Logic Times

 

Comments

Page Two

 

 

 

Hang 'Em High

6: Peter Bland

January 18, 2006 5:26pm EST

The problem with the "death penalty as a deterrent" argument breaks down on the face of its own definition.  A deterrent has to be something that is worse than the potential crime, and something that is going to happen to the offender immediately.  This principle applies to nations and individuals equally.  Look at the murder rate in areas like Washington DC versus places like Houston.  Goblins in D.C. know that there is little chance of being confronted with an armed victim and further know that there is little chance they will be executed for it.

 

By comparison, muggers in Houston or El Paso know that there is a good chance that their victims will be armed, and if caught there is an excellent chance that they will be executed.

 

Which city would you rather walk around in on a dark night?  Some of my family live in DC and are afraid to go through some parts of the city in any circumstances.

 

The principle applies to nations as well.  The corrupt and impotent UN Security Council was powerless to enforce its own mandate against Saddam Hussein.  Hussein only backed down when he knew beyond doubt that the current administration would not back down against his arrogance and that there would be immediate consequences for his actions.  This time it would not be a few cruise missiles.

 

Punishment for crimes needs to be fast, hard and easily understood.  "If you do THIS, then Society will do THAT to you in response."  Many liberals want to combat crime by turning the justice system into a gigantic social workers' paradise by spending gobs of money fighting the "root causes" of crime.  Better to ask goblins why they are goblins then put them into a dark hole for a very long time to think about how they got there. No, in the topsy-turvy world of liberalism the criminal becomes a victim by waving a magic "root causes" wand over them.

 

Personally, I want to greatly expand the death penalty both in the number of people executed and dramatically reducing the appeals time.

 

In keeping with this philosophy of punishment being fast, harsh and easily understood, let me tell you about my idea: pegging jail time for any theft at one day in prison to each dollar of real value at the time of the theft that is proven stolen. The criminal who steals a plasma TV worth $3,000 would get about four and a half years in prison, while the CEO who raids retirement funds would see the inside of a jail for a long, long time indeed.  No exceptions, no appeals, no special circumstances.  A punk who shoplifts a candy bar worth 50 cents would get a 12 hour jail term, for example.

 

Violence used to steal these items would automatically double the sentence.  A mugger who stabs someone and steals 20 dollars would get forty unpardonable days in jail IN ADDITION TO any other punishment for his or her weapons infraction.  If the victim dies then, well, there is always Old Sparky.

 

I have told a few liberal friends of mine about this idea, and they are adamantly opposed to it. They say that it is too simple, that it fails to address "root causes" (again with that nonsense) and that it will do nothing to "reform" the individual.  I prefer to tell them about the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid) and remind them that I am all about punishment.  Isn't that what jails really are?  Places to keep proven brigands off our streets and away from citizens?  Aren't they supposed to be uncomfortable places to be in?

 

Incidentally, I totally agree with you that child molesters should be executed, along with rapists.

 

{Aslan: Peter, I still think the data show that capital punishment has deterrent value even administered as horribly as it is. Nonetheless, your point is sound and begs the question: what kind of deterrent value would there be if the criminal – after an automatic, expedited review of the evidence by an appellate court and a signature from the governor of the state – was executed within, say, 3 months of committing the crime?}

 

7: Stephen Meggs

February 9, 2006 1:14am EST

It always amazes me when talking about the death penalty how those who are opposed to it always bring in scripture from the Bible.  As is the current case with Paul.  The woman in the Gospel of John was not a murderer but an adulterer. Being caught committing adultery means that that person is guilty.  In that time and cultural norm adulterers were killed. This is not the case in our culture.  

 

If Paul had taken the time to search scripture he would have found that in the Old Testament (Genesis 9:6) it clearly states: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”  This is the penalty for a murderer not an adulterer. Is the death penalty applied fairly?  No, because we are human and are prone to make errors.  Innocent people have been put to death but this is the exception and not the norm.

 

{Aslan: Spot on, Stephen, although those opposed will argue that the New Testament supplants the old, referencing Matthew 5:38, but this mistakes, once again, Christ’s treatment of separate issues: the soul of the individual and the validity of government.}

 

8: Mitch Wayne

February 18, 2006 5:19pm EST

I would like to offer an alternative to capital punishment. It’s called the Societal Restitution Plan – summarized as follows:

    1. All individuals convicted of capital crimes are transported to a lush tropical island

    2. The best of medical service is supplied

    3. Co-ed options are available

    4. Food is first quality, as is exercise equipment, Internet access, personal trainers, dieticians, etc...

    5. However, everyone is tissue typed...

    6. Whenever a body part is needed for the population at large, the search begins with the condemned. Immediate family members of the victim are at the top of the transplant list.

    7. Parts are taken as needed and surgically removed

    8. When a part is taken that results in bodily death, the remainder of the body is harvested for additional organs.

One potential downside – as the demand for organ transplants skyrockets, more crimes may be deemed "capital offenses."

 

I make no claim to originality for this idea. I believe it was first proposed by a science fiction author whose name escapes me many years ago.

 

{Aslan: Reading this e-mail is a guilty pleasure, sort of like eating a whole box of thin mint Girl Scout cookies at one sitting.  I think I will leave it at that…}

 

9: Betty Low

July 16, 2006 10:58pm EST

I read this article and the comments that followed and I just have one question about one of the comments, how can anyone say that child molestation is a lesser crime than murder? No offense to anyone, but when you are dead you're dead, you don't suffer anymore. When a child is molested a part of them is destroyed and they can never get it back, and they never get over what happened to them. It affects the victim and everyone around them. I believe it is a fate much worse than death.

 

{Aslan: I couldn't agree more. Any argument based upon the severity of the crime fails utterly, I believe. The only argument with merit is a technical one - the idea that to punish something less than murder with execution entices molesters to murder their victims. I reject this - if we had capital punishment for molesters, the reduction in molestation would so overwhelm the infrequent scenario cited above as to make this a very weak argument.}