..I think the point about death vs. prison is that prison is reversable if, say, the cops find the real killer they can let the falsly convicted guy go...obviously that's not possible with the death penalty...also, I think the two issues are intrinsically related because when discussing the righteousness of the death penalty, you must take into account the fallibility of all humans and therefore all judicial systems. Theoretical talks about the death penalty are like theoretical talks about communism/socialism...the real world applications end up TOTALLY different than what the theory says it should be, so you have to take into account real world situations when you discuss capitol punishment.

True on the counter examples...some places it works well, but as a trend it's a pretty barbaric practice...

 

How exactly do you reverse time spent in prison? Is there a government time machine that hands people back 10, 20, or 40 years in prison spent on a wrongful conviction? You can do something to try and mitigate it by releasing the prisoner...but the time spent is gone. And just the same, you can bring people off of death row if the conviction turns out to be wrongful.

But why do we consider the problem of innocents going to jail only in arguing against the death penalty, and not when we think about the possibility of an innocent person spending 25 years in prison (which doubtless happens)? Does the fact that someone might die in prison of old age who is innocent mean we should not give life sentences? Then it wouldn't be reversible, would it?

I'm still seeing the same distinction. If you can use the innocent victim argument to shoot down the death penalty, you can also use it to say that no harsh sentences should be handed down.

 

Just as a point of reference, consider how other countries are treating the death penalty and how crime rates in this breakdown:

(man, I love these lists,) this one from Amnesty International:


Countries whose laws do not provide for the death penalty for any crime


ANDORRA, ANGOLA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN, BELGIUM, BHUTAN, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA, CAMBODIA, CANADA, CAPE VERDE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, COTE D'IVOIRE, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EAST TIMOR, ECUADOR, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY, GUINEA-BISSAU, HAITI, HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, IRELAND, ITALY, KIRIBATI, LIECHTENSTEIN, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic), MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITIUS, MICRONESIA (Federated States), MOLDOVA, MONACO, MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NEPAL, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NIUE, NORWAY, PALAU, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAMOA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO, SEYCHELLES, SLOVAK REPUBLIC, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, VANUATU, VATICAN CITY STATE, VENEZUELA


Countries and territories which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes

AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE

Not the most honorable of company if you ask me, but hey- we're the "greatest nation on earth" right?

Personally, I don't think it is an effective deterrent, and it far too often results in the death of innocent people.

 

Subtract western Europe from that list of countries, and then do the comparison. Doesn't look nearly so bad then.

 

...so we should just disregard western Europe because why? It's pase? We might as well leave all of any continent off and compare the two lists...that's why you look at the complete list.

 

Why don't you just take the United States off the list while your at it?, hate to mess up a good list with any relevent data.

 

How is a jury supposed to tell if law enforcement is comitting perjury?!? For the record, I don't think this happens very often. Anyway, I have no moral dilemna whatsoever with executing a cold blooded killer, or a brutal sex offender. Like I said earlier, to me it is a matter of money. I'm more concerned with sentencing someone to life in jail, with absolutely no chance of parole, simply because it is much cheaper in our current system.

 

Well, one good reason is that it basically is and is rapidly becoming one country. Another is that, as a block, the European nations are in just as poor company as the US. The main point here is that these kinds of comparisons are worthless for all kinds of reasons.

Some places have the death penalty and do better than the European average, other places don't have the death penalty (Mexico is one I didn't see there) and do much, much worse. If you want to have a debate that makes sense, you have to consider what's going on that might causally link the death penalty to crime rates, instead of just doing a simple correlation and saying "see, this does that."

By that reasoning, possession of insulin could be said to cause diabetes

 

See my post to MVWRX. There's no relevant data in the list.

 

I disagree, unless you are totally in denial about human rights and democracy, that elusive "freedom" concept that our soldiers are supposedly dying for.

Looking at that list, you find the US in the company of a lot of tyrannies and dictatorships.
There are a couple of civilized countries there, but for the most part, modern, peaceful "free" countries are on the first list because they do not execute people.

 

Doesn't it cost something like $2 mill. to kill a prisoner in our current system? As Salty said, bullets are cheaper, just as effective, and painless.(I would think, I have never been shot in the head/heart)

And as for the "innocent people dying" remarks, I have only one thing to say. Life isn't fair. If you are truly innnocent, and convicted, I'm sorry. I truly am. But more likely than not, the guilty party will be the one dying/going to jail.


My 2 cents.

 

If it was a good list then you would have mentioned every country that included the 20+ more countries that don't have laws against the death penalty and occasionally practice it from time to time: Albania, Bolivia, Brazil, Fiji, Greece, Mexico, Peru etc.


Just curious, why do we have to conform with "good company" anyway? The countries at the top of the anti list aren't angels and people in Vanuatu eat bugs still... how is this relevant to the USA?! :baffled:

 

"By that reasoning, possession of insulin could be said to cause diabetes"

Alright man...first of all, bad choice of example because if you inject a healthy person with enough insulin, they WILL get diabetes...just like watching our government murder people (for whatever reason) injects a subconcious message that, in some circumstances, murder is ok...This isn't an aspect I'm making up, it's been studied and just about every study shows that children in countries where the death penalty exists have more 'special circumstances' where they think killing is ok than in countries without the death penalty. The death penalty is just a good-ol-boys tradition that won't die...

 

that is....except in countries where people finally get a clue and have a little humanity.

 

You missed the point of the objection. Having two things occur simultaneously, ie, having insulin in your pocket and having diabetes, DOES NOT necessitate that one causes the other. Just like having crime and having the death penalty does not necessarily imply ANY relationship at all between the two. Correlation does not equal causation. That's something you learn over and over in GE.


As to your study...that is absolutely and totally ridiculous. OF COURSE children in countries where the death penalty is accepted have more circumstances where they think killing is okay; Namely, they think the death penalty is OK! That doesn't mean that the death penalty itself:

A)Caused them to think that the death penalty or any other death is okay.
B)Led to their being somehow more inclined to actually kill (since thinking something might be permissible doesn't mean you'll ever actually do it.)

Now, from that non-issue of a correlation, you conclude "the death penalty is a good ol' boys tradition that won't die." Where did that come from???

This goes to you and to Psoper, btw. There are so many things that go into a nation's problem with crime that to say "death penalty affects it, just look at this simple chart" is asnine.