Why we should enforce the death penalty

[Lady Sidhe]

This is in response to the racial and socioeconomic aspect of DP-worthy crimes. According to the FBI:


The vast majority of sexual sadists in the FBI study (these are the ones who turn into serial killers)--29 out of 30--were whites of european descent.

Blacks and Hispanics are statistically underrepresented, not only among sexual sadists, but among most classes of ritualistic serial criminals. Robert Ressler and John Douglas, in their serial killer survey, interviewed 36 murderers responsible for 118 deaths. Of these, 33 were white males. When Ann Burgess and Roy Hazelwood studied 41 serial rapists (responsible for 837 rapes and more than 400 attempted rapes) there were 36 whites and five blacks. In Hazelwood's study of twenty compliant wives and girlfriends of sexual sadists, 17 were white, 2 were hispanic, and only one was black. In his later study of 150 autoerotic fatalities, 139 of the victims were white and only 7 were black.


Notice how few individuals were responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes: 36 murderers responsible for 188 deaths, and 41 rapists responsible for 1,237 assaults!

A mere 77 people responsible for 1,425 life-destroying acts. These are people who will continue to offend until they're stopped. As they were recidivists, prison had apparantly not rehabilitated them. I'll bet a rope would rehabilitate them....

The white v. black deviant offender also have other differences:

Black rapists cross the racial line much more frequently than do white rapists, and tend to assault elderly women much more often.

As cases of black ritualistic sexual offenders came to Hazelwood's attention, he found that these offenders tended to come from middle-class or higher families. He believes that "as more blacks and hispanics move into the middle class, they will begin to display more of the ritualistic behaviors currently associated with white offenders."


So what this is saying is:

Most serial murderers and rapists will tend to be WHITE.

The HIGHER up on the socioeconomic ladder, the more minorities will engage in the serial, ritualistic types of sexual criminal behavior. So all this "poor" talk holds less water than it would first seem when it comes to serial sexual assault-murders.

Also, it has been found, in a study of 30 sexual sadists, that over half had no arrest record prior to the crimes for which they were imprisoned. (This means that they were probably slapped on the wrist for minor crimes such as peeping, flashing, or obscene phone calls since most sexual assaulters begin small and work their way up the violence ladder. Often these offenses are dropped, or happened during childhood, and the records were expunged or sealed, making it appear that the person had no previous instances of deviant behavior. This is why these offenses should not be taken lightly--they can indicate future behavior, and show previous bad behavior when the offender finally DOES harm someone)

According to Hazelwood, "The fact that some of the most heinous offenders operating in North America had no arrest history is a strong testament to their planning and intelligence."


These are the people we're taking care of, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. Remind me again why they deserve luxuries that many law-abiding citizens can't afford?? Remind me why they deserve the state's mercy when they didn't feel their victims deserved the same? Remind me why they deserve to live?

Being a human being didn't keep their victims alive, and therefore shouldn't be an excuse to keep them alive either, IMO.



Sidhe

[OnyxCougar]

Still another theory, recently advanced by so-called Evolutionary Psychologists, takes the radical view that rape is a natural biological phenomenon. To paraphrase one adherent, rape is an unfortunate but nonetheless adaptive strategy for passing on one's genes. In my view, this reasoning will go the way of the extra Y chromosome theory.

I just want to bring it up briefly here that this is just one of the reasons I don't buy into Evolutionary theory.

I am very PRO-personal responsibility. Many people (not all) that believe in the Evolutionary Theory are Humanists, that is, they believe they answer to no one, everything happened randomly, it was all astronomical chance that we're here anyway. Their actions don't matter.

"Animals do it, so it's ok."
"That's what my dad did, and his dad did. It's in my genes."

And I don't mean to beat a very dead horse about the CvE issue, and I'm not bringing Christianity into the argument at this point at all, I'm just saying that it's typical of people that want a scapegoat and not be responsible for themselves bring Evolution into it.

Other than that, preach on Sidhe...

[Lady Sidhe]

When it comes to evolution, I don't think that it can be used as an excuse for bad behavior. I mean hell, even a wolf will stop mid-attack when its opponent wolf shows submission. HUMANS don't do that. You show submission and a human criminal will beat the living shit out of you, then rape and kill you.

Animals seem to be more evolved than humans when it comes to stable societies.


Sidhe

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
I just want to bring it up briefly here that this is just one of the reasons I don't buy into Evolutionary theory.

And the one reason I'll take science over religion any day is that in time the bad ideas go out the window instead of us being stuck with them.

In theory...

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Animals seem to be more evolved than humans when it comes to stable societies.

That's because they are less encumbered by intellect.

There are some people who have a real problem with sapience.

[Torrere]

Children exhibit the surrender reflex. I suspect that it's a society-reinforcing thing.

Would a wolf stop mid-attack if it's opponent were from a different pack? Would a wolf surrender if it was not part of the same society as it's opponent?

[DanaC]

I'm just saying that it's typical of people that want a scapegoat and not be responsible for themselves bring Evolution into it.

............because nobody ever abdicates responsibilty for their lives to God......Nobody ever claims God told them to do it, or it was God's will that prostitues should die.....Nobody ever uses religion as an excuse or rationale for killing. In my experience evolutionists consider themselves more responsible for their actions not less. We *know* there's nobody else but us to answer to.

[wolf]

Originally posted by DanaC


............because nobody ever abdicates responsibilty for their lives to God......Nobody ever claims God told them to do it, or it was God's will that prostitues should die.....Nobody ever uses religion as an excuse or rationale for killing.

Damn straight they do ... and have since there has been religion. Just look at the crusades. Or the suicide bombing a day in Israel.

"God told me to" is not as popular a defense as "some other dude did it" but it's there.

It's used as an excuse ... it's also a real, strongly held belief. I had a patient who killed his mother and father and damn near killed his brother (who escaped and called the cops) because his family had been replaced by demons and god told him to kill them all. He didn't keep this a secret from his family, btw ... he told them, flat out, "God is telling me to kill you."

It was his first break. His parents didn't believe him.

One of the rare genuine Not Guilty By Reason of Insanities.

[Catwoman]

Lady Sidhe: The only real answer I can give to that is the fact that the penalties for crimes are well-known. We have established punishments, agreed upon them, and codified them as law. The individual, as part of the society, accepts those laws, and when s/he violates one or more of those laws, s/he knows the penalty.

Agreed.

What we are talking about here is establishing a set of rules - a consensus - for society to abide by. In a democracy, this is ruled by the majority. But what if a majority is wrong?

Quote: Happy Monkey
So laws are self-justified by their existence? That logic is a bit circular.

Ideally, potential punishment should = deterrent. A more likely equation is:

Payoff - (Punishment + level of psychosis + desire for instant gratification) = oh fuck it I'll do the crime anyway.

Research shows that the penalty is not given rational consideration in crimes such as these. So how do we deter? Punishment, reparation, retaliation - these are futile. They do not compensate, they do not resolve. I suggest, and this is the basis of my argument, that not enough is known about the phenomena of murder. Until we understand its root causes, we cannot respond to it. Let us take the time at whatever economical cost to get this one right, and then abolish it forever. Idealist? Yes. Impossible? It was once deemed impossible that the world could be round, that there wasn't a god, and that the earth revolved around the sun.

[Lady Sidhe]

"Violent crimes committed by the severely disturbed tend to attract a disproportionate amount of attention from the press. In fact, the mentally ill are responsible for less than 3% of sexual crimes."

"Perhaps the most obvious (and most frightening) explanation of all is that some offenders commit crimes simply because they want to! They like it! And they have no regard for what the rest of society thinks."

--Roy Hazelwood (who has worked with violent serial criminals for twenty years)


SOCIOPATHS do not feel remorse or shame, guilt or appropriate fear. THEY DO NOT LEARN FROM PUNISHMENT. They are easily bored. They like excitement. They find it difficult to delay gratification, no matter where their self-interest may lie. They are chronic liars, even when they have no need or reason to lie. They have no understanding of, or concern for, the harm they cause others. The only concern they have is for their own gratification.



Catwoman: "Payoff - (Punishment + level of psychosis + desire for instant gratification) = oh fuck it I'll do the crime anyway.

Research shows that the penalty is not given rational consideration in crimes such as these...."


The level of psychosis isn't something that has to be placed in the equation all, or even MOST, of the time. Despite the nature of the crimes, these people aren't psychotic. A personality disorder is not insanity. Legal insanity and medical insanity are two different things. Being a sociopath does not mean you're insane, and it's not an excuse.

It's not my problem if they don't consider the consequences of their actions. That's just too bad for them if they get caught. And many serial criminals DO consider the consequences. Why else would they try to cover their tracks if not to prevent capture? Evasion indicates knowledge of right and wrong, and that knowledge means that they do not want to pay the consequences, and are taking steps to prevent it.

People who go around indulging in violent whims, and who cannot be rehabilitated (sociopaths), don't garner any sympathy for me. They enjoy what they do, and as long as they're free, they'll continue to do it. There's no point in warehousing them.

As was said before, if the justice system would treat minor offenses, such as window peeping, exposure, offensive, repetitive crank calling, and animal cruelty with more concern, we might be able to catch these guys before they graduate to killing. However, once these people have gratified their urge, they don't go back. How do you rehabilitate someone who cares only for his own desires, and thinks the rest of the world is there for him to use in order to fulfill those desires?


Sidhe

[Torrere]

And God said "Let there be rape"

[Catwoman]

It's not my problem if they don't consider the consequences of their actions.

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY YOUR PROBLEM! If a murderer possessed a true, rational and *sane* sense of consequence they would not kill. Isn't that the problem here? We do not want people to kill. We want murder not to exist. Can you see that far? Can you imagine the possibility?

You're not listening. I am not validating, excusing or justifying murder in any way. We are already agreed on that one. You don't need to keep telling me how wrong it is. You don't need to keep telling me how society shouldn't have to pay for or accommodate them, that they don't 'deserve' to live or that insanity is no excuse to kill.

I am trying to look for a way to progress. To take steps to ensure that, at some point, there will be no need for discussions like these. The dp is PROVEN ineffective as a deterrent. States that do not have the dp have LOWER murder rates. It serves no purpose. It is barbaric and futile. We need to collect and correlate social, environmental and physiological factors into some kind of profile to help us establish the CAUSE of violent crime and then treat the reason, not the symptom. And logistics, while important, should not present any barrier to something so fundamental.

Despite the nature of the crimes, these people aren't psychotic.

Can that statement possibly hold any truth?

Evasion indicates knowledge of right and wrong, and that knowledge means that they do not want to pay the consequences, and are taking steps to prevent it.

Yes, assuming these people are in a sane, logical and rational frame of mind (see above).

How do you rehabilitate someone who cares only for his own desires, and thinks the rest of the world is there for him to use in order to fulfill those desires?

If this is the case (and forgive my ignorance - but I happen to think the circumstances surrounding a murder are a little more complex than this), then rehabilitation is not the most important issue. I am sure there are cases where it will never be possible to reintroduce such an individual into society. But that doesn't mean we cannot learn from them. Aileen Wuornos was interviewed by a psychologist for 15 minutes before determining that she was sane, and was subsequently sentenced to death. Our criminal research facilities are horribly inept, both here and the USA. I keep reiterating that not enough is known and we should establish reason before dictating solution.

[depmats]

If they knowingly, willfully murder someone - not in self defense - kill them. Quickly, not after years on death row, wasting tax payers' money on their existence and their legal appeals. In a clearly unapologetic manner - end them.

If they are "insane" and they commit the same crime - end them. Why is "not being in the right frame of mind" an acceptable defense?

Maybe if the punishments were a little closer to "an eye for an eye" and were swiftly and strictly enforced, the dipshit down the street might think twice about committing a violent crime. Many violent crimes are committed by cowards who may be deterred by the knowledge that there are real and really painful consequences to their actions.

[Clodfobble]

Psychological studies have unequivocally shown that increased punishments are a very low deterrent, but increased chances of getting caught are a very high deterrent.

Think of it this way: would you rather gamble $100 with only a 10% chance of winning, or gamble $1000 with a 90% chance of winning?

The fact that you might lose $1000 is lost to your brain, doesn't matter if it's a hundred thousand. You look and say, "I have a 90% chance of winning! I'll do it!" whereas with the first option you say, "That sounds like a great way to get screwed out of $100. No thanks."

Human beings are risk-takers. It's all about what you think your chances are, not what the possible losses are.

Just tossin' that onto the fire.

[depmats]

Is it possible to carry that same point back to the risks/outweighing the benefits. If i do x, and am caught there is a 60% chance i will spend 10 years in prison vs. if i do x, and get caught i WILL be executed.

I don't know that you can prove a right or wrong view on this one. But I still fall on the side of extreme, swift, consistant penalty for crimes.

I do speed because the consequence is a piddly ticket
I don't drive while intoxicated because i don't like going to jail.