Pixies Place Forums

Quote:

Originally posted by gekkogecko
It's not, but not because of the application of the death penalty. This was my point. The lack of deterrent effect comes from the horrible delay between the conviction and execution of the sentence. This was my point.

I understand that, what I was trying to get at was that you seemed to be saying that the USA's particular implementation of the death penalty, and not the death penalty per se was the reason that it is not an effective deterrent. I'm asking, which particular implementations do provide a deterrent?

Quote:

Originally posted by gekkogecko

I picked child molesters as an example because of their low rate of recidivism. Part of your line of argument is that a low recidivism rate is a justification for a sentence of relative leniency (imprisonment vs death). When one examines case after case, though one finds the opposite is true of child molesters...often they are considered "sick" in the criminal justice sense. Therefore, they are institutionalized until they are "cured". But the argument is often advanced that "child molesters dont' get better", thereby becoming a justification for lifelong imprisonment. In the cases where the child molester is not considered sick (again, in the criminal justice sense), typically a very long sentence is handed out, then the perpetrator is hounded, harrassed and stalked after his release.

Leniency? No, not leniency. Just not death. To say that imprisonment is necessarily more lenient than death on the inmate is an oversimplification, particularly in the abscence of any legislated views on an afterlife.

You mention child molestation as an example of a class of crimes having a low recidivism rate along with "harsh" sentences, but do not provide a causal link. In my opinion, many of the judicial measures taken against offenders of this kind have overtly political rather than ideological aims - but that's an entirely different argument/discussion/friendly chat :)

Quote:

Originally posted by gekkogecko

The ultimate point here is that "justice", whatever that actually is, is entirely political.

That being the case, we need to recognize that our argument is actually one of politics. It is part of my politics to allow the death penalty in some cases. And further, I think it is entirely appropriate in this particular criminal case.

Ahh, but what then of "natural justice"? ;) Again, another argument.

Quote:

Originally posted by gekkogecko

John Allen Muhammad is a convicted serial murder, terrorist, and general slimy dude. His actions have made existence among the population, even though that may be confined to the criminal population, harmful to society. How is society advanced by his continued presence among the living?

Based on what we have today, yes, one would have to conclude that Mr. Muhammad is a slimy dude. In ten years time we may conclude that he has in fact been the "fall guy" for someone else, or discover other extenuating circumstances that would justify a more lenient sentence than the one meted out to him (regardless of what that actually was). By allowing him to live, we give our justice system the opportunity to correct any mistakes that may emerge. We do not at any point become directly responsible for removing him forever from a situation whereby his family and friends who were not responsible for the deaths he caused are denied the opportunity to communicate with him on those levels, we do not encourage any like-minded people to act as he did in search of martyrdom, we give him the opportunity to rehabilitate to a point where he may be something of worth to society - and even if not, we have his labour, and we do not perpetuate the grisly hypocrisy that states that killing a human is permitted and officially facilitated and overseen if that human is judged "bad" by a jury. A fallible, swayable group of people with natural emotional responses that can and are manipulated in the name of politics.