Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, we should keep it

13 (24.5%)

No, we should ban it

40 (75.5%)

Total Members Voted: 52

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yeah, often you'll see laws go unenforced that have extremely severe punishments, but don't act as a deterrent. Desertion in WWII is a good example, when the US only executed one unfortunate guy to try and set an example... I've also seen it with copyright law, when you hear about someone getting $200,000 in fines or something for pirating music.

Which is ridiculous as that is also one of the practices that the Eighth almost explicitly exists to prevent. If the common punishment is "no punishment", then making examples of people like that is extremely unconstitutional.

[WealthyRadish]

Right, I think people normally think of that amendment as preventing torture (which is also neat), but punishment as an example is the other use that unfortunately doesn't always get called out.

[Graknorke]

This is, strange. I am quite sure you are saying the reasons people choose not to commit a crime is not punishment, but the very fact of being illegal.

No, people have reasons to not commit crimes completely unrelated to the law. And generally these reasons are far better than "because if I do it I might get X punishment".

[Neonivek]

Right, I think people normally think of that amendment as preventing torture (which is also neat), but punishment as an example is the other use that unfortunately doesn't always get called out.

Basically. It is against needless and cruel punishments. Something that was rather common for the time.

Executions however? I don't think the 8th amendment was ever created to prevent those.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The 8th wasn't created to prevent specific punishments. It was created to regulate punishment. The actual status of how we deal with criminals is not addressed by the 8th at all, and is a changing standard of the times. The death penalty is obviously both cruel and unusual in the modern day, which makes it unconstitutional.

[GlyphGryph]

In the US, a convicted murderer once released has about a 1.7% chance of murdering again.

If 4% of people on death row are innocent, that means the death penalty is more than twice as likely to kill an innocent than a known murderer is.

You are aware that using "statistics" to tell obvious lies like this weakens your case rather than strengthening it right? Especially since honest statistics might actually support you here, so it makes it look like you're only here for cheap rhetorical flourishes that intentionally muddy the water.

[Neonivek]

Not to mention, that's not saying it's twice as likely to kill an innocent as it is a murderer. It's saying it's twice as likely to kill an innocent than someone who commits the crime once again. They're still a murderer.

It is supposed to open up the myth of "It prevents further murders by killing the murderers" by saying that it kills more innocent people then it does protect innocents from reoffending murderers.

[kaenneth]

In the US, a convicted murderer once released has about a 1.7% chance of murdering again.

If 4% of people on death row are innocent, that means the death penalty is more than twice as likely to kill an innocent than a known murderer is.

You are aware that using "statistics" to tell obvious lies like this weakens your case rather than strengthening it right? Especially since honest statistics might actually support you here, so it makes it look like you're only here for cheap rhetorical flourishes that intentionally muddy the water.

You are correct, I've found an issue with the data I used.

A murderer murdering again within 3 years of release only has a 1.2% chance, it's 1.7% chance of murdering if convicted for a violent crime in general.

[Eclectic Wizard]

I am a member of amnesty international, if that says enough?

[Caz]

I'll just pop in to state that vengeance and retribution has no place in any justice system. Note that this is very distinct from "deterrent"; punishing someone to deter someone else from committing the same crime (or the same person from committing the same crime, ala what parents do to children) can be effective.

Remember the ultimate goal is prevention of crimes. If the end is anything else, then we've got problems.

I thought the justice system was about cheap labour and generating profit for corporations? Now you got me all confused.

Norway seems to have their justice system sorted out, while USA is the worst among first-world countries. Though I wouldn't like to live in a crowded 100-person cell where the only food you'll see has to be brought in by your family.

But back to the topic... the death penalty is already banned here. Executing people doesn't help anything, imo.