4 ms·

IIRC in Turkey, they reintroduced death penalty for kidnapping and the number of people rescued from kidnapping declined dramatically: it is much simpler to do

by carlob 11y ago

IIRC in Turkey, they reintroduced death penalty for kidnapping and the number of people rescued from kidnapping declined dramatically: it is much simpler to do away with witnesses. You can say you don't believe in deterrents, but you surely cannot believe that it's good to have punishments that encourage to commit more crimes. For what is worth I agree with you that deterring from committing crime is not the primary purpose of legal punishment, but I think that the primary purpose should be reeducation and reintroduction in society. You'll probably call that a crypto-socialist intellectual angle, but I don't think a just society can exist with both death and life penalty.

selimthegrim 11y ago
This; this is also why the death penalty for rape (child or not) or molestation is a bad idea. You're just increasing the incentive for them to kill once they're done.
kazinator 11y ago
> You can say you don't believe in deterrents, ... But your example is precisely of a deterrent gone wrong. They clearly tried to deter kidnapping by making it a capital offense, and it backfired. It is also unjust: an extreme version of my fictitious example of giving petty shoplifters five year sentences. Zeal to create a deterrent resulted in a horribly unjust law, which backfired on top of that. > I think that the primary purpose should be reeducation and reintroduction in society Reeducation is more suitable for exhibitionists, shoplifters, embezzlers, ... The risk of re-offending is there, but nobody dies, and there is a chance for improvement. When it comes to violent crime, the focus of the criminal justice system must be to protect people.
- carlob 11y ago
  In another comment you said that one homicide should be punished by death in the exact same form. This would have the exact same effect as the kidnapping example: if you killed one person why not kill 50?
  - kazinator 11y ago
    I wrote no such thing in that other comment. I said that such a punishment is just and concluded the comment with a remark that though just, it is not necessary to implement. The intent was to argue that even a barbaric form of capital punishment is just, never mind "regular" capital punishment. > if you killed one person why not kill 50? The simple fact that you can only be executed once already encourages multiple murders. However, you have a very valid point here in that some killers would be otherwise satisfied in perpetrating a single murder that involves torture might, out of fear of a tortuous execution, opt for "quantity over quality" and kill more people in a quick and clean manner.

by carlob 11y ago

selimthegrim 11y ago

This; this is also why the death penalty for rape (child or not) or molestation is a bad idea. You're just increasing the incentive for them to kill once they're done.

kazinator 11y ago

> You can say you don't believe in deterrents, ... But your example is precisely of a deterrent gone wrong. They clearly tried to deter kidnapping by making it a capital offense, and it backfired. It is also unjust: an extreme version of my fictitious example of giving petty shoplifters five year sentences. Zeal to create a deterrent resulted in a horribly unjust law, which backfired on top of that. > I think that the primary purpose should be reeducation and reintroduction in society Reeducation is more suitable for exhibitionists, shoplifters, embezzlers, ... The risk of re-offending is there, but nobody dies, and there is a chance for improvement. When it comes to violent crime, the focus of the criminal justice system must be to protect people.

carlob 11y ago
In another comment you said that one homicide should be punished by death in the exact same form. This would have the exact same effect as the kidnapping example: if you killed one person why not kill 50?
- kazinator 11y ago
  I wrote no such thing in that other comment. I said that such a punishment is just and concluded the comment with a remark that though just, it is not necessary to implement. The intent was to argue that even a barbaric form of capital punishment is just, never mind "regular" capital punishment. > if you killed one person why not kill 50? The simple fact that you can only be executed once already encourages multiple murders. However, you have a very valid point here in that some killers would be otherwise satisfied in perpetrating a single murder that involves torture might, out of fear of a tortuous execution, opt for "quantity over quality" and kill more people in a quick and clean manner.