Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "Death Penalty u0026 Anti Death Penalty: Is There Middle Ground? | Middle Ground" video.

I am also opposed to the death penalty in practice. It has been said endless studies confirm it's not a deterrent. But do we have a study based on a society where the death penalty was robust and widespread, and not just intermittently here and there? I also think "not a deterrent " is a bit of a misnomer, as it is obvious the death penalty would deter compared with, say, a $10 fine.
2
I think the phrase "the death penalty is not a deterrent" is completely unjustified unless we compared a society with the death penalty as the primary punishment for murder with a society that had no punishment for murder. Which society do you speculate would have a higher murder rate?
1
@vpc5156 Thanks for your reply My main point is that compared to a society that had NO laws against murder, the death penalty would certainly deter on some level. That's why I get frustrated when I hear the claim it has NO deterrent capacity. I assume you probably have read Pinker's Better Angels book, which makes a persuasive case we are living at the safest point in humankind's history. But there is some controversy on that, as (I think his name is Brian Furgeson) has also made a persuasive case that the now standard view on hunter gatherer violence is that it may not have been as uniformly high as Pinker et all claim. Also, RJ Rummel, who coined the term "democide," and who is listed as a source in Pinker's book, gives a much higher estimate for 20th century deaths. If you plug that estimate in instead, you don't get the same conclusion as Pinker. Nit picking aside, I agree that despite the seeming increasing anarchic nature of the world, in the West at least, we are in one of the safest time/places ever. cheers
1
Totally understandable. I myself differ, having also been abused for a time. I think it should be on a case by case basis. One reason I feel this way is that there's a myth, I believe, that every adult out there intrinsically knows that touching a child will likely lead to emotional devastation. Not so. I think the death penalty should only happen, if at all, to people who know they are causing terrible harm. That's too lenient for some, but I think within reasonable debate.
1
@CTS1661 Most likely because anti-death penalty advocates have made it so.
1
t c: tend to agree with you, but then it could be argued with similar logic that we shouldn't have long jail sentences either, because no doubt, some innocent people have spent many years unjustly in prison.
1
@tc-zl5rs BTW I'm not advocating banning long prison sentences. "allows possiblity of the innocent to seek justice" Understood, but misses my particular point, which is that the possibility of rectification doesn't change the fact that there is virtual certainty that SOME of the innocent convicts will not be able to realize this possibility. Therefore, for the X% who don't get a retrial, there is also an absolute lack of a second chance too. So to me, it's a question of degree. The more permanent the punishment, the more the wrongly accused case makes sense. But I don't think there is some absolute distinction that states that the only proper upper boundary on punishment is the death penalty. But Just being very abstract. In practice I'm with you.
1
Idk: Because as a generality, child molestation is not as extreme as the worst crimes on the book. For example, stabbing a child to death. Would you agree?
1
I think for the worst type of sex offenders, yes. But for, say, a a high school teacher with weak boundaries who is seduced by her 15 year old student, does she deserve to die?
1
@a.d.r.m.7730 Agree. I think of the devastation a child might experience if her father was executed for having touched her once. The cure might be worse than the disease.
1
@a.d.r.m.7730 I'm all in favor of moderate length prison terms, and they have already shown very low rates of recidivism with house arrest. Without a say at least 5-10 years jail term, it sends the message this behavior is just a sickness but not a serious crime. My main concern is mixing these prisoners with other violent thugs who want to murder them. Why can't we have a prison devoted just to sexual predators? I think for "nonviolent" cases a 5-10 prison term and many decades of house arrest is a nice compromise between making society safe and showing some level of humanity to the perpetrators. Just my thoughts based on a former teacher of mine who faces such a situation right now. I somehow have sympathy for him, but know that his crimes cannot be excused. Some of his victims have mixed feelings about him too. Thanks for your thoughts.
1
Maybe so, but rotting in prison is arguably a worse fate. When you're dead, you won't be experiencing this punishment, so in a sense it's the easy way out.
1