Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Is drug dealing murder?

No, it’s a corruption of local communities that deserves a strong deterrrent due to its devastating effects.

Then why are you punishing it as if it were murder?

[VoVoDoCo]

If your college has JSTOR, here's a link:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/724188?seq ... b_contents

Otherwise I can't find it.

EDIT: I can't find a free version anywhere. You're our last hope lol

My college has EBSCO Information Services. I will see if they have the same article.
Edit: Actually, my college has jstor as well. I have the article.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

My college has EBSCO Information Services. I will see if they have the same article.
Edit: Actually, my college has jstor as well. I have the article.

Don't call me a geek yet. I'm still trying to post it here.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Here is a link to the study. I uploaded it to google docs so it is viewable.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

No, it’s a corruption of local communities that deserves a strong deterrrent due to its devastating effects.

As previously stated, I'm all in favor of this being done to Cartel members and people like the Sackler family. I definitely think prescription med abuse, Heroin and the like should be met with lethal force. Weed, MDMA, Acid and the like? Nah.

People should be killed for abusing prescription meds?

Reminder that if your justice system is harsher than "an eye for an eye," your justice system is rotten to the core.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Instead of going down that path, let's assume that IS the case. People are just dying on death row rather than via execution. A few things:

Prison death cause statistics, I assume, are not widely known to most murderers. So even if most people on death row don't live to face judgement by the hands of the state, most people won't know the specifics. They'll just know their state has the death penalty. So reality shouldn't interfere too much with the hypothetical fear that the death penalty can instill in the populace.

According to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1 in 25 people sentenced to death are innocent. I bring this up because many people will say, "The death penalty CAN work, we just need to use it more." But too many of the convicted are innocent. Killing them prematurely denies them the ability to gather MORE evidence and prove later that their conviction was unjust. You can undo a life sentence for the innocent. You can't undo an execution.

1 in 25 is very reasonable, tbh.

It's better that 25 guilty people go free than a single innocent person be condemned.

[VoVoDoCo]

Here is a link to the study. I uploaded it to google docs so it is viewable.

Yeah as far as I can tell, the overwhelming opinion on his research is it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It was respectable, but not reliable.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Here is a link to the study. I uploaded it to google docs so it is viewable.

Yeah as far as I can tell, the overwhelming opinion on his research is it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It was respectable, but not reliable.

Indeed. Time for governments to save money by abolishing capital punishment, except in cases where it is required for incapacitation.

My emotions want me to support capital punishment, while my more rational side leans against it.

[Totally Not OEP]

Here is a link to the study. I uploaded it to google docs so it is viewable.

Yeah as far as I can tell, the overwhelming opinion on his research is it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It was respectable, but not reliable.

Two reviews is not overwhelming and honestly the harsh reviews to it were pretty baseless; their essential critique centered on him making the assumption that everything else, bar the execution rate, remained unchanged in the scenario. That is the essence of methodological review and they never really gave a very compelling reason why this assumption was wrong.

[Totally Not OEP]

Yeah as far as I can tell, the overwhelming opinion on his research is it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It was respectable, but not reliable.

Indeed. Time for governments to save money by abolishing capital punishment, except in cases where it is required for incapacitation.

My emotions want me to support capital punishment, while my more rational side leans against it.

It's a hell of a lot cheaper to put a 5.56 in someone's head then it is to feed and house them for 40 years.

[Totally Not OEP]

Few things wrong with this.
1. You're using the "particular" and "short" strangely. I'd hardly call it particular as it's results were duplicated in 10 European countries. I'd hardly call it short as it lasted 20 years.

And, again, that is a cherry pick unless you can provide evidence that the death penalty only was practiced in those 10 years.

2. Most research doesn't feel the need to dig up the entire history of data on the subject and include it. Let's say I'm doing an experiment on how water temperature affects the growth rate of bamboo. I create a start time and a stop time before I begin so that readers of my data would have confidence that I didn't start and stop at opportune times to affirm my bias. Would I then HAVE to provide the all available research before my experiment took place in the name of completeness and transparency? No of course not. Because A.) That's a lot of work copying and pasting old data that takes time away from my experiment and B.) The reader can look up that research themselves.

So no, research does not have to include the history of available data before the experiment.

Sure, research doesn't have to include all of the relevant data....unless it wants to be effective, reliable data valid for use in an academic context.

You've brought up multiple times how data after the 90's is inaccurate due to a decrease in capital punishment. 3 things:

1. Can you provide the data of deterrence before the 90's?
2. Is there a consensus among professionals that there isn't enough data to judge the effectiveness of the death penalty post 90's?
3. If the evidence was very much in favor of the death penalty, why did the amount of executions drop? We know that there doesn't need to be some bureaucracy, to try to prevent the already too high number of innocent people from being executed.

Strawman.

[Novus America]

Yeah as far as I can tell, the overwhelming opinion on his research is it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It was respectable, but not reliable.

Indeed. Time for governments to save money by abolishing capital punishment, except in cases where it is required for incapacitation.

My emotions want me to support capital punishment, while my more rational side leans against it.

It currently costs more in the US, but is not INHERENTLY more costly. But I do agree the primary purpose should be for cases where recidivism is likely, rehabilitation unlikely and the person liable to commit criminal behavior even while in prison.

The death penalty’s big advantage is that it is 100% effective against recidivism.
My biggest concern is it cannot be reversed so should be generally reserved for cases where there is no legitimate dispute of guilt for at least one violent crime or the person continued to commit crimes in prison. That way the chance of executing someone innocent is minimized.

We absolutely have to stop the revolving prison doors though.

We need a completely new look at sentencing. I would punish basically all the worst violent crimes (at least armed robbery, armed rape, armed burglary, first degree murder) with a minimum of life in prison, but allow the possibility of parole in most cases.
Instead of going to prison for a fixed time, you stay in prison until you prove worthy to be let out.

Second offense though you are done. No parole.
People should not have to fear armed criminals running the streets.

[North German Realm]

Indeed. Time for governments to save money by abolishing capital punishment, except in cases where it is required for incapacitation.

My emotions want me to support capital punishment, while my more rational side leans against it.

It currently costs more in the US, but is not INHERENTLY more costly. But I do agree the primary purpose should be for cases where recidivism is likely, rehabilitation unlikely and the person liable to commit criminal behavior even while in prison.

The death penalty’s big advantage is that it is 100% effective against recidivism.
My biggest concern is it cannot be reversed so should be generally reserved for cases where there is no legitimate dispute of guilt for at least one violent crime or the person continued to commit crimes in prison. That way the chance of executing someone innocent is minimized.

We absolutely have to stop the revolving prison doors though.

We need a completely new look at sentencing. I would punish basically all the worst violent crimes (at least armed robbery, armed rape, armed burglary, first degree murder) with a minimum of life in prison, but allow the possibility of parole in most cases.
Instead of going to prison for a fixed time, you stay in prison until you prove worthy to be let out.

Second offense though you are done. No parole.
People should not have to fear armed criminals running the streets.

This is one of the many reasons why I think penal colonies are actually a better idea than prisons. Of course, whenever I think of that, I feel disgusted with myself.

[Novus America]

It currently costs more in the US, but is not INHERENTLY more costly. But I do agree the primary purpose should be for cases where recidivism is likely, rehabilitation unlikely and the person liable to commit criminal behavior even while in prison.

The death penalty’s big advantage is that it is 100% effective against recidivism.
My biggest concern is it cannot be reversed so should be generally reserved for cases where there is no legitimate dispute of guilt for at least one violent crime or the person continued to commit crimes in prison. That way the chance of executing someone innocent is minimized.

We absolutely have to stop the revolving prison doors though.

We need a completely new look at sentencing. I would punish basically all the worst violent crimes (at least armed robbery, armed rape, armed burglary, first degree murder) with a minimum of life in prison, but allow the possibility of parole in most cases.
Instead of going to prison for a fixed time, you stay in prison until you prove worthy to be let out.

Second offense though you are done. No parole.
People should not have to fear armed criminals running the streets.

This is one of the many reasons why I think penal colonies are actually a better idea than prisons. Of course, whenever I think of that, I feel disgusted with myself.

Well penal colonies were mostly used for less dangerous criminals and debtors.

Because they have less supervision and less control than a conventional prison.
Really uncontrollable violent criminals make bad colonists.

But I do support putting prisons in the most remote areas. No need to have long term prisoners housed near large scale human civilization.

[North German Realm]

This is one of the many reasons why I think penal colonies are actually a better idea than prisons. Of course, whenever I think of that, I feel disgusted with myself.

Well penal colonies were mostly used for less dangerous criminals and debtors.

Because they have less supervision and less control than a conventional prison.
Really uncontrollable violent criminals make bad colonists.

But I do support putting prisons in the most remote areas. No need to have long term prisoners housed near large scale human civilization.

I don't mean Australia-style penal colonies. I mean literally shove the worst criminal elements of the country into some remote island, put a minute number of guards so they won't kill each other, make them grow their own food/etc. (if penal labor is too icky for you. I myself find most types of it to be as abhorrent as slavery unless it's minor community service). On the rare event that someone was wrongly put there, you can compensate them.

[Novus America]

Well penal colonies were mostly used for less dangerous criminals and debtors.

Because they have less supervision and less control than a conventional prison.
Really uncontrollable violent criminals make bad colonists.

But I do support putting prisons in the most remote areas. No need to have long term prisoners housed near large scale human civilization.

I don't mean Australia-style penal colonies. I mean literally shove the worst criminal elements of the country into some remote island, put a minute number of guards so they won't kill each other, make them grow their own food/etc. (if penal labor is too icky for you. I myself find most types of it to be as abhorrent as slavery unless it's minor community service). On the rare event that someone was wrongly put there, you can compensate them.

Keeping them from killing each other would be nearly impossible.
But I am okay with requiring prisoners to earn their keep, if they want food and housing asking them to contribute labor is not unfair.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Indeed. Time for governments to save money by abolishing capital punishment, except in cases where it is required for incapacitation.

My emotions want me to support capital punishment, while my more rational side leans against it.

It's a hell of a lot cheaper to put a 5.56 in someone's head then it is to feed and house them for 40 years.

With the extra costs associated with death penalty trials, it probably is the other way around.

Pre-trial and trials of death penalty cases are where most of the cost comes from, and they tend to be more expensive than non-capital cases. Just thinking of the penalty is a very simplistic view.

[Novus America]

It's a hell of a lot cheaper to put a 5.56 in someone's head then it is to feed and house them for 40 years.

With the extra costs associated with death penalty trials, it probably is the other way around.

Pre-trial and trials of death penalty cases are where most of the cost comes from, and they tend to be more expensive than non-capital cases. Just thinking of the penalty is a very simplistic view.

Though it is also simplistic to assume the death penalty is inherently and always more expensive.

It could be done cheaper than it is done now.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

With the extra costs associated with death penalty trials, it probably is the other way around.

Pre-trial and trials of death penalty cases are where most of the cost comes from, and they tend to be more expensive than non-capital cases. Just thinking of the penalty is a very simplistic view.

Though it is also simplistic to assume the death penalty is inherently and always more expensive.

It could be done cheaper than it is done now.

It could, that I know. Some methods to make it cheaper might not be practical though. I would not support eliminating most of the protections that are there to protect the falsely accused, and it is those extra protections that are mostly responsible for making it more expensive.

My views are based on the data I've seen. If there is something practical you want to propose, I'm listening.

[Novus America]

Though it is also simplistic to assume the death penalty is inherently and always more expensive.

It could be done cheaper than it is done now.

It could, that I know. Some methods to make it cheaper might not be practical though. I would not support eliminating most of the protections that are there to protect the falsely accused, and it is those extra protections that are mostly responsible for making it more expensive.

My views are based on the data I've seen. If there is something practical you want to propose, I'm listening.

Fair point. Most of the cost comes from the appeals process which has a necessary function.
The death penalty is cheap for the PRC because they do not have any real protections for defendants.

I think one issue though is the appeals process is too rigid and one size fits all.
We do the same mandatory appeals for all cases.

In cases where guilt is not contested there could be fewer appeals than in cases where it is contested.

Though in general the cost is less concerning as I would mostly limit the death penalty to cases where the person proved to dangerous to incarcerate (escapes, continues to commit crimes in jail, attacks guards and such) and cases where guilt is not in dispute.

[Nakena]

Well penal colonies were mostly used for less dangerous criminals and debtors.

Because they have less supervision and less control than a conventional prison.
Really uncontrollable violent criminals make bad colonists.

But I do support putting prisons in the most remote areas. No need to have long term prisoners housed near large scale human civilization.

I don't mean Australia-style penal colonies. I mean literally shove the worst criminal elements of the country into some remote island, put a minute number of guards so they won't kill each other, make them grow their own food/etc. (if penal labor is too icky for you. I myself find most types of it to be as abhorrent as slavery unless it's minor community service). On the rare event that someone was wrongly put there, you can compensate them.

***Escape from New York intensifies***

[Diopolis]

No, it’s a corruption of local communities that deserves a strong deterrrent due to its devastating effects.

The best deterrence would be to address the underlying issues that make people want to take the drugs to begin with

I mean ‘provide greater economic opportunities to the working class’ is a pretty big part of my ideology already.

[Fahran]

The best deterrence would be to address the underlying issues that make people want to take the drugs to begin with

I mean ‘provide greater economic opportunities to the working class’ is a pretty big part of my ideology already.

Dio "Pan o Palo" Polis.

[Diopolis]

I mean ‘provide greater economic opportunities to the working class’ is a pretty big part of my ideology already.

Dio "Pan o Palo" Polis.

That reminds me of the proposal I’ve been meaning to post- basically, the government should distribute land to migrant workers and other poor farming folks. Government owned land- that which isn’t worthless desert or tundra- and a voluntary buyback of CRP lands can provide the land.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

It could, that I know. Some methods to make it cheaper might not be practical though. I would not support eliminating most of the protections that are there to protect the falsely accused, and it is those extra protections that are mostly responsible for making it more expensive.

My views are based on the data I've seen. If there is something practical you want to propose, I'm listening.

Fair point. Most of the cost comes from the appeals process which has a necessary function.
The death penalty is cheap for the PRC because they do not have any real protections for defendants.

I think one issue though is the appeals process is too rigid and one size fits all.
We do the same mandatory appeals for all cases.

In cases where guilt is not contested there could be fewer appeals than in cases where it is contested.

Though in general the cost is less concerning as I would mostly limit the death penalty to cases where the person proved to dangerous to incarcerate (escapes, continues to commit crimes in jail, attacks guards and such) and cases where guilt is not in dispute.

I would also use it against those who order hits in prison as well. Other than that, I don't see much practical use for it, except for retribution.