No love lost for child rapists, but I question why the "I don't trust the gubment" TN Christian Fascist legislators have implicit faith that every person convicted for a crime is convicted correctly. The criminal justice system isn't exactly non-governmental or non-bureaucratic. Are they disingenuous or just kinda dumb?
If they're in government they're disingenuous. I think the death penalty is more about sating the base animal desire for righteous vengeance, which is funny since they're supposed to be forgiving.
Would I rather my child was raped or raped and then killed so they wouldn't get caught? Horrible either way but that's an easy choice. Plus, I can exact the death penalty myself after the rapist is sentenced to prison.
People capable of raping a child aren't always capable of murder.
Your argument is a fallacy. Just stop.
Do you think people who rape children are like, well I can leave them alive because if i get caught i only go to jail?
Your argument that people won't kill because they don't have it in them, when they will die if they do not. It becomes kill or be killed, with a child there.
Your argument that *not all* of them will kill the child is dismissive of the lives which will be lost.
Please continue to argue your point, as it only highlights your casual disregard for human life.
Except that isn't the case, and your argument is known as the Brutilization hypthothesis. Its debunked many times.
[https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty](https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty)
[https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03930-000](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03930-000)
[https://users.nber.org/\~jwolfers/papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf](https://users.nber.org/~jwolfers/papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf)
In other words you are wrong.
Your first link is to a book, the description of the book only says people argue about it.
From your second link "However, by facilitating death sentencing in these ways, this interrelated set of forces also undermines the reliability and authenticity of the process, and compromises the fairness of its outcomes."
Argues that people are distanced from capital punishment, therefore are more apt to support it. I don't know what that has to do with your argument, but okay.
From your third link "“strong consensus among economists that capital punishment deters crime."
Economists, fucking really? You gonna cite farmers on a paper for relativistic physics next?
You may be able to just Google shit and cite stuff you haven't read to the layman but you didn't get lucky this time.
In other words, you're knowingly deceitful and full of utter bullshit.
Sure, here is an excrpt from a paper I wrote in university actually.
The economics of crime, particularly in relation to the death penalty and the prevention of criminal activity, involves the analysis of how economic incentives, costs, and benefits influence criminal behavior and the effectiveness of various criminal justice policies. Here are some key concepts and findings in this field:
# 1. Deterrence Theory
Deterrence theory suggests that the threat of punishment can reduce criminal activity by increasing the perceived cost of committing crimes. There are two main types of deterrence:
* **General Deterrence**: The idea that potential offenders are discouraged from committing crimes because they observe the consequences (like the death penalty) faced by others.
* **Specific Deterrence**: The concept that individuals who are punished for a crime are less likely to commit further crimes because of their firsthand experience of the punishment.
# 2. Cost-Benefit Analysis
Economists often use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the death penalty's effectiveness in deterring crime:
* **Costs**: The death penalty can be more expensive than life imprisonment due to lengthy legal processes, appeals, and the higher costs associated with death row incarceration.
* **Benefits**: Potential benefits include the deterrent effect and the incapacitation of particularly dangerous individuals.
# 3. Empirical Evidence on Deterrence
The empirical evidence on whether the death penalty deters crime is mixed and highly debated:
* **Studies Supporting Deterrence**: Some studies suggest that executions may have a deterrent effect on murder rates, indicating that potential offenders might be dissuaded by the threat of capital punishment.
* **Studies Opposing Deterrence**: Other research finds little to no evidence that the death penalty effectively deters crime compared to life imprisonment. These studies often highlight methodological issues, such as the difficulty of isolating the death penalty's effect from other factors influencing crime rates.
#
Part 2:
# 4. Marginal Deterrence
Marginal deterrence refers to the additional deterrent effect of the death penalty compared to other forms of punishment like life imprisonment without parole. If life imprisonment already serves as a strong deterrent, the incremental deterrent effect of the death penalty might be minimal.
# 5. Opportunity Costs
The funds used to maintain the death penalty system could potentially be redirected to other crime prevention measures, such as improved policing, education, social services, and rehabilitation programs. These alternatives may offer more cost-effective ways to reduce crime.
# 6. Incapacitation
The death penalty provides permanent incapacitation, ensuring that executed individuals cannot commit further crimes. However, life imprisonment without parole also achieves this goal without the ethical and financial complexities associated with the death penalty.
# 7. Moral and Ethical Considerations
While economic analysis provides valuable insights, the death penalty also raises significant moral and ethical questions that go beyond economic considerations. Public opinion, the potential for wrongful executions, and human rights concerns play crucial roles in shaping policies.
# 8. Comparative Analysis
Comparing jurisdictions with and without the death penalty can provide insights:
* **Cross-Country Comparisons**: Some studies compare countries or states with differing death penalty policies to assess its impact on crime rates.
* **Natural Experiments**: Instances where the death penalty is abolished or reinstated provide opportunities to observe changes in crime rates and assess causality.
In summary, the economics of crime in relation to the death penalty involves evaluating the deterrent effect, costs, and benefits of capital punishment compared to alternative measures. While economic analysis can offer insights into the effectiveness and efficiency of the death penalty, it must be considered alongside ethical, legal, and social factors to form comprehensive public policy.
There’s a push within the Republican Party to make being gay or trans around children a sex crime. This is another step towards being able to legally give the death penalty to them
>No love lost for child rapists, but I question why the "I don't trust the gubment" TN Christian Fascist legislators have implicit faith that every person convicted for a crime is convicted correctly
Since when have the christofascists ever been logically consistent?
From their perspective it's just another empty feel good law designed to appeal to right wing culture warriors just like the chemtrail law they passed.
If they cared about protecting children they would focus on going after the many religious leaders that continue to get caught abusing children.
Only thing I got is that if molestation gets you the death penalty, it's probably going to make the offender less hesitant about killing a kid to avoid being caught. It's not like doubling up on capital crimes will make the punishment any worse at that point.
Except that isn't the case, and your argument is known as the Brutilization hypthothesis. Its debunked many times.
[https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty](https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty)
[https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03930-000](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03930-000)
[https://users.nber.org/\~jwolfers/papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf](https://users.nber.org/~jwolfers/papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf)
In other words you are wrong.
I actually think you’re misinterpreting what the person above posted. The brutalization effect is when the death penalty causes a societal disregard for life. What the commenter is stating is Becarias theory on criminology that harsher sentences can lead to more crimes being committed to avoid harsher penalties.
I’m your scenario, Persona A lives in society x. Society x imposes the death penalty. This causes Person A to have a lower respect for life and if provoked may make him more likely to kill. What the commenter is stating is that if Person A lives in a society where sexual assault is a capital offense than he is more likely to kill his victim if he had sexually assaulted them as the penalty would not change if he was caught and he is incentivized as there wouldn’t be a witness. It is two seperate cases atleast in terms of your use of brutalization theory
I dont think any of those links addresses my premise. They are answering a different question than the one I am answering.
They are answering, “Will the potential for capital punishment for committing the capital crime of murder lower homicide rate in victims?” It does not because someone who is going to murder will murder anyway.
The question I’m trying to answer is, “Will changing the punishment of a crime that was previously a noncapital offense into a capital offense increase the homicide rate of the victims?”
Two different questions but I don’t think there’s an answer for the second one because the only time we instituted capital punishment as a country is in response to murder/homicide. Not child sex offenses.
Again, the things i linked actually address your argument.
Your premise is wrong, there is no evidence that people just kill victims instead now. None.
There’s not evidence because nowhere in this country would you get the death penalty for raping a minor. There is now. My premise isn’t wrong or right. And you are incorrect for assuming a hypothesis that hasn’t been tested as wrong.
There are other comparable items.
Just stop, you are wrong.
I love how you can try to make the argument with no evidence, but i show evidence proving you wrong and you magically say "oh its never happened so we just don't know"
Fuck off. you lost.
Are we all in agreement that jury trials are infallible and if someone is convicted by one they are absolutely did those crimes?
I was under the impression that republicans did not believe that
A false good idea, the vast majority of cases are intra-family and it is already very difficult for victims to make their voice heard (personal guilt + protection of the aggressor by the rest of the family), so with death penalty the % of denunciations would collapse
how? is your implication that child rapists will kill their victims after raping them because the penalty is now death and not life in prison? wont someone think of the pedophiles!
I’m not fan of Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, but child rapists don’t deserve any mercy.
What does this have to do with markets? There are other outlets far better suited to report on topics like this.
Puts on prisons?
You're late to the trade. CXW has already been rugged last week.
I came here to see how this is bad, and I already love the comments. Degenerates.
No love lost for child rapists, but I question why the "I don't trust the gubment" TN Christian Fascist legislators have implicit faith that every person convicted for a crime is convicted correctly. The criminal justice system isn't exactly non-governmental or non-bureaucratic. Are they disingenuous or just kinda dumb?
If they're in government they're disingenuous. I think the death penalty is more about sating the base animal desire for righteous vengeance, which is funny since they're supposed to be forgiving. Would I rather my child was raped or raped and then killed so they wouldn't get caught? Horrible either way but that's an easy choice. Plus, I can exact the death penalty myself after the rapist is sentenced to prison.
People capable of raping a child aren't always capable of murder. Your argument is a fallacy. Just stop. Do you think people who rape children are like, well I can leave them alive because if i get caught i only go to jail?
Your argument that people won't kill because they don't have it in them, when they will die if they do not. It becomes kill or be killed, with a child there. Your argument that *not all* of them will kill the child is dismissive of the lives which will be lost. Please continue to argue your point, as it only highlights your casual disregard for human life.
Except that isn't the case, and your argument is known as the Brutilization hypthothesis. Its debunked many times. [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty](https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty) [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03930-000](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03930-000) [https://users.nber.org/\~jwolfers/papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf](https://users.nber.org/~jwolfers/papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf) In other words you are wrong.
Your first link is to a book, the description of the book only says people argue about it. From your second link "However, by facilitating death sentencing in these ways, this interrelated set of forces also undermines the reliability and authenticity of the process, and compromises the fairness of its outcomes." Argues that people are distanced from capital punishment, therefore are more apt to support it. I don't know what that has to do with your argument, but okay. From your third link "“strong consensus among economists that capital punishment deters crime." Economists, fucking really? You gonna cite farmers on a paper for relativistic physics next? You may be able to just Google shit and cite stuff you haven't read to the layman but you didn't get lucky this time. In other words, you're knowingly deceitful and full of utter bullshit.
Wrong. You just don't understand what the economics of crime means lol.
Then explain it in your own words?
Sure, here is an excrpt from a paper I wrote in university actually. The economics of crime, particularly in relation to the death penalty and the prevention of criminal activity, involves the analysis of how economic incentives, costs, and benefits influence criminal behavior and the effectiveness of various criminal justice policies. Here are some key concepts and findings in this field: # 1. Deterrence Theory Deterrence theory suggests that the threat of punishment can reduce criminal activity by increasing the perceived cost of committing crimes. There are two main types of deterrence: * **General Deterrence**: The idea that potential offenders are discouraged from committing crimes because they observe the consequences (like the death penalty) faced by others. * **Specific Deterrence**: The concept that individuals who are punished for a crime are less likely to commit further crimes because of their firsthand experience of the punishment. # 2. Cost-Benefit Analysis Economists often use cost-benefit analysis to evaluate the death penalty's effectiveness in deterring crime: * **Costs**: The death penalty can be more expensive than life imprisonment due to lengthy legal processes, appeals, and the higher costs associated with death row incarceration. * **Benefits**: Potential benefits include the deterrent effect and the incapacitation of particularly dangerous individuals. # 3. Empirical Evidence on Deterrence The empirical evidence on whether the death penalty deters crime is mixed and highly debated: * **Studies Supporting Deterrence**: Some studies suggest that executions may have a deterrent effect on murder rates, indicating that potential offenders might be dissuaded by the threat of capital punishment. * **Studies Opposing Deterrence**: Other research finds little to no evidence that the death penalty effectively deters crime compared to life imprisonment. These studies often highlight methodological issues, such as the difficulty of isolating the death penalty's effect from other factors influencing crime rates. #
Part 2: # 4. Marginal Deterrence Marginal deterrence refers to the additional deterrent effect of the death penalty compared to other forms of punishment like life imprisonment without parole. If life imprisonment already serves as a strong deterrent, the incremental deterrent effect of the death penalty might be minimal. # 5. Opportunity Costs The funds used to maintain the death penalty system could potentially be redirected to other crime prevention measures, such as improved policing, education, social services, and rehabilitation programs. These alternatives may offer more cost-effective ways to reduce crime. # 6. Incapacitation The death penalty provides permanent incapacitation, ensuring that executed individuals cannot commit further crimes. However, life imprisonment without parole also achieves this goal without the ethical and financial complexities associated with the death penalty. # 7. Moral and Ethical Considerations While economic analysis provides valuable insights, the death penalty also raises significant moral and ethical questions that go beyond economic considerations. Public opinion, the potential for wrongful executions, and human rights concerns play crucial roles in shaping policies. # 8. Comparative Analysis Comparing jurisdictions with and without the death penalty can provide insights: * **Cross-Country Comparisons**: Some studies compare countries or states with differing death penalty policies to assess its impact on crime rates. * **Natural Experiments**: Instances where the death penalty is abolished or reinstated provide opportunities to observe changes in crime rates and assess causality. In summary, the economics of crime in relation to the death penalty involves evaluating the deterrent effect, costs, and benefits of capital punishment compared to alternative measures. While economic analysis can offer insights into the effectiveness and efficiency of the death penalty, it must be considered alongside ethical, legal, and social factors to form comprehensive public policy.
And you don't know what a cogent argument is. We all have gaps in knowledge.
We don't have gaps here.
So Jury Trials aren't good?
There’s a push within the Republican Party to make being gay or trans around children a sex crime. This is another step towards being able to legally give the death penalty to them
>No love lost for child rapists, but I question why the "I don't trust the gubment" TN Christian Fascist legislators have implicit faith that every person convicted for a crime is convicted correctly Since when have the christofascists ever been logically consistent? From their perspective it's just another empty feel good law designed to appeal to right wing culture warriors just like the chemtrail law they passed. If they cared about protecting children they would focus on going after the many religious leaders that continue to get caught abusing children.
Only thing I got is that if molestation gets you the death penalty, it's probably going to make the offender less hesitant about killing a kid to avoid being caught. It's not like doubling up on capital crimes will make the punishment any worse at that point.
"You are sentenced to double murder!"
This is a dumb argument.
Literally day 1 criminology. Why leave a witness?
Why leave a witness anyway? you think they think, well jail isn't that bad if i get caught. This is a dumb arguement.
Because leaving a witness would result in the death penalty where it didn’t before
Except that isn't the case, and your argument is known as the Brutilization hypthothesis. Its debunked many times. [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty](https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty) [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03930-000](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-03930-000) [https://users.nber.org/\~jwolfers/papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf](https://users.nber.org/~jwolfers/papers/DeathPenalty(SLR).pdf) In other words you are wrong.
I actually think you’re misinterpreting what the person above posted. The brutalization effect is when the death penalty causes a societal disregard for life. What the commenter is stating is Becarias theory on criminology that harsher sentences can lead to more crimes being committed to avoid harsher penalties. I’m your scenario, Persona A lives in society x. Society x imposes the death penalty. This causes Person A to have a lower respect for life and if provoked may make him more likely to kill. What the commenter is stating is that if Person A lives in a society where sexual assault is a capital offense than he is more likely to kill his victim if he had sexually assaulted them as the penalty would not change if he was caught and he is incentivized as there wouldn’t be a witness. It is two seperate cases atleast in terms of your use of brutalization theory
I dont think any of those links addresses my premise. They are answering a different question than the one I am answering. They are answering, “Will the potential for capital punishment for committing the capital crime of murder lower homicide rate in victims?” It does not because someone who is going to murder will murder anyway. The question I’m trying to answer is, “Will changing the punishment of a crime that was previously a noncapital offense into a capital offense increase the homicide rate of the victims?” Two different questions but I don’t think there’s an answer for the second one because the only time we instituted capital punishment as a country is in response to murder/homicide. Not child sex offenses.
Again, the things i linked actually address your argument. Your premise is wrong, there is no evidence that people just kill victims instead now. None.
There’s not evidence because nowhere in this country would you get the death penalty for raping a minor. There is now. My premise isn’t wrong or right. And you are incorrect for assuming a hypothesis that hasn’t been tested as wrong.
There are other comparable items. Just stop, you are wrong. I love how you can try to make the argument with no evidence, but i show evidence proving you wrong and you magically say "oh its never happened so we just don't know" Fuck off. you lost.
Are we all in agreement that jury trials are infallible and if someone is convicted by one they are absolutely did those crimes? I was under the impression that republicans did not believe that
Kind of shocked a Republican would sign us into law considering that Republicans and evangelicals are the worst child sex abusers
public school teachers are right up there
I’m not mad.
Lot of scared Republicans and Christians in Tennessee tonight
Why would they be scared? They watch out for each other and cover things up.
More like dems and famous people but sure
https://www.whoismakingnews.com/
u/glfr_59 is shaking - don't show him data let him live in his world of make believe where christian leaders and republicans aren't child rapists
Oh ya Reddit nerds really affect my life lol weirdos
Great news but wrong subreddit
A false good idea, the vast majority of cases are intra-family and it is already very difficult for victims to make their voice heard (personal guilt + protection of the aggressor by the rest of the family), so with death penalty the % of denunciations would collapse
This will get more kids killed
Maybe a child rapist should just not rape a child?
You're such a genius.
Just like telling people to say no to drugs ended the drug war?
Nah they just have to get married to their abuser it's why Republicans won't ban child marriage
how? is your implication that child rapists will kill their victims after raping them because the penalty is now death and not life in prison? wont someone think of the pedophiles!
Keep down voting, but I'm right. You think these perverts want a witness to a death penalty crime?
Literally nothing to do with the market.