could extensive death penalty reduce crime in long term?

[wit>trope]

READ BEFORE VOTING!

Besides detterance, EXTENSIVE use of death penalty for lots of crimes could reduce crime in the long term in another way. It could prevent them from reproducing and thus reduce the frequency of crime-prone genes in the gene pool.

 

[IglooDame]

Yes, it could certainly have a deterrent effect - if speeding tickets were $5000 rather than $100, you wouldn't see nearly as many speeders, either. I don't think you could possibly have a Darwinian culling unless you were talking about hundreds of thousands of executions per year, though.

And, on the flip side, it is insane.

 

[stormbind]

No. The first crime commited is ussually out of necessity, not choice.

When the criminal gets away with it enough times, confidence is boosted and no amount of deterent will stop them.

Death penalty kills too many innocent people. We know this because people are being acquitted 20+ years after being found guilty!

 

[The Last Conformist]

It might be noted that the deterent effect of harsher punishments is small compared to that of a smaller chance to get away. More efficient policing is a better solution.

 

[Rambuchan]

Voted 'don't know'.

But I agree that it would have a deterant effect. This doesn't mean we should do it though. I always find that the existence of cases in which people have been wrongly convicted is more than enough justification to not operate a death penalty. It's not the only one though. Better policing, promotion of social, family skills, addressing the conditions in which people cause most crimes and so on are all far better options in my mind.

 

[OxfordPferd]

Crime-Prone Genes?????
Well, then let's kill not only the criminal, but also his children, siblings and parents!! They also have these "crime-prone genes", that we need to remove from the gene pool! And with these genes they'd be dangerous anyway!

 

[Mise]

"What if you get caught?"
"I won't get caught."

How many times have people said that? When someone commits a crime (or even say cheats on a test or goes over the speed limit), it's based on the assumption that they won't get caught. If they thought they'd get caught they wouldn't do it. That's why I don't have faith in the "harsher punishment reduces crime" thing. As has been said, better policing would be more effective.

Also, I don't think criminality is hereditary, but certianly, the son of a thief is more likely to become a criminal (due to socio-economic circumstances) than the son in a middle class white suburban family with a dog and white picket fence. However, this problem can be reduced by reducing poverty, which solves two problems at once (crime and poverty).

I voted "yes it could have an effect on both", but I don't think it is desirable in any way to use the death penalty.

 

[wit>trope]

It might be noted that the deterent effect of harsher punishments is small compared to that of a smaller chance to get away.

That's not really true because you can't really compare the two, that way. For example while increasing the penalty of a fine of 50 dollars to a fine of 51 dollars will reduce crime less than increasing the chance of getting caught from 0.1% to 12%, it's at the same time true that increasing the penalty of a fine of 50 dollars to a fine of 10,000 dollars will reduce crime more than increasing the chance of getting caught from 0.1% to 0.11%. I guarantee you that instituting the death penalty for speeding will reduce speeding more than doubling the number of police officers patrolling for speeding. It's also very likely that increasing the fine for speeding to 100,000 dollars will reduce speeding more than doubling the number of police officers patrolling for speeding.

More efficient policing is a better solution.

It's not a question of which is better. You need both. If you had policing that resulted in 95% of people getting caught but the penalty was a fine of 1 cent, then crime would be as high as ever. If you had policing that resulted in 0.00000000000000000000001% of people getting caught and the penalty was death, crime would still be potentially high. OTOH, if you had BOTH 95% of people getting caught and the penalty was death, crime would be relatively very low. So both sufficiently severe penalties and sufficiently successful policing are necessary and you can choose both.

 

[FriendlyFire]

yes and No

For example: Pedaphila
Is it a crime of choice ? Do most offenders repeat there crimes ? Or have some reformed ?. is it in fact brought on by genes or what other causes ?
Simple steralisation (de-sexing) is more humane.

 

[superisis]

"extensive"? Sure if you kill off everyone covicted of a crime, and their offspring, bot crime, criminals and the general population would be reduced... in the long run

 

[Rik Meleet]

Both Yes-options are based on false assumptions. That either criminal behaviour is genetical and that when committing a crime the criminal thinks about the consequences at the moment of the crime - he doesn't. In fact studies (which I have no link to ATM) show the exact opposite; the signal it gives: "killing is ok" is remembered, not the "I can be executed if I do it".

 

[gunkulator]

Back in medieval times the death penalty was applied extensively for even the most trivial trangressions. Did absolutely nothing for crime.

 

[superisis]

that when committing a crime the criminal thinks about the consequences at the moment of the crime - he doesn't.

doesn't that depend on the nature of the crime (compare tax fraud to drunken driving).

 

[The Last Conformist]

doesn't that depend on the nature of the crime (compare tax fraud to drunken driving).

Maybe, but I'm sure the tax fraudster is much more concerned by the risk of getting caught than the actual punisment.

 

[Akka]

Increasing penalties is useless if people still don't think they will be caught.

Unlike what some people seem to believe, criminals don't think "I'll get three years of prison but gain a lot of money, let's do it". Criminals think "I'll get a lot of money and escape punishment".
If there were 100 % chances of being caught, there would be no crimes (or only crime of utter necessity), even with penalties half or even a quarter as big as the ones we actually have.

 

[wit>trope]

Maybe, but I'm sure the tax fraudster is much more concerned by the risk of getting caught than the actual punisment.

What you are failing to realize is that being concerned about getting caught is actually concern about the punishment one gets if one gets caught. They are not two separate independent things. If there were no punishment then one wouldn't be concerned about getting caught. If the punishment were trivial, then one's concern about getting caught would be minimal. If the punishment were severe, one's concern about getting caught would correspond to that. Likewise, if there was no chance of getting caught, one won't be concerned about the punishment, etc.

 

[stormbind]

I actually believe that moral code (whether it comes from parents, movies, or church) has a better influence on behaviour than any amount of deterents.

Based on some poster's obvious lack of respect for life, I think they lack morals and are the most prone to turning criminal when oportunity presents itself.

 

[wit>trope]

If there were 100 % chances of being caught, there would be no crimes (or only crime of utter necessity), even with penalties half or even a quarter as big as the ones we actually have.

Likewise if the penalties were extreme barbaric torture where people are continually burned but kept alive for years so that they are on fire all the time for like 40 years, then even if the chances of getting caught were twice as low, the crime rate would be much lower. And even if the chance of getting caught is 100% (which is impossible), if the penalty was nothing, then it would have no effect on crime. Likewise if the chance of getting caught is 99%, if the penalty were a fine of one penny, it would have no effect on crime.

The deterrent effect is simply a product of the two factors of chance of getting caught and punishment:

DE=PUN*CAU

It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that either one of these factors is irrelevant or that one can be paid attention to while completely ignoring the other.

 

[Bartleby]

If we killed everybody there'd be no crime.

 

[wit>trope]

If we killed everybody there'd be no crime.

But if we killed everyone you could still say that the crime rate was 100% since 100% of the people still alive are committing crime. So killing everyone would not be a solution to reducing the crime rate