[KSig RC]

haha - Sorry if I wasn't inordinately clear - I'll try to clean it up a bit, and not jump into arguing logic as much as I did the last post, terminology can become jargon quite easily.

Originally posted by justamom
KSig RC , What in the heck are you arguing??? I'm sorry, but I'm a tad lost.
When you posted the link, you introduced it for discussion.

OK - the reasoning for the citation was perverted in later arguments, I feel. The point was that the death penalty would NOT have 'prevented' (directly) many of the crimes from that particular case study. This was an attack on your point that "dead people don't commit crimes" - evidence shows that to be true . . . and there aren't a lot of repeat murderers. Many crimes are committed by repeat offenders - but not necessarily repeat capital offenders, and seeing as we're discussing the death penalty, I found it necessary to point out that the death penalty would NOT have 'prevented' (in a direct, measurable sense) crimes in many of these cases. Remember - capital crimes are an extremely small part of overall crime, and even of violent crime in general.

Originally posted by justamom
The death penalty is not "instituted" it is an option that a jury has. I am for having this option available, and yes, if I were a juror who was convinced, I would use it.

True, and well-put.

Originally posted by justamom
Crime is ALL about values.

This is a values statement - not an arguable point, and I'll respect it as such. Criminal behavior is extremely complex.

Originally posted by justamom
Yes,criminals lose their rights. Being put in jail, they lose their "right" to freedoms of all sorts. The justice system offers them council (even though it could be inept council) to help protect those rights...to "help" see JUSTICE is served. Now, I know we can all get into a discussion of justice, but that too is philisophical.

Wow - not true, unless I'm taking this the wrong way. The criminal loses certain freedoms and rights, which is supposed to be a rehabilitative measure. In the US, they are still protected under the US constitution (see: amendments to constitution specifically), and in no way lose rights to freedom of all sorts (ie speech, assembly, representation). My point was that if you're going to argue Gov'tal responsibility to its citizens, then you must concede that, under the current system of rights granted to all citizens, the gov't has a right to protect and attempt to rehabilitate AND/OR punish criminals effectively - and I'm simply questioning the effectiveness of this type of punishment, as part of the current system.

Originally posted by justamom
The reference to looking to our homes and family life is nothing new when discussing topics of this nature. The thread did bring up the issue of Death Penalty as a deterent to future crime didn't it? Check out some Soc. and Psych courses as they reinforce the cause/effect that values and experiences one learns through their environment has in relationship to future crime. The time to deter crime is not after the fact. As a side note, I already took those courses and don't feel a need to post a link. The bit about Spock-Actually, it was a little FYI ( a universal FYI, not you individualy) that is interesting in the context of crime & deterents.

I'm familiar with the topic - although perhaps not to the same level that you are, after all I'm studying a topic only related passingly.

HOWEVER - you are not correct in assuming the death penalty to be an effective deterrent to future crime. I posted a citation above that combines many studies into one overriding hypothesis to this point, and if you look you'll find many more. As Lil_G pointed out, I have never seen evidence to the contrary; however, many studies have shown evidence against the death penalty being an effective deterrent for crime. As you said - the time to prevent crime is not after the fact, and that's what the death penalty becomes.

To my mind, this is not a strong point in favor of the death penalty; I have stated previously the only basis on which I think a solid platform can be built, and a simple one at that - I can justify the death penalty to myself on a conceptual basis simply as a punishment, but can't justify making it a part of our legal system.

Originally posted by justamom
Of course there are different degrees of criminal behavior. This is a death penalty discussion, not parking violations. I don't think any two people on this thread hold the exact same "measuring stick" on the lower end, but for those who favor the death penalty
there are those case that hold no doubt.

Good point - I was merely questioning the extensibility of the use of such a penalty, as well as the extensibility of the "A criminal is a criminal" concept, and was only doing this for discussion purposes.

The decision for which crimes to punish capitally begets a difficult problem, though - I don't know that there really is a 'line in the sand' as such where everyone who supports the death penalty will, in fact, know the crime deserves death. This introduces some sort of moral standard to crime and punishment, doesn't it? This, I feel, removes the 'blind justice' aspect to the judicial system. Why is one occurance of any crime worse than any other? Is moral outrage enough to institute a harsher penalty? I don't know - this almost smacks more of revenge than punishment.

Originally posted by justamom
Now I'll tell everyone what one of our neighbors think- He thinks those on death row should be used in medical experiments & trials...Now THAT'S a thought....

haha - interesting . . . ; )