3 ms·

Comparing death penalty to exception handling is the most distasteful metaphor ever. The real problem is that death penalty does not serve as deterrence. That i

by Rod 17y ago

Comparing death penalty to exception handling is the most distasteful metaphor ever. The real problem is that death penalty does not serve as deterrence. That is the problem.

Legion 17y ago
Luckily, the analogy had nothing to do with the death penalty, and was simply about focusing on the symptom instead of the root problem. You'd have to really go out of your way to read it wrong to draw any sort of "this is comparing death penalty to exception handling" conclusion.
edmccaffrey 17y ago
> The real problem is that death penalty does not serve as deterrence. What do you suggest in order to deter an innocent man from committing the crime that he never committed?
- Rod 17y ago
  That was not my point. My point was that death penalty does not prevent actual criminals from murdering people. Hence, I don't see what is the point of capital punishment. Moreover, I don't think that judges and juries should have the right to play God and decide who lives or dies.
  - Legion 17y ago
    I agree with your comment about the DP not being a deterrent. People who murder people aren't thinking, "I can handle life without parole, but gee, I can't handle that death penalty!". Thoughts about consequences only begin for them after getting caught. I'm neutral on your second point. I think there are examples of criminals with crimes that are so sick and heinous in nature to where I could see the argument that taking their life away is a just and proportional penalty. I do think there's one thing that has to be taken into account when talking about the DP, though: it seems to be a powerful bargaining chip. Here's a paper from earlier this year that finds criminals are significantly more likely to plea to life or long sentences in states where they may face the DP compared to states where they will not: http://www.cjlf.org/papers/wpaper09-01.pdf http://www.cjlf.org/papers/wpaper09-01.pdf There are papers, though, which make arguments that come to different conclusions. This is well outside of my area of knowledge, but my point in bringing it up is to identify it as another thing that bears consideration in the DP discussion.
wlievens 17y ago
According to Freakonomics it does. But the deterrence isn't the only aspect important to the matter. The risk of false positives alone is enough to forget about possible deterrence value. And that's not even about the ethics of the matter.
- Rod 17y ago
  1) Economics is called the dismal science for a reason. I don't care what Freakonomics says. 2) I believe that the risk of false positives should be enough reason to abolish the death penalty.
  - wlievens 17y ago
    I absolutely agree that the risk of false positives is enough reason. I can't understand how people think that can be acceptable under any circumstances. I'm just not sure that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

by Rod 17y ago

Comparing death penalty to exception handling is the most distasteful metaphor ever. The real problem is that death penalty does not serve as deterrence. That is the problem.

Legion 17y ago

Luckily, the analogy had nothing to do with the death penalty, and was simply about focusing on the symptom instead of the root problem. You'd have to really go out of your way to read it wrong to draw any sort of "this is comparing death penalty to exception handling" conclusion.

edmccaffrey 17y ago

> The real problem is that death penalty does not serve as deterrence. What do you suggest in order to deter an innocent man from committing the crime that he never committed?

Rod 17y ago
That was not my point. My point was that death penalty does not prevent actual criminals from murdering people. Hence, I don't see what is the point of capital punishment. Moreover, I don't think that judges and juries should have the right to play God and decide who lives or dies.
- Legion 17y ago
  I agree with your comment about the DP not being a deterrent. People who murder people aren't thinking, "I can handle life without parole, but gee, I can't handle that death penalty!". Thoughts about consequences only begin for them after getting caught. I'm neutral on your second point. I think there are examples of criminals with crimes that are so sick and heinous in nature to where I could see the argument that taking their life away is a just and proportional penalty. I do think there's one thing that has to be taken into account when talking about the DP, though: it seems to be a powerful bargaining chip. Here's a paper from earlier this year that finds criminals are significantly more likely to plea to life or long sentences in states where they may face the DP compared to states where they will not: http://www.cjlf.org/papers/wpaper09-01.pdf http://www.cjlf.org/papers/wpaper09-01.pdf There are papers, though, which make arguments that come to different conclusions. This is well outside of my area of knowledge, but my point in bringing it up is to identify it as another thing that bears consideration in the DP discussion.

wlievens 17y ago

According to Freakonomics it does. But the deterrence isn't the only aspect important to the matter. The risk of false positives alone is enough to forget about possible deterrence value. And that's not even about the ethics of the matter.

Rod 17y ago
1) Economics is called the dismal science for a reason. I don't care what Freakonomics says. 2) I believe that the risk of false positives should be enough reason to abolish the death penalty.
- wlievens 17y ago
  I absolutely agree that the risk of false positives is enough reason. I can't understand how people think that can be acceptable under any circumstances. I'm just not sure that the death penalty is not a deterrent.