[goldenband]

The kid whom I referenced in the preceding paragraph (" I knew a kid who grew up to be a murderer"). He was a childhood acquaintance of my brother's, and it was obvious to everyone but his parents that he just...had no moral compass, basically, nor empathy, or any of that. No amount of tough treatment would've changed that -- he just would have laughed and made some excuse, or looked for an opportunity for revenge. There was no "there" there.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by goldenband

Yes, which is why Scandinavia is so notorious for the violence and chaos of its cities...

Seriously, what part of "punishment will never deter a sociopath" do you not understand? You seem to be under the same misconception that so many people are, i.e. that sociopaths will have reasonable responses that mirror our own. Fear of punishment may deter a normal person from becoming a criminal, but most sociopaths are literally incapable of having that response. I knew a kid who grew up to be a murderer, and none of your prescriptions would've done a damn thing to stop him.

(Frankly, I don't know that anything could have stopped him, short of preemptive euthanasia. He had good parents, a loving home, no hint of abuse or anything in his family...there isn't any "why" there, the kid was just a bad seed.)

You really can't compare our society to Scandinavia. Unlike the US, Scandinavia is culturally homogenous and has a small population. As I said before, there are many factors other than punishment of crime that determine the level of violence we have.

As for the Cheshire killers, what would have deterred them would have been already being in prison. They both had long criminal records and were released after short sentences. Maybe if we had stronger laws for habitual criminals, people like this would be off the streets either permanently, or much longer.

I agree that this case is in a way a fluke. Very few people rise to this level of depravity and violence, even confirmed criminals.

I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent for some people, but I favor it nonetheless, because I think it is an important symbol for society to be able to rid itself of its most heinous members. There have to be some things that are so far beyond the pale that they require forfeiture of the perpetrator's very life.

[goldenband]

I don't have much of a problem with your most recent post, actually. While I personally am on the fence about the death penalty, I think the argument you make in your last paragraph is a reasonable one. (What I object to is the bloodlust, torture-'im-till-he-begs-for-death stuff which we saw earlier in this thread; I don't think you've posted anything along those lines.)

I'm all for lengthy prison terms for violent offenders. My solution to that would be to end the War on Drugs so that space can be opened up in our prisons -- which BTW have a habit of turning good-natured potheads into hardened criminals -- but that's another thread.

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by goldenband

I don't have much of a problem with your most recent post, actually. While I personally am on the fence about the death penalty, I think the argument you make in your last paragraph is a reasonable one. (What I object to is the bloodlust, torture-'im-till-he-begs-for-death stuff which we saw earlier in this thread; I don't think you've posted anything along those lines.)

I'm all for lengthy prison terms for violent offenders. My solution to that would be to end the War on Drugs so that space can be opened up in our prisons -- which BTW have a habit of turning good-natured potheads into hardened criminals -- but that's another thread.

Thanks. I'm glad we can have a civil discussion despite not being in 100% agreement. The inability of people in our society to do that across a broad spectrum is a big part of our political problems.

I have to disagree with you about 'good-natured potheads' going to prison. I've never heard of anybody going to prison for possession of pot alone, unless that person was a major dealer or something like that. A lot of the people in prison for drug-related violations are also petty (or more serious) criminals in addition to being on drugs, and they cause a huge decline in the quality of life in the areas where they live through their habitual theft to support their drug habits. I'd love to see rehabiliation work, but many addicts have no interest in rehabilitation until the costs of their habit become too high (and sometimes not even then). I worry that ceasing enforcement of drug laws would lead to a huge surge in crimes like burglary and even muggings and robberies.

These are not simple problems, and I think it will take people of all different perspectives to solve them, or make them better (because they can never be fully solved). We'll never get there if we simply ridicule the views of people who don't fully agree with us.

[basehead617]

Originally Posted by dazzleman

You really can't compare our society to Scandinavia. Unlike the US, Scandinavia is culturally homogenous

Usually people mean this in one of two ways...

1) everyone there is white so there's no violence (unlike Africa which has many similarly 'homogeneous' countries)

2) living with people of different ethnic backgrounds in one place is bound to cause violence, and so we are destined for great race wars

Just wondering your angle here =P

[dazzleman]

Originally Posted by basehead617

Usually people mean this in one of two ways...

1) everyone there is white so there's no violence (unlike Africa which has many similarly 'homogeneous' countries)

2) living with people of different ethnic backgrounds in one place is bound to cause violence, and so we are destined for great race wars

Just wondering your angle here =P

Neither actually. I believe that social censure of certain types of behavior is more effective than legal censure, and that is more effective in a more homogeneous society. In our society, we have subcultures with values and social mores that are radically different from the mainstream society. In places like Scandinavia, greater social cohesion means their laws don't have to be as strong since they don't rely on legal sanction as much as we do

[Jay F]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

If you think that the inner city crime problems are caused by lack of harshness and not consider a host of what may be more important factors I pity you. If you want to see any correlation to street crime that has evidence of being causation it's poverty. There. I Said it.

~Cheers

Inner cities were relatively safe before LBJs War On Poverty. The welfare state destroyed the family. Children raised without a father often develop criminal tendencies. This is more of a cause than poverty itself. Regardless many people grow up in that poor enviornment and do NOT become criminals..much less murder someone. It is always a personal choice. There are no valid excuses for murder other than self defense.

[Jay F]

One thing I have noticed about anti death penalty people is that they are more critical and judgemental towards those of us who are pro-DP than they are of the violent criminals themselves. Commiting murder is within the realm of acceptable behavior in their mind as long as there are excuses such as poverty or bad childhood. They call us uncivilized but never ponder that its actually the criminals themselves who are truly the barbarians.

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Jay F

Inner cities were relatively safe before LBJs War On Poverty. The welfare state destroyed the family. Children raised without a father often develop criminal tendencies. This is more of a cause than poverty itself. Regardless many people grow up in that poor enviornment and do NOT become criminals..much less murder someone. It is always a personal choice. There are no valid excuses for murder other than self defense.

Please, show me the studies that show this.

But really, deviancy is pretty spread throughout populations but the positions people find themselves in tend to shape what kinds of crimes are available to them. Rich people have white-collar crime (which kills WAYYYYY more people than street crime) and poor people tend to have street crime. There's really no difference, just different opportunities. And believe me, I'm all for deterrence laws that help keep the honest honest and reprimand the biggest offenders but we have to have reasonable and realistic expectations and not fetish over the power aspect of the punishing.

And if there's no valid excuse for murder except self defense why exactly can the state kill an unarmed person that poses little to no threat while in custody? Just playing devil's advocate.

~Paz

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by Jay F

One thing I have noticed about anti death penalty people is that they are more critical and judgemental towards those of us who are pro-DP than they are of the violent criminals themselves. Commiting murder is within the realm of acceptable behavior in their mind as long as there are excuses such as poverty or bad childhood. They call us uncivilized but never ponder that its actually the criminals themselves who are truly the barbarians.

What? Who said committing murder was Olla Kala? Or acceptable? Because some people strongly disfavour your own preferred methods all of a sudden they are supporting the bad guys? Maybe those that don't support it are Catholics, or would rather air on the side of caution then let any innocent people be exterminated, or don't see a cost benefit, or think that it isn't as cathartic as people imagine it would be. But no, people who are against capital punishment mustttt be pro-killers. I can see that. You're making a tough case.

~Cheers