5 ms·

I can’t tell if your post was being sarcastic or sincere. It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding fre

I can’t tell if your post was being sarcastic or sincere. It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding free citizens) should not have to bear the risk that he would commit more extreme crimes given the extreme nature of the crime here. That’s not medieval or inhumane, it’s appropriate and common sense. The relation you imply between laws, sentencing, and crime rates between different locations and demographics is not causal and doesn’t account for various other factors, and is therefore irrelevant.

rayiner 7y ago
Right. Homicide rate in the UK went up significantly after hangings were abolished: https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rate-doubled-hanging-was-abolished https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rate-doubled-hanging-wa.... Europe had much lower homicide rates before criminal justice reforms. Arguably, the causation runs the other way. Europeans were willing to have more lenient sentences because homicides were less of a pervasive problem.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Right. Homicide rate in the UK went up significantly after hangings were abolished Only slowly (following a trend that was there before 1964 - heck, 1053 with the death penalty is higher than 1965 to 1968 without it), then had a sudden jump around mid-90s and a peak in 2002 (35 to 40 years after the abolishment for that to be a factor). Note also, as the article itself notes, that the measurements were diluted, for example after 1972 "the crimes of murder, manslaughter and infanticide" where lumped into homicides, and that before 1998 they counted multiple murder cases as a single homicide incident. On top of that, the rate is low enough to be diluted by cases like "58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK" in 2001, "173 victims of Dr Harold Shipman" in 2013, "52 victims of the 7 July London bombings" in 2006, and so on. Even with such over-reporting, meanwhile, the whole time, the rate was so far below the US (who had the death penalty the whole time) even at its peak, that it hardly makes the case: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in-the-united-states-and-england-1900-2000-pinker-2011-jpg.jpg https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in...
DenisM 7y ago
You are assuming that having killed once he is more likely to kill again. Depending on the person this may not be true. A psychopath will likely kill again and so should be locked for good. OTOH someone who was not a psychopath and took this chance to rethink his life choices might be about as harmless as the next guy. Before you say "we can't tell one form the other" let me say this: we cannot tell if we never look. Northern European countries have gathered a lot of expertise in this area, the least we can do is look at it, then maybe look to expend our own understanding of psychology.
- eMSF 7y ago
  >took this chance to rethink his life choices Someone else in this equation didn't get to think their life choices, maybe for no fault of their own, because they're dead. So, how long should you be in for a murder? 30 years? 20? 10? 5? If punishment really got nothing to do with it at all, and the perpetrator is really, really ashamed from just the trial and conviction, why not let them go after that?
  - tuco86 7y ago
    > Someone else in this equation didn't get to think their life choices.. Is the length of the sentence meant to prevent crime or is it revenge? People die all the time, it's a tragedy. But I would not want the laws of my society to be built on the idea of revenge.
    - BurningCycles 7y ago
      >People die all the time, it's a tragedy. But I would not want the laws of my society to be built on the idea of revenge. Why have punishments for breaking the law at all ? According to you it's built on the idea of 'revenge', right ? OR maybe it is good for society if people who murder someone are locked away so that they can't kill someone else, AND maybe it's a good thing that people who have no qualms of killing someone at the very least find the idea of spending a large if not their whole life behind bars a strong deterrent. But hey, 'people die all the time, so let's just forgive those who take the life of someone else, we don't want to come across as a vengeful society'. I am happy I don't live in your society, it sounds like a paradise for sociopaths.
coldtea 7y ago
>It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding free citizens) should not have to bear the risk that he would commit more extreme crimes given the extreme nature of the crime here Well, not all cultures on Earth, especially western ones, share the above revenge-motivated old-testament-style viewpoint on the law. Perhaps that's why they manage to have less crime, less recidivism, less mass shootings, and far lower murder rates, with far-far lower incarceration rates and no death penalty. In the end, a society gets what they deserve, and those revengeful reap what they sow. Like those clinging to guns for "protection", and dying from gun crime (or from their own gun-owning family members). >The relation you imply between laws, sentencing, and crime rates between different locations and demographics is not causal and doesn’t account for various other factors, and is therefore irrelevant. Well, it's not the only factor, but it's a telling part of the belief systems, structures, and overall culture a society operates. It's not just lost in the noise of other factors, as it's irrelevant. Culturally, and in terms of recidivism etc, it's very relevant (like the long history of racism inspired incarceration is). Besides, the proof in the pudding is in the eating. As they say, "so, how does that work out for you"?
- rayiner 7y ago
  > In the end, a society gets what they deserve, and those revengeful reap what they sow. Like those clinging to guns for "protection", and dying from gun crime (or from their own gun-owning family members). Which way does the causation run, for both? https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in-five-western-european-countries-1900-2009-pinker-2011-jpg.jpg https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in... During the 20th century the US homicide rate fluctuated from 5-10 per 100,000. In Germany, France, Sweden, and England, it was below 2.5 the entire century. Focus on France and the UK (since Germany and Italy were unstable states during part of that time). In France, the first gun laws date to 1938. By that time, France’s homicide rate was about 1 per 100k, about what it is today. The first UK gun laws started in 1920. The UK murder rate has gone up since that time. (Handguns, which are responsible for most US gun homicides, weren’t banned in England until 1997.) How did gun control cause low homicide rates in those countries when homicide rates were already very low (at current levels or even lower) before gun control? That’s an “umbrellas cause rain” argument. Likewise, the death penalty wasn’t eliminated in the UK until the 1950s. Criminal justice reform in Europe generally happened in the 1960s and 1970s. How did criminal justice reform cause European homicide rates to be lower when they were already very low? The idea that gun control and lenient criminal laws caused lower homicide rates in Europe contradicts all the available data. The only supportable conclusion is the opposite: that Americans remain resistant to lenient criminal justice laws or disarmament because America is a much more violent society.

rayiner 7y ago

Right. Homicide rate in the UK went up significantly after hangings were abolished: https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rate-doubled-hanging-was-abolished https://fullfact.org/news/has-murder-rate-doubled-hanging-wa.... Europe had much lower homicide rates before criminal justice reforms. Arguably, the causation runs the other way. Europeans were willing to have more lenient sentences because homicides were less of a pervasive problem.

coldtea 7y ago
>Right. Homicide rate in the UK went up significantly after hangings were abolished Only slowly (following a trend that was there before 1964 - heck, 1053 with the death penalty is higher than 1965 to 1968 without it), then had a sudden jump around mid-90s and a peak in 2002 (35 to 40 years after the abolishment for that to be a factor). Note also, as the article itself notes, that the measurements were diluted, for example after 1972 "the crimes of murder, manslaughter and infanticide" where lumped into homicides, and that before 1998 they counted multiple murder cases as a single homicide incident. On top of that, the rate is low enough to be diluted by cases like "58 Chinese nationals who suffocated in a lorry en route into the UK" in 2001, "173 victims of Dr Harold Shipman" in 2013, "52 victims of the 7 July London bombings" in 2006, and so on. Even with such over-reporting, meanwhile, the whole time, the rate was so far below the US (who had the death penalty the whole time) even at its peak, that it hardly makes the case: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in-the-united-states-and-england-1900-2000-pinker-2011-jpg.jpg https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in...

DenisM 7y ago

You are assuming that having killed once he is more likely to kill again. Depending on the person this may not be true. A psychopath will likely kill again and so should be locked for good. OTOH someone who was not a psychopath and took this chance to rethink his life choices might be about as harmless as the next guy. Before you say "we can't tell one form the other" let me say this: we cannot tell if we never look. Northern European countries have gathered a lot of expertise in this area, the least we can do is look at it, then maybe look to expend our own understanding of psychology.

eMSF 7y ago
>took this chance to rethink his life choices Someone else in this equation didn't get to think their life choices, maybe for no fault of their own, because they're dead. So, how long should you be in for a murder? 30 years? 20? 10? 5? If punishment really got nothing to do with it at all, and the perpetrator is really, really ashamed from just the trial and conviction, why not let them go after that?
- tuco86 7y ago
  > Someone else in this equation didn't get to think their life choices.. Is the length of the sentence meant to prevent crime or is it revenge? People die all the time, it's a tragedy. But I would not want the laws of my society to be built on the idea of revenge.
  - BurningCycles 7y ago
    >People die all the time, it's a tragedy. But I would not want the laws of my society to be built on the idea of revenge. Why have punishments for breaking the law at all ? According to you it's built on the idea of 'revenge', right ? OR maybe it is good for society if people who murder someone are locked away so that they can't kill someone else, AND maybe it's a good thing that people who have no qualms of killing someone at the very least find the idea of spending a large if not their whole life behind bars a strong deterrent. But hey, 'people die all the time, so let's just forgive those who take the life of someone else, we don't want to come across as a vengeful society'. I am happy I don't live in your society, it sounds like a paradise for sociopaths.

coldtea 7y ago

>It’s a first degree murder. Putting him away for life is what he deserves and others (law-abiding free citizens) should not have to bear the risk that he would commit more extreme crimes given the extreme nature of the crime here Well, not all cultures on Earth, especially western ones, share the above revenge-motivated old-testament-style viewpoint on the law. Perhaps that's why they manage to have less crime, less recidivism, less mass shootings, and far lower murder rates, with far-far lower incarceration rates and no death penalty. In the end, a society gets what they deserve, and those revengeful reap what they sow. Like those clinging to guns for "protection", and dying from gun crime (or from their own gun-owning family members). >The relation you imply between laws, sentencing, and crime rates between different locations and demographics is not causal and doesn’t account for various other factors, and is therefore irrelevant. Well, it's not the only factor, but it's a telling part of the belief systems, structures, and overall culture a society operates. It's not just lost in the noise of other factors, as it's irrelevant. Culturally, and in terms of recidivism etc, it's very relevant (like the long history of racism inspired incarceration is). Besides, the proof in the pudding is in the eating. As they say, "so, how does that work out for you"?

rayiner 7y ago
> In the end, a society gets what they deserve, and those revengeful reap what they sow. Like those clinging to guns for "protection", and dying from gun crime (or from their own gun-owning family members). Which way does the causation run, for both? https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in-five-western-european-countries-1900-2009-pinker-2011-jpg.jpg https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/03/homicide-rates-in... During the 20th century the US homicide rate fluctuated from 5-10 per 100,000. In Germany, France, Sweden, and England, it was below 2.5 the entire century. Focus on France and the UK (since Germany and Italy were unstable states during part of that time). In France, the first gun laws date to 1938. By that time, France’s homicide rate was about 1 per 100k, about what it is today. The first UK gun laws started in 1920. The UK murder rate has gone up since that time. (Handguns, which are responsible for most US gun homicides, weren’t banned in England until 1997.) How did gun control cause low homicide rates in those countries when homicide rates were already very low (at current levels or even lower) before gun control? That’s an “umbrellas cause rain” argument. Likewise, the death penalty wasn’t eliminated in the UK until the 1950s. Criminal justice reform in Europe generally happened in the 1960s and 1970s. How did criminal justice reform cause European homicide rates to be lower when they were already very low? The idea that gun control and lenient criminal laws caused lower homicide rates in Europe contradicts all the available data. The only supportable conclusion is the opposite: that Americans remain resistant to lenient criminal justice laws or disarmament because America is a much more violent society.