The Death Penalty- a deterrent?

[Symmetry]

Who puts the percent symbol in front of the number?

People who rear-end other motorists, and feel the need to treat insurance claims as more serious than death penalties, obviously. They tend to get things the wrong way round.

[Metsfanmax]

I answered your question mate. You asked me what I'd respond to a supposition

Specifically I asked you "should I consider it a deterrent" if it prevents 1% of murders. You did not answer this question. Therefore I have no idea what you think it means for the death penalty to be a deterrent, and so it does not make any sense to get into the actual establishment of such a proposition.

In other words, it is you who has not understood the thread, because you haven't actually defined what it is we are to debate about.

Specifically, you've edited out the context to suit your argument. You asked me to suppose something, I replied, and explained my reply. Which you have also edited to suit you.

As I've explained, this is a point to be discussed. I'm sorry if it's not the point you want to discuss. Debates and discussions often work out that way, and, as above, you have your "I don't know" option.

OK. It is not at all what I want to discuss, because it is rather uninteresting, but here goes. I claim that if the death penalty prevents 1% of murders, then it is a deterrent. The dictionary definition of "deter" is to discourage something from happening. Since at least some murders are prevented if we accept this supposition, and the existence of the death penalty is what discouraged them from occurring, the death penalty is by construction a deterrent. Pursuant to this, if even one crime is prevented by the existence of the death penalty, it is a deterrent.

You're welcome to attempt to refute my claim, of course, but based on your behavior so far, I am guessing you won't.

[Symmetry]

I answered your question mate. You asked me what I'd respond to a supposition

Specifically I asked you "should I consider it a deterrent" if it prevents 1% of murders. You did not answer this question. Therefore I have no idea what you think it means for the death penalty to be a deterrent, and so it does not make any sense to get into the actual establishment of such a proposition.

In other words, it is you who has not understood the thread, because you haven't actually defined what it is we are to debate about.

Specifically, you've edited out the context to suit your argument. You asked me to suppose something, I replied, and explained my reply. Which you have also edited to suit you.

As I've explained, this is a point to be discussed. I'm sorry if it's not the point you want to discuss. Debates and discussions often work out that way, and, as above, you have your "I don't know" option.

OK. It is not at all what I want to discuss, because it is rather uninteresting, but here goes. I claim that if the death penalty prevents 1% of murders, then it is a deterrent. The dictionary definition of "deter" is to discourage something from happening. Since at least some murders are prevented if we accept this supposition, and the existence of the death penalty is what discouraged them from occurring, the death penalty is by construction a deterrent. Pursuant to this, if even one crime is prevented by the existence of the death penalty, it is a deterrent. Since there must have been at least one crime at some point in time that was prevented by fear of the death penalty, the death penalty is indeed a deterrent.

Wonderful, I solved half the thread. You're welcome to attempt to refute my claim, of course, but based on your behavior so far, I am guessing you won't.

An interesting position, where's your proof? I'd like to examine it.

Of course, it's a bit odd that you're interested in arguing a point that you find uninteresting, but hey, I suppose your evidence should be examined.

Present away!

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Who puts the percent symbol in front of the number?

People who rear-end other motorists, and feel the need to treat insurance claims as more serious than death penalties, obviously. They tend to get things the wrong way round.

Symmetry: in the running for Cutest Poster of 2016. Returning champ looks to defend his title.

-TG

[Metsfanmax]

An interesting position, where's your proof? I'd like to examine it.

Do you mean, where is my proof that the death penalty has prevented at least one murder? We can discuss that, but remember that there are two separate issues, namely the separate propositions "the death penalty prevents X murders," and "if the death penalty prevents at least Y murders, then it is a deterrent." This latter one is not a proposition that needs evidence because it is a semantic point, not a factual one.

As to why I am discussing this, it is necessary to establish this so that we can then answer the more interesting empirical questions. Hence why I asked the original question -- we need a working definition of deterrence before we can address whether the evidence answers the question of whether the death penalty satisfies that definition. So, do you accept my definition? Only once we have a mutually agreed upon standard for debate can we then actually have the debate.

If so, then we can start reviewing studies like the one discussed here that say that a measurable number of homicides are prevented by the death penalty.

[Bernie Sanders]

What's odd is this.

Why do those who fear government intrusions into their private lives, who fear government taking away their guns and who fear government taking away their liberties are the very same people who applaud government taking the lives of people found guilty by the government?

Why?

[Maxleod]

What's odd is this.

Why do those who fear government intrusions into their private lives, who fear government taking away their guns and who fear government taking away their liberties are the very same people who applaud government taking the lives of people found guilty by the government?

Why?

The government never finds anyone guilty (at least not in "western democracies"), the people do. Courts, judges, jury are (supposed to) be independent, and it's illegal for the gov't to interfere..

To answer the OP, death penalty never is a deterrent IMHO (please not that this is not related at all with being pro or anti death penalty).

[Metsfanmax]

What's odd is this.

Why do those who fear government intrusions into their private lives, who fear government taking away their guns and who fear government taking away their liberties are the very same people who applaud government taking the lives of people found guilty by the government?

Why?

This isn't too hard to understand. Consider the reasons given by many conservative-types for wanting to own a gun. In truth they probably want it as a cultural signalling tool and just to have fun with it as much as anything else. But also, while they feel it is their right to own firearms in part to be able to fight against an oppressive government, a much more mundane reason is that in principle it can help you defend yourself, your property, and your family. Perhaps you can just think of it as a fear-based or distrusting mentality; the type of person who wants to carry a gun everywhere they go just distrusts others, thinks that others are out to get them. So it makes some sense that they would support harsh penalties for those who commit serious crimes, because to them, the type of people who do so are among their biggest concerns.

[Symmetry]

What's odd is this.

Why do those who fear government intrusions into their private lives, who fear government taking away their guns and who fear government taking away their liberties are the very same people who applaud government taking the lives of people found guilty by the government?

Why?

This isn't too hard to understand. Consider the reasons given by many conservative-types for wanting to own a gun. In truth they probably want it as a cultural signalling tool and just to have fun with it as much as anything else. But also, while they feel it is their right to own firearms in part to be able to fight against an oppressive government, a much more mundane reason is that in principle it can help you defend yourself, your property, and your family. Perhaps you can just think of it as a fear-based or distrusting mentality; the type of person who wants to carry a gun everywhere they go just distrusts others, thinks that others are out to get them. So it makes some sense that they would support harsh penalties for those who commit serious crimes, because to them, the type of people who do so are among their biggest concerns.

That makes sense, and I suppose, to expand on it, conservatives tend toward an exclusive model of society over an inclusive one. Us vs Them. Once you're in the excluded group, anything goes.

[Symmetry]

What's odd is this.

Why do those who fear government intrusions into their private lives, who fear government taking away their guns and who fear government taking away their liberties are the very same people who applaud government taking the lives of people found guilty by the government?

Why?

The government never finds anyone guilty (at least not in "western democracies"), the people do. Courts, judges, jury are (supposed to) be independent, and it's illegal for the gov't to interfere..

To answer the OP, death penalty never is a deterrent IMHO (please not that this is not related at all with being pro or anti death penalty).

Your take is what I asked for. Some will consider it a deterrant while opposing it as a penalty, and some will think it no deterrent while supporting it.

I'd like to hear all sides.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

For justice we must go to Don Corleone.

-TG

[Symmetry]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence

Worth a read if you get the chance, but the big finding is that the experts think it's not a deteerance.