30 Days, A beginning to the end of mass shootings.

[The Barbarian]

A swift execution upon conviction isn't a deterrent in a culture that embraces death.

The founder of Scotland Yard once remarked that the severity of the punishment did not deter crime as much as does the certainty of getting caught.

That's how children are; if there's a fair chance of getting away with something they are likely to do it, even if the punishment is severe. Perhaps most criminals aren't very smart.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The founder of Scotland Yard once remarked that the severity of the punishment did not deter crime as much as does the certainty of getting caught.

That's how children are; if there's a fair chance of getting away with something they are likely to do it, even if the punishment is severe. Perhaps most criminals aren't very smart.

Darwinists love it when the discussion is about who and how many people said what.

GOD said:

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

AND:

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you. - Deuteronomy 17:6-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:6-7&version=NKJV

AND:

Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel.And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously. - Deuteronomy 17:12-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:12-13&version=NKJV

God said that the ones deserving of death are murderers, adulterers, homosexuals, kidnappers, and rapists.

Who are you, let alone the founder of Scotland Yard, to disagree with God?

 

[The Barbarian]

God said that the ones deserving of death are murderers, adulterers, homosexuals, kidnappers, and rapists.

Jesus was asked to judge a woman caught in adultery. He suggested that the person without sin first throw a stone at her. The crowd, being shamed thus, dispersed.

John 8:10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? [11] Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

Who are you to disagree with God?

And yes, the fact is, Robert Peel was correct in his analysis. The certainty of being caught is a far more effective deterrent than severity of punishment.

They used to hang pickpockets publicly. Peel was noting what happened in the crowd watching the hanging. More recently, investigations have confirmed Peel's observation.

The Deterrence Hypothesis and Picking Pockets at the Pickpocket's Hanging
David A. Anderson
American Law and Economics Review, Volume 4, Issue 2, 1 August 2002, Pages 295–313
Abstract
The tenet that harsher penalties could substantially reduce crime rates rests on the assumption that currently active criminals weigh the costs and benefits of their contemplated acts. Existing and proposed crime strategies exhibit this belief, as does a large and growing segment of the crime literature. This study examines the premise that criminals make informed and calculated decisions. The findings suggest that 76% of active criminals and 89% of the most violent criminals either perceive no risk of apprehension or are incognizant of the likely punishments for their crimes.

 

[Stripe]

Jesus was asked to judge a woman caught in adultery. He suggested that the person without sin first throw a stone at her.

Looks like Barbarian favours letting child molesters go free with a "sin no more."

 

[Supremum]

Jesus was asked to judge a woman caught in adultery. He suggested that the person without sin first throw a stone at her. The crowd, being shamed thus, dispersed.

Is "don't judge or punish anyone for anything" really the takeaway from this story for you?

The Deterrence Hypothesis and Picking Pockets at the Pickpocket's Hanging
David A. Anderson
American Law and Economics Review, Volume 4, Issue 2, 1 August 2002, Pages 295–313
Abstract
The tenet that harsher penalties could substantially reduce crime rates rests on the assumption that currently active criminals weigh the costs and benefits of their contemplated acts.

This is something I think most people are uncomfortable approaching as a subject. I'd say more on this, but I want two marshmallows in half an hour rather than just one right now, so to speak.
Also, violent crime doesn't quite correlate with gun ownership. Everyone in south Chicago has a gun(don't believe me, check out the No Lackin' Challenge on YouTube.) Violent crime is just high long people who tend to want the marshmallow now, rather than two later.

 

[ok doser]

Jesus was asked to judge a woman caught in adultery.

Nope

 

[ok doser]

Looks like Barbarian favours letting child molesters go free with a "sin no more."

Child molesters, wife beaters, rapists, murderers

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jesus was asked to judge a woman caught in adultery. He suggested that the person without sin first throw a stone at her. The crowd, being shamed thus, dispersed.

John 8:10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? [11] Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

Who are you to disagree with God?

Considering that God never repealed the law against murder, that's a loaded question.

You know, like "when did you stop beating your wife?"

God forgave King David, and adulterer. He didn't repeal the law against adultery to do so.

You seem to have forgotten that Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, and that forgiving someone's sin doesn't require Him to repeal the law to do so.

Or maybe you just forgot to quote the part where He repealed the law against adultery... :think:

Oh wait, that verse doesn't exist, because He never did.

And yes, the fact is, Robert Peel

Who?

Don't answer that, I don't really care, because GOD said put murderers, adulterers, rapists, homosexuals, and kidnappers to death, and that doing so would deter more people from committing those crimes.

was correct in his analysis.

This Robert Peel guy was wrong, because his analysis goes against the God of the Universe's analysis, which is that putting to death criminals worthy of death deters crime, and even commanded men do to so.

The certainty of being caught is a far more effective deterrent than severity of punishment.

Such a claim is contrary to scripture.

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

They used to hang pickpockets publicly.

Death is not a fitting punishment for theft. Restitution is.

Peel was noting what happened in the crowd watching the hanging. More recently, investigations have confirmed Peel's observation.

When a just punishment is misapplied, OF COURSE it will have the wrong effect!

It's literally the inverse of what we've been arguing against.

Your position advocates the wrong punishment for the right crime. Peel noted the position of having the RIGHT punishment for the WRONG crime.

NEITHER would show an accurate amount of deterrent because BOTH are unjust.

We are advocating the RIGHT punishment for the RIGHT crime, namely, the death penalty for those are deserving of death.

The Deterrence Hypothesis and Picking Pockets at the Pickpocket's Hanging
David A. Anderson
American Law and Economics Review, Volume 4, Issue 2, 1 August 2002, Pages 295–313
Abstract
The tenet that harsher penalties could substantially reduce crime rates rests on the assumption that currently active criminals weigh the costs and benefits of their contemplated acts. Existing and proposed crime strategies exhibit this belief, as does a large and growing segment of the crime literature. This study examines the premise that criminals make informed and calculated decisions. The findings suggest that 76% of active criminals and 89% of the most violent criminals either perceive no risk of apprehension or are incognizant of the likely punishments for their crimes.

:blabla:

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you. . . . Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel.And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously. - Deuteronomy 17:6-7,12-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:6-7,12-13&version=NKJV

 

[The Barbarian]

Is "don't judge or punish anyone for anything" really the takeaway from this story for you?

If that's what people get from it, then I'd say they didn't really get it. He did judge her, BTW. "Go and sin no more." He's condemning the sin. But He chose to not condemn her, even judging her as a sinner. For which we all should be very grateful. Except those of us without sin, of course. If that's any of you reading this, my apologies. Feel free to first throw a stone.

This is something I think most people are uncomfortable approaching as a subject.

The crowd, looking for a killing, for example:

John 8:9 But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest.

They were fortunate. His words, if they were willing to set aside their lust for vengence, were healing for them, too. The story is far more then "don't be so eager to avenge yourself on other sinners."

Also, violent crime doesn't quite correlate with gun ownership.

The evidence strongly suggests that you're right.

Violent crime is just high long people who tend to want the marshmallow now, rather than two later.

Actually, violent crime, even with the uptick in the last two years, is down markedly from just a few decades ago.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Evidence shows that the severity of punishment does not work as well as the certainty of getting caught)

Such a claim is contrary to scripture.

It's contrary to your reading of scripture, which is quite another thing.

 

[Supremum]

Actually, violent crime, even with the uptick in the last two years, is down markedly from just a few decades ago.

Sure, but I think the most popular explanation is that it has more to do with unleaded gasoline laws being enacted a couple of decades before the drop, not anything dealing with social programs or attitudes. The murder rate in Chicago is still 3 times higher than during Al Capone's reign.

This Robert Peel guy was wrong, because his analysis goes against the God of the Universe's analysis, which is that putting to death criminals worthy of death deters crime, and even commanded men do to so.

Where did God ever say that his laws would deter crime? Week's analysis is flatly orthogonal to God's commands.

 

[JudgeRightly]

(Evidence shows that the severity of punishment does not work as well as the certainty of getting caught)

Sorry, but the argument is not on the severity of the punishment for a crime.

It's on whether how well a punishment serves as a deterrent.

Your point was addressed already.

MISAPPLICATION of a just punishment is unjust, and whatever deterrent effect that punishment had loses its severity because of it.

The RIGHT punishment for the RIGHT crime, namely, the death penalty for those who are worthy of death, has the greatest deterrent effect.

It's contrary to your reading of scripture, which is quite another thing.

You missed it, I quoted scripture immediately after the line you quoted (and it seems you ignored the rest of my post too).

Would you please explain how my position is NOT consistent with Ecclesiastes 8:11 and Deuteronomy 17:6-7,12-13?

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel.And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously. - Deuteronomy 17:6-7,12-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:6-7,12-13&version=NKJV

 

[JudgeRightly]

Where did God ever say that his laws would deter crime?

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you. . . . Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel.And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously. - Deuteronomy 17:6-7,12-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:6-7,12-13&version=NKJV

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

And many other places throughout the Bible.

Week's analysis is flatly orthogonal to God's commands.

Who's Week?

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure, but I think the most popular explanation is that it has more to do with unleaded gasoline laws being enacted a couple of decades before the drop, not anything dealing with social programs or attitudes. The murder rate in Chicago is still 3 times higher than during Al Capone's reign.

It peaked at about 15 per 100,000 people in Capone's time.

For its part, Chicago ranked 14th among cities with at least 100,000 people in 2017. Its 653 murders, measured against a population of more than 2.7 million, translated to a murder rate of 24.1 homicides per 100,000. That was less than half the rate in St. Louis and Baltimore and below the rates of cities including Cleveland; Memphis, Tennessee; and Newark, New Jersey.

There were 563 homicides in Chicago in 2018.

Where did God ever say that his laws would deter crime? Week's analysis is flatly orthogonal to God's commands.

It is not the function of the government to support religious beliefs. The only function of government in punishment, is to deter crime. There are, I think, still some nations that use governmental force to enforce religious beliefs. But not here.

The great decrease in homicide in the United States is, I think, mainly due to changing demographics. Homicide is mostly something young males do, and their are relatively fewer and fewer young males, as the population ages. Also, Hispanics represent an increasing proportion of the population.

 

[Supremum]

It peaked at about 15 per 100,000 people in Capone's time.

For its part, Chicago ranked 14th among cities with at least 100,000 people in 2017. Its 653 murders, measured against a population of more than 2.7 million, translated to a murder rate of 24.1 homicides per 100,000. That was less than half the rate in St. Louis and Baltimore and below the rates of cities including Cleveland; Memphis, Tennessee; and Newark, New Jersey.

There were 563 homicides in Chicago in 2018.

I'm having trouble finding the work I got that from. It might have meant specific neighborhoods, I don't quite remember. It is telling though that it is still higher.

The great decrease in homicide in the United States is, I think, mainly due to changing demographics. Homicide is mostly something young males do, and their are relatively fewer and fewer young males, as the population ages. Also, Hispanics represent an increasing proportion of the population.

Ehh, I'd give video games(and possibly pornography) more credit than I would demographics, though Hispanics are, in general, less violent and criminal than Africans.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm having trouble finding the work I got that from. It might have meant specific neighborhoods, I don't quite remember. It is telling though that it is still higher.

Yes, depending on the neighborhood, in Chicago, the rate can be much higher or much lower. Generally, the West Side and the South Side are the worst. Every sizable city is like that, with safer and less safe areas.

(Barbarian suggests the great reduction in violent crime since the 1990s, is likely due to the smaller percentage of young males in the population, and the increase in Hispanics)

Ehh, I'd give video games(and possibly pornography) more credit than I would demographics,

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that video games have anything to do with it. I certainly don't see how they would bring the violent crime rate down. There is a correlation between the number of violent video games in circulation, and the decrease in violent crime, but correlation isn't necessarily causation. Supposedly, there's been a reduction in pornography being sold, but I'm guessing that it's due to the fact that almost everyone has a computer now.

though Hispanics are, in general, less violent and criminal than Africans.

And whites. Ironically, one of the safest places in the United States is a city on the Mexican border with a high percentage of illegal aliens.

 

[tieman55]

RE: Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
A swift execution upon conviction isn't a deterrent in a culture that embraces death.

I disagree, I believe it does deter crime, but I will accept your conclusion in order to advance the debate.

The deterrence in my scheme has a second level, that is for the victims to profit from the death of the murderer.

If the victims profited in a big way with millions of dollars, the shooter is going to "feel" as if he has benefited the people he wanted to hurt. Now that is a deterrent! Would be shooters will rethink their premeditated actions, not wanting to help their enemies.

 

[The Barbarian]

RE: Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
A swift execution upon conviction isn't a deterrent in a culture that embraces death.

I disagree, I believe it does deter crime, but I will accept your conclusion in order to advance the debate.

The deterrence in my scheme has a second level, that is for the victims to profit from the death of the murderer.

If the victims profited in a big way with millions of dollars, the shooter is going to "feel" as if he has benefited the people he wanted to hurt. Now that is a deterrent! Would be shooters will rethink their premeditated actions, not wanting to help their enemies.

Back to the Anglo-Saxon weregild, um?

 

[Stripe]

It's easy to tell when Barbarian is flustered. He starts umming.

 

[Ktoyou]

We kill far more murderers than the vast majority of nations. We are just behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Egypt. Is that the company you'd like American to be in?

Let's see how much good it's doing:

We're 94th in the world in homicide rates. Which puts us in the top 100 of about 230. Mostly Africa and us. That's the neighborhood you want?

Well, maybe it's all the states in the US that have banned executions. Let's look at that...

Again, more homicides in states that kill murderers. consistently more, over a long period of time. Notice that as murder rates have fallen, the difference between death penalty states and non-death penalty states has gotten larger.



Maybe murderers just aren't very smart, you think?



See above. Turns out, the data show just the opposite. But you didn't say how many innocent people you were willing to have killed in order to have more rapid executions. How many do you think would be acceptable?

As you know, in Texas alone, there are dozens of people wrongly sentenced to death, who are alive only because they kept appeals going long enough for someone to find that they could not have committed those murders. Would you be O.K. with killing that many innocent people in order to kill murderers more quickly?



I can see you're sincere in your imagining, and I don't doubt you believe what you're saying. Your intention is to save innocent lives, not take them. But reality is found in the facts. If you had your way, more innocent people will die. And mostly by the state taking those lives. How many such killings of innocent people would be acceptable to you, in order to kill murderers more quickly?

There is a confounding factor. Death penalty states have higher crime rates ad sum. The tendency is crime has dropped for time for both groups.