The Gaming Den

It's a pretty universal that governments, especially US States, which employ the death penalty see a higher crime (even murder) rate.

My question is, is the death penalty immaterial to said higher crime/murder rate (these states would have this higher rate regardless) or does the death penalty actually increase crime?

Suicidal people unable to commit suicide but looking for a way to get someone else to do it?

Does Japan have the death penalty with its high number of suicides?

It could be an effect rather than a cause. Just a shot in the dark,

Well, see, that's the question. More crime leads to desire for higher penalties.

However, there is no evidence higher penalties actually impact 'passion crimes' of which murder is usually one. Basically, it means that changing the penalties past a certain point sees no further reduction in crime.

The death penalty suffers from that - once someone has done a death penalty crime, there is nothing higher that can be done to them, so reason is not really useful against them. Similar but silly situations would be putting high penalties on infractions such as speeding or littering. Just because there is a high penalty does not mean the careless person will engage in any sort of reasoning regarding their behavior.

Of course, the penalties need to be high enough to dissuade any sort of business forming around them.

But one point I saw was that (for instance) cocaine has a 1700% markup. No amount of penalties can make it unprofitable.

-Crissa

If you make more things illegal, there will be more crime. Firstly by the simple expedient of people who do things hat would otherwise not be crime are now doing crime, but secondly (and importantly) there's the fact that people who commit a crime are quite likely to commit another crime. Drug smugglers also don't pay income tax or declare the value of their luggage when crossing national borders. Whenever you criminalize any activity, you have to weigh the benefits of creating incentives to not perform that activity against the cost of increasing crime. Sometimes you can hit a sweet spot, where the activity in question was already encouraging crime (for example: casinos), but these sweet spots are rare.

Increasing the penalty also tends to increase crime. Harsher penalties make people less willing to turn themselves in, but they don't make people especially less willing to commit the crimes in the first place. Harsh penalties actually increase crime, because they encourage criminals to go on rampages committing more crimes rather than coming clean and ceasing criminal activities. Now, there's a real effect where if penalties are sufficiently low, people can consider them a "cost of business" and simply break the la continuously (the Mobil refinery in long beach writes a check for the fine that they plead guilty to for breaking the clean air laws every day), but again those are pretty rare. Any penalty high enough to not be "worth it" works as well as an incentive as any other.

But also, if you institute a maximum penalty for anything, you eliminate the ability to create differential incentives past that. That is, if you want people who have committed a crime to not commit a worse crime, there has to be some benefit to them to do it. The law incentivizes with carrots and sticks, and for it to have any bearing on the activities of a specific person it has to be able to take away more carrots and/or add more sticks for that person. Once you've reached "maximum stick" the Law has nothing more it can do. Once you've earned the death penalty, you might as well take arms against the state. Death penalties therefore encourage people who have earned them (or think they have earned them) to go on crime sprees.

And finally, the Law is supposed to be a calming factor in society. It provides a stable foundation and a set of incentives for people to behave themselves. The death penalty is inherently unreasonable. It is the equivalent of posting in all caps or shouting during a discussion. It makes behavioral discussions into shouting matches, and that makes people intransigent. By having the Law be "extreme" you actually produce extreme behaviors in your citizenry. And for purposes of civil order, that's really bad.

It is factual and demonstrable, and entirely predictable that instituting a death penalty drives crime up. Eliminating death penalties lowers crime.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:But also, if you institute a maximum penalty for anything, you eliminate the ability to create differential incentives past that. That is, if you want people who have committed a crime to not commit a worse crime, there has to be some benefit to them to do it. The law incentivizes with carrots and sticks, and for it to have any bearing on the activities of a specific person it has to be able to take away more carrots and/or add more sticks for that person. Once you've reached "maximum stick" the Law has nothing more it can do. Once you've earned the death penalty, you might as well take arms against the state. Death penalties therefore encourage people who have earned them (or think they have earned them) to go on crime sprees.

Yeah. This example is from a movie, but I think the point still stands:

I'm pretty sure this was in Heat. A group of guys robs a truck, holding up the guards at gun point. One of the guards gets shot. At that point, the robbers kill the two remaining guards, because, once they've killed one, they're already looking at the death penalty, so why leave two witnesses around?

Technically, in that example, they could've gotten the death penalty for one of the robbers being shot.

There's more than a couple kids sitting life-without-parole in California for being at a crime scene where someone was killed by someone else...

-Crissa

Accessory charges, or something?

RobbyPants wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:But also, if you institute a maximum penalty for anything, you eliminate the ability to create differential incentives past that. That is, if you want people who have committed a crime to not commit a worse crime, there has to be some benefit to them to do it. The law incentivizes with carrots and sticks, and for it to have any bearing on the activities of a specific person it has to be able to take away more carrots and/or add more sticks for that person. Once you've reached "maximum stick" the Law has nothing more it can do. Once you've earned the death penalty, you might as well take arms against the state. Death penalties therefore encourage people who have earned them (or think they have earned them) to go on crime sprees.

Yeah. This example is from a movie, but I think the point still stands:

I'm pretty sure this was in Heat. A group of guys robs a truck, holding up the guards at gun point. One of the guards gets shot. At that point, the robbers kill the two remaining guards, because, once they've killed one, they're already looking at the death penalty, so why leave two witnesses around?

Wasn't there a new Chinese dynasty because of harsh laws like that? I'm thinking I heard a story that the penalty for being late for work was death, so a group of government workers decided to flip out when a fallen tree blocked the road to the job site. Some time later, one of the workers was the new Emperor.

I could be making that up though.

Count wrote:Wasn't there a new Chinese dynasty because of harsh laws like that? I'm thinking I heard a story that the penalty for being late for work was death, so a group of government workers decided to flip out when a fallen tree blocked the road to the job site. Some time later, one of the workers was the new Emperor.

I could be making that up though.

You aren't making that up, that's the origin of Emperor Gaozu of Han. The Qin Dynasty lasted all of three years after the death of its first Emperor. When the fist is tightened enough, everything escapes through the first crack.

-Username17

The Legalists?

They had a bunch of other problems beyond the overly strict laws (Li Ssu was an enormous dick), such as Li Ssu probably organizing the largest book burning in pre-Chinese history and effectively declaring Confucianism the new state religion.

But anyway, yes, that was pretty much the impetus for the collapse of the Zhou empire. A platoon of draftees were late because of inclement weather and were going to be killed--so they rebelled, attacked the old capital of Chu, and we get the statement of 'Even Chen Shayh(sp?) can be king'. Cheh Shayh didn't last long but his rebellion led to mass revolts and Hsiang Lang(sp?) and his nephew Hsiang Yu under the orders of some governor I don't remember decided to attack the Zhou empire.

Of course, since Hsiang Yu's bloodthirstiness ranks somewhere between Joshua and Charlemange, some serious shit went down and some merchant managed to become emperor of 'China' and... I don't remember. I'll have to read it again.

This is all off of the top of my head, so if I'm wrong feel free to correct the hell out of my ass.

Frank,

most of your argument makes sense to me, but I do have a question:

doesn't "life without parole" have the same problem as "death penalty"?

Boolean wrote:Frank,

most of your argument makes sense to me, but I do have a question:

doesn't "life without parole" have the same problem as "death penalty"?

Not nearly as much. Life without parole doesn't mean life without parole and without corndog Tuesdays. At least, it doesn't have to. It easily could mean that if the prisoner was uncooperative.

When you're going to die, taking even a 1 in a million chance to fight your way to freedom is actually a very good deal. When you're going to be locked up forever, taking a 1 in a million chance to fight your way to freedom against a nine hundred and ninety nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine out of a million chance of having your corn dog privileges taken away looks a lot less good.

Now, sooner or later you are going to reach your maximum sentence, whatever that is. Maybe it's solitary confinement forever with only gruel and string beans to eat. Or whatever. But it's important to have that punishment be something that you reach only after fighting back against the state. Otherwise people who otherwise wouldn't fight against the state will fight against the state. And the Law's first priority is to preserve itself. If it can't do that, it can't do anything.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Maybe it's solitary confinement forever with only gruel and string beans to eat.

What's with you and hating on string beans? String beans are delicious.

Squirt some lemon on them, a little salt, and YUM!

While there are privileges, there's no evidence that say, younger criminals put any difference between life without parole, life with, or death. They just don't really consider such things.

And yes, in California if someone dies during the commission of a crime (even if it's a different crime!) that makes all responsible for the death. Even if the death was not directly attributable to them. In one case, the death was due to an officer of the law killing the drug dealer the kid was buying from.

-Crissa

RobbyPants wrote:Accessory charges, or something?

It's the felony murder rule. If someone dies due to your or you're accomplices actions during the commission of a felony you are on the hook for murder. Its meant for cases in which a criminal does something like runs down a little old lady while trying to escape police, but it can have a wide effect.

I didn't think it actually extended to co-conspirators however.

I seem to see a high crime rate all the way back in US history. Hangings use to be standard for anything from horse theft, to some other things.

Is it possible they are only related in so much that in general US is a violent people? So crimes are higher, and the death penalty is ok because people like it?

I just think the Us is full of douches that like being violent towards other people. Just watch any of the trailer-trash reality TV. It is all about screwing with other people. Total lack of respect for anyone else, because the only thing that matters is money.

With everyone hellbent on getting more money, then if the legal system doesn't work, people turn to the illegal one to get it.

I bet if quartering people was still used for punishment the US would televise it. Sensationalism is what most Americans look for, and will find anyway to get it to make them feel better about their own pitiful existences. How else would American Idol have gotten on the air. Like many other similar shows it is just organized and televised humiliation, and the advertisers won't stop paying for it because people won't stop watching it.

To drop the crime rate, the death penalty can stay, just people need to have more respect for others rather than following the American trend of being a bigot.

shadzar wrote:I seem to see a high crime rate all the way back in US history. Hangings use to be standard for anything from horse theft, to some other things.

Is it possible they are only related in so much that in general US is a violent people? So crimes are higher, and the death penalty is ok because people like it?

I just think the Us is full of douches that like being violent towards other people. Just watch any of the trailer-trash reality TV. It is all about screwing with other people. Total lack of respect for anyone else, because the only thing that matters is money.

With everyone hellbent on getting more money, then if the legal system doesn't work, people turn to the illegal one to get it.

I bet if quartering people was still used for punishment the US would televise it. Sensationalism is what most Americans look for, and will find anyway to get it to make them feel better about their own pitiful existences. How else would American Idol have gotten on the air. Like many other similar shows it is just organized and televised humiliation, and the advertisers won't stop paying for it because people won't stop watching it.

To drop the crime rate, the death penalty can stay, just people need to have more respect for others rather than following the American trend of being a bigot.

Your ignorance of America is exceeded only by your ignorance in general. Your bigoted, racist comments towards Americans are laughably hypocritical and immensely uninformed.

I have lived in America my whole life. I know damn well and good what it is like. Maybe should should leave your house and sheltered life and get out more, and you can learn what it is like too.

An idea I was kicking around today when I should have been paying attention in English Lit:

What about exile as a punishment? If someone doesn't want to behave themselves in the way society dictates, just kick the bums out? I'm assuming there are problems with that I'm not seeing or else it'd be done.

shadzar wrote:I have lived in America my whole life. I know damn well and good what it is like. Maybe should should leave your house and sheltered life and get out more, and you can learn what it is like too.

yeah, let's see...

Shadzar Redux wrote: I seem to see a high crime rate all the way back in black history. Hangings use to be standard for anything from horse theft, to some other things.

Is it possible they are only related in so much that in general blacks are a violent people? So crimes are higher, and the death penalty is ok because people like it?

I just think that blacks are douches that like being violent towards other people. Just watch any of the trailer-trash reality TV. It is all about screwing with other people. Total lack of respect for anyone else, because the only thing that matters is money.

With everyone hellbent on getting more money, then if the legal system doesn't work, people turn to the illegal one to get it.

I bet if quartering people was still used for punishment blacks would watch it. Sensationalism is what most blacks look for, and will find anyway to get it to make them feel better about their own pitiful existences. How else would American Idol have gotten on the air. Like many other similar shows it is just organized and televised humiliation, and the advertisers won't stop paying for it because people won't stop watching it.

To drop the crime rate, the death penalty can stay, just people need to have more respect for others rather than following the black trend of being a bigot.

Nice work there. Quality reasoning all the way through. Or maybe not so much.

I suggest you work on your tolerance toward those that are different than you. Stretch yourself a bit and step away from your viewpoint; try to take other people into consideration. Take a chance and talk to people rather than stereotyping them and letting your fears get the better of you. This path will lead you away from the ignorance which is clearly holding you back.

And as far as getting out more, I would wager I have lived in more places, talked to more people and been to more countries than you have heard about through your primary means of education - your television.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:An idea I was kicking around today when I should have been paying attention in English Lit:

What about exile as a punishment? If someone doesn't want to behave themselves in the way society dictates, just kick the bums out? I'm assuming there are problems with that I'm not seeing or else it'd be done.

So australia want's to deport all it's pedophiles, we were thinking america as a great location, are you keen to accept a bunch of convicted rapists?

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote: What about exile as a punishment? If someone doesn't want to behave themselves in the way society dictates, just kick the bums out? I'm assuming there are problems with that I'm not seeing or else it'd be done.

Where would you send them? Everyone else has there own convicts to worry about and wouldn't want any from someplace else.

cthulhu wrote:So australia want's to deport all it's pedophiles, we were thinking america as a great location, are you keen to accept a bunch of convicted rapists?

Seems, even agaisnt the victim's wishes, the US is already doing that....

US files Polanski extradition request in sex case