Capital punishment

[John 47]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-05 11:53 AM

 

I am absolutely convinced that the medium of anonymous chat completely distorts normal human interaction, I am further convinced that many remarks and attitudes displayed on here would absolutely not happen in a live situation, I find myself wondering more and more about the absolute futility of it all.

 

A good point - whenever I feel the need to point out bigoted comments in a real situation (fortunately not very often) then the main reaction is embarrassment not threats of violence. When I said that I had only ever had threats of violence on web forums I was making the very point you are making. One or two others seem to take it a different way, however.

 

 

[John 47]

antony1969 - 2013-07-05 12:02 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-05 11:15 AM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-05 10:29 AM

 

 

John , it was a question plucked from my tiny brain , that's all , no need to analize why I asked it .

Personally I don't want to spend money on the vast majority of inmates , I don't want to offer them better grub than a pensioner may be able to afford . I don't want to spend millions on druggies inside in fact I don't want to spend much on them at all .

Thanks for the tip by the way , its one you may want to take on board yourself then you may not have so many violent threats made to your health as you disclosed to us all earlier .

 

 

I have a more open mind. If spending a lot helps to lower the crime rate then I will go along with it; if it doesn't then I agree with you. But to blindly say that it never works is to ignore the evidence - as well as solving nothing.

 

And in answer to your question (to no-one it seems) - no, the victims needs are certainly not less important than those of the criminals and no-one has ever said they were. Bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife" question, that.

 

As for the question of threats of violence, I have always found that to be the last resort of someone who has run out of things to say. I have never had to resort to such tactics - but I find it interesting that a few others do on a regular basis. Have a nice day

:-D

 

Mmmmm , maybe if you did as the rest of us and resorted to such tactics then we wouldn't have to read so much of your drivel .

Nice day to you also .

 

Interesting that you regard being asked to look at things objectively as drivel and that you think all problems can be solved by a punch in the nose. I think the world can be grateful that the majority don't share your view.

[antony1969]

John 47 - 2013-07-05 12:14 PM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-05 12:02 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-05 11:15 AM

 

antony1969 - 2013-07-05 10:29 AM

 

 

John , it was a question plucked from my tiny brain , that's all , no need to analize why I asked it .

Personally I don't want to spend money on the vast majority of inmates , I don't want to offer them better grub than a pensioner may be able to afford . I don't want to spend millions on druggies inside in fact I don't want to spend much on them at all .

Thanks for the tip by the way , its one you may want to take on board yourself then you may not have so many violent threats made to your health as you disclosed to us all earlier .

 

 

I have a more open mind. If spending a lot helps to lower the crime rate then I will go along with it; if it doesn't then I agree with you. But to blindly say that it never works is to ignore the evidence - as well as solving nothing.

 

And in answer to your question (to no-one it seems) - no, the victims needs are certainly not less important than those of the criminals and no-one has ever said they were. Bit of a "when did you stop beating your wife" question, that.

 

As for the question of threats of violence, I have always found that to be the last resort of someone who has run out of things to say. I have never had to resort to such tactics - but I find it interesting that a few others do on a regular basis. Have a nice day

:-D

 

Mmmmm , maybe if you did as the rest of us and resorted to such tactics then we wouldn't have to read so much of your drivel .

Nice day to you also .

 

Interesting that you regard being asked to look at things objectively as drivel and that you think all problems can be solved by a punch in the nose. I think the world can be grateful that the majority don't share your view.

 

Well Sir , don't remember ever saying all problems can be solved by a punch on the nose , but you know best so I better offer my apologies for saying / not saying it and take it how you want to spin it but my boredom threshold which is very low when you are around has been reached , enjoy the sun .

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

John 47 - 2013-07-05 12:10 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-05 11:53 AM

 

I am absolutely convinced that the medium of anonymous chat completely distorts normal human interaction, I am further convinced that many remarks and attitudes displayed on here would absolutely not happen in a live situation, I find myself wondering more and more about the absolute futility of it all.

 

A good point - whenever I feel the need to point out bigoted comments in a real situation (fortunately not very often) then the main reaction is embarrassment not threats of violence. When I said that I had only ever had threats of violence on web forums I was making the very point you are making. One or two others seem to take it a different way, however.

 

 

That's the thing with you, despite what you say this is the ideal medium for you, if for arguments sake you had found yourself in a one to one situation with Gerry Adams I absolutely guarantee you would have weighed up the situation before opening your gob as to your personal judgement of him, well assuming you valued your kneecaps that is , it's what we all do in a real world situation, except of course on here where you can goad and challenge to your hearts content, as I say the ideal medium for you, endlessly putting others and their views down. The one thing I have learnt is at least it's not limited to me, everyone is an idiot or a bigot on here according to you.

[John 47]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-05 12:44 PM

That's the thing with you, despite what you say this is the ideal medium for you, if for arguments sake you had found yourself in a one to one situation with Gerry Adams I absolutely guarantee you would have weighed up the situation before opening your gob as to your personal judgement of him, well assuming you valued your kneecaps that is , it's what we all do in a real world situation, except of course on here where you can goad and challenge to your hearts content, as I say the ideal medium for you, endlessly putting others and their views down. The one thing I have learnt is at least it's not limited to me, everyone is an idiot or a bigot on here according to you.

 

What a shame! There was me thinking that a spell in the sun had mellowed you. After all, most of your comments recently have been very measured and considered. But then you have to go and spoil it - has the weather taken a turn for the worse where you are?

 

Btw, the "everybody" you refer to amounts to no more than a small handful of people - they just post a lot. :-D

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

You simply cannot recognise the antagonistic way you "virtually"talk to people with whom you do not agree with, and given the sporadic instances I've been able to log in whilst away your replies to others are entirely predictable. As for my mellow demeanour, yes being away from a letter box is good for the soul, sadly we return on the 10th to that dump known as great Britain.

[BGD]

Just when we thought the children might have put their toys back in their prams..........

[Guest Had Enough]

John 47 - 2013-07-05 10:12 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 11:26 PM

 

 

Here's one for you to begin with. A study into the effect of the death penalty concluded that for every execution five homicides were not committed.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html

 

As for Cregan I have never claimed that I knew what was in his mind. What I have said is that if he knew that his actions would have resulted in an automatic death sentence he may well have reconsidered killing two women, an act that gained him nothing.

 

Are you not deterred by the law? Do you never speed because you're a terribly moral person? Do you never have that large glass of wine because of your high values, even though you're a mile from home and know in your heart that you're probably safe to drive?

 

Most of don't do these things because we're frightened of the consequences and that occurs at every level of crime.

 

Deterrents do work and to deny it is stupid to the point of insanity. The death penalty may not deter every criminal but simple common sense tells us that it must deter some.

 

Here's another one you won't like about the number of repeat offenders who have gone on to kill. Thirty people dead because you and your ilk are soft on crime.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html

 

You recently asked me to give you an example of terrible crimes that even you may consider warrant execution. I would have thought that my quote about killing millions of Jews, homosexuals, disabled people and gypsies might have given you a clue but here goes:

 

I have asked twice if their is no crime so abhorrent that you and your kind consider deserved the death penalty.

 

So I ask you - would you have agreed with capital punishment for Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein all of whom were mass murderers? Would you agree that Fred West deserved to die for his crimes?

 

So come on John47, after a fair trial would you have considered that the crimes of these men deserved the death penalty? Or do you really believe that imprisoning them in a nice comfortable prison is sufficient punishment? And remember, that you have already stated that a prison sentence should only be about loss of liberty, nothing else.

 

I repeat, abolitionists have the blood of hundreds of innocent people on their hands. People who would be alive today if we had the death penalty. And I've supplied the evidence in the article in the Washington Post.

 

 

 

 

 

A very interesting article about the deterrent value of the death penalty. The most interesting thing about it was the statement that these studies have not been tested and that previous similar "studies" have been discredited. How about sticking instead to actual figures? These for example: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

in which you can clearly see that almost without exception, those States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it.

 

And I see you are still pretending to know what went on in the mind of someone who clearly wasn't acting rationally. I can only assume that means you have an insight into the irrational mind. :-D

 

I see also that you are repeating the nonsense about you or I being deterred so it must work. As I said before, we would not commit murder (hopefully) even if the penalty was a £50 fine. You cannot equate the actions of most law-abiding and rational people with those of an irrational being.

 

You produce an article that talks about murderers who have reoffended. I have never denied that this happens; I simply introduced balance by stating that research has shown that juries are less likely to convict if the penalty is death. It therefore follows that some murderers have been returned to the streets when they might have been jailed if the death penalty hadn't existed at that time. The reality is that innocent people have died under ALL systems. This happens because the decisions are made by human beings and human beings are not infallible. It therefore follows that we should avoid making decisions that are irreversible.

 

And I assume that you will apologise for misquoting me as I apologised for misquoting you. I have never said that prisons should be comfortable, nor have I said that prisons are solely about depriving people of liberty. I believe a long and uncomfortable prison sentence punishes someone far more than a quick death.

 

There are situations in which I could justify killing others in order to avoid them killing but none of those involve the judicial process. No doubt you will find this strange if you don't think about it but I could see a case for assassinating Hitler but had he been captured and put on trial I can see no case for hanging him.

 

 

I can't believe that you can even consider that list of various states as being some kind of evidence either for or against capital punishment. The states with the lowest crime rates are the ones where you'd expect it, whether there was a death penalty or not. What you can't prove is how many murders would be committed in Texas for instance if the deterrent of the death penalty was removed.

 

But what I have done is published a report from the Washington Post and I now give you one small section of it:

 

'Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory _ if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

 

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

 

Among the conclusions:

 

_Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).'

 

Not one report John47, a dozen reports, all of which have analysed the deterrent effect of the death penalty! All of them calculate a number of lives saved by the threat of the death penalty!

 

I can totally understand someone's moral objections to capital punishment, but to do as you do, and continually deny that it has no deterrent effect is beyond asinine!

 

If we chopped off the hands of shoplifters, how long do you think it would take for the shoplifting rate to drop considerably?

 

Of course you're now likely to come back and accuse me of not knowing what goes on in the minds of shoplifters, or to accuse me of wanting to chop the hands off them!

 

I don't need to know what goes on in their minds though or the mind of Dale Cregan and I'm sick of telling you that. You really should read posts more carefully! You couldn't even understand when I said he wasn't insane!

 

I just have the brains to know that human beings respond to deterrents. And once again, as I know what you'll come back with, I accept that there are a few who won't. But if we deter a large proportion of them that must be good!

 

But where I truly believe that you and your ilk are beyond despicable is in the statement that you would not have executed the likes of Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Fred West.

 

You show utter contempt for the victims. Try telling a concentration camp survivor, who has seen his family gassed and burned or subjected to the most horrific 'medical' experiments that you don't think that Hitler should be hanged and should spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

You are not civilised. You tell victims that their loss and their suffering is not worth the life of the one person responsible.

 

And yet you say that you would be happy with an extra-judicial killing of someone such as Hitler. But you wouldn't execute them after due trial? You are beyond comprehension!

 

You care nothing for the victims and their families and everything for your own perverted ideas of justice. I think we all know now what sort of person you are. A man who would let Hitler live!

 

Once more I ask, is there no crime so horrific, so enormous that you would consider warrants the death penalty?

 

 

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-05 2:34 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-05 10:12 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 11:26 PM

 

 

Here's one for you to begin with. A study into the effect of the death penalty concluded that for every execution five homicides were not committed.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html

 

As for Cregan I have never claimed that I knew what was in his mind. What I have said is that if he knew that his actions would have resulted in an automatic death sentence he may well have reconsidered killing two women, an act that gained him nothing.

 

Are you not deterred by the law? Do you never speed because you're a terribly moral person? Do you never have that large glass of wine because of your high values, even though you're a mile from home and know in your heart that you're probably safe to drive?

 

Most of don't do these things because we're frightened of the consequences and that occurs at every level of crime.

 

Deterrents do work and to deny it is stupid to the point of insanity. The death penalty may not deter every criminal but simple common sense tells us that it must deter some.

 

Here's another one you won't like about the number of repeat offenders who have gone on to kill. Thirty people dead because you and your ilk are soft on crime.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html

 

You recently asked me to give you an example of terrible crimes that even you may consider warrant execution. I would have thought that my quote about killing millions of Jews, homosexuals, disabled people and gypsies might have given you a clue but here goes:

 

I have asked twice if their is no crime so abhorrent that you and your kind consider deserved the death penalty.

 

So I ask you - would you have agreed with capital punishment for Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein all of whom were mass murderers? Would you agree that Fred West deserved to die for his crimes?

 

So come on John47, after a fair trial would you have considered that the crimes of these men deserved the death penalty? Or do you really believe that imprisoning them in a nice comfortable prison is sufficient punishment? And remember, that you have already stated that a prison sentence should only be about loss of liberty, nothing else.

 

I repeat, abolitionists have the blood of hundreds of innocent people on their hands. People who would be alive today if we had the death penalty. And I've supplied the evidence in the article in the Washington Post.

 

 

 

 

 

A very interesting article about the deterrent value of the death penalty. The most interesting thing about it was the statement that these studies have not been tested and that previous similar "studies" have been discredited. How about sticking instead to actual figures? These for example: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

in which you can clearly see that almost without exception, those States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it.

 

And I see you are still pretending to know what went on in the mind of someone who clearly wasn't acting rationally. I can only assume that means you have an insight into the irrational mind. :-D

 

I see also that you are repeating the nonsense about you or I being deterred so it must work. As I said before, we would not commit murder (hopefully) even if the penalty was a £50 fine. You cannot equate the actions of most law-abiding and rational people with those of an irrational being.

 

You produce an article that talks about murderers who have reoffended. I have never denied that this happens; I simply introduced balance by stating that research has shown that juries are less likely to convict if the penalty is death. It therefore follows that some murderers have been returned to the streets when they might have been jailed if the death penalty hadn't existed at that time. The reality is that innocent people have died under ALL systems. This happens because the decisions are made by human beings and human beings are not infallible. It therefore follows that we should avoid making decisions that are irreversible.

 

And I assume that you will apologise for misquoting me as I apologised for misquoting you. I have never said that prisons should be comfortable, nor have I said that prisons are solely about depriving people of liberty. I believe a long and uncomfortable prison sentence punishes someone far more than a quick death.

 

There are situations in which I could justify killing others in order to avoid them killing but none of those involve the judicial process. No doubt you will find this strange if you don't think about it but I could see a case for assassinating Hitler but had he been captured and put on trial I can see no case for hanging him.

 

 

I can't believe that you can even consider that list of various states as being some kind of evidence either for or against capital punishment. The states with the lowest crime rates are the ones where you'd expect it, whether there was a death penalty or not. What you can't prove is how many murders would be committed in Texas for instance if the deterrent of the death penalty was removed.

 

But what I have done is published a report from the Washington Post and I now give you one small section of it:

 

'Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory _ if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

 

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

 

Among the conclusions:

 

_Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).'

 

Not one report John47, a dozen reports, all of which have analysed the deterrent effect of the death penalty! All of them calculate a number of lives saved by the threat of the death penalty!

 

I can totally understand someone's moral objections to capital punishment, but to do as you do, and continually deny that it has no deterrent effect is beyond asinine!

 

If we chopped off the hands of shoplifters, how long do you think it would take for the shoplifting rate to drop considerably?

 

Of course you're now likely to come back and accuse me of not knowing what goes on in the minds of shoplifters, or to accuse me of wanting to chop the hands off them!

 

I don't need to know what goes on in their minds though or the mind of Dale Cregan and I'm sick of telling you that. You really should read posts more carefully! You couldn't even understand when I said he wasn't insane!

 

I just have the brains to know that human beings respond to deterrents. And once again, as I know what you'll come back with, I accept that there are a few who won't. But if we deter a large proportion of them that must be good!

 

But where I truly believe that you and your ilk are beyond despicable is in the statement that you would not have executed the likes of Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Fred West.

 

You show utter contempt for the victims. Try telling a concentration camp survivor, who has seen his family gassed and burned or subjected to the most horrific 'medical' experiments that you don't think that Hitler should be hanged and should spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

You are not civilised. You tell victims that their loss and their suffering is not worth the life of the one person responsible.

 

And yet you say that you would be happy with an extra-judicial killing of someone such as Hitler. But you wouldn't execute them after due trial? You are beyond comprehension!

 

You care nothing for the victims and their families and everything for your own perverted ideas of justice. I think we all know now what sort of person you are. A man who would let Hitler live!

 

Once more I ask, is there no crime so horrific, so enormous that you would consider warrants the death penalty?

 

 

So, you prefer to believe a report that, according to the reference that YOU gave, has not be verified and is disputed by many, rather than actual figures, do you? I think that speaks volumes about your prejudices.

 

And, as for your attempts to rile me by calling me "beyond despicable" or "not civilised" and all the rest of it, well it won't work. I note that you refuse to apologise for clearly attributing statements to me that I never said - but that you simply repeat the same accusations. You deliberately lie about me and refuse to apologise; I inadvertently misread you and apologised immediately. Says it all really, doesn't it?

 

As for the Hitler example, I said that if you didn't think about it you might find it odd; clearly you haven't thought about it. If the attempts to assassinate Hitler had worked then there was a strong possibility that Germany would have negotiated a peace and untold lives would have been saved; by the time you get to a trial that is no longer a possibility. In other words, nothing would be gained by killing him and I am not into pointless retribution. I'd far rather he'd seen out his days behind bars which, from what I know of his character, would have been hell for him.

 

 

[John 47]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-05 1:37 PM

 

You simply cannot recognise the antagonistic way you "virtually"talk to people with whom you do not agree with, and given the sporadic instances I've been able to log in whilst away your replies to others are entirely predictable. As for my mellow demeanour, yes being away from a letter box is good for the soul, sadly we return on the 10th to that dump known as great Britain.

 

As my grandson might say - you can give it out but you can't take it, can you? I might refer to pots and kettles but I think he sums it up better. (lol) (lol)

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

No you didn't fully understand my point, I'll clarify, we have been away from the beginning of June, I have only had access to the Internet for one day at a site in Le Puy-en Velay, a further couple of days at a site near Langogne, and now at my ex-bosses house near Bordeaux, and here's the point, everyone it seems you engage with that I've picked up and read, mainly without comment to you,becomes embroiled in your verbosity and your insatiable desire to be correct, my friend you really should accept others can and do have an equally valid view, whether you agree with it or not.

 

If you had all the answers you'd be in great demand, as it is all you can do in abundance is spout of on here, perhaps you need to get out in your van more, far more rewarding.

A

[John 47]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-05 5:07 PM

 

No you didn't fully understand my point, I'll clarify, we have been away from the beginning of June, I have only had access to the Internet for one day at a site in Le Puy-en Velay, a further couple of days at a site near Langogne, and now at my ex-bosses house near Bordeaux, and here's the point, everyone it seems you engage with that I've picked up and read, mainly without comment to you,becomes embroiled in your verbosity and your insatiable desire to be correct, my friend you really should accept others can and do have an equally valid view, whether you agree with it or not.

 

If you had all the answers you'd be in great demand, as it is all you can do in abundance is spout of on here, perhaps you need to get out in your van more, far more rewarding.

A

 

And I don't think you understood mine. Since joining this forum the interjections I have made in Chatterbox amount to pointing out to others - yourself included - that because we are all (me included) less than perfect you get nowhere by generalising without factual evidence or making irreversible decisions. Far from claiming that I have all the answers, the whole thrust of my argument is that none of us do.

 

There have been many posts that I have disagreed with but, because the posters have thought their argument through clearly and logically, I have not responded. I believe that everybody is not only entitled to an opinion but should be positively encouraged to have one (whether or not I agree with them). The only proviso I make is that opinions should be based on facts not blind prejudice. This is the approach I took when teaching and it turned out a lot of very well-balanced people - many of whom have reached conclusions I may not agree with but who have reached those conclusions through properly examining the facts.

 

I don't want everybody to think as I do - I just want everybody to think.

[Guest Had Enough]

John 47 - 2013-07-05 4:30 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-05 2:34 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-05 10:12 AM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-04 11:26 PM

 

 

Here's one for you to begin with. A study into the effect of the death penalty concluded that for every execution five homicides were not committed.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html

 

As for Cregan I have never claimed that I knew what was in his mind. What I have said is that if he knew that his actions would have resulted in an automatic death sentence he may well have reconsidered killing two women, an act that gained him nothing.

 

Are you not deterred by the law? Do you never speed because you're a terribly moral person? Do you never have that large glass of wine because of your high values, even though you're a mile from home and know in your heart that you're probably safe to drive?

 

Most of don't do these things because we're frightened of the consequences and that occurs at every level of crime.

 

Deterrents do work and to deny it is stupid to the point of insanity. The death penalty may not deter every criminal but simple common sense tells us that it must deter some.

 

Here's another one you won't like about the number of repeat offenders who have gone on to kill. Thirty people dead because you and your ilk are soft on crime.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html

 

You recently asked me to give you an example of terrible crimes that even you may consider warrant execution. I would have thought that my quote about killing millions of Jews, homosexuals, disabled people and gypsies might have given you a clue but here goes:

 

I have asked twice if their is no crime so abhorrent that you and your kind consider deserved the death penalty.

 

So I ask you - would you have agreed with capital punishment for Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein all of whom were mass murderers? Would you agree that Fred West deserved to die for his crimes?

 

So come on John47, after a fair trial would you have considered that the crimes of these men deserved the death penalty? Or do you really believe that imprisoning them in a nice comfortable prison is sufficient punishment? And remember, that you have already stated that a prison sentence should only be about loss of liberty, nothing else.

 

I repeat, abolitionists have the blood of hundreds of innocent people on their hands. People who would be alive today if we had the death penalty. And I've supplied the evidence in the article in the Washington Post.

 

 

 

 

 

A very interesting article about the deterrent value of the death penalty. The most interesting thing about it was the statement that these studies have not been tested and that previous similar "studies" have been discredited. How about sticking instead to actual figures? These for example: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

in which you can clearly see that almost without exception, those States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it.

 

And I see you are still pretending to know what went on in the mind of someone who clearly wasn't acting rationally. I can only assume that means you have an insight into the irrational mind. :-D

 

I see also that you are repeating the nonsense about you or I being deterred so it must work. As I said before, we would not commit murder (hopefully) even if the penalty was a £50 fine. You cannot equate the actions of most law-abiding and rational people with those of an irrational being.

 

You produce an article that talks about murderers who have reoffended. I have never denied that this happens; I simply introduced balance by stating that research has shown that juries are less likely to convict if the penalty is death. It therefore follows that some murderers have been returned to the streets when they might have been jailed if the death penalty hadn't existed at that time. The reality is that innocent people have died under ALL systems. This happens because the decisions are made by human beings and human beings are not infallible. It therefore follows that we should avoid making decisions that are irreversible.

 

And I assume that you will apologise for misquoting me as I apologised for misquoting you. I have never said that prisons should be comfortable, nor have I said that prisons are solely about depriving people of liberty. I believe a long and uncomfortable prison sentence punishes someone far more than a quick death.

 

There are situations in which I could justify killing others in order to avoid them killing but none of those involve the judicial process. No doubt you will find this strange if you don't think about it but I could see a case for assassinating Hitler but had he been captured and put on trial I can see no case for hanging him.

 

 

I can't believe that you can even consider that list of various states as being some kind of evidence either for or against capital punishment. The states with the lowest crime rates are the ones where you'd expect it, whether there was a death penalty or not. What you can't prove is how many murders would be committed in Texas for instance if the deterrent of the death penalty was removed.

 

But what I have done is published a report from the Washington Post and I now give you one small section of it:

 

'Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory _ if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

 

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

 

Among the conclusions:

 

_Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).'

 

Not one report John47, a dozen reports, all of which have analysed the deterrent effect of the death penalty! All of them calculate a number of lives saved by the threat of the death penalty!

 

I can totally understand someone's moral objections to capital punishment, but to do as you do, and continually deny that it has no deterrent effect is beyond asinine!

 

If we chopped off the hands of shoplifters, how long do you think it would take for the shoplifting rate to drop considerably?

 

Of course you're now likely to come back and accuse me of not knowing what goes on in the minds of shoplifters, or to accuse me of wanting to chop the hands off them!

 

I don't need to know what goes on in their minds though or the mind of Dale Cregan and I'm sick of telling you that. You really should read posts more carefully! You couldn't even understand when I said he wasn't insane!

 

I just have the brains to know that human beings respond to deterrents. And once again, as I know what you'll come back with, I accept that there are a few who won't. But if we deter a large proportion of them that must be good!

 

But where I truly believe that you and your ilk are beyond despicable is in the statement that you would not have executed the likes of Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Fred West.

 

You show utter contempt for the victims. Try telling a concentration camp survivor, who has seen his family gassed and burned or subjected to the most horrific 'medical' experiments that you don't think that Hitler should be hanged and should spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

You are not civilised. You tell victims that their loss and their suffering is not worth the life of the one person responsible.

 

And yet you say that you would be happy with an extra-judicial killing of someone such as Hitler. But you wouldn't execute them after due trial? You are beyond comprehension!

 

You care nothing for the victims and their families and everything for your own perverted ideas of justice. I think we all know now what sort of person you are. A man who would let Hitler live!

 

Once more I ask, is there no crime so horrific, so enormous that you would consider warrants the death penalty?

 

 

So, you prefer to believe a report that, according to the reference that YOU gave, has not be verified and is disputed by many, rather than actual figures, do you? I think that speaks volumes about your prejudices.

 

And, as for your attempts to rile me by calling me "beyond despicable" or "not civilised" and all the rest of it, well it won't work. I note that you refuse to apologise for clearly attributing statements to me that I never said - but that you simply repeat the same accusations. You deliberately lie about me and refuse to apologise; I inadvertently misread you and apologised immediately. Says it all really, doesn't it?

 

As for the Hitler example, I said that if you didn't think about it you might find it odd; clearly you haven't thought about it. If the attempts to assassinate Hitler had worked then there was a strong possibility that Germany would have negotiated a peace and untold lives would have been saved; by the time you get to a trial that is no longer a possibility. In other words, nothing would be gained by killing him and I am not into pointless retribution. I'd far rather he'd seen out his days behind bars which, from what I know of his character, would have been hell for him.

 

 

First of all you haven't given me a report that shows the difference that capital punishment or its abolishment has made. All you've done is shown me figures for different states, which means nothing!

 

You may as well compare the murder rate in Denmark with that in South Africa!

 

On the other hand I have shown you an article that reports on a dozen different extensive research projects by universities and other institutions which all point to one thing, that deterrents work, which is something that all but the wilfully blind know!

 

I can also show you figures which prove that the homicide rate per thousand has more than doubled since the abolition of the death penalty in the U.K.

 

And I don't recollect attributing statements to you. I did claim that not only would you not execute the most vile of criminals, despite the effect this would have on the victims and their families, but that you'd be one of the first campaigning for their rights as prisoners. I firmly believe that! You have already stated that prison is only about loss of liberty, which clearly implies that you don't think it's about punishment or retribution by society.

 

But I'll ask you three things again as you always conveniently ignore anything that may be uncomfortable for you.

 

If, for example, we introduced amputation of hands for shoplifting, do you think that fewer people would shoplift, or do you think that they wouldn't be deterred?

 

Secondly, is there no crime so vast, so evil, so horrible that you believe deserves the death penalty?

 

Thirdly, do you even give a toss about the wishes of the victims and their families? I've some Jewish friends who would love your gentle treatment of Adolf Hitler had he been captured alive!

 

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

No I don't think ( and yes I have thought about it ) that's what you want at all, perhaps your years in teaching could be the reason, captive impressionable young minds, there before you, and to absorb your teachings, and inevitably in some part your view of the world.

 

The difference is your not dealing with children now, you are dealing with adults with 60 / 70 years of life experiences under their belt, I like anyone else of my age is not a blank sheet of paper, our opinions have been formed through the school of life, our diverse experiences, our hopes and disappointments, shaped by our environment and upbringing, in short we are all unique individuals, you need to gain the capacity to be more accepting to the idea that most of us have different views, and maybe it's rather insulting to as you put it, ask people to think.

[teflon2]

One advantage of capital punishment comes to mind. We had the misfortune to have had in Highpoint prison near to us one Myra Hindley one morning a prison officer found her unconscious on the floor she had acute appendicitis so instead of leaving her there they emptied a ward at the West Suffolk hospital moved in armed police and she then had the whole ward to herself the patients who should have been there were either moved out operations were postponed and some sent home earlier than expected. If she was dead it couldn't have happened. John

[antony1969]

teflon2 - 2013-07-05 7:01 PM

 

One advantage of capital punishment comes to mind. We had the misfortune to have had in Highpoint prison near to us one Myra Hindley one morning a prison officer found her unconscious on the floor she had acute appendicitis so instead of leaving her there they emptied a ward at the West Suffolk hospital moved in armed police and she then had the whole ward to herself the patients who should have been there were either moved out operations were postponed and some sent home earlier than expected. If she was dead it couldn't have happened. John

 

Special treatment for a very special lady , you couldn't make it up could you ?

[John 47]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-05 6:26 PM

 

No I don't think ( and yes I have thought about it ) that's what you want at all, perhaps your years in teaching could be the reason, captive impressionable young minds, there before you, and to absorb your teachings, and inevitably in some part your view of the world.

 

The difference is your not dealing with children now, you are dealing with adults with 60 / 70 years of life experiences under their belt, I like anyone else of my age is not a blank sheet of paper, our opinions have been formed through the school of life, our diverse experiences, our hopes and disappointments, shaped by our environment and upbringing, in short we are all unique individuals, you need to gain the capacity to be more accepting to the idea that most of us have different views, and maybe it's rather insulting to as you put it, ask people to think.

 

Age is no barrier to sloppy thinking. If people produce credible evidence then fine; if people base their views on prejudice rather than fact then they will have to put up with me pointing it out! :-D

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-05 6:25 PM

 

First of all you haven't given me a report that shows the difference that capital punishment or its abolishment has made. All you've done is shown me figures for different states, which means nothing!

 

You may as well compare the murder rate in Denmark with that in South Africa!

 

On the other hand I have shown you an article that reports on a dozen different extensive research projects by universities and other institutions which all point to one thing, that deterrents work, which is something that all but the wilfully blind know!

 

I can also show you figures which prove that the homicide rate per thousand has more than doubled since the abolition of the death penalty in the U.K.

 

And I don't recollect attributing statements to you. I did claim that not only would you not execute the most vile of criminals, despite the effect this would have on the victims and their families, but that you'd be one of the first campaigning for their rights as prisoners. I firmly believe that! You have already stated that prison is only about loss of liberty, which clearly implies that you don't think it's about punishment or retribution by society.

 

But I'll ask you three things again as you always conveniently ignore anything that may be uncomfortable for you.

 

If, for example, we introduced amputation of hands for shoplifting, do you think that fewer people would shoplift, or do you think that they wouldn't be deterred?

 

Secondly, is there no crime so vast, so evil, so horrible that you believe deserves the death penalty?

 

Thirdly, do you even give a toss about the wishes of the victims and their families? I've some Jewish friends who would love your gentle treatment of Adolf Hitler had he been captured alive!

 

 

 

If you take those blinkers off you might realise that I have presented indisputable facts; you have presented studies that themselves admit are disputable!

 

And you are not going to divert me by your repeated idiotic misquotes. You know very well that I have never said anything about prisoners rights, about prison being only about loss of liberty or about treating Hitler gently. The fact that you have now repeated these lies twice shows that they are not simple mistakes but deliberate lies. What on earth do you expect to achieve by such nonsense other than to make yourself look even more stupid?

 

You have now asked the question about "a crime so horrible" three times. I have answered it twice. Why do you feel the need to keep asking it? For the removal of doubt, I see absolutely no point in a penalty that could achieve nothing. It will not bring the victims back. Further, I think that a lengthy prison sentence will be seen by most as far more punishment than a quick death. Finally, if we make a mistake then it cannot be reversed. Logic therefore dictates that the death penalty would be at best pointless.

 

Your cheap point about not caring for the victims is just that - you really are scraping the barrel now, aren't you?

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

John 47 - 2013-07-05 9:30 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-05 6:26 PM

 

No I don't think ( and yes I have thought about it ) that's what you want at all, perhaps your years in teaching could be the reason, captive impressionable young minds, there before you, and to absorb your teachings, and inevitably in some part your view of the world.

 

The difference is your not dealing with children now, you are dealing with adults with 60 / 70 years of life experiences under their belt, I like anyone else of my age is not a blank sheet of paper, our opinions have been formed through the school of life, our diverse experiences, our hopes and disappointments, shaped by our environment and upbringing, in short we are all unique individuals, you need to gain the capacity to be more accepting to the idea that most of us have different views, and maybe it's rather insulting to as you put it, ask people to think.

 

Age is no barrier to sloppy thinking. If people produce credible evidence then fine; if people base their views on prejudice rather than fact then they will have to put up with me pointing it out! :-D

 

I really can visualise you standing there at the front of the classroom, "come on lad, no sloppy thinking give me facts boy". You should remember very many things stated as facts are often shown to be anything but, once upon a time the world was flat, just as well you were not around then with someone trying to tell you it was actually round, I can just imagine the verbal bashing you'd give them. Anyway one thing is a fact I'm getting outside to enjoy the weather.

[Guest Had Enough]

John 47 - 2013-07-05 9:44 PM

 

Had Enough - 2013-07-05 6:25 PM

 

First of all you haven't given me a report that shows the difference that capital punishment or its abolishment has made. All you've done is shown me figures for different states, which means nothing!

 

You may as well compare the murder rate in Denmark with that in South Africa!

 

On the other hand I have shown you an article that reports on a dozen different extensive research projects by universities and other institutions which all point to one thing, that deterrents work, which is something that all but the wilfully blind know!

 

I can also show you figures which prove that the homicide rate per thousand has more than doubled since the abolition of the death penalty in the U.K.

 

And I don't recollect attributing statements to you. I did claim that not only would you not execute the most vile of criminals, despite the effect this would have on the victims and their families, but that you'd be one of the first campaigning for their rights as prisoners. I firmly believe that! You have already stated that prison is only about loss of liberty, which clearly implies that you don't think it's about punishment or retribution by society.

 

But I'll ask you three things again as you always conveniently ignore anything that may be uncomfortable for you.

 

If, for example, we introduced amputation of hands for shoplifting, do you think that fewer people would shoplift, or do you think that they wouldn't be deterred?

 

Secondly, is there no crime so vast, so evil, so horrible that you believe deserves the death penalty?

 

Thirdly, do you even give a toss about the wishes of the victims and their families? I've some Jewish friends who would love your gentle treatment of Adolf Hitler had he been captured alive!

 

 

 

If you take those blinkers off you might realise that I have presented indisputable facts; you have presented studies that themselves admit are disputable!

 

And you are not going to divert me by your repeated idiotic misquotes. You know very well that I have never said anything about prisoners rights, about prison being only about loss of liberty or about treating Hitler gently. The fact that you have now repeated these lies twice shows that they are not simple mistakes but deliberate lies. What on earth do you expect to achieve by such nonsense other than to make yourself look even more stupid?

 

You have now asked the question about "a crime so horrible" three times. I have answered it twice. Why do you feel the need to keep asking it? For the removal of doubt, I see absolutely no point in a penalty that could achieve nothing. It will not bring the victims back. Further, I think that a lengthy prison sentence will be seen by most as far more punishment than a quick death. Finally, if we make a mistake then it cannot be reversed. Logic therefore dictates that the death penalty would be at best pointless.

 

Your cheap point about not caring for the victims is just that - you really are scraping the barrel now, aren't you?

 

First of all I do apologise about you saying that prison is merely for loss of liberty. Like you I misread. It was said by KOTR in this thread and I was mistaken when some pages later I thought it was you.

 

You have not presented one iota of evidence showing the difference in one state or one country that has had the death penalty and then abolished it. You have simply shown figures for states that have it or don't have it. What does that prove?

 

If rural Iowa doesn't have it, but a state with a large city with a massive drug and gang problem has the death penalty but still has a higher murder rate you seem to think that this proves that the death penalty doesn't deter! Good God man, aren't you capable of working out why that's nonsense!

 

On the other hand I have presented a report that says that a dozen different studies have been made into the effects of the deterrent effect of capital punishment and all conclude that every execution saves a number of lives.

 

You won't even consider this, so blinkered are you, and you just dismiss it out of hand. You say they haven't been verified. What does that mean? How can you verify them? They are assumptions made on evidence, rigorously analysed and applied. But of course no one can then prove that exactly seven people for instance will not be killed because of one hanging, but we can use our brains and assume that with twelve such research projects coming up with the same conclusion then there must be some basis for their conclusions.

 

But what is most damning in your reasoning is that ,despite this, so determined are you to try to convince yourself that you are right that you reject out of hand the entire notion that someone may be deterred from killing if there's a chance that he too may lose his life. That is just brainless! Our entire lives tell us that it is deterrents that keep society functioning - but in the John47 classroom that applies to everything but people who kill!

 

You still refuse to answer all the questions, although you have answered one and we all now know that there is no crime so horrible or vile that you would consider worthy of the death penalty. We now know that John47 could turn to the survivors of the death camps and tell them that Adolf Hitler doesn't deserve to die - and that says everything about you and your skewed and perverted versions of morality.

 

But let's try again with another questions that you've been avoiding:

 

If, for example, we introduced amputation of hands for shoplifting, do you think that fewer people would shoplift, or do you think that they wouldn't be deterred?

 

Now please don't divert or waffle. This is a hypothetical question, I'm not in favour of Saudi Arabian penalties but I'd just like to know whether you really think that deterrents do not work. And once more, I know they may not work every time and for every criminal, but my point and the points of dozens of researchers is that they do will deter many people from becoming criminals and thus save many innocent lives.

 

Can we have an answer please?

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

Paul H. Rubin, PhD, Professor of Economics at Emory University, wrote in his Feb. 1, 2006 testimony "Statistical Evidence on Capital Punishment and the Deterrence of Homicide” before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, available at judiciary.senate.gov:

 

"Recent research on the relationship between capital punishment and homicide has created a consensus among most economists who have studied the issue that capital punishment deters murder. Early studies from the 1970s and 1980s reached conflicting results. However, recent studies have exploited better data and more sophisticated statistical techniques. The modern refereed studies have consistently shown that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect, with each execution deterring between 3 and 18 murders...

 

The literature is easy to summarize: almost all modern studies and all the refereed studies find a significant deterrent effect of capital punishment. Only one study questions these results. To an economist, this is not surprising: we expect criminals and potential criminals to respond to sanctions, and execution is the most severe sanction available..."

 

[John 47]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-06 7:55 AM

 

 

I really can visualise you standing there at the front of the classroom, "come on lad, no sloppy thinking give me facts boy". You should remember very many things stated as facts are often shown to be anything but, once upon a time the world was flat, just as well you were not around then with someone trying to tell you it was actually round, I can just imagine the verbal bashing you'd give them. Anyway one thing is a fact I'm getting outside to enjoy the weather.

 

You are absolutely right about facts being shown to be anything but from time to time but my point is that any opinion that is to be considered worth anything at all should at least be based in reality. Opinions that are based on nothing but prejudice (the "all Yorkshiremen are thick" kind of opinion) need to be challenged - and I'm quite happy to do the challenging!

 

 

[John 47]

Had Enough - 2013-07-06 8:42 AM

First of all I do apologise about you saying that prison is merely for loss of liberty. Like you I misread. It was said by KOTR in this thread and I was mistaken when some pages later I thought it was you.

 

You have not presented one iota of evidence showing the difference in one state or one country that has had the death penalty and then abolished it. You have simply shown figures for states that have it or don't have it. What does that prove?

 

If rural Iowa doesn't have it, but a state with a large city with a massive drug and gang problem has the death penalty but still has a higher murder rate you seem to think that this proves that the death penalty doesn't deter! Good God man, aren't you capable of working out why that's nonsense!

 

On the other hand I have presented a report that says that a dozen different studies have been made into the effects of the deterrent effect of capital punishment and all conclude that every execution saves a number of lives.

 

You won't even consider this, so blinkered are you, and you just dismiss it out of hand. You say they haven't been verified. What does that mean? How can you verify them? They are assumptions made on evidence, rigorously analysed and applied. But of course no one can then prove that exactly seven people for instance will not be killed because of one hanging, but we can use our brains and assume that with twelve such research projects coming up with the same conclusion then there must be some basis for their conclusions.

 

But what is most damning in your reasoning is that ,despite this, so determined are you to try to convince yourself that you are right that you reject out of hand the entire notion that someone may be deterred from killing if there's a chance that he too may lose his life. That is just brainless! Our entire lives tell us that it is deterrents that keep society functioning - but in the John47 classroom that applies to everything but people who kill!

 

You still refuse to answer all the questions, although you have answered one and we all now know that there is no crime so horrible or vile that you would consider worthy of the death penalty. We now know that John47 could turn to the survivors of the death camps and tell them that Adolf Hitler doesn't deserve to die - and that says everything about you and your skewed and perverted versions of morality.

 

But let's try again with another questions that you've been avoiding:

 

If, for example, we introduced amputation of hands for shoplifting, do you think that fewer people would shoplift, or do you think that they wouldn't be deterred?

 

Now please don't divert or waffle. This is a hypothetical question, I'm not in favour of Saudi Arabian penalties but I'd just like to know whether you really think that deterrents do not work. And once more, I know they may not work every time and for every criminal, but my point and the points of dozens of researchers is that they do will deter many people from becoming criminals and thus save many innocent lives.

 

Can we have an answer please?

 

 

 

 

 

Well I suppose half an apology is better than none. :-D

 

Let's get something straight: I never said that penalties don't deter (if thy didn't then I would have had a difficult time as a teacher!) What I said was that you had no evidence whatsoever that in the one example you quoted the outcome would have been different. In other words, there was no evidence that the death penalty acted as a deterrent.

 

You keep quoting testimony from people in favour of the death penalty. In the interests of balance, I quote this http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983#answer-id-011770

which includes your Professor Rubin and shows that there are just as many arguments and just as much evidence on the other side. Nothing about this can be said with absolute certainty (as, indeed, your original article itself stated!). Thus to base an irreversible decision on it is completely unjustified.

 

You try to rubbish the actual figures I gave you (real ones, not hypothetical studies) but the whole point about those figures is not just that they show that there are proportionately more murders in States with the death penalty than in States without but that the range is so great within both categories that the only logical conclusion is that there is no significant deterrent effect.

 

As for the shoplifter example, well the arguments against that are exactly the same as against the death penalty. You cannot attribute rational motives to an irrational act, you can never be sure you've got the right person and so should be wary of irreversible actions and, finally, it is barbaric for a civilised society to contemplate because two wrongs will never make a right. You ask would it make a difference? The only honest answer is that I don't know - any more than you do but I will say this - if you think that shoplifting doesn't exist in countries with Sharia law then you are mistaken. Most criminals are convinced they will not get caught. In another example, look at drug smuggling in countries like Thailand, where there is the death penalty. It doesn't stop the drugs getting through - many of them carried by British people. So where does that leave you?

 

 

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

John 47 - 2013-07-06 9:28 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-06 7:55 AM

 

 

I really can visualise you standing there at the front of the classroom, "come on lad, no sloppy thinking give me facts boy". You should remember very many things stated as facts are often shown to be anything but, once upon a time the world was flat, just as well you were not around then with someone trying to tell you it was actually round, I can just imagine the verbal bashing you'd give them. Anyway one thing is a fact I'm getting outside to enjoy the weather.

 

You are absolutely right about facts being shown to be anything but from time to time but my point is that any opinion that is to be considered worth anything at all should at least be based in reality. Opinions that are based on nothing but prejudice (the "all Yorkshiremen are thick" kind of opinion) need to be challenged - and I'm quite happy to do the challenging!

 

 

God you must be an insufferable individual in the flesh, get out in the Sun, your vitamin D levels will improve, and you may just find it so more satisfying than wasting your time on here, trying to defend thick Yorkshire men. :D

[John 47]

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-06 10:12 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-07-06 9:28 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-07-06 7:55 AM

 

 

I really can visualise you standing there at the front of the classroom, "come on lad, no sloppy thinking give me facts boy". You should remember very many things stated as facts are often shown to be anything but, once upon a time the world was flat, just as well you were not around then with someone trying to tell you it was actually round, I can just imagine the verbal bashing you'd give them. Anyway one thing is a fact I'm getting outside to enjoy the weather.

 

You are absolutely right about facts being shown to be anything but from time to time but my point is that any opinion that is to be considered worth anything at all should at least be based in reality. Opinions that are based on nothing but prejudice (the "all Yorkshiremen are thick" kind of opinion) need to be challenged - and I'm quite happy to do the challenging!

 

 

God you must be an insufferable individual in the flesh, get out in the Sun, your vitamin D levels will improve, and you may just find it so more satisfying than wasting your time on here, trying to defend thick Yorkshire men. :D

 

It is one of my ambitions to be insufferable to insufferable people - I think I may have at least partly achieved that (lol) (lol)