Bzzzzzt. Judges say this answer is full of crap. I wrote what respect for the law means. You can try and pretend I wrote something else. We agree about deterrent. It's no reason for or against the death penalty tho.
You wrote that the death penalty is necessary to give the law teeth. Since the death penalty doesn't create any greater respect for the law (i.e. deterrence effect), it doesn't add any teeth. I know you try to evade when pinned dead to rights, but this is desperate even for you.
Yes. The law is just words on paper if it's not enforced. It needs teeth in that sense. You can pretend I really meant something else. Retribution creates respect for the law. We have mighty fine laws, and they're fairly enforced. If there were no such respect, people would be storming the White House and congress to overthrow the government.
If it doesn't change behavior (i.e. encourage people NOT to break the law), then it's a pretty useless concept of "respect." If you're using some hippie-dippie Platonic concept of "respect," (people have an impossible-to-measure-but-totally-meaningful admiration for laws that are enforced by death), there's not much to discuss. In real life terms, people have "respect" for laws that they don't want to transgress. The death penalty doesn't add any measurable incentive to avoid breaking laws, so in real life terms, it creates no additional respect. Your last line is a non sequitur regarding the "teeth" that the death penalty creates. People aren't avoiding storming the White House because of the death penalty. They're not doing it because actual deterrent penalties (like jail time) are already part of the law. We were discussing the law-teeth that the death penalty creates and, as we've established, there are none. Laws already have teeth due to things like jail time and fines--the death penalty adds no value above and beyond those.
I don't see why you aren't grasping the concept of respect. 1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. You seem to be using it in some other sense. The qualities are that the laws are enforced, fairly as can be. Most everyone agrees.
Yes, in a meaningful sense. It's hard to make a real claim to respect if it doesn't prevent people from breaking the law.
The laws don't prevent me from stealing or killing. It just never occurs to me. Probably true for 99.9% of everyone here. But when I see some news story about someone convicted of a crime, I don't doubt they got due process. That's my respect for the law.
Then the laws for those aren't meant for you and don't require teeth. The teeth are required for people who might consider stealing or killing and the death penalty hasn't shown to be effective as such "teeth."
The laws are meant to provide retribution (justice) to those who can't play nice in the society sandbox. Those who steal or kill obviously are not deterred by the laws. Trivia question time. How many executions in the US in our history?
Those who actually steal or kill aren't, but those who would have or might have if we had no laws at all are a much larger pool. Jail time and fines have been shown to have a deterrent effect. For a very prosaic example, it's been found that simply having a tiny co-pay (of even as small as a few dollars) makes a big difference in cutting down frivolous use of otherwise-free services. I would say that laws and punishments are primarily for deterrent effect--we'd like to avoid having crimes committed in the first place, rather than have them happen and then pursue retribution. I have no doubt that retribution is a large part of law and order for some, but I don't think that's the primary function of law in society.
Prove somebody might have. Are you a mind reader? So now you are arguing that the death penalty is a deterrent? Maybe it does. It's not relevant tho.
No, but demanding hard proof is a pretty bizarre standard for someone arguing that the death penalty increases the admiration of the law in people. Can you prove that increase in admiration in the hearts of the population? However, it doesn't really matter to my point. If you don't believe any penalty deters crime, that's fine. My point was that the death penalty doesn't add teeth to the law because it doesn't increase the respect people have to not break it, as we both agree (you've agreed there's no deterrence effect). Nope, I said jail and fines add teeth, not the death penalty.
If only we could execute criminals with the same compassion that they murder, rape and torture men, women and children.
Totally not kidding. I did ban two long time members today. Okay, maybe I'm fucking with you. It appears that BenDavis and BenDavis503 were no longer banned so I re-banned him. It makes feel like I'm a badass. Rawr! How is your day going? I hear it's hot in Texas.
I don't say the death penalty increases the admiration of anyone. If it's the law, and it is, and they don't enforce it, then the Law loses some measure of respect. I don't need to prove it or read minds. It is by definition. I just don't think the death penalty as a deterrent means squat to whether we should have one or not. Though we should, IMO. The answer to my trivia question is about 4500 executions in the US since 1930. About 1 a week. Even less since 1976, about 1 every 2 weeks. It is reserved for the worst of the worst, and it is rarely used.
It's fucking hot, and will be til week 3 of the NFL season.......literally, that seems to be when the humidity goes away.
