R.I.P. Stanley Williams

[MrColossal]

I just want to say that I think your line of thinking takes a lot of things on assumption. Does that mean that christians who are for gay marriage don't believe in their faith enough?

[Andail]

The whole thing with death penalty just disgusts me. There is something dirty, perverted about it.

If you're involved with the killing of another person, I think you'll become reduced as a human being, I think a part of you will be lost with the life you took.

I see trials and executions on the news, from China or Texas or whatever, and the sermonizing voice of the judge, the DA or the military officer, and the curious audience stretching to see the spectacle, and the victim clad in orange or whatever, with shackles so tight he can't walk, and he gets strapped like a spread eagle to some operation-room bunk, and more preaching, more sermons, and outside people cheer and laugh with big banners and signs insulting the culprit and praising their legal system for its efficiency, and eventually someone is put to death by people who lack the powers to bring him back.

How people can avoid getting sick of all that amazes me. It's perverted.

[TheYak]

Perhaps because people, in their finite wisdom, haven't figured out a better solution?  Should we be disgusted any less by loss of life due to this person's disregard for it?  Is the only alternative incarceration?  Is this more merciful?  How many years of jailtime is a human life worth? One? Ten?  Do murders have to spend 100 years in prison for killing ten people or do they get a discounted group rate?

Don't get me wrong, I'm disgusted by this morbid fascination with execution and the parading that occurs during the event.  I don't see how anybody can cheer when the hour comes and a man's life has been taken.  Even if I were for capital punishment, I couldn't help but think of it as a grave necessity and not a cause worthy of celebration. 

It's an embarassment that California still does this, and doesn't seem fitting of a nation that bills itself as being progressive lovers of freedom. 

However, other countries quickly point their collective fingers and voice their disgust while offering no viable alternative.  Other countries don't have the same issues with gun violence and wonder why the United States citizenry doesn't just rise up and toss the collective mass of weaponry into a kiln.  It's apparently in our nature to beget violence, and I haven't heard a reasonable solution that's likely to deter a potential killer. 

Maybe it is more humane to lock someone away for the rest of their lives (or at least until they're no longer deemed a danger) so that they can't take any more.  Vengeance accomplishes nothing except to vent some of the victims' relatives' rage and thirst for blood.  Since capital punishment doesn't seem to be the answer either (since people are still frequently killing people), it seems time to at least try something a little less final.

[big brother]

Andail, have you ever read Roland Barthes? The process of making something into a "spectacle" adds information. In this case, the information is an object lesson to those who view. According to Foucault (Discipline and Punish), that's why executions have been public (up to more recent years). As for the accompanying sensationalism, human nature is to blame (the reason why tabloids sell and disasters and scandals are in the news more than good things happening). An objective execution is disgusting, but not when compared to multiple murders!

In Afghanistan, the executioner would traditionally be a member of the family the criminal wronged. The criminal would be on his knees in a field (in the goalie box in a soccer field, ironically) and the person would stand behind him and blow his head off with a machine gun. Believe it or not, I saw actual footage of this in one of my clases (the camcorder was hidden under a burqa, I believe).

As for the topic of guns, look to Switzerland. The populace is armed by mandate, yet they have the lowest handgun death rate in the world (or close...I know the handgun related deaths was 0 one of these recent years). This is due to the concept of active deterrence. The risks far outweigh the benefits from any illegal act (No one will try to hold up a liquor store when everyone in there is armed). It's similar to the way a "beware of dog" sign discourages housebreakers.

[Andail]

Big Brother, while you wrote that post, did you bear in mind that Switzerland is a nation of extremely high social standards, practically without segregation or unemployment? Perhaps most people there aren't motivated enough to hold up their local liquor store.

The phenomenon of everybody having a gun doesn't reduce crime in any way. Capital punishment doesn't reduce crime in any way. It's a bit more complicated, I guess.

[Helm]

I think studies have enduringly shown that indeed, the existence of capital punishment does not act as a deterrent in cases of violent crime. Yet it's still one of the main arguments of the for people, again and again, no sources cited and murmured again and again so as if it's said enough, people will believe it's true without checking.

Well I checked:


The death penalty is not a deterrent; those who are against the death penalty claim that recent studies in the US do not support the view that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. [12]. It is also argued that anyone who would be deterred by the death penalty would already have been deterred by life in prison, and people that are not deterred by that would not be stopped by any punishment. This argument is typically supported by claims that those states that have implemented the death penalty recently have not had a reduction of violent crime. A stronger variant of this argument suggests that criminals who believe they will face the death penalty are more likely to use violence or murder to avoid capture, and that therefore the death penalty might theoretically even increase the rate of violent crime. [13].

from the wikipedia.

[big brother]

The phenomenon of everybody having a gun doesn't reduce crime in any way.

Care to explain this? You can't refute an argument by simple stating the negatory. Sometimes it's helpful if you can cite a source or maybe use a little logic (but only in moderation, too much logic might give some of the people here headaches).

Helm, a proof relying on a degree of statistical significance (which relies on a preset level for the p-value) is FAR weaker than a logical proof. There are two many confounding factors between states to establish a correlation with those studies.

[Helm]

Helm, a proof relying on a degree of statistical significance (which relies on a preset level for the p-value) is FAR weaker than a logical proof. There are two many confounding factors between states to establish a correlation with those studies.

You're right, a proof relying on statistical evidence is weaker than a logical proof. I'll spare you the (sic) thing because it's annoying, but I'd just like to point out that i'm not trying to 'prove' anything here, merely present theories. This is not number theory, we're not proving anything. This is examining society, and the depth of one's argumenting can never be deep enough to be considered anything else than a probable or improbable theory. But anyway yeah, you know what's even weaker than a position based on statistical evidence though? A proof that is neither based on logic nor on statistical evidence, and therefore only on the disparate connections the arguing party has chosen to point out, in the swarming sea of the most probables. Kinda like saying gun ownership in switzerland is the reason they don't have violent crime!

[Andail]

Care to explain this? You can't refute an argument by simple stating the negatory. Sometimes it's helpful if you can cite a source or maybe use a little logic (but only in moderation, too much logic might give some of the people here headaches).

Care to explain why I have to give you proofs, when you don't give me?
Do you think that mentioning Switzerland's low crimerate is any sort of proof? In that case, isn't it proof enough for you that america has a very high crime-rate, when their gunlaws are also very liberal?

You should review your own techinique of debating through the past few posts, it has been very peculiar.
Even more interesting is that when Helm actually shows you clear statistical sources, you choose to disregard them, as they don't fit your personal notion of proofs. Still, you haven't brought anything to the table yourself.

Also note that I merely expressed my own personal reactions while watching executions on TV, nothing else.

[big brother]

Ummm....

I never said they have no violent crime in Switzerland.

I never said gun ownership was the reason for this.

I only said that universal gun ownership drove the risk side of rational crimes higher.

Switzerland illustrates this microeconomic relationship.

Do you think these are "disparate connections"?


Andail: You refuted what I said about gun ownership in the US without any proof. I'm not saying you need to list a bibliography MLA style after your post. I just think it would be nice if you tell me WHAT makes you want to disagree with my statement.

Gun ownership in Switzerland is mandated by the government (as part of the militia). This is not the case in the US. Would you like me to look up sources for this? In the US there is lots of regulation on handgun ownership, which discourages legal ownership of a handgun.

Did I write anywhere that you don't have the right to be disgusted at what you saw on television???

[Andail]

This is due to the concept of active deterrence. The risks far outweigh the benefits from any illegal act (No one will try to hold up a liquor store when everyone in there is armed). It's similar to the way a "beware of dog" sign discourages housebreakers.

If you want to start somewhere, prove that.
To me it sounds very vague and loose, and "active deterrence" sounds like something you found on the agenda of some rifle association. I simply don't believe that if you hand out guns to everybody, crime will drop. I think the opposite.

I don't know if I can come up with a "proof" that will fit your rather tight criteria (since you haven't displayed any yourself, it's hard to know what you like, sort of), but I just see before me the wild west, or, for that matter, today's america. Do you think removing all guns would make crimes increase?

[big brother]

I wanted to respond to this now, but I will cite the textbooks if you really want. The cost-benefit relationship is pretty basic micro, though. But fair enough, we definitely had different schooling.

From a logical standpoint, say you're a rational criminal and you are going to rob a liquor store. Would you pick a store where you know everyone inside has a gun and knows how to use one? Probably not. The risks of yourself getting hurt outweigh the benefits you can gain from stealing the money in the register.
This is the same reason why schoolyard bullies won't attack kids his size or bigger.

The armed citizenry and strategy of deterrence was employed by the Swiss during WWII (one of the reasons the Nazis were reluctant to attack).
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerland-second-world-war-ii.html

Do you think removing all guns would make crimes increase?

It would give criminals more leverage, since that legislation would only disarm the upright citizens.

I hope this answers your questions for now.

[Nikolas]

Well, here I would have to ask myself:

Since both countries have a lot of gun owners and apparently Switcherland has almost no murders where America has, why is this happening? It is obviously not the guns that make the difference! Then what is?

[Mordalles]

why does america have around 10000 gun killings a year, when other countries only around 100-300?

[ManicMatt]

Umm.. it has a bigger population?

[Nikolas]

What'sthe population of Europe? Allcountries together. Is it around 200 million? Is it around the same population of America? (not sure, honestly asking)

[big brother]

Andail (and others), here is an essay written by an instructor of economics at Univeristy of Missouri St. Louis about "Rational Choice and Deterrence Theory." It's pretty basic stuff, but he does describe cost-benefit analysis.

http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/200/ratchoc.html

It is obviously not the guns that make the difference! Then what is?

How is this obvious? Switzerland trains their citizens in the proper use of a firearm. EVERY male between the ages of 18-65 is required by law to own at least one handgun. They have to maintain a certain accuracy at firing ranges. One of my second cousins even got issued a rocket launcher. It is not unusual to see tanks and helicopters everywhere. Here in the US, it is illegal for a citizen to even own a fully automatic weapon. I don't see how you can group both countries in the same category.

[Andail]

From a logical standpoint, say you're a rational criminal and you are going to rob a liquor store. Would you pick a store where you know everyone inside has a gun and knows how to use one? Probably not.

Just for your information, that isn't a logical proof. That is some sort of socio-psychological theory you have.

Also, it's far too simply to be applicable in a large system. People commit crimes for many reasons, which is why people commit crimes in America, even though practically everyone is armed to their teeth.

[big brother]

Everyone? I think that's a stereotype. Honestly, when I visited France I was pretty surprised at the weaponry I saw. French MPs carry submachine guns...

You're attacking my hypothetical situation with a generality. I asked YOU a specific question. My intention was NOT to apply it to "a large system". Microeconomics assumes rationality. Sure, not all people are, but it assumes that's the minority (I hope most of us are blessed with the gift of reason  ).

[Nikolas]

So, BB, you're saying that in America not everyone owns, or would like to own a gun? Again I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that, like andail said, everyone is armed to their teeth.

And anyway doesn't it strike you as odd, just as an observation, nothing more, that Squinky, Darth, You, ProgZmax think basically that "the society will collapse" without the threat of death penalty while on the other hand Europeans, me, Andail, Helm, Farlander are against death penalty and believe that society can very well work without?

EDIT: Yes but again, France does not have the murders America does, or am I wrong. And there is no death penalty in France, is there?