Execute Them!

[Don John of Austria]

Back to the statistics
First in 1970 there where 1299 murders in 1972 the death penalty was suspended and in 1974 it was reinstated in texas with laws changed to make the Supreme court happy by 1980 there where 2392 murders in texas an increase of 1093 murders or 84.1% or put another way in 1970 there was 1 murder for every 8619.49 Texans in 1980 there was one murder for every 6024.21 people in Texas this is at first glance appears to be an arguement that the death penelty does not act as a deterant, until one looks at other violent crime. Lets look at rape in 1970 there where 2329 rapes or one for every 4807.52 people by 1980there was 1 rape for every 2123 people or 6700 rapes in total, this shows a much higher rate of increase, likewise robbery experianced a jump from 40,897 in 1970 to 77978 in 1980 agian a much higher rate of increase. Much of the escalation in the Crime rate probably is linked to the massive increase bioth in population as well as in urbanization, Harris county ( the home of Houston) had a 38.32 % growth during that decade. Dallas and San Antonio experianced simular demographic changes. Interestinly enough the biggest jump in rape comes between 1977 ( the year the Supreme Court through out the death penalty for Rape) an 1979 going from 4338 to 6,043 in only 2 years. Of course Texas had had the death penalty for rape, before that.

So while the Murder rate did increase during the 1970's despite the reinstatement of the death penelty it increased at the lowest rate of any violent crime. Perhaps the death penaly is a deterent after all.

[Jaime]

Thanks for the confirmation Don.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Perhaps I'm reading Don's post incorrectly, but the murder rates increased the least while the RAPE rates increased dramatically once the death penalty was taken away as a possibility of punishment.

To me that says that the death penalty WAS a deterrent for murder and HAD BEEN for rape.


That is in no way any [i]real[/i] "confirmation" as you have put it hot stuff.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 16 2005, 06:49 AM'] Thanks for the confirmation Don. [/quote]
I think you misunderstand jamie, the murder rate increased at aa much much lower rate than anything else, and rape infact exploded when the threat of death was removed from that crime, so the evidence shows that the death penalty did and does act as a deterent.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 16 2005, 11:14 AM'] I think you misunderstand jamie, the murder rate increased at aa much much lower rate than anything else, and rape infact exploded when the threat of death was removed from that crime, so the evidence shows that the death penalty did and does act as a deterent. [/quote]
It wouldn't be the first time Don.

I spent 8 years working in the detention industry. I've read the reports backwards and forwards so I don't offer "silly" statements on the topic. I could go back and dig up my old stuff but it may be a bit.

[Didacus]

Anyone consider castration?

[Don John of Austria]

well these are easily accessable statistics, I didn't try and bend them or make them say anything, because frankly I think the deterent affect of the death penalty is accidental to the primary effect and that it is deterent is just a fringe benifit, it certianly would not justify the use of the death penalty on that grounds. T
he fact that it deters criminals is of little concequence, the fact that it is used to protect society is all that can or does justify it. I am in fact an opponant of how the death penalty is administered in this coutry is wrong, because it revolves aroud vengence, but that doesn't mean I oppose the death penalty, far from it, I think rape of anyone is a crime worthy of the ultimate punishment, on the other hand I am loath to execute people based on the pitiful evedence that we accept for rape and especially child molestation. Repeated convictions ( not a single conviction for multiple offences but seperate trials for seperate events) of those crimes I believe certianly warrent execution. But agian not for vengence but because this person is infact a danger to everyone, and because, he is simply put Evil, evil things should be destroyed. The insane are certianly as much if not more of a danger to society than a sane person and I don't believe that insanity is any defence agianst execution, the State should not be in the buisness of judgeing culpability only actions and intents of actions, however I think the person who kills their spouses lover in a fit of rage is not likly a danger to anyone and on the whole does not need to be executed.

That said anyone who has indeed murdered another has forfieted their own rights and thier execution is justified even if I don't personally agree with it, that is a personal disagreement not a indictment of the practice.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 15 2005, 11:22 AM'] so Aquinas is pre-historic now is he? this is a classic case of what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery".-- thinking that the way we do things and see things in modern times is automatically better than the way they did it or thought it in the past. that's not necessarily true, and we ought to give more credit to our ancestors than that... Aquinas was a very intelligent man and to chalk that up to "pre-historic" thinking is somewhat ignorant... no offence

anyway, the baddies are set a date for their death because justice demands their death and the state has the authority to administer that justice. justice does not demand the death of good people and so we must persevere until the end.

See, I'm not saying the reason we should execute them is to give them a better chance at heaven, I'm saying the reason we should execute them is because according to the natural law in their committing homicide they have also fofeited the right to their own life. But then the Catholic idea of expiation, following the Good Theif on the cross and saying to his fellow inmate on death row "You and I deserve this death, but Christ did not. Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom". That's our first example of expiation, the Good Theif admitted he deserved the punishment and accepted it and died. That's the model for death row inmates... the model for death row inmates if they actually did their crime should not be countless appeals, but acceptance of punishment, repentence, and the expiation of their sins. [/quote]
You still must balance all this with the current teachings of the Church's Papal Magisterium.

It means listen to what the Pope says on the subject in his Encyclicals.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 16 2005, 01:10 AM'] [quote name='Aloysius']also, as a matter of faith and morals I see that anyone who is actually guilty of a capital crime, their life is justly taken.[/quote]
I'm not going to take issue with the rest of your reply because, while I disagree with it, there is not really any debate there. We can debate all the live-long day, but there is no one position that [i]must[/i] be taken according to Church teaching. You mentioned the fundamental doctrinal elements which must be accepted, and we both accept them, so it seems pointless to go any further since we both have good points for believing what we do.

I did want to address the above quote, though. While the punishment of the offender, even capital punishment, may be [i]received[/i] justly, it is not necessarily [i]given[/i] justly. Your assertion that the lives of capital offenders are justly taken is not, in my opinion, consistent with Church teaching. Christ abolished the concept of eye for an eye justice. The fact that the offender took someone else's life does not necessarily mean that the offender's life should be taken in return; such a mentality is not consistent with Christian moral theology and ethics. I think there are just reasons for capital punishment, even if those reasons are few and far between; but I don't think "an eye for an eye" -- that is, vengeance -- is a just reason. [/quote]
that's what I was trying to say, it just wasn't as clear in that post. "taken" wasn't supposed to be a verb assosiated with the doer... I meant more that it is justly ended, err... yeah the criminal receives it justly is the best way to word that I guess. sorry for the confusion.

[Winchester]

The threat of escape is always a reality unless extreme measures are taken. Extreme measures damage the government's ability to pursue other goods by expenditure of money. At some point, we have to cut our losses.

The damage wrought by sexual crimes warrants severe punishment. At a minimum, rapists and pedophiles should be locked away for life--meaning until they are dead. Better they be executed to prevent bleeding hearts and other geniuses from releasing them into society.

I wish we could put judges and parole boards in jail when sex offenders reoffend: preferably with criminals who have a reason to dislike them. These people gamble with our children's lives, and they need to see the other end of the sword, so to speak.