She begs an interesting question

[Bradskii]

Your argument that the only thing stopping a bank robber or a rapist from becoming a murderer is the potential punishment is baffling to me.

It would baffle most people. Because that wasn't the argument I made. It seems that I need to repeat it.

A death sentence for rape would probably deter a lot of rapists. Those it wouldn't deter are those that would think that there is a much greater chance of avoiding being caught if there are no witness.

Now if that doesn't make sense to you then I can't add anything to it that will. But read this anyway: Punitive Justice Vs. Systemic Change: Addressing Rape Beyond The Death Penalty

'First and foremost, the deterrence argument—the belief that capital punishment will prevent future rapes—does not hold up under scrutiny. Empirical evidence from various studies suggests that the threat of execution does not effectively deter criminals from committing such acts. In reality, the motivations behind sexual violence are complex and often intertwined with deep-seated issues like power dynamics, misogyny, and societal norms that devalue women.

The simplistic notion that harsher punishments will scare potential offenders into compliance fails to address these underlying factors

The Justice Verma Committee, established in the wake of the horrific December 2012 Delhi gang rape, also stood against the death penalty for sexual assault. In its comprehensive report, the committee emphasised that the death penalty is not a solution to the problem of rape. The committee observed that the introduction of capital punishment could lead to an increase in victim killings, as perpetrators might resort to murder to eliminate witnesses and thereby reduce their chances of being caught.'

 

[Hammster]

I was explaining why we shouldn't remove all prisons. Which was the question you asked. And you obviously read my response which gave the three reasons we punish people by incarcerating them as you replied to it.

Your response was a non sequitur to my post since my post was addressing a particular point.

And I don’t recall responding to your post. Maybe my memory is slipping.

 

[Bradskii]

Your response was a non sequitur to my post since my post was addressing a particular point.

I have been following the thread and I have read all the posts.

And I don’t recall responding to your post. Maybe my memory is slipping.

This conversation wouldn't be taking place if you hadn't responded to it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As the article notes, she was a candidate for Missouri Secretary of State, where her campaign raised some eyebrows.

I guess she's now moved to Texas where she hopes her personal brand may find more appeal.

 

[Hammster]

I have been following the thread and I have read all the posts.

This conversation wouldn't be taking place if you hadn't responded to it.

Then I’m losing it. I went back through the thread and don’t see where I responded to your post.

 

[Bradskii]

As the article notes, she was a candidate for Missouri Secretary of State, where her campaign raised some eyebrows.

I guess she's now moved to Texas where she hopes her personal brand may find more appeal.

Are we helping to cause a problem by giving her the oxygen she needs?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

It would baffle most people. Because that wasn't the argument I made. It seems that I need to repeat it.

A death sentence for rape would probably deter a lot of rapists. Those it wouldn't deter are those that would think that there is a much greater chance of avoiding being caught if there are no witness.

Now if that doesn't make sense to you then I can't add anything to it that will. But read this anyway: Punitive Justice Vs. Systemic Change: Addressing Rape Beyond The Death Penalty

'First and foremost, the deterrence argument—the belief that capital punishment will prevent future rapes—does not hold up under scrutiny. Empirical evidence from various studies suggests that the threat of execution does not effectively deter criminals from committing such acts. In reality, the motivations behind sexual violence are complex and often intertwined with deep-seated issues like power dynamics, misogyny, and societal norms that devalue women.

The simplistic notion that harsher punishments will scare potential offenders into compliance fails to address these underlying factors

The Justice Verma Committee, established in the wake of the horrific December 2012 Delhi gang rape, also stood against the death penalty for sexual assault. In its comprehensive report, the committee emphasised that the death penalty is not a solution to the problem of rape. The committee observed that the introduction of capital punishment could lead to an increase in victim killings, as perpetrators might resort to murder to eliminate witnesses and thereby reduce their chances of being caught.'

The question is whether the death penalty will deter illegal immigrants from setting random women on fire in a subway car.

 

[Bradskii]

The question is whether the death penalty will deter illegal immigrants from setting random women on fire in a subway car.

No, it isn't. And no, it won't. And yes, it looks like I'll have to point this out to you yet again:

Advancing Justice Through Science

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science.

nij.ojp.gov

But facts aren't really a consideration in threads like this. All it needs is some anecdotal evidence and an addiction to the fallacy of defective induction.

 

[Zaha Torte]

So the thing is that I believe in keeping a Christian understanding of the Bible. The Bible isn't merely a collection of disparate texts which we must concern with understand in and of themselves (certainly there is truth to this, it is an essential part of good exegesis to be aware of the particular context of a given text); but what is distinctively Christian in approaching these books is a particular confession about these books: These books are unified, not merely because the coexist within the same Canon; but more deeply, there is a singular unifying thread: Jesus Christ.

St. Augustine expresses this when he writes, "The Scriptures contain but one Utterance", the singular indivisible Utterance of Sacred Scripture is Jesus Christ, Himself the very Word of God (John 1:1). For Jesus Himself taught, "You search the Scriptures because in them you believe you have everlasting life, it is these which bear witness to Me." (John 5:39-40).

The Christian religion maintains that Jesus Christ is the point, the purpose, the theme, and indeed the very Word of God about whom the Scriptures are about.

This means that a Christian reading of Scripture, by necessity, is Christ-centered.

To quote Dr. Luther, "We believe the Scriptures for Christ's sake; we do not believe in Christ for Scripture's sake", and to make reference again to Fr. Martin, the Scriptures are as the manger which held the Christ-Child. We come to the Scriptures for the same reason the shepherds came to an old cave where the Child, wrapped in swaddling, was laid in a manger. Here is Christ.

If one wants to make the argument that the state has the authority to administer civil justice through the sword, you won't find me in opposition. If you want to point out that, in the Torah and, indeed, the Old Testament broadly; God commanded to use of the sword to exercise judgment; that's fine. Though I feel that it is much easier to simply acknowledge what the Holy Apostle St. Paul has written in his Epistle to the Roman Church.

But mere appeal to the right of the state to execute judgment is insufficient in addressing a Christian relationship with violence. For we have to concern ourselves with the biblical injunctions against the corrupt abuses of power; and even more importantly, with Christ Himself and what He has spoken, and which the Apostles themselves have laid down for us.

Does the right of the state to administer the sword mean that the Christian is to be favorably inclined toward death? Should we cheer when a man or woman is brought to the public square and hanged, or the guillotine; do we rejoice for the gallows? Do we say, when the wicked person has sufficiently suffered, and no life is left in their body, "Amen, thanks be to God!"?

The Apostle has said, "May this φρονείσθω be in you, which also was in Christ Jesus". This is often rendered "mind", but is more nuanced than that; it indicates sentiment, a way of thinking and feeling; we might say "disposition" or even "mindfulness" I suppose. It is a way of thinking, feeling, and being; and the Apostle says Christ's φρονείσθω should be our own; to be mindful, to have the same disposition and attitudes, as Christ?

"Who from the beginning was God in form, did not aspire to exploit being God's equal; but rather poured Himself out, assuming the form of a slave, having come in human likeness. And being found in all ways a human being He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even more, death on the cross." (Philippians 2:6-8).

To this end, permit me again to quote the Great Doctor of the Christian Church, St. Augustine of Hippo,

"Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought."

Even as the Holy Apostle said, "The whole of the Law is summed up in a single statement, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Galatians 5:14)

And also, St. John having written, "Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love." (1 John 4:8).

The Scriptures are here to point us to Christ and the Way of Christ--not to justify our own peccable, erring, and fallen lusts which we mistake for morality.

-CryptoLutheran

Ok. What does this do with what I have said?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

No, it isn't. And no, it won't. And yes, it looks like I'll have to point this out to you yet again:

Advancing Justice Through Science

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science.

nij.ojp.gov

But facts aren't really a consideration in threads like this. All it needs is some anecdotal evidence and an addiction to the fallacy of defective induction.

What does that article have to do with my question?

 

[Bradskii]

What does that article have to do with my question?

I didn't think that discussions of the problems regarding immigrants and an article pointing out that they are the group in society most likely not to be involved in crime wouldn't have been too difficult to to link.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I didn't think that discussions of the problems regarding immigrants and an article pointing out that they are the group in society most likely not to be involved in crime wouldn't have been too difficult to to link.

My question was regarding capital punishment as a means of deterrence. Your article spoke nothing about capital punishment.

 

[Bradskii]

My question was regarding capital punishment as a means of deterrence. Your article spoke nothing about capital punishment.

No, it didn't. As an example had been used of a supposed illegal immigrant having committed a crime I felt it again necessary to point out that the group of people who need less deterrence than actual native born citizens are indeed illegal immigrants.

Anecdotal evidence and single examples of a crime don't change that fact.

 

[Zaha Torte]

It would baffle most people. Because that wasn't the argument I made. It seems that I need to repeat it.

A death sentence for rape would probably deter a lot of rapists. Those it wouldn't deter are those that would think that there is a much greater chance of avoiding being caught if there are no witness.

Now if that doesn't make sense to you then I can't add anything to it that will. But read this anyway: Punitive Justice Vs. Systemic Change: Addressing Rape Beyond The Death Penalty

'First and foremost, the deterrence argument—the belief that capital punishment will prevent future rapes—does not hold up under scrutiny. Empirical evidence from various studies suggests that the threat of execution does not effectively deter criminals from committing such acts. In reality, the motivations behind sexual violence are complex and often intertwined with deep-seated issues like power dynamics, misogyny, and societal norms that devalue women.

The simplistic notion that harsher punishments will scare potential offenders into compliance fails to address these underlying factors

The Justice Verma Committee, established in the wake of the horrific December 2012 Delhi gang rape, also stood against the death penalty for sexual assault. In its comprehensive report, the committee emphasised that the death penalty is not a solution to the problem of rape. The committee observed that the introduction of capital punishment could lead to an increase in victim killings, as perpetrators might resort to murder to eliminate witnesses and thereby reduce their chances of being caught.'

So - you are not going against what you claimed earlier?

Your source claims that there is "empirical evidence" that the threat of execution does not deter rape - but I failed to see where they cited that evidence.

Also, the claim stated by the Justice Verma Committee was that capital punishment "could" lead to an increase in victim killings and that the rapists "might" resort to murder - which means they have no evidence to support that claim.

They are just making an assumption - like you - while actual evidence proves that the threat of execution deters crime.

You earlier agreed with that claim - yet now you renege and quote from some obscure piece from India that provided no evidence for their claims?

Criminals commit crime based on the assumption that they will not be caught and held accountable.

The system does not turn rapists into murderers by threatening them with execution - that is Liberal nonsense.

If a rapist does murder their victims - they either had already planned on doing it or it was a spur-of-the-moment crime-of-passion thing - which has nothing to do with the level of punishment they might face if caught.

No rapist thinks before they commit their heinous act, "Yes - this will be worth X number of years in prison" - because they don't expect to be caught.

None of them are saying to themselves, "Well, in for a penny..." and decide to murder their victim because the possible punishment will be the same if they didn't - because they don't expect to be caught.

If they expect to be caught - they wouldn't commit the crime.

 

[Bradskii]

Your source claims that there is "empirical evidence" that the threat of execution does not deter rape - but I failed to see where they cited that evidence.

Mote than enough information here: https://dpic-cdn.org/production/legacy/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf. This deals with deterrence for crime in general. But the point being is that if the death penalty is not a deterrence for murder, then removing a witness from the crime would not be deterred by the threat of a death sentence.

'The question of whether the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment has been debated for decades or longer by scholars, policy makers, and the general public. In this Article we report results from a survey of the world’s leading criminologists that asked their expert opinions on whether the empirical research supports the contention that the death penalty is a superior deterrent. The findings demonstrate an overwhelming consensus among these criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question strongly supports the conclusion that the death penalty does not add deterrent effects to those already achieved by long imprisonment.

'Our survey indicates that the vast majority of the world’s top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed the deterrence hypothesis for a myth. There isn’t a shred of evidence that supports the New York Times’s assertion that there is “an intense new debate about one of the central justifications for capital punishment,” namely deterrence. Recent econometric studies, which posit that the death penalty has a marginal deterrent effect beyond that of long-term imprisonment, are so limited or flawed that they have failed to undermine consensus. In short, the consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Mote than enough information here: https://dpic-cdn.org/production/legacy/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf. This deals with deterrence for crime in general. But the point being is that if the death penalty is not a deterrence for murder, then removing a witness from the crime would not be deterred by the threat of a death sentence.

'The question of whether the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment has been debated for decades or longer by scholars, policy makers, and the general public. In this Article we report results from a survey of the world’s leading criminologists that asked their expert opinions on whether the empirical research supports the contention that the death penalty is a superior deterrent. The findings demonstrate an overwhelming consensus among these criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question strongly supports the conclusion that the death penalty does not add deterrent effects to those already achieved by long imprisonment.

'Our survey indicates that the vast majority of the world’s top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed the deterrence hypothesis for a myth. There isn’t a shred of evidence that supports the New York Times’s assertion that there is “an intense new debate about one of the central justifications for capital punishment,” namely deterrence. Recent econometric studies, which posit that the death penalty has a marginal deterrent effect beyond that of long-term imprisonment, are so limited or flawed that they have failed to undermine consensus. In short, the consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment.

So - another opinion piece about supposed evidence?

And I couldn't help but notice that the claims of these criminologists were about the death penalty's effect on criminals who had already "achieved long imprisonment"?

Do you consider rape to be a crime that achieves long imprisonment in this country? I don't - since the average range is only 4-19 years.

You are having an argument adjacent to mine.

 

[Bradskii]

You are having an argument adjacent to mine.

I don't know what that means. But I'm not arguing. Just supplying you with information.

 

[FenderTL5]

..If a rapist does murder their victims - they either had already planned on doing it or it was a spur-of-the-moment crime-of-passion thing - which has nothing to do with the level of punishment they might face if caught.

No rapist thinks before they commit their heinous act, "Yes - this will be worth X number of years in prison" - because they don't expect to be caught.

None of them are saying to themselves, "Well, in for a penny..." and decide to murder their victim because the possible punishment will be the same if they didn't - because they don't expect to be caught..

If this is true, then the threat of capital punishment is an immaterial, non-deterrent as well, because (as you said) they don't expect to be caught.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I don't know what that means. But I'm not arguing. Just supplying you with information.

I understand that opinions are information - but the opinions you have shared leave me unconvinced - and the last one wasn't even about rape.

 

[Bradskii]

I understand that opinions are information - but the opinions you have shared leave me unconvinced - and the last one wasn't even about rape.

Information is the facts of the matter. Your opinion may differ as to how you interpret them.