The Death Penalty and Prosperity -- Applying Loki's Principles

The ghost of Lewkowski asserts that

Quote:

---

Its not by chance the top three economies of the world all have the Death Penalty...

---

Now, we know that some people derive pleasure from the execution of not only retards but also of otherwise innocent people.

Putting aside the moral aspect of this, I wonder: what are the actual positive effects of the death penalty?

I think this is a question to which we can apply Loki's Principles:

Quote:

---

1. Expected results matter more than intentions.
2. The utility of any policy must be judged in light of likely alternatives.
3. Evidence in favor or against any policy must be obtained in as close to a scientific manner as possible.
4. Moral questions should not be legislated on except in extreme cases of public interest.

---

At least the first principle. There must be some evidence linking eg. the death penalty to prosperity.

Given the fact that the US, China and North Korea are among the countries who still have the death penalty, a link to prosperity would obviously be pretty hard to make.

I'd find it extremely difficult to defend more than a tenuous link between these two concepts. The argument is that the death penalty reduces crime, not that it produces prosperity. The former might lead to the latter, but the drop in crime isn't going to be so substantial as to have a real effect on the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Given the fact that the US, China and North Korea are among the countries who still have the death penalty, a link to prosperity would obviously be pretty hard to make.

---

Your argument is as bad as Lewk's. I could also name three incredibly poor countries who don't have the death penalty and pretend that's evidence against your position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'd find it extremely difficult to defend more than a tenuous link between these two concepts. The argument is that the death penalty reduces crime, not that it produces prosperity. The former might lead to the latter, but the drop in crime isn't going to be so substantial as to have a real effect on the economy.

---

I'm inclined to agree :o

Quote:

---

Your argument is as bad as Lewk's. I could also name three incredibly poor countries who don't have the death penalty and pretend that's evidence against your position.

---

Hmmm. Hang on, wouldn't that be a different thing from what Khen is doing (ie. trying to disprove a positive claim by providing examples of where it isn't true)? From where I'm sitting your counter-example looks like an attempt at proof through induction, trying to prove a claim by providing examples of where it is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Hmmm. Hang on, wouldn't that be a different thing from what Khen is doing (ie. trying to disprove a positive claim by providing examples of where it isn't true)? From where I'm sitting your counter-example looks like an attempt at proof through induction, trying to prove a claim by providing examples of where it is true.

---

No, because virtually no relationship in the social world is absolute. What he did is called cherry-picking history. Any "theory" is going to have examples supporting it and examples opposing it. The point is to systematically examine the data to look at the extent of the relationship. Let's say there was some relationship that had 99% of all cases supporting it and 1% opposing it. You think it would be good practice for someone to only pick cases from that 1% and pretend that's evidence against this relationship?

I might also point out that the US has the highest amount of prison inmates over the world. The death penalty obviously has no measurable effect. There's also the blatant racism involved in the DP both when viewing the convictions and pardons.

The US having high incarceration rates proves nothing w.r.t. the death penalty. The UK has the highest incarceration rate in Europe but its nothing like high enough.

You really fucked up that Australia thing, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

I might also point out that the US has the highest amount of prison inmates over the world. The death penalty obviously has no measurable effect. There's also the blatant racism involved in the DP both when viewing the convictions and pardons.

---

Once again, your argument is utterly irrelevant to the hypothesized effect of the death penalty.

Furthermore, to say that if one country has the death penalty and has high x and another country doesn't have the death penalty and has low x, and therefore there's a relationship between the death penalty and x is ridiculous. You're assuming that the two countries are equivalent in every other way relevant to x.

Easy example: one country has 10 murders per year before implementing the death penalty and 5 murders after implementing it. Another country has 3 murders in both time periods and doesn't implement the death penalty. According to your brilliant logic, the death penalty actually increases murders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The US having high incarceration rates proves nothing w.r.t. the death penalty. The UK has the highest incarceration rate in Europe but its nothing like high enough.

---

Heh. So, instead of trying to get crime down, let's lock more of them up instead!

Yeah, that is the way to go at a problem! :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Once again, your argument is utterly irrelevant to the hypothesized effect of the death penalty.

Furthermore, to say that if one country has the death penalty and has high x and another country doesn't have the death penalty and has low x, and therefore there's a relationship between the death penalty and x is ridiculous. You're assuming that the two countries are equivalent in every other way relevant to x.

Easy example: one country has 10 murders per year before implementing the death penalty and 5 murders after implementing it. Another country has 3 murders in both time periods and doesn't implement the death penalty. According to your brilliant logic, the death penalty actually increases murders.

---

You obviously don't quite grasp what I'm trying to say here: Your country is fucked in every sense of the word and is straight on its way to a religious police state...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Heh. So, instead of trying to get crime down, let's lock more of them up instead!

Yeah, that is the way to go at a problem! :up:

---

Criminals cause crime, lock them up and crime goes down.

Do you extract labour from them? If not, why not just shoot them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Criminals cause crime, lock them up and crime goes down.

---

So, let me get this straight: Instead of actually preventing crime and all the shit that goes with it (victims, courts, loss of income, ...), you rather want to use your tax money to increase the number of unproductive people behind bars?

Unless you want to make slaves out of them, like Nessus mentioned. Astounding logic.

Not to mention that without the proper rehabilitation programs (which cost money) all you'll achieve is to make professional criminals out of people who maybe just stole a handbag. Unless, of course, you lock them up for life. Yeah, that will work well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

So, let me get this straight: Instead of actually preventing crime and all the shit that goes with it (victims, courts, loss of income, ...), you rather want to use your tax money to increase the number of unproductive people behind bars?

Unless you want to make slaves out of them, like Nessus mentioned. Astounding logic.

Not to mention that without the proper rehabilitation programs (which cost money) all you'll achieve is to make professional criminals out of people who maybe just stole a handbag. Unless, of course, you lock them up for life. Yeah, that will work well...

---

I want to actually prevent crime by keeping habitual criminals behind bars rather than letting them back on the street. I do think we can have rehabilitation too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

You obviously don't quite grasp what I'm trying to say here: Your country is fucked in every sense of the word and is straight on its way to a religious police state...

---

And what I'm saying is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If anything, the US has been becoming increasingly more secular over the last half century.

Thank goodness that police state thing is still going strong, though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

So, let me get this straight: Instead of actually preventing crime and all the shit that goes with it (victims, courts, loss of income, ...), you rather want to use your tax money to increase the number of unproductive people behind bars?

Unless you want to make slaves out of them, like Nessus mentioned. Astounding logic.

Not to mention that without the proper rehabilitation programs (which cost money) all you'll achieve is to make professional criminals out of people who maybe just stole a handbag. Unless, of course, you lock them up for life. Yeah, that will work well...

---

Its amazing. Its like you don't believe a criminal will ever think twice before committing a crime because of the potential consequences...

Or, on the flip side, how far that criminal will go to ensure they succeed in not getting caught because of those consequences

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Unless you want to make slaves out of them, like Nessus mentioned. Astounding logic.

---

This is getting more popular. As our crazy immigration laws start chasing out the unwanteds, like farm hands, they are starting to ship in inmates to keep up production.

Actual consequences guys actual consequences. Death penalty guys, death penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Or, on the flip side, how far that criminal will go to ensure they succeed in not getting caught because of those consequences

---

That's the only reason I'm not 100% behind a "3 strikes you're out" law. The idea of why doesn't a criminal just go on a killing spree to escape on the third occasion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's the only reason I'm not 100% behind a "3 strikes you're out" law. The idea of why doesn't a criminal just go on a killing spree to escape on the third occasion?

---

You'd just have to make the punishment as horrifying as possible, whereby Lewkowski's logic no one but the most deranged or dedicated insane would face that possibility. Make it a reality show, run a couple of Lagers, have one channel devoted to a bunch of people going through scaphism and make it mandatory for all restaurants and bars to show that channel 24/7, so on. Where there's a will, there's a way. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Or, on the flip side, how far that criminal will go to ensure they succeed in not getting caught because of those consequences

---

Due to the increased manpower used involved in murder investigations, most criminals won't just randomly kill people as part of a robbery.

In addition I'm offended by the notion that we should have lesser punishments because we are concerned that criminals will kill people. That's like saying we should pass laws against the mocking of Islam because we are concerned about terrorists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's the only reason I'm not 100% behind a "3 strikes you're out" law. The idea of why doesn't a criminal just go on a killing spree to escape on the third occasion?

---

Lots of reasons, including our zany retarded lawyers who nitpick crap to death and get criminals out on the streets because person A didn't do statute 28734C when arresting someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Due to the increased manpower used involved in murder investigations, most criminals won't just randomly kill people as part of a robbery.

---

Most robbery prosecutions don't result in the death penalty. Starting to understand yet?

Quote:

---

In addition I'm offended by the notion that we should have lesser punishments because we are concerned that criminals will kill people. That's like saying we should pass laws against the mocking of Islam because we are concerned about terrorists.

---

I'll let you think over the above reply before making fun on this comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's the only reason I'm not 100% behind a "3 strikes you're out" law. The idea of why doesn't a criminal just go on a killing spree to escape on the third occasion?

---

And yet they don't. You're assuming that A) most criminals are capable of murder, and B) most criminals gain some utility from murder. Neither is true in most cases. Most criminals don't commit crime to spite society, as you seem to be implying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And yet they don't. You're assuming that A) most criminals are capable of murder, and B) most criminals gain some utility from murder. Neither is true in most cases.

---

Why are you cuddling criminals :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I'll let you think over the above reply before making fun on this comment.

---

Same principle. You're worried about what the bad guys are going to do. Your position is one of fear, and my position is one where the criminals should be in fear.

I'll take that as a no on the understanding part then :(

Fear obviously doesn't work, as we do put people to death. So what, pray tell, do you do when you lose the "advantage" of fear?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And yet they don't. You're assuming that A) most criminals are capable of murder, and B) most criminals gain some utility from murder. Neither is true in most cases. Most criminals don't commit crime to spite society, as you seem to be implying.

---

Yes, putting someone away for life for stealing a candy bar, that's surely justice :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I want to actually prevent crime by keeping habitual criminals behind bars rather than letting them back on the street. I do think we can have rehabilitation too.

---

The point is, you'll have to let them back out at some point. You somehow keep forgetting that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Fear obviously doesn't work, as we do put people to death. So what, pray tell, do you do when you lose the "advantage" of fear?

---

I'm guessing Lewk would say that's why everyone should pack heat: in order to shoot people carrying black trash bags across the lawn (they "look" like thieves) or petty thieves stealing tubes of toothpaste. Vigilante justice. That's much more fearful than our broken judiciary---when crowded prisons can promise good odds for bail bond release and/or home monitoring.