Death Penalty/Capital Punishment: Does it work as a deterrant to violent crime and murder?

[ThePeacent]

I'll just comment on the method, as I am unaware of the current laws in the US and the view of Death Penalty in the country.

the easiest, quickest and most reliable method will always be a direct, massive and instant destruction of the CNS via severe trauma to the brain.
As said on some posts above, a shotgun or big caliber projectile aimed directly at the center of the head would be humane, painless and reliable. Firing squad is even subject to missing the brain, and that would result in killing the person in a few seconds via internal damage and shock, bleeding out...
but that's not 100% instant or reliable and the time between the shots and death could be indeed felt and suffered.

[ThePeacent]

just hearing on the news that in Ohio the "lethal injection" has failed to kill Alva Campbell today and another reason to use a different method as I suggested in my previous post

Other info,
20 executed prisoners in 2016 (all time low) in a tendency that it's dropping year after year
49% of the US population seems to approve death penalty, the last study says, that seems to confirm that we're approaching to a future free of death penalty sentences in the USA

[bearfacedkiller]

just hearing on the news that in Ohio the "lethal injection" has failed to kill Alva Campbell today and another reason to use a different method as I suggested in my previous post

Other info,
20 executed prisoners in 2016 (all time low) in a tendency that it's dropping year after year
49% of the US population seems to approve death penalty, the last study says, that seems to confirm that we're approaching to a future free of death penalty sentences in the USA

The death penalty is a decision that is mostly left up to the states. There are 32 states as well as the federal government and the US military who can issue a death sentence. Out of those 32 states there are 8 that currently have a moratorium of some sort in place. That leaves 24 that are currently able to execute someone. There are 18 states that do not have a death penalty. Your use of the statistic implies that this is a federal decision and it is not. It is actually representative of the relatively divided stance out nation has taken on the issue. There may be a shift in those numbers but we are far from being a nation without a death penalty in my opinion.

[The Deacon]

Going back to the original question ... did you conclude whether or not the death penalty is ever a deterrent?

I wonder whether that if a villain goes out armed, in an armed society, they must know they could face getting shot (possibly dead) anyway.

That's like trying to prove a negative, since there is no way of knowing how many people were deterred. Rates for crimes that are capital offenses in some states are neither consistently higher, or lower, in those states than in states that do not have the death penalty. What can be proved is that a percentage of murders and forcible rapes are committed by people who have been convicted of those crimes before, incarcerated for them, and released back into society to commit them again. Capital punishment could have prevented those crimes.

"Life without the possibility of parole" may sound like a reasonable alternative, but offers both the chance of escape and the ability to murder corrections personnel and fellow inmates with impunity.

As for the second, I doubt they give that any more thought than you or I give to the very real possibility of death at the hands of a drunk or inattentive driver every time we get in a car.

[JD Spydo]

I've had an opportunity to discuss this issue with a couple of good friends of mine. And we all came to the conclusion that the type of incarceration might be the solution. Here in Kansas City and surrounding area we have massive underground cavern systems (man made caves) and I even worked in one a few years back. Needless to say I didn't even like working in one when I knew I was going home that evening.

I was thinking that having underground prisons where an inmate literallly wouldn't see the light of day for years on end would truly be like a true artificial ****. Especially if the inmate is going to be locked up for years on end>> I would bet that it would truly drive many completely insane in a relatively short time period. To me that would actually be worse than the death penalty.

Another method of incarceration would be to completely banish your most heinous criminals to a desert island ( a completely secluded penal colony ) to where they never ever get to see or associate or have any connection with society and make both of these methods with no visitors. Again I think that would be far more cost effective than what we have now and it would probably compel many to just take their own lives.

Because the costs of putting someone to death here in the USA is just outrageous>> not to mention that it takes years to complete the death sentence with all the appeals processes and so forth. I truly believe that would be far more of a deterrent than the needle>> which I think is far too easy on some of these most violent scumbags.

[Pinetreebbs]

Dead premeditated murders, mass killers and sexual perverts have a 0.0% recidividsm rate.

Criminals are aware of the penalties for their crimes. Why else would drug dealers employ juveniles to carry out their crimes because if caught they receive less punishment than an adult.

Another example occurred here in South Carolina. Susan Smith claimed a car jacker took her car with her two young sons fastened into their car seats. The local sheriff knew carjackers avoid taking a vehicle with a child. He was sure it was a lie and got Mrs. Smith to finally admit she had killed her sons by drowning them in her vehicle. An interesting facet of this sad story: Mrs. Smith said a young black man carjacked her. Sensing her story was untrue and unlikely the Sheriff did not react as the police did in Boston when a husband claimed black men shot and killed his pregnant wife and wounded the husband. The Boston immediately began rounding up and arresting young black men all over the city. Later it was discovered that the husband was the one that killed his pregnant wife and then shot himself to cover his crime. So much for some Southern stereotypes, the Sheriff that got Susan Smith to confess was white.

[ChrisinHove]

Going back to the original question ... did you conclude whether or not the death penalty is ever a deterrent?

I wonder whether that if a villain goes out armed, in an armed society, they must know they could face getting shot (possibly dead) anyway.

That's like trying to prove a negative, since there is no way of knowing how many people were deterred. Rates for crimes that are capital offenses in some states are neither consistently higher, or lower, in those states than in states that do not have the death penalty. What can be proved is that a percentage of murders and forcible rapes are committed by people who have been convicted of those crimes before, incarcerated for them, and released back into society to commit them again. Capital punishment could have prevented those crimes.

"Life without the possibility of parole" may sound like a reasonable alternative, but offers both the chance of escape and the ability to murder corrections personnel and fellow inmates with impunity.

As for the second, I doubt they give that any more thought than you or I give to the very real possibility of death at the hands of a drunk or inattentive driver every time we get in a car.

Yeah, you're right about the former.

Our man clearly has been in a position where he may have been obtained some insight into these people. I thought hard about what I wanted to know, because this is an important (and universal) issue, but every other question I drafted just looked glib or mawkish, and always boiled down to that simple question - does it work as a deterrent or not?

I guess it depends whether and where "removal" & "vengeance" solutions are preferred over "deterrence" & "rehabilitation", and that depends upon the crime and the criminal. It's very easy in such a debate to look at the extreme cases where the former is entirely supportable - not least because the alternative is not - but it's the point, and it's certainty, at which extreme solutions kick in is where perhaps the important debate should be.

[TomAiello]

I do not trust the government with the power to tax personal incomes. Why on earth would I trust them with the power of life and death over citizens?

[awa54]

I guess it depends whether and where "removal" & "vengeance" solutions are preferred over "deterrence" & "rehabilitation", and that depends upon the crime and the criminal. It's very easy in such a debate to look at the extreme cases where the former is entirely supportable - not least because the alternative is not - but it's the point, and it's certainty, at which extreme solutions kick in is where perhaps the important debate should be.

Exactly, if you view the penal system as solely a mechanism to exact vengeance on those who have transgressed, rather than holding out the possibility of returning some individuals to useful roles in society, then the death penalty is the only sensible punishment. On the other hand...

[The Mastiff]

I guess it depends whether and where "removal" & "vengeance" solutions are preferred over "deterrence" & "rehabilitation", and that depends upon the crime and the criminal.

The places I've been have shown me there is no rehabilitation. The prisons seem to train criminals to be better criminals, give them access to better resources ( how organized crime is born) and removes whatever inhibitions they have to using force on other people to get what they want or survive ( eating is surviving, right?). Often it makes people come out violently racist from being preyed on and assaulted. Quite often they come out with gang affiliations that are dangerous and difficult to break even on the outside.

And Joe,They do have an underground prison. I remember one day 2 guards were murdered there. Unless you really are prepared to go "Escape from New York" there will be staff to account for.

I do not trust the government with the power to tax personal incomes. Why on earth would I trust them with the power of life and death over citizens?

:) I do agree. My practical side says we need some way to control the predators around us. Some only respect whatever/whomever can put fear into them. The old posse of citizens with a short rope and a tall tree caused a lot of trouble. We need something in our world.

Joe

[JD Spydo]

I do not trust the government with the power to tax personal incomes. Why on earth would I trust them with the power of life and death over citizens?

That is an excellent point "TOM" The system in this current time is so dastardly corrupt that I don't think they could fairly in any way put someone to death in a fair and just way. The poor man gets the needle and the upper elite rich get to cut deals and plea bargains. Like my opening post stated about Bob Berdella and Jeffrey Dahmer is so unfair and inconsistent that it's truly almost laughable in a really negative way.

Not to mention the innocent people that have had the death sentence carried out only to later on discover that they were not the guilty party. Oh I'm sure that they get the guilty party 85% to 90% of the time but the problem with the death penalty they can't make it right later on.

Like I said earlier if they would do it in a fair and consistent manner I could live with it but it just isn't that way at this time here in the USA unfortunately. Like I said for really bad crimes just make them endure a ****-like incarceration>> with as full as our prisons are now ( male & female) its almost a joke to say that capital punishment helps with the crime rate>> because I don't see any evidence that it does they way they are doing it.

[The Deacon]

Yeah, you're right about the former.

Our man clearly has been in a position where he may have been obtained some insight into these people. I thought hard about what I wanted to know, because this is an important (and universal) issue, but every other question I drafted just looked glib or mawkish, and always boiled down to that simple question - does it work as a deterrent or not?

I guess it depends whether and where "removal" & "vengeance" solutions are preferred over "deterrence" & "rehabilitation", and that depends upon the crime and the criminal. It's very easy in such a debate to look at the extreme cases where the former is entirely supportable - not least because the alternative is not - but it's the point, and it's certainty, at which extreme solutions kick in is where perhaps the important debate should be.

I suspect that the degree to which deterrence works is linked to how much actual freedom people are willing to exchange for the promise of hightened security. However, even in the most aggressively surveillance oriented societies, it might prevent acts of terror, but I doubt its value against murders and rapes committed by sociopaths and psychopaths, crimes of passion, and murders resulting from drug deals gone bad.

As for rehabilitation, it may seem harsh, but I'd rather see 100 "potentially salvageable" murderers put to death than have 1 be released only to re-offend. That's even more true for those who commit forcible rape or harm children.

FWIW, I have a bit of insight as well. Spent 5 years as a civilian worker for NYS DOCS. During that time I worked "in population" in several maximum security prisons. Met a few (most notably Ronald DeFeo, Colin Ferguson, Arthur Shawcross, Lemuel Smith, and David Berkowitz) I'd have been more than happy to throw the switch on, free of charge, and would have slept like a baby afterward.

I do not trust the government with the power to tax personal incomes. Why on earth would I trust them with the power of life and death over citizens?

I don't trust the government much either, but a jury is not the government, it's 12 of our fellow citizens.

I guess it depends whether and where "removal" & "vengeance" solutions are preferred over "deterrence" & "rehabilitation", and that depends upon the crime and the criminal. It's very easy in such a debate to look at the extreme cases where the former is entirely supportable - not least because the alternative is not - but it's the point, and it's certainty, at which extreme solutions kick in is where perhaps the important debate should be.

Exactly, if you view the penal system as solely a mechanism to exact vengeance on those who have transgressed, rather than holding out the possibility of returning some individuals to useful roles in society, then the death penalty is the only sensible punishment. On the other hand...

I look at it as more of a risk/reward scenario. If "the system" returns someone to society and that person re-offends, then one or more innocent parties will have paid for its mistake. If the person was a thief, and steals again, the damage is minimal. But if they're a murderer or a rapist, the harm done is far greater.

I'm not suggesting that everyone who commits homicide deserves the death penalty. However, I doubt there is anyone on death row in the USA today who killed just one person, did so without inflicting considerable pain, and had no prior history of violence.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that even in the states that have the death penalty, the process has been perverted by do-gooders to the point where it can take over a decade and cost millions to enforce it. Done properly, with no more than 1 promptly filed appeal allowed and execution within no more than 1 year of sentencing, if that appeal is denied, the death penalty would be an effective way of dealing with the worst of the worst.

[SpyderEdgeForever]

Deacon, out of curiousity, what do you make of a man like David Berkowitz, (I have watched online video documentaries about him with interviews where they interviewed him) and a few others, who claim to be changed people, and who while they have life-sentences, appear to be trying to be "decent citizens", at least as much as they can on the inside like that, and who, like Berkowitz, claim to be born again Christians, and are now against the atrocious crimes they committed back when they were originally captured and sentenced? I ask because some have told me over the years that some of these situations are real, ie, the person has truly changed for the better, while others are just a sort of scam or sham in order to get sympathy from others.

But others, at least from interview recordings, such as Charles Manson, appear to be as cold-blooded and deadly as the day they were incarcerated. I remember a chilling video interview where Manson said something like, he didn't kill anyone, because, if he had, all of us would be dead. Wow what a sicko.

Regarding him in particular, here is some latest news: He has supposedly been hospitalized: But there is not a define yes or no if this is true, according to the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/us/charle ... index.html

[SpyderEdgeForever]

By the way, here is a related question I have for you all: I have read news articles over the years about women "falling in love" with some of these convicted murderers, with actual proven killers, who murdered and violated and brutalized innocent men, women, and children. What would make a woman fall in love with a cold-blooded murderer like this, who, if he had the chance, at least in the past, would have done to that woman what he did to other people? Is it some twisted mentality within these women's minds?

Can't those women look for a decent man who would love them and who is not a murderer?

Its a different issue, but, it has always stumped me as to why some women will actually get into repeated relationships with abusive men who beat them and hurt them and abuse them, when they could instead look for a man who will love them and care for them and treat them with respect. I welcome feedback on that.

Actual situation: Many years ago I was chatting with a lady who seemed to be highly intelligent, rational, and a very kind person. She had a male friend who loved her, and who told me that he was in love with her, and wanted to marry her, take care of her, and make a life with her. I told him to go and tell her directly, let her know how he felt towards her, and he told me he had, and she told him she wasn't interested in anything more than a friend-relationship with him. Meanwhile, and here is what I found to be rather sickening: There was a second guy, a total wretch of a man, attitude wise. And I mean it. This guy took personal delight in harassing people, calling people names, ie, a real bully, and he even related to other men what he thought of women: Use them as much as he could legally do, within the bounds of the law, ie, take them to bed, and then once he got his pleasure, go on to another woman. I told him this is a sicko mentality and he laughed at me. And here is the horrible thing of it all: THAT WOMAN ADMITTED THAT SHE WAS "HEAD OVER HEELS " for this guy!!! I am not making this up. And that was so sad: Here she had available a guy who would love her, marry her, treat her with respect, and do his best to care for her for the rest of her life...and instead, she turned him down and wanted to be with the other guy, the bully. Can anyone here explain or try to explain why someone would have that mindset?

Here are two articles I found about women falling for serial killers:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ev ... al-killers

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/entertain ... index.html


I once asked the question to a psychologist, about why some women will continue to get involved in truly abusive relationships, instead of looking for a man who will love and never beat or intentionally hurt them. She told me the problem is, a lot of these women have a really low self-esteem about themselves, and they have been so abused and mistreated, they think they do not deserve a man who will really love them, and as a result, gravitate towards abusive men and abusive relationship cycles. It is very self-destructive, as far as I can see.

[The Deacon]

Deacon, out of curiousity, what do you make of a man like David Berkowitz, (I have watched online video documentaries about him with interviews where they interviewed him) and a few others, who claim to be changed people, and who while they have life-sentences, appear to be trying to be "decent citizens", at least as much as they can on the inside like that, and who, like Berkowitz, claim to be born again Christians, and are now against the atrocious crimes they committed back when they were originally captured and sentenced? I ask because some have told me over the years that some of these situations are real, ie, the person has truly changed for the better, while others are just a sort of scam or sham in order to get sympathy from others.

But others, at least from interview recordings, such as Charles Manson, appear to be as cold-blooded and deadly as the day they were incarcerated. I remember a chilling video interview where Manson said something like, he didn't kill anyone, because, if he had, all of us would be dead. Wow what a sicko.

Regarding him in particular, here is some latest news: He has supposedly been hospitalized: But there is not a define yes or no if this is true, according to the article.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/us/charle ... index.html

IMHO, Berkowiz should have been executed within a week after pleading guilty. Instead, he's had 40 years of free room and board, access to college classes, and plenty of time to create the appearance of a benign persona. I also have a general distrust for people who call themselves born again. I'm sure there are plenty of decent folk who've been born again, but it also seems to be the go-to cop out for con artists, rapists, pedophiles, and other sociopaths hoping to be given yet another chance to do their thing. Would you want him living in your neighborhood, SEF? I sure as **** wouldn't want him living in mine.

As for Manson, I think anyone who can convince others to kill for him and with him has to be considered far more dangerous than someone who just kills. Definitely a crying shame that the taxpayers of California have had to feed and house him for nearly half a century.

[bearfacedkiller]

Well, they aren't paying Manson's room and board any longer. Dead at 83.

[The Mastiff]

I saw several instances of women guards falling in love with cons and getting fired for it. Two were lumpy middle aged married women and two were young single good looking women. Sex was alleged but not caught in the act. ( During my career there was one guy who was caught having sex with a male con so it does happen)

AS to why? I suppose that differs in each case. It happens though. Recall the woman employee in NY that helped the two escape from prison . She was in love with ? ( Sweat or Matt, I can't recall). That is the shame. Falling in love seems bad enough but it's what they do when they are in love that is the problem. In every case I'm aware of the women were being scammed and either didn't know or care about being manipulated. Some inmates seemed unusually skilled at either corrupting or at least compromising staff members. They seem to have a knack for finding the susceptible ones. One guy we shipped to another prison after he got an employee to bring drugs in for him ended up finding someone at the new prison willing to bring a gun into him ( then at the highest security facility in the state). The inmate gave up the gun and the staff member in trade to get out of a write up on a different violation. :)

Joe