A Guy Beat, Raped, Shot, and Buried Alive a 19 Year Old Girl. Guess Who's The Victim?

[seer]

It is not a 100% deterrent - you're describing prevention, not deterrence. Deterrence is stopping someone else from doing the same deed - and the studies are all over the map as to whether or not it actually works. I'll concede is does work somewhat - but so does life imprisonment and it's a danged site easier and cheaper to implement.

Deterrent:the act of preventing a particular act or behavior from happening. So it can fit...

[Carrikature]

How is it cheaper? Seems like keeping someone alive, with room, board, medical costs, etc for 30+ years would be more expensive than holding them for around 5 years then executing them.

Death penalty cases cost more from the beginning. Multiple appeals have to be allowed. IIRC, even holding someone on death row is more costly than normal. I've seen the math, but it's been a while. It's surprising, but it's a lot cheaper to hold for life without parole than it is to seek death penalty.

[Leonhard]

Deterrent:the act of preventing a particular act or behavior from happening. So it can fit...

Yes, but I'm not going to quibble over terminology with you. Teal is a legal expert and you're not, if she says deterrence in legal-circles means preventing others from committing a crime, then I go by her choice of words, not from your quick googling/webstering of what alternate etymologies a word can have.

[Teallaura]

How is it cheaper? Seems like keeping someone alive, with room, board, medical costs, etc for 30+ years would be more expensive than holding them for around 5 years then executing them.

Nope - it's 100x less expensive than the appellate process alone. A convict would have to live 100 years literally in prison to break even (last time I calculated it - it's not likely to have gotten any better).

[Teallaura]

Death penalty cases cost more from the beginning. Multiple appeals have to be allowed. IIRC, even holding someone on death row is more costly than normal. I've seen the math, but it's been a while. It's surprising, but it's a lot cheaper to hold for life without parole than it is to seek death penalty.

One appeal is required, unlike any other case.

[Teallaura]

Deterrent:the act of preventing a particular act or behavior from happening. So it can fit...

Only because you used the term 'prevent' to define it. When distinguishing separate terms you need to use different words for them even if they can be similar.

It's prevention, not deterrence, in the normal parlance of the terms.

[seer]

It wouldn't be hypocrisy unless Tasmann publicly believed that the unborns are innocent babies. We both agree that they are, but as long as he doesn't he can't be guilty of hypocrisy, just inconsistency and a negligent conscience.

So if some one just subjectively decides that a human is not actually human then he is off the hook... OK...

[seer]

Yes, but I'm not going to quibble over terminology with you. Teal is a legal expert and you're not, if she says deterrence in legal-circles means preventing others from committing a crime, then I go by her choice of words, not from your quick googling/webstering of what alternate etymologies a word can have.

That is fine, you can call it prevention if you wish - the end is the same. They will never hurt another human being.

[Teallaura]

Yes, but I'm not going to quibble over terminology with you. Teal is a legal expert and you're not, if she says deterrence in legal-circles means preventing others from committing a crime, then I go by her choice of words, not from your quick googling/webstering of what alternate etymologies a word can have.

I'm just a legal geek who grew up reading law journals (when I was a kid lawyers never kept Redbook in their offices and I'd have to wait for my Mom to finish works sometimes. But on the bright side, I can use notwithstanding and wherewithal in a sentence... ) and has a Masters in Poli Sci.

I've never seen 'deterrence' used in criminology for anything other than causing a reduction in rate not related to the individual punishment (i.e. not counting putting the guy in jail). Deterrence normally refers to the effect on those not yet guilty of a crime. Prevention can refer to both physical impediment and behavioral change.

[Leonhard]

So if some one just subjectively decides that a human is not actually human then he is off the hook... OK...

Okay seer, when did I say this? Point it out to me please.

This is exactly the kind of problem I see with the way you try to do apologetics. I remember you doing it to me when I was an atheist, I see you doing it to other atheists, and you haven't improved one iota over the years.

Actually its important for you to point out where I did this, because you're committing false witness if you imply that I've said that he's 'off the hook' if he 'decided that a human is not actually a human', I've said neither of those two.

[Leonhard]

That is fine, you can call it prevention if you wish.

Its the way the word is used, I'm not appropriating the word for my own sake.

They will never hurt another human being

This we can safely agree on.

[Teallaura]

That is fine, you can call it prevention if you wish - the end is the same. They will never hurt another human being.

Granted - of course, if you wrongly convicted them they didn't hurt anyone in the first place. The same argument can be made for jaywalking - and it also misses the point that the argument for the DP based on deterrence isn't made by the act of execution but by the effect (if provable) on those not executed.

[Sparko]

Court isn't cheap.

But that is a cost that would be incurred in either case. Same with appeals and such.

[Teallaura]

But that is a cost that would be incurred in either case. Same with appeals and such.

No, it isn't. The appellate process is required in DP cases and the expense is covered well past the point where it would be in any other case. This is necessary because you can't 'fix' killing an innocent person so eliminating the appellate process is not an option (reforms might be reasonably applied but they wouldn't really affect cost that much unless you did things that skewed the process - which is bad). Appealing a DP case is more expensive than almost any other just in the massive work done on each appeal. Life imprisonment doesn't cost nearly as much and isn't funded by the taxpayers to nearly the same extent.

[Carrikature]

No, it isn't. The appellate process is required in DP cases and the expense is covered well past the point where it would be in any other case. This is necessary because you can't 'fix' killing an innocent person so eliminating the appellate process is not an option (reforms might be reasonably applied but they wouldn't really affect cost that much unless you did things that skewed the process - which is bad). Appealing a DP case is more expensive than almost any other just in the massive work done on each appeal. Life imprisonment doesn't cost nearly as much and isn't funded by the taxpayers to nearly the same extent.

Not to mention that DP cases typically require two trials, one for conviction and another for sentencing.