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.

I want to torture people

you sir are a sadist, and you should keep your hands to yourself

no

Azaula, you are a troll.

GTFO of my thread.

^ Saying the biggest troll Warlight has ever known. Tyrion...

^The best troll.

These types of questions are stupid because they're asymmetrical and unlikely to exist. Its a lose-lose no matter what.

Jai, you think all life is equal? That's something interesting. :D
Here a questions on a decision that have happened countless of times:

What would you do from your current perspective if you were part of a small tribe living in an arctic environment living from vegetarian fish?
A. Live on and kill countless innocent vegetarian fish.
B. Starve to death.
C. Kill your small tribe(including yourself) at night to save even 100x more countless innocent vegetarian fish.


A. The decision most people would choose, but when truly seeing the life of a fish equal to the life of a human, than this is the most unlike decision.
B. The decision where you do not kill any life directly, except your own.
C. The decision where you save most lives(really a lot), but also have to take a few lives.

Look at Singapore as an example. They cane people, they publicly shame people, they kill people for drug possession. They have some of the harshest punishments in the world, and it is an incredibly nice place with incredibly low crime. Harsh punishment works.

It depends, harsh punishment do also have a consequence of inflating the price of anything illegal, because there's no supply for the demand. Thus, people might be affraid, but if in a country the gramm of weed is sold idk, at 500$, there's always gonna have someone willing to take the risk.

Also, I believe Singapore already had a low crime rate before passing those laws. The truth is, as I said, a low crimerate depends on an effective justice. The harsheness of the punishment doesn't matter much if you commit errors when applying the sentences or don't find people guilty of the crime you're investigating.

I bet they could change all their death prison sentences to life imprisonement/30 years+ and it wouldn't screw up their justice system.

B. The decision where you do not kill any life directly, except your own.

I'm not applying the Golden Rule here, because I only have control over myself and my consciousness.