[GA - PASSED] Military Death Penalty Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Comfed
I don’t understand why you think people who should have the death penalty can be rehabilitated. They probably have spent their whole life training/preparing for that moment of any heinous crime.
 
Dirtha:
@Comfed
I don’t understand why you think people who should have the death penalty can be rehabilitated. They probably have spent their whole life training/preparing for that moment of any heinous crime.
Click to expand...
That’s definitely not true. It’s completely unlikely that people spend their whole lives training to commit violet crime, and even if it were true then these people were probably taught that what they were doing was right their whole lives, shouldn’t they get a chance to unlearn that? I’m not saying that excuses violent crimes.
 
@Comfed
Terrorists probably spent about 4-5 years to train for a violent crime. Do you think that serial killers don‘t plan their attacks?
 
Dirtha:
@Comfed
Terrorists probably spent about 4-5 years to train for a violent crime. Do you think that serial killers don‘t plan their attacks?
Click to expand...
They do. But not all violent criminals do. Either way, I don’t see an argument against rehabilitation.
 
The death penalty is ineffective. It has high costs with no measurable deterrent effects. A review of annual state panel data from 1977–2006 found 'no empirical support for the argument that the existence or application of the death penalty deters prospective offenders from committing homicide'. Tomislav Kovandzic et al, 'Does the death penalty save lives?' (2009) 8 Criminol and Pub Pol'y 803. Using an indirect approach to avoid the question of whether execution rate is specifically appropriate also finds no effect. Choe Jongmook, 'Another look at the deterrent effect of death penalty' (2010) J Adv Rsch in L & Econ 12. Reviews of recent literature ‘on whether there is a deterrent effect of the death penalty [are] inconclusive as a whole’. Aaron Chalfin et al, ‘What do panel studies tell us about a deterrent effect of capital punishment?’ (2013) 29 J Quant Criminol 5. While there is evidence that crime responds to better enforcement, increasing penalties does little. Aaron Chalfin and Justin McCrary, ‘Criminal Deterrence: A Review of the Literature’ (2017) 55 J Econ Lit 5.

Studies showing that there is a deterrent effect generally ‘are extremely fragile and even small changes in [methods] yield dramatically different results’. John Donohue III and Justin Wolfers, ‘Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate’ (2006) NBER working paper 11982. Some classes of models, specifically, two-stage least squares regressions, show an effect, but they are 'unconvincing because they all use a problematic structure based on poorly measured and theoretically inappropriate pseudo-probabilities... and because their instruments are of dubious validity'. John Donohue III and Justin Wolfers, 'Estimating the impact of the death penalty on murder' (2009) 11 Am L and Econ Rev 249. Even the few studies which showed a deterrent effect only did so under limited circumstances. Paul Zimmerman, 'Estimates of the Deterrent Effect of Alternative Execution Methods in the United States: 1978–2000' (2006) 65 Am J Econ & Soc 909 (finding no effect for any execution method – including hanging, gas, and firing squad – on murder rates, except that of electrocution).

Similarly, death penalty moratoriums have no impact on the level of homicides. Achim Ahrens et al, 'Do execution moratoriums increase homicide? Re-examining evidence from Illinois' (2015) 47 Appl Econ 3243. Even generally related to the deterrent effect of severity in general, 'evidence in support of the deterrent effect of the certainty of punishment is far more consistent than that for the severity of punishment' and that 'certainty of apprehension, not the severity of the ensuing legal consequence, is the more effective deterrent'. Daniel S Nagin, 'Deterrence in the twenty-first century' (2013) 42 Crime and justice 199. Reviews upon reviews have found this. Supporting this is California's Prop 8, which 'enhanced sentences for the most serious felony offences', while yielding 'little evidence of a deterrent effect'. Steven Raphael, 'The deterrent effects of California's proposition 8: weighing the evidence' (2006) 5 Criminol and Pub Pol'y 471, 472; ibid 476; see also CM Webster et al, 'Proposition 8 and crime rates in California: the case of the disappearing deterrent' (2006) 5 Criminol and Pub Pol'y 417 (finding no deterrent effect). Generally, 'while there is considerable evidence that crime is responsive to police and to the existence of attractive legitimate labor-market opportunities, there is far less evidence that crime responds to the severity of criminal sanctions'. Aaron Chalfin and Justin McCrary (2017) supra. And 'evidence in support of the deterrent effect of various measures of the certainty of punishment is far more convincing and consistent than for the severity of punishment'. Daniel S Nagin, 'Deterrent effects of punishment' in Deterrence, Choice, and Crime: contemporary perspectives (2018) 158.

If the death penalty – or increased severity of punishment in general – could serve as a powerful deterrent and contributing factor to law and order, hopefully it would not be too forward of me to presume that this effect might be measurable. Insofar as it is not, we are left with the questions of costs and fairness. On costs, it is clear: 'the death penalty has grown to be much more expensive than life imprisonment'. Torin McFarland, 'The death penalty vs life incarceration: a financial analysis' (2016) 7 Susquehanna Univ Pol Rev 4. On fairness, it also is clear. In the United States, the only developed country with a non-homogeneous demographic profile retaining the death penalty, ‘racial disparities [in the death penalty] ha[ve] been evident since colonial times’. Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker, ‘The American death penalty and the (in)visibility of race’ (2015) 82 U Chic L Rev 243, 243. Even courts have come to this conclusion: 'if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to death, it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race'. Furman v Georgia (1972) 408 US 238, 310 (White J, concurring). Similarly, support for the death penalty itself also is coloured by racial animus. James Unnever and Francis Cullen, ‘White perceptions of whether African Americans and Hispanics are prone to violence and support for the death penalty’ (2012) 49 J Rsch Crime & Dependency 519.

Supporters of the death penalty do little more than demand we keep faith that it deters ephemerally, immeasurably, expensively, and unfairly. If the death penalty is to be supported, surely something more is needed than blind faith.
 
Last edited:
Imperium Anglorum:
The death penalty is ineffective. It has high costs with no measurable deterrent effects. A review of annual state panel data from 1977–2006 found 'no empirical support for the argument that the existence or application of the death penalty deters prospective offenders from committing homicide'. Tomislav Kovandzic et al, 'Does the death penalty save lives?' (2009) 8 Criminol and Pub Pol'y 803. Using an indirect approach to avoid the question of whether execution rate is specifically appropriate also finds no effect. Choe Jongmook, 'Another look at the deterrent effect of death penalty' (2010) J Adv Rsch in L & Econ 12. Reviews of recent literature ‘on whether there is a deterrent effect of the death penalty [are] inconclusive as a whole’. Aaron Chalfin et al, ‘What do panel studies tell us about a deterrent effect of capital punishment?’ (2013) 29 J Quant Criminol 5. While there is evidence that crime responds to better enforcement, increasing penalties does little. Aaron Chalfin and Justin McCrary, ‘Criminal Deterrence: A Review of the Literature’ (2017) 55 J Econ Lit 5.

Studies showing that there is a deterrent effect generally ‘are extremely fragile and even small changes in [methods] yield dramatically different results’. John Donohue III and Justin Wolfers, ‘Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate’ (2006) NBER working paper 11982. Some classes of models, specifically, two-stage least squares regressions, show an effect, but they are 'unconvincing because they all use a problematic structure based on poorly measured and theoretically inappropriate pseudo-probabilities... and because their instruments are of dubious validity'. John Donohue III and Justin Wolfers, 'Estimating the impact of the death penalty on murder' (2009) 11 Am L and Econ Rev 249. Even the few studies which showed a deterrent effect only did so under limited circumstances. Paul Zimmerman, 'Estimates of the Deterrent Effect of Alternative Execution Methods in the United States: 1978–2000' (2006) 65 Am J Econ & Soc 909 (finding no effect for any execution method – including hanging, gas, and firing squad – on murder rates, except that of electrocution).

Similarly, death penalty moratoriums have no impact on the level of homicides. Achim Ahrens et al, 'Do execution moratoriums increase homicide? Re-examining evidence from Illinois' (2015) 47 Appl Econ 3243. Even generally related to the deterrent effect of severity in general, 'evidence in support of the deterrent effect of the certainty of punishment is far more consistent than that for the severity of punishment' and that 'certainty of apprehension, not the severity of the ensuing legal consequence, is the more effective deterrent'. Daniel S Nagin, 'Deterrence in the twenty-first century' (2013) 42 Crime and justice 199. Reviews upon reviews have found this. Support this is California's Prop 8, which 'enhanced sentences for the most serious felony offences', while yielding 'little evidence of a deterrent effect'. Steven Raphael, 'The deterrent effects of California's proposition 8: weighing the evidence' (2006) 5 Criminol and Pub Pol'y 471, 472; ibid 476; see also CM Webster et al, 'Proposition 8 and crime rates in California: the case of the disappearing deterrent' (2006) 5 Criminol and Pub Pol'y 417 (finding no deterrent effect). Generally, 'while there is considerable evidence that crime is responsive to police and to the existence of attractive legitimate labor-market opportunities, there is far less evidence that crime responds to the severity of criminal sanctions'. Aaron Chalfin and Justin McCrary (2017) supra. And 'evidence in support of the deterrent effect of various measures of the certainty of punishment is far more convincing and consistent than for the severity of punishment'. Daniel S Nagin, 'Deterrent effects of punishment' in Deterrence, Choice, and Crime: contemporary perspectives (2018) 158.

If the death penalty – or increased severity of punishment in general – could serve as a powerful deterrent and contributing factor to law and order, hopefully it would not be too forward of me to presume that this effect might be measurable. Insofar as it is not, we are left with the questions of costs and fairness. On costs, it is clear: 'the death penalty has grown to be much more expensive than life imprisonment'. Torin McFarland, 'The death penalty vs life incarceration: a financial analysis' (2016) 7 Susquehanna Univ Pol Rev 4. On fairness, it also is clear. In the United States, the only developed country with a non-homogeneous demographic profile retaining the death penalty, ‘racial disparities [in the death penalty] ha[ve] been evident since colonial times’. Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker, ‘The American death penalty and the (in)visibility of race’ (2015) 82 U Chic L Rev 243, 243. Even courts have come to this conclusion: 'if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to death, it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race'. Furman v Georgia (1972) 408 US 238, 310 (White J, concurring). Similarly, support for the death penalty itself also is coloured by racial animus. James Unnever and Francis Cullen, ‘White perceptions of whether African Americans and Hispanics are prone to violence and support for the death penalty’ (2012) 49 J Rsch Crime & Dependency 519.

Supporters of the death penalty do little more than demand we keep faith that it deters ephemerally, immeasurably, expensively, and unfairly. If the death penalty is to be supported, surely something more is needed than blind faith.
Click to expand...
Reading the articles you listed regarding the costs of the death penalty vs life imprisonment is an eye opener personally. In my ignorance, I must admit that I had not realized that the death penalty would costs more than life imprisonment without parole. But, my position on the support of the death penalty still stands. Perhaps because I was born in Singapore, or perhaps because of my upbringing, I cannot find it in me to allow someone to get away scot-free after committing a heinous crime.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the articles listed here talk about costs based mostly around appeals and the long waiting period between the date of execution and sentencing. I'm not sure how the American legal system works but wouldn't the cost be offset if the amount of appeals were limited to a fixed sum, unless there was insufficient evidence during the time of sentencing? In the UK for example, the condemned were separated from the general prison population in one of two 'condemned cells' located adjacent to the execution chamber. The sentenced inmates were given one appeal. If that appeal was found to involve an important point of law it was taken up to the House of Lords, and if the appeal was successful, at that point the sentence was changed to life in prison. Wouldn't this speed up the process significantly and reduce the overall costs? I'm not sure it would be cheaper than life imprisonment like this but I'm pretty sure it would be cheaper than the cost stated in the listed articles.
 
Last edited:
Nevin:
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the articles listed here talk about costs based mostly around appeals and the long waiting period between the date of execution and sentencing. I'm not sure how the American legal system works but wouldn't the cost be offset if the amount of appeals were limited to a fixed sum, unless there was insufficient evidence during the time of sentencing? In the UK for example, the condemned were separated from the general prison population in one of two 'condemned cells' located adjacent to the execution chamber. The sentenced inmates were given one appeal. If that appeal was found to involve an important point of law it was taken up to the House of Lords, and if the appeal was successful, at that point the sentence was changed to life in prison. Wouldn't this speed up the process significantly and reduce the overall costs? I'm not sure it would be cheaper than life imprisonment like this but I'm pretty sure it would be cheaper than the cost stated in the listed articles.
Click to expand...
No. Death row inmates deserve the same appeals process as everyone else.
Nevin:
I cannot find it in me to allow someone to get away scot-free after committing a heinous crime.
Click to expand...
Life imprisonment is “getting away scot-free”?
 
Comfed:
No. Death row inmates deserve the same appeals process as everyone else.
Life imprisonment is “getting away scot-free”?
Click to expand...
1. We're talking about people who committed the most heinous crimes under the sun, and if they are convicted based on an established and credible evidence I don't think the same appeals should apply. Why should it apply, I'm actually genuinely curious because I really cannot understand this.

2. Life imprisonment does not equates to "life in prison till death" unless stated specifically. Life imprisonment basically makes the criminal in question serve a definite number of years(depending on the judicial laws of the country) before they can request for parole. The very fact they can request for parole after a certain amount of years and be granted freedom because of "good behavior" and the likes would be, in my opinion, considered scot-free no?
 
Last edited:
The death penalty is ineffective. It has high costs with no measurable deterrent effects. A review of annual state panel data from 1977–2006 found 'no empirical support for the argument that the existence or application of the death penalty deters prospective offenders from committing homicide'.
Click to expand...
The death penalty in itself can't be costly, except the paperwork for asking for pardons and other documents. Also, just as Nevin says: criminals should have a limited number of appeals they can give.

Other than that, I can't understand how a 9mm bullet costs more than lifetime imprisonment and rehabilitation.

'Estimates of the Deterrent Effect of Alternative Execution Methods in the United States: 1978–2000' (2006) 65 Am J Econ & Soc 909 (finding no effect for any execution method – including hanging, gas, and firing squad – on murder rates, except that of electrocution).
Click to expand...
There is no impact of death penalty because people have no fear. It should be instilled into the minds of the public by making sure the death is as torturous as possible. Fear and pain are languages everyone understands.

In the United States, the only developed country with a non-homogeneous demographic profile retaining the death penalty, ‘racial disparities [in the death penalty] ha[ve] been evident since colonial times’. Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker, ‘The American death penalty and the (in)visibility of race’ (2015) 82 U Chic L Rev 243, 243. Even courts have come to this conclusion: 'if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to death, it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race'. Furman v Georgia (1972) 408 US 238, 310 (White J, concurring). Similarly, support for the death penalty itself also is coloured by racial animus. James Unnever and Francis Cullen, ‘White perceptions of whether African Americans and Hispanics are prone to violence and support for the death penalty’ (2012) 49 J Rsch Crime & Dependency 519.
Click to expand...
Unconscious partiality can happen—in that case, we can reserve the death penalty for cases where there is clear evidence of guilt—not inference.

Supporters of the death penalty do little more than demand we keep faith that it deters ephemerally, immeasurably, expensively, and unfairly. If the death penalty is to be supported, surely something more is needed than blind faith.
Click to expand...
Of course death penalty should be supported. A nation is not made only of 1 person's feelings—and the government has to do what's best for the majority than to bend over for a terrorist, mass murderer, serial killer, psychopath.
 
Nevin:
The very fact they can request for parole after a certain amount of years and be granted freedom because of "good behavior" and the likes would be, in my opinion, considered scot-free no?
Click to expand...
People change. And spending a decade isolated from society only to be branded with a criminal record is not scot-free.
Nevin:
1. We're talking about people who committed the most heinous crimes under the sun, and if they are convicted based on an established and credible evidence I don't think the same appeals should apply. Why should it apply, I'm actually genuinely curious because I really cannot understand this.
Click to expand...
Everyone deserves an appeal, especially because the original court might be wrong, but also because it’s certainly unfair to deprive someone of their rights because of the nature of the crime committed.
Mazdia:
There is no impact of death penalty because people have no fear. It should be instilled into the minds of the public by making sure the death is as torturous as possible. Fear and pain are languages everyone understands.
Click to expand...
That’s absolutely disgusting. No one should die a painful death, otherwise the state is no better than the criminals.
Mazdia:
Also, just as Nevin says: criminals should have a limited number of appeals they can give.
Click to expand...
There is a limited number of appeals, the Supreme Court or equivalent is the limit.
Mazdia:
A nation is not made only of 1 person's feelings
Click to expand...
Then why does your argument revolve around revenge?
 
Comfed:
That’s absolutely disgusting. No one should die a painful death, otherwise the state is no better than the criminals.
Then why does your argument revolve around revenge?
Click to expand...
Ofcourse it is disgusting, but it is necessary.

If people don't know the consequences of their actions then how will they stop harming others?
I
Also, isn't Justice also a part of revenge? It's not like a murderer is not convicted at all.
 
Mazdia:
Ofcourse it is disgusting, but it is necessary.

If people don't know the consequences of their actions then how will they stop harming others?
Click to expand...
Violating basic human rights and decency is not the way.
Mazdia:
Also, isn't Justice also a part of revenge?
Click to expand...
No... no it’s not. Revenge is based entirely on the feelings of the victims.
 
Comfed:
Violating basic human rights and decency is not the way.
No... no it’s not. Revenge is based entirely on the feelings of the victims.
Click to expand...
1. Basic Human Rights does not say that the death penalty shall be considered illegal
2. Comfed, you are saying we should ignore the victims calls for justice
 
Dirtha:
1. Basic Human Rights does not say that the death penalty shall be considered illegal
Click to expand...
The right to live is a basic human right, but I was referring to the avocation for a torturous death.
Dirtha:
2. Comfed, you are saying we should ignore the victims calls for justice
Click to expand...
I certainly support justice but a decision based on emotions, especially those on the emotions of people recently hurt by the person on trial, is rash and won't solve anything.
 
Comfed:
People change. And spending a decade isolated from society only to be branded with a criminal record is not scot-free.
Everyone deserves an appeal, especially because the original court might be wrong, but also because it’s certainly unfair to deprive someone of their rights because of the nature of the crime committed.
That’s absolutely disgusting. No one should die a painful death, otherwise the state is no better than the criminals.
There is a limited number of appeals, the Supreme Court or equivalent is the limit.
Then why does your argument revolve around revenge?
Click to expand...
I guess because of the different values we follow, no matter what we say we will never really see eye to eye on this matter. For now, I don't think I can ever agree with your reasoning, but I respect your decision.
Also, at this point of time no matter how much we debate about the matter, the vote in favor of the military death penalty ban far supersedes that of against. This is disappointing to see, but such is the way of democracy I guess.
 
Last edited:
Boston Castle:
IFV
Overview
This resolution seeks to prohibit the use of capital punishment for any crime tried under a military judicial code, as well as to prohibit deportations of individuals to jurisdictions that may utilize capital punishment against these deported individuals.

Recommendation
The practice of capital punishment is one that that the Ministry and the broader World Assembly community regards as reprehensible. Capital punishment has not been demonstrated to deter serious crimes, is disproportionately used against minorities and other disenfranchised populations as well as political dissidents, and horrifically has been employed against innocent persons for millennia. These same issues and disparities have also been demonstrated to be present in military tribunals and have permeated the enforcement of military judicial codes much like their civilian counterparts. As such, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the GA resolution at vote, "Military Death Penalty Ban".
Click to expand...
We have failed to convince the people of TNP to vote against on this proposal. People who support the death penalty, just vote against and see if other people from different regions vote for or against.
 
Dirtha:
We have failed to convince the people of TNP to vote against on this proposal. People who support the death penalty, just vote against and see if other people from different regions vote for or against.
Click to expand...
I didn't write that IFV. The IFV is a joint project of the Ministry. My post happened to be the one that it got edited into due to my posting the thread. And ftr, I voted "For". The Death Penalty is a barbaric practice that has no place in the 21st century judicial system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top