Jump to content
Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation
rooster59

Capital punishment not an effective deterrent, say experts

Recommended Posts

mogandave    2,057
All crimes that the death penalty is to be applicable to.


So people that commit capital crimes are irrational, while people the commit non-capital crimes are rational, do I understand you correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yinglove    43
1 minute ago, mogandave said:

So people that commit capital crimes are irrational, while people the commit non-capital crimes are rational, do I understand you correctly?

 

Not sure you understand anything anyone says.

The decision to break the law is almost always an irrational one as in each case society has applied penalties that outweigh the benefits.

Most criminals would appear to operate under the pretence that they will not be caught thus the deterrence value of most punitive measures are somewhat limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mogandave    2,057
Not sure you understand anything anyone says.
The decision to break the law is almost always an irrational one as in each case society has applied penalties that outweigh the benefits.
Most criminals would appear to operate under the pretence that they will not be caught thus the deterrence value of most punitive measures are somewhat limited.


So you misspoke when you said only crimes that are punishable by death. I assumes as much but I appreciate your candor.

But that begs the question; Why incarcerate them at all?

Realistically, while most people do not think they will be caught, they all understand they MAY be caught, and the severity of the punishment is really the only deterrent.

People often exceed the speed limit, and they all understand they may be caught and fined. I speeding were punishable by death, would fewer people speed?

If people only paid a $50 fine for armed robbery, would more people be armed robbers?

Again, I do not support the death penalty for any crime under any circumstances, I just do not think you have a valid argument.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
digger70    132
13 hours ago, Moonmoon said:

 

 

really?

 

Singapore just executed a Malaysian Man based on circumstantial evidence for drug trafficking. 

If capital punishment is reserved for a certain crime. Wouldn't it be the utmost importance for all the evidence to be without a doubt before the sentence is mete out? 

If there is some evidence to suggest otherwise, I would prefer a life or lengthy sentence for drug offences just in case the justice system does not kill someone wrongly. 

 

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/07/malaysian-executed-for-drugs-conviction-in-singapore-after-unfair-trial-a-shocking-violation-of-the-human-right-to-life/

 

if death penalty is 100% effective, then why are there still Drug abusers and Drug traffickers in Singapore? I thought its supposed to be 100% ? 

The death penalty is a 100%  Cure for Reoffending,,,If one is exterminated one Can't Reoffend,,, 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gandalf12    3,999
2 hours ago, Yinglove said:

No, my point was that people who commit crimes rarely (if ever) rationally think through their actions therefore life in prison is just as effective a deterrent as the death penalty. Anyone not deterred by the former will not be deterred by the latter.

Not at the expense of the tax payer though and life shoukd mean life. No chance of parole or "he / She has reformed"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
taffeylad    6

What a load of rubbish. It may not deter later offenders but certainly stops you committing the murder to do so again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Harris    28

Read all this S hit, so why is it that a murderer can be shot by police when they try to get away. If proven guilty, hang them high. Less tax payers money for these criminals. Now the do gooders that run the western world will disagree what I have said. Because they have no knowlege of the <deleted> that are out there. Ex prison officer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger Harris    28

Not at the expense of the tax payer though and life shoukd mean life. No chance of parole or "he / She has reformed

 

Reformed, you got to be joking, these are recidivists offenders, (NO HOPE FOR THEM) How many murders or rapings do you want to see before taking serious action. What if it was you partener or one of your kids. I guess a different story from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mogandave    2,057
Not at the expense of the tax payer though and life shoukd mean life. No chance of parole or "he / She has reformed
 
Reformed, you got to be joking, these are recidivists offenders, (NO HOPE FOR THEM) How many murders or rapings do you want to see before taking serious action. What if it was you partener or one of your kids. I guess a different story from you.


We need to love them until they learn to love themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonmarleesco    1,567
16 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Public Prosecutor Uthai Athivej said the idea of getting rid of repeat crime offenders from society was “too harsh”, and that in practice capital punishment had been unable to deter repeat offences.

You what? Capital punishment means execution. No chance of a repeat offence - unless they can find a way to rise from the dead.

 

Deterring other offenders? Well, we only have governments ' (all governments) statistics and their claims by which to go - data and interpretation of which certainly wouldn't be aimed at demonstrating the error of their ways in removing capital punishment from the penalty options.

 

In removing capital (and corporal) punishment from the statute books some fifty-plus years ago, the UK government then claimed it would mete out due and proper imprisonment to the offenders, including life that would mean life. Complete and utter BS, as it has turned out! No wonder the legal system there is such a shambling untrustworthy wreck. 

 

I'll give you that once dead, there is no coming back - whatever the Thais might believe. So capital punishment can only be right where there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the perpetrator. But should the option of capital punishment really be abandoned, even for the most heinous crimes? Only if the authorities commit to making damned sure that an equally appropriate punishment is imposed, and not rescinded unless fresh evidence is brought to light.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yinglove    43
1 minute ago, Jonmarleesco said:

You what? Capital punishment means execution. No chance of a repeat offence - unless they can find a way to rise from the dead.

 

Deterring other offenders? Well, we only have governments ' (all governments) statistics and their claims by which to go - data and interpretation of which certainly wouldn't be aimed at demonstrating the error of their ways in removing capital punishment from the penalty options.

 

In removing capital (and corporal) punishment from the statute books some fifty-plus years ago, the UK government then claimed it would mete out due and proper imprisonment to the offenders, including life that would mean life. Complete and utter BS, as it has turned out! No wonder the legal system there is such a shambling untrustworthy wreck. 

 

I'll give you that once dead, there is no coming back - whatever the Thais might believe. So capital punishment can only be right where there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the perpetrator. But should the option of capital punishment really be abandoned, even for the most heinous crimes? Only if the authorities commit to making damned sure that an equally appropriate punishment is imposed, and not rescinded unless fresh evidence is brought to light.

Perhaps a little reading may help you.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0143122010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rijb    3,891

The victims families might want a say in an appropriate punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mac98    5
Posted (edited)

Society generally wants deterrence of lesser crimes, such as property crimes or substance abuse, but want "justice" above all else for major crimes, such as especially violent murder involving women or children.

Edited by Mac98
Add clarification.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahab    662
12 hours ago, PeCeDe said:

Correct, The very fact the murderer who committed the crime committed murder in a death penalty jurisdiction proves beyond doubt the death penalty did not deter that murder.  Anyone suggesting otherwise is someone who can be told the bare truth, but cannot be made to accept it.

But why does the deterrence factor only apply to the death penalty? Robbery is illegal, but it still occurs everywhere. This doesn't mean the law is not effective. The death penalty is a punishment for murdering someone (in the USA) usually with a number of circumstances attached to even become eligible for the sentence. The person that is executed will not murder anyone ever again, that is deterrence (for the dead dude anyway).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

BANGKOK 20 August 2017 16:36
Sponsors
×