see, the countries with the smaller murder rate owtlaw the death penalty while those who still have it, have worst ones. The death penalty doesn't save lives.

Corelation does not imply causation.

^^^

In this case, Team Guns, the nations you named that still impose the death penalty all also are poor nations with poorly equipped and trained police... hm...

South Korea has one of the largest militaries in the world; their percentage of people in the military is higher than ours.

Maybe but I just haven't been convinced by the argument that we need to spend around 600 billion in defense spending. All the wars that we may face in the next 2 decades we're self created because we thought we needed to engage in regime change and spread democracy to every country on the globe. Americans rejected imperialism once before and I think soon enough we will reject it again.

Edited 2/10/2016 03:49:50

1). Its not a maybe; South Korea has one of the largest armies in the worlds, and its still only a bit above 1/2 the size of North Koreas.

And not all American wars are self created. And here's another problem- just because you started a war doesn't mean you created it.

A pound of prevention is worth two poinds of cure- and a carpet bombed Iran is better than a nuked USA.

Team there are too many factors at play to determine whether or not the death penalty has an effect on the crime rate.

jai you have ignored my hypothetical. So you must not be firm in your belief that all life is equal either that or you won't answer because you would allow 2 people to die instead of 1.

Sorry there was too much to respond to. Of course I would choose (if I was given no absolute choice), the innocent one. But again this question is silly because its an impractical hypothetical.

so you don't value all human life the same when it comes to brass tacks.

@King Jofferey maybe it also means that most developped countries don't do stupid things like keeping the death penalty. Maybe cause it doesn't fuc*ing work ^^.


And remember, if Germany does something, you should follow it (unless when it invades poland, then don't please).

Edited 2/10/2016 04:23:54

so you don't value all human life the same when it comes to brass tacks.

No its not. You said I can't save both so obviously I would have to pick.

The question was really quite silly. You may as well have asked me if I would save a baby or a dog. If I save the dog I would probably be jailed for negligent manslaughter. If I save the baby I just let a dog be killed. These types of questions are stupid because they're asymmetrical and unlikely to exist. Its a lose-lose no matter what.

I may as well have asked you: would you kill a fetus if you were told it may kill someone when it turns 18. Its a stupid question because its not a guarantee that he/she will kill someone. Its a stupid hypothetical and we shouldn't use them in argumentation.

Edited 2/10/2016 04:33:47

Again Teamguns there are too many different factors at play to determine whether or not the death penalty is an effective deterrent. What you should do to test it is to implement the death penalty in a culturally homogeneous community that has the same demographic makeup for 5 yrs before and after the death penalty is instituted and then look at the crime rates. Even then it would be difficult to determine its effectiveness because the culture within the community could have changed during that time. Even then just because it was effective at deterring people of one culture doesn't mean it will be effective at deterring people of a culture that promotes death or has no fear of death.

Edited 2/10/2016 04:37:48

Jai it isn't stupid because it shows you are a hypocrite. You don't value all life the same because you made a judgement based upon what you knew about the 2 people and made a choice. In other words you capable of preferential treatment of one person over another because of how you perceive them.

Edited 2/10/2016 04:38:59

I'm not gonna say: "I'll save none of them". Because that would be even a bigger affront against my faith in equal life.

Its not a hypocritical position because I commented on an unrealistic position. So its like commenting on what I would do if I could see atoms with my naked eye. I can't see atoms (its impossible) so therefore any comments I make on that hypothetical situation can't be held against me.

Edited 2/10/2016 04:57:55

@Azaulamahkambi there's no way to make that kind of study lol.

The only good deterrent for crime is a fair and effective justice. The death penalty is just another justice tool, but really it doesn't really work if you haven't the system and the other tools arround it doesn't work.

Worst, as I said, you can kill innocents with the death penalty, thus making it a problem for the justice system. It doesn't make justice any more fair or effective, as people condemned to death would already be condemned to life/a looot of years otherwise.

With or without the death penalty, the effectiveness of the system is not changed. But with it, the system isn't fair anymore as we accept the death of innocents as possible.

And plus, being stuck in maximum security for fifty years is a lot worse than ten minutes of sleepiness after a needle.

I believe in torture anyway. I would love to torture criminals as a job but sadly its unconstitutional.

Edited 2/10/2016 06:24:39

I believe in torture anyway. I would love to torture criminals as a job but sadly its unconstitutional.

Torture isn't a thing that must be said so lightly... If you feel a like in seing or taking part in torture, you should find a psy right now.

maybe you need help

The reason why Japan has a low criminal rate is that basically the entire family name gets shamed if someone commits a crime.

Secondly, the death penalty is applied extremely rarely, it basically exists in the books, and is only applied when the jury is 100% certain the person has committed the crime, and all the detectives covering the case agree. And there is a cultural incentive to be correct here, condemning innocents generally shames the family name. There is also a lack of "Hard on crime" sentimentality that you see in the US, in which they attempt to stick someone, anyone in Jail.

Lastly, If you look at the Scandinavian countries, we see that having good prison conditions may actually work well in deterring crime.

Well, there's lot of systems that are way better then the actual used worldwide, we just need to look at the few examples. And yea, japan is kind of a different country.