R.I.P. Stanley Williams

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

No one ever said "the system will collapse", or anything similar.  And i think it's pretty safe to say that everyone on long island that i've met is certainly NOT armed to the teeth.  I only know one who even owns a gun, and it's a pellet gun at that...

No one said "the system will collapse", either.  I think it can function without a death penalty, but i think the death penalty works in its way.

[Helm]

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.

If you think the mindset of a desperate man about to rob a place is that of calm rationalization of odds and chances, then I think you don't know what you're talking about. I've been in fights with people far larger than me, and they resulted to my getting beat up, and I can safely discern that this would be the most probable scenario, but sometimes you do things when you're very angry or desperate or other combinations of strong emotions overtake you that you can't calculate in the terms you're using. Violent crimes are not HEAT-type calcualted assault and robberies always. Sometimes you have a gun in your hand and you want to kill somebody who annoys you.

[Nikolas]

I have no problem, for example, boldly declaring that I believe the death penalty has a necessary place in society and that people who disagree need to wake up and think about the consequences should people not receive comeuppance for their crimes.

This is why I had "" around the words society will collapse, but again this is what I'm getting from this thread.

And I agree completly with Helm on this one

[big brother]

Desperation or emotions can make the equation more inelastic (lowering the opportunity cost by the necessity of the action), but it DOES not negate reason. Please read the essay I linked to a few posts up.

EDIT: It is supposed to read "inelastic." Desperate situations (balls against the wall) can restrict an individual's choices.

[Helm]

I think you mean elastic, not inelastic.

And I will read the essay you linked. Right now. And come back here.

[Helm]

(1) The human being is a rational actor, (2) Rationality involves an end/means calculation, (3) People (freely) choose all behavior, both conforming and deviant, based on their rational calculations, (4) The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain,

This is as far as I got. Rediculous. The human being is not a 'rational actor'. We are acting on predetermined paths where everything we've experienced and our genetic makeup and our instinctual drives lead us to the only non-choice we never had to make. We are bystanders, watching our own lives. There's no free will, and this behaviourist attempt to codify human action in oversimplified cause-and-effect models -whereas comforting and simple- is just comforting and simple. Human existence is very complicated, there's a complex structure where everything interfaces with everything, and people watch their bodies do strange things, they watch as they make mistakes, they watch as they cry and repent, and they watch as they make the same mistakes again. Automation and synchronicity. The sense we make out of life is the sense we apply to it. We are not 'rational actors', in some retarded pre-socratic hedonist quest for maximal pleasure versus minimal pain. There's SO MUCH going on in the head of a human being, this analysis, even if it's just for criminal behaviour fails to cover even the bases.

Do you have any other texts you want me to half-read?

[big brother]

I guess this is why you're an artist and not a businessman.

Most subjects are simplifications of reality, ways of interpretation to help us understand the patterns. This doesn't mean exceptions don't exist, only that they distract from understanding it as a system. To this goal, assumptions are made, and we recognize them as such. It just happens that these assumptions are integral to economics, finance, marketing, and capitalism. First and second world countries operate with these assumptions. I'm sorry they're not to your taste. (Although you should try to be open-minded and read the whole thing before you judge it to get a sense of the context.)

I don't think either of us can carry on this discussion based on anything but emotions if we don't employ a system of some kind.

[Helm]

you took it too far back. Of course any system of discource is based on assumptions and the like even language makes assumptions. The fact that I have to say 'I. have. to. say', subject, verb, object suggests self-will, so here's a very common assumption that however is probably false. The issue I have with the simplification of the text you posted is that it's OVERsimplified to the degree that it becomes a useless tool for examination of real life. To say that the colour of a fabric is red is a simplification (since we know the qualities of light etc create the illusion of colour, and that there is no colour really) but if the discussion is about different fabrics and colours they have, this is a simplification that can stand the relatively humble tests the discourse will put it through.

But to approach human action, human interaction, criminal behaviour and the various internal workings of the human psyche from the foundation that WE ARE FREE TO CHOOSE OUR ACTIONS and WE ARE RATIONAL BEINGS and WE OPERATE ON A PLEASURE/PAIN DICHOCTOMY is just... so stupid it hurts. It's like approaching the development of adventure games, believing every engine you might use will have a 'MAEK MY GAEM' button.

And yeah, capitalism isn't much to my taste. Seems like it's not to the taste of the opressed around the world too! Imagine that!

[Pumaman]

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

Let's give an example of why this is rubbish.

In Britain in the 1960's, the death penalty was suspended for a trial period of 5 years. There was a lot of opposition to it at the time because people thought the murder rate would go sky high. In fact, it hardly changed at all; and so after the 5 year trial the death penalty was abolished permanently.

Think about the mentality of a murderer ... if you're of the frame of mind that means you're about to kill someone in cold blood, does it matter whether the penalty is death or life imprisonment? Not really, you're not thinking about the penalty (either way you're screwed and in many ways death is an easier way out than life in prison), you're just thinking about the current moment, whatever it is that's leading you to kill.

Adjusting the penalty for more "minor" and planned crimes can have an affect on the offending rate (take much of the Arab world, for example, where the penalty for stealing can be getting your hands chopped off; and surprisingly enough, the crime rate there is lower than in Western countries); but in a crime where the rage is such that someone is prepared to kill another, they're really not thinking about the consequences.

The main objection I have to the death penalty is what happens if a mistake is made -- suppose someone is found guilty of murder and jailed for life, but they keep protesting their innocence and then 10 years later they get a retrial and are freed. Suppose instead they'd been executed ... what happens then? You can't apologise and release them from jail, it's too late. How do you reconcile that situation?

[Nikolas]

Maybe my English are poor, but I can't see how a this (half) quote can be rubbish.

As far as I can see from this thread the Americans are "in favor" of death penalty and the Europeans are against it. Am I wrong on that? As a matter of fact, you being a British also oppose the idea of death penalty (for your own reasons).

This is what I said, and I have absolutely no idea why this is rubbish.

Care to explain (and quote the full sentence, since it is in another page, please)?

[Helm]

he means that the concept that society will collapse without the death penality is rubbish.

[Nikolas]

Ok, but is it clear that I don't support this concept?

[Helm]

Nikolas, you've posted that you are against the death penality about 35 times in this thread so far. I'd say it's um, clear. Yes.

[Darth Mandarb]

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

I didn't say society would collapse without the death penalty.

I stepped out of this argument.

I'm for the death penalty and think it's necessary.

Some are against it.

I won't change my opinion.

I won't try to change other's opinions.

We're still friends.

I'm done.

[Andail]

CJ said death penalty is wrong, and hence all who believe differently will be chased out of the forums by the ags-mob!!!

[ManicMatt]

I'm from England and I support the death penalty.

Has the issue been raised on the problem we had/are having over here with overcrowded prisons? I recall a few years ago of how a judge pretty much let someone free just because there was no room for them in prison! Killing the more dangerous scum in prison would give more space, though. Else we could just build more prisons and have a prison on every street.

[Helm]

sure

[Squinky]

Just because someone asked:

Us Population as of july 2005 (CIA website): 295,734,134
European Union:  456,953,258     

I tried to find some statistics of how many guns are in america, but I couldn't find anything reliable. I would dispute the statement that all americans have guns though, the majority does not. Taking that into consideration I would agree that Sweden's current state where the government issues weapons is far different that the U.S. There are many guns here, but they are smattered about, and the typical person does not carry one. I speak from this with a law enforcement perspective, I only found one gun on a person illegally in the course of 5 years. Typically the person who has guns has many guns, which screws up the eqaution.

From my knowledge most gun related homicides are drug related, and america does have a problem with that. I would bet my life that if there was some way to make the drug issue go away, or at least get rid of the criminal element attached to drugs, the gun homicides would drop dramatically.

[TheYak]

It is difficult to find statistics about the ubiquity of guns in US households.  However, while living in three states, spending most of my life in an urban area (that of San Francisco), I haven't seen a civilian gun, only those carried by military personnel and peace officers.  None of my relatives or friends own a firearm, nor do they desire one.  Granted, I travel in, let's say, comparitively liberal social circles, but firearm ownership seems far from "armed to the teeth." 

I'd also like to add that among those who've primarily argued against the death penalty, at least two are also US citizens.  So, it's not universal that Americans support it. 

From the beginning, the US has had large investors under many banners.  The plutocrats, aristocrats, mafia and drug cartels have all had a share in building America's commerce as well as ensuring their supply lines' permanence and that their interests are upheld by legislation. 

Drugs, firearms, incarceration and execution aren't likely to go away any time soon without some massive break in the cycle.  Since the death penalty hasn't been a deterrent in the last couple of hundred years, it's unlikely to be so now.  No one item on the list of the US' woes can be pointed at for blaming purposes, it goes a bit deeper than that.

One other repetition that seems based upon incorrect presumptions is that an innocent person could easily be executed before they've had the chance to prove their innocence.  While I haven't researched this in some time, the shortest timespans from sentencing to execution have been 5 years, with the longest being 35 years.  On average, 7-9 years can be expected in most states before an execution is carried out.  The exception to this is Texas which seems rather more efficient with its executions.  I would think that, after 5 years, one is unlikely to be able to prove their innocence despite attorneys, family and friends dedicated to this purpose.  Two specific cases that illustrate this lengthy time before execution are that of Stanley Williams (25 years) and Richard Ramirez (7 years as of 1996, I'm uncertain beyond that, convicted in 1989 of 16 murders, a high-profile case). 

Very quick research: In California, minimum average time before actual execution - 16 years.  In California (Where Stanley Williams was executed), there have been 11 executions since 1978. 

[pcj]

You keep saying "prove their innocence".  People keep forgetting that you're innocent until proven guilty.  Usually you won't receive the death penalty anyway unless there's some fairly concrete evidence.