Abuse, Rape And The Death Penalty
Puppet in jail. Dehiwela Puppet Museum.
The death penalty is not a solution to the problem of rape and child abuse. It’s not an especially effective deterrent and I’m shocked that a Buddhist country is even considering it. The death penalty was reinstated in 2004 as a knee-jerk reaction to the killing of a judge. We still don’t have the executioners or the capacity to even carry out the sentence. Perfectly reasonable people are outraged at constant news of rape and child abuse, but killing isn’t an answer. Not a good one.
The final punishment isn’t really the issue. The issue is that A) women don’t know their rights B) families don’t do what’s right so much as what looks right C) police don’t take complaints seriously and D) some dudes are sexual criminals. If you have death at the end of a bad system it’s not suddenly a good system. What’s more important is educating people, changing attitudes within the family, changing attitudes with the police, and basically ensuring that the first part of the system works, the part that prevents and deals with abuse.
Saying ‘kill rapists’ presumes that you can find and prosecute the rapists in the first place. Even assuming that, killing is more about vengeance than justice in any real sense. There’s numerous arguments as to why the death penalty isn’t an effective deterrent, why it’s an expensive one, and why killing for any reason remains morally dubious. I won’t even get into it, but suffice it to say that innocent people get executed where DNA and other evidentiary standards are higher. I don’t believe in a perfect punishment within a perfect system, but let’s leave that aside now.
Sri Lanka is still at a point where we don’t entire recognize sexual harassment, abuse or rape as crimes (socially), where families and institutions often cover up rather than protect, and where police don’t take complaints seriously and, in at least one case, further rape the girls. Talking about the death penalty is a knee-jerk reaction, it’s not a serious response to an immediate problem. It’s just like, ‘uh rape is bad, kill them’. Well, OK. Not especially helpful.
Mohsin Hamid, author of How To Get Filthy Rich In Rising Asia, has a nice 
I’m happy to be featured in Echelon magazine’s 40 Under 40 feature, profiling young people who contribute to the economy in some way, mainly in business but also in terms of innovation and thought leadership. It’s an interesting article not just in that I’m in it (mainly for work on indi.ca and 
I won’t add too much commentary, but just read I guess. The youngest Rajapaksa, Rohitha (Chi Chi) has given an amazing interview to the 
In 2009 this strange character appeared on the Sri Lankan Internet scene, getting angry, flaming, trolling whatever. Then he started naming anonymous bloggers, posting comments as people’s kids, nasty stuff, for which I removed him from 
I am not in to philosophical arguments on this topic… hang few people and see the difference… I think people would think twice before making nasty things to others…
The state of Texas does that regularly – not hanging, but electrocution among others. Plenty of murders, rape, pedophilia.
Incomplete comment, sorry.
Plenty of murders, rape, pedophilia still abound.
Well people are tired of hearing about criminals laughing about the sentence they get.
For example The mastermind of the Judge killing case came smiling like a Hollywood star after he got the verdict.
Lot many others have done the same.
Another one came out making death threats to the arresting officers.
So I guess people are fed up with criminals making fun of the death penalty. I know i am.
And by the way, punishment such as jail terms have their roots in vengeance. Punishments are not only for correction but also to avoid people from taking law in to their own hands.
I don’t know. The death penalty is probably quite harsh and as you say, a knee jerk reaction of the law to curb the spike in serious criminal offenses, but I do think we need some form of serious retribution that would deter would-be criminals from breaking the law. Whatever current mode of punishment is obviously not ‘harsh’ enough to make people think twice about wantonly raping and killing people. I mean raping a 7 year old kid? That is definitely crossing a line.
That said, re-introducing the death penalty is probably not the best way for corrective action. I agree with you on one point – that things have to be taken care of at the root. But this is a long term solution; it’ll take quite some time to actually convince and change a somewhat fixed mindset that is more or less culturally embedded. Guess we need to start somewhere : |.
The Sri Lankan death penalty isn’t an effective deterrent in that WE DON’T ACTUALLY EXECUTE ANYONE. It’s really more of a life sentence. It’s just something out there for the public to chew on and feel like something is happening
Yes. And that’s how the cookie crumbles.
the problem with the death penalty is, if you get it wrong there’s no way to go about fixing your mistake. the stories coming out of places like texas is a bit insane and our system no less redneck than they are.
also, i don’t know how the costs compare to sl, but in the US it is apparently cheaper to imprison people for life as opposed to the cost to the state when it comes to multiple appeals in the case of the death sentence.
It’ll be cheap to kill them than feeding them and keeping them locked in for years.
And i don’t think this death penalty thing is a knee jerk reaction since i remember the debate has been there for about 10-15 years. So if it is knee jerk thing it, the knee has been jerking for a decade.
Do a opinion poll and many would say OK. lot more than 50%.
the point the article i read on the costs of the death penalty wasn’t just simply on the cost of feeding them. multiple appeals against the death penalty has costs too, administrative costs. a man doesn’t get sentenced to death and get hanged the next day or week. he will appeal, right up to the SC and all those appeals cost the tax payer too in salaries for judges, lawyers, police, court staff, photocopy costs, etc etc etc. it has been found to be costlier to impose the death penalty than it is to keep them in prison in other countries. how this compares to SL i don’t know, like i said before.
i’m all for punishing rapists. i just don’t think the death penalty is the way to go. its been shown time and again how the wrong person has been sent to the gallows due to loopholes in the system. and look at the countries where the death penalty is imposed. doesn’t seem to sway the crime numbers.
Well they appeal even if they would get a life sentence or any sentence. And if they miss it, any one can live quite Comfortably in the prison if the have the clout or money.
With unnecessary costs we (our government) do, I am ok with paying for their bills if they are kept locked up.
In another word I am not supporting hanging inmates just because they costs to much to be kept alive.
And if you read articles they are purposing death penalty not for rapists but for child rapists. And when they say they want death penalty, they are saying they should hang them. Not giving the death penalty while not enacting it.
personally, i feel castration is the best for child rapists, but i was talking about the death penalty in general. i think we also need to work on the prevention while pushing for punishments for the criminals.
@pp : http://tinyurl.com/843fgzy
It’s not about whether death penalty is an effective deterrent or not. It’s about why we, the taxpayers, should pay to keep some murderer alive for 35 years. Why should I pay money to the government to keep the guy who killed my friend alive?
Sigh…the death penalty is not just carried out at the drop of a hat. If you are killing someone for a crime you believe they have committed you better be bloody sure they committed it. Which means a very thorough vetting, which means appeals, counter appeals, etc, etc. Which is why the death penalty has actually been found to be more expensive in the US than a life sentence.
According to which study?
Do a bit of research and educate yourself. Even Fox News of all things has an article on this. Do you need to be spoon fed for everything?
Do I have to prove your claims with evidence? Seriously? If you claim that god exists, is it my responsibility to produce evidence and prove that you are right?
It’s pretty well known fact that death penalty cost a lot more, 10 times more, than life imprisonment in America. But since you seem to be incapable of simple google search. here’s a link.
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=6763
that is an excerpt from an expert testimony to a state senate.
But that is wholly besides the point. we or society in general don’t own other people’s lives. So you can’t willy nilly execute people. Besides that argument can be used to not feed anyone in prison. Why should a feed the guy who burned down my house?
apart from that, very few people on death row are fancy rich kids like this douche bag. The vast majority of them fit a demographic mold. This means we as a society are partly responsible for their predicament and they as individuals were partly forced by societal factors to do what they did. So i guess it’s only fair that we foot the bill for their incarceration. that’s our punishment.
This is the best you can do? Citing a studies done in America?
These laws are not physical laws so you can say if an apple falls in England, apples should fall in Sri Lanka as well.
It seems most of the costs are incurred not in executing people, but in deciding whether a person is guilty or not. The fact of the matter is, unless I’m very much mistaken, we already have laws and procedures to sentence a person to death, and all we have to do is actaully hang people.
Societal factors? Oh give me a break. Your GPA is dependent upon a lot of factors over which you had absolutely no control, including the most important one: your genes. But that doesn’t stop you from taking all the credit for yourself, does it? Or do you credit the deterministic laws of physics?
***
Anyway, even if death penalty is more costly, according to a reliable study done in Sri Lanka, I would still rather pay to kill the guy who burnt my house, than pay to keep him alive because it was societal factors that made him do it.
The point is anybody who is sentenced to death would appeal again and it will be costly in the long term. We cannot just hang a person. we have to prove beyond doubt that he is guilty of that crime.
The other thing is our system (or any system in this world) is imperfect. there is even a slight chance that a person innocent of the crime can be sentenced to death. For a country like SL that is exactly the case. Powerful people can always manipulate the law and it is the poor who would ultimately pay. Big fish will get through the net but small ones will get caught.
In a country where there is political meddling in the justice system, even innocent people could be given death sentence. The ones in power can accuse others in opposition for false allegations and be given the death penalty.
Death sentence is not about justice, it is pure revenge. It is not suitable for any country in this day and for SL with its politics, corruption death penalty is certanly NOT a good idea.
Also you cant give the death penalty for burning a house :)
But you people should present real studies, applicable to the Sri Lankan legal system, if they want to make make empirically testable claims like “death penalty costs more than life without parole”. These are not hard sciences where you can expect the results of some experiment done in America are also applicable to anywhere else.
What you people are doing is just rationalization, as opposed to rational reasoning. You start with a preferred outcome, and then try to come up with arguments like “death penalty cost more”, that would lead you to your preferred outcome. Even if what you are doing is a rationalization, you should at least do it right.
We cannot just hang a person. we have to prove beyond doubt that he is guilty of that crime.
I”m not a lawyer. But as far as I know, this is exactly how SL criminal law works, as opposed to civil law which talks about reasonable doubt. If you are sentencing a person to life without parole, there couldn’t be any doubt, any contradicting evidence, that he is not guilty.
Do you think it is alright to sentence a person to life without paraole, without ensuring that there are absolutely no contradicting evidence, that there is absolutely no doubt that that person is guilty?
Criminal law requires this certainty, not just beyond reasonable doubt. If the SL legal system doesn’t work properly, that’s a problem with the SL legal system, not death penalty itself.
I wonder what makes you people think that whatever costs that you have to bear in order to find out with absolute certainty that a person is guilty of a crime, you have to bear only when the punishment is death, not when the punishment is life without parole. Shouldn’t you be dead sure before you incarcerate a person for the rest of his/her life?
When you kill someone they are dead, and remain so until jesus comes back. When you put someone in prison for life there is always a chance for new evidence or technology to pop up and exonerate them. This is exactly how so many people got acquitted when DNA testing was introduced. So it’s perfectly fine to be less sure about the guilt of someone who is about to be locked away for life.
If the Sri Lankan legal system is fucked up we should mitigate the sentence to reflect uncertainty in the system. Because after all, criminal justice is about justice for the accused as well as victim.
And you have to be a proper cunt to take all the credit for your successes. People generally have the humility and/or the intelligence to acknowledge the other factors involved.
And i frankly don’t get this demand for evidence from sri lanka that evidence simply doesn’t exist. So the next best thing is evidence from the only ‘developed’ country that actively executes people.
“I”m not a lawyer. But as far as I know, this is exactly how SL criminal law works, as opposed to civil law which talks about reasonable doubt. If you are sentencing a person to life without parole, there couldn’t be any doubt, any contradicting evidence, that he is not guilty.” sharanga
Unless the standard of proof has taken a radical departure from its English law origins, you have this wrong. There are essentially two standards to be met: one for criminal cases and one for civil. The civil standard is ‘balance of probabilities’ – effectively more likely than not, or 50%+ likely. The criminal standard is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, or now more commonly for juries: ‘so you are sure’.
“Criminal law requires this certainty, not just beyond reasonable doubt.” sharanga
Not so. Criminal law requires exactly “just beyond reasonable doubt”. It seems that you don’t think this international standard is sufficient, so presumably you don’t think that the death penalty under this standard should apply? There is almost never absolute certainty that a person is guilty of a crime, there’s always a margin of doubt. The less integrity the justice system has, the more doubt.
For me it’s simpler than debating the costs, morality and rights and wrongs of sanctioning executions per se. You don’t need to get into all that, really. The simple fact is that there are no 100% reliable justice systems in the world, let alone in Sri Lanka. So mistakes will be made. If you impose executions, innocent people will be killed by the State and supporters of the death penalty are complicit in these killings. If you’re not willing to accept this outcome, the other arguments are irrelevant. If you are ok with this outcome your credibility on morality is, almost literally, fatally undermined.
Carasek,
The simple fact is that there are no 100% reliable justice systems in the world, let alone in Sri Lanka. So mistakes will be made. If you impose executions, innocent people will be killed by the State and supporters of the death penalty are complicit in these killings. If you’re not willing to accept this outcome, the other arguments are irrelevant. If you are ok with this outcome your credibility on morality is, almost literally, fatally undermined.
As a supporter of justice system which incarcerates people for life without parole, if an innocent person is incarcerated for life without parole, do you take the responsibility? Further, if an convict escapes from the prison and kills 10 people, do you take the responsiblity for their deaths?
If an innocent person is killed because of the death penalty, I do take the responsibility. But so should you if an innocent person is incarcerated for life without parole. But it isn’t about our moral responsibility. It is about two things:
1) Protecting the society from criminals
2) Justice
I want murderers, rapists, psychopaths, sociophaths, taken out from the society. The only way to make sure that they don’t come back, is to hang them. Way of the Dodo might only talk about DNA evidence. But there are other unjust ways that people come out. In any case, as long as they are alive, they have an influence over the society.
Secondly, even if there was a way to protect the society without incarcerating people, and instead sending them to an isolated paradise island, I would still not want this. This is not because I think people have free will and that they are the ultimate sources of their actions. People’s actions are perfectly lawful. But still, people should take responsibility for their actions, even if they are just robots made to kill.
The difference between you and me is only where we draw the line. You are ready to send an innocent person to prison for life for the greater good. I’m willing to kill him for the greater good.
***
Thanks for correcting me about reasonable doubt. But I was thinking the same thing even though I was using the wrong word. What I meant by beyond reasonable doubt was 50% certainty. Absolute certainty is not exactly 100% certainty, since it’s unrealitic. It’s more in the region of 99, 98%. As I said, I’m not a lawyer.
the way of the dodo,
“And you have to be a proper cunt to take all the credit for your successes. People generally have the humility and/or the intelligence to acknowledge the other factors involved.”
Humility is just an empty gesture. Did you share your academic success with your childhood friends?
Do you send part of your salary to your first-grade teacher?
Sharanga, don’t presume to judge people you don’t know.
the way of the dodo,
Since you seem interested in evidence from other countries, here’s some for you. They don’t prove death penalty is lesss costly, but they prove something more important. Particularly pay attention to the following parts:
Deterrent
Interestingly, the murder rate in the U.S. dropped from 24,562 in 1993 to 18,209 in 1997, the lowest for years (a 26% reduction) – during a period of increased use of the death penalty. 311 (62%) of the 500 executions have been carried out in this period. The number of murders in 2003 was about 15,600.
convictions
Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have also been rising inexorably. Between 1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57 in 1965 – the first year of abolition.
Source:
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html
the way of the dodo,
Sharanga, don’t presume to judge people you don’t know.
I just did. I’m sure you don’t send part of your salary to your first-grade teacher. I’m sure you didn’t write other people’s exam papers, even though they helped you to study.
How do I know this? You are human.
As I understand it, the sentence of ‘life without parole’ does not mean that new evidence cannot result in an appeal and overturning of a guilty verdict. The ‘without parole’ bit just means that the convicted person will not be released on the basis of good behaviour or appearing to be rehabilitated.
“You are ready to send an innocent person to prison for life for the greater good. I’m willing to kill him for the greater good.”
Perhaps Sharanga will apply for the vacancy of executioner?
Unsurprisingly your judgement is poo poo.
so is your evidence. It,s pointless looking at national statistics in america. Only certain states ave capital punishment, and only very few of those are trigger happy. In america crime rate has fallen in states that don’t execute people not the other way around. To this day there is a directly proportional relationship between the murders per capita and the number of executions in the state.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRreg
This is nothing new. Many people know this. In fact there is a post at the very top which cites Texas as a prime example of a state with high crime rates despite executions.
I think Sharanga has fantasies of being ‘The Punisher’ or ‘Rorschach ‘
maybe he’ll hit the big time and get into this list
http://www.cracked.com/article_16612_6-real-life-vigilantes-crazier-than-batman.html
Sharanga, I would point out that the evidence you cite from http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html makes the common error of mistaking a correlation to be a causal relationship. The data presented in Dodo’s link on the other hand shows the correlation to be the reverse (i.e. US states without the death penalty have consistently lowered the murder rate, whereas those with the death penalty have been unable to do so). So who is rationalising vs. reasoning rationally?
the way of the dodo,
I think Sharanga has fantasies of being ‘The Punisher’ or ‘Rorschach ‘
What is it with losers that whenver they lose, they cannot stop themselves from saying and doing childish things to mock the opponent.
Since you mentioned Texas, if read the article I pointed you to, you would have learnt that there are clear evidence that the death penalty has worked well as a deterrent. Please read:
Texas carries out far more executions than any other American state (between 1982 and 2007 it executed 404 men and 2 women) and there is now clear evidence of a deterrent effect. My friend Rob Gallagher (author of Before the Needles website) has done an analysis of the situation using official FBI homicide figures. Between 1980 and 2000, there were 41,783 murders in Texas
In 1980 alone, 2,392 people died by homicide, giving it a murder rate of 16.88 for every 100,000 of the population. (The U.S. average murder rate in 1980 was 10.22, falling to 5.51 per 100,000 by the year 2000. Over the same period, Texas had a population increase of 32%, up 6,681,991 from 14,169,829 to 20,851,820. There were only 1,238 murders in 2000 giving it a rate of 5.94, just slightly higher than the national rate which had dropped to 5.51/100,000. In the base year (1980), there was one murder for every 5,924 Texans. By the year 2000, this had fallen to one murder for every 16,843 people or 35.2% of the 1980 value. If the 1980 murder rate had been allowed to maintain, there would have been, by interpolation, a total of 61,751 murders. On this basis, 19,968 people are not dead today who would have potentially been homicide victims, representing 78 lives saved for each one of the 256 executions. The overall U.S. murder rate declined by 54% during the period. Therefore, to achieve a reasonable estimate of actual lives saved, we must multiply 19,968 by 0.54 giving a more realistic figure of 10,783 lives saved or 42 lives per execution. Even if this estimate was off by a factor of 10 (which is highly unlikely), there would still be over 1,000 innocent lives saved or 4 lives per execution. One can see a drop in the number of murders in 1983, the year after Charlie Brooks became the first person to be executed by lethal injection in America.
Sorry, I should have been clearer – Dodo’s data shows that states without the death penalty have been able to lower their murder rates by similar amounts to states that have the death penalty. So there is no consistent correlation that says the presence of capital punishment as a deterrent against violent crime.
Fundamentally, the motivations behind these crimes are more complicated and it would be better if governments spent more effort in understanding the root causes and addressing them. For example, in Sri Lanka it is possible that the fear of getting caught will be sufficient deterrent to many of those engaged in sexual abuse of children in the extended family – so getting victims to report these crimes and the police to properly investigate these cases should be the first step.
Lankan Thinker,
…common error of mistaking a correlation to be a causal relationship.
If correlation does not imply causation, what does? It would be wise to say that correlation does not always imply causation. But most of the time it does.
You throw a rock, and a litte while later hear a thud. The rock-throw and the thud tend to correlate, doesn’t it?
The data presented in Dodo’s link on the other hand shows the correlation to be the reverse
Do you seriously think that it is fair to compare the murder rates of highly, developed, educated, liberal states like New York, New Jersey, Vermont, with the murder rates of backward states like Texas and Mississipi, and call that evidence that death penalty is not a deterrent? Does this say anything about the effect of the death penalty?
If you think that is the right way to go about this, I can’t help you.
On the other hand, the link I have given shows the impact of death penalty on one state – Texas.
Texas muder rate used to be 16.88 before the death penalty, while the national murder rate was 10.22. After the death penalty, Texas has reduced this rate dramatically. So by year 2000, Texas murder rate was 5.94, while national rate was 5.51.
Who’s rationalizing?
the way of the dodo,
It seems that you have no expirience in generating accurate information from statistical data. As I’ve pointed out to Lankan Thinker, your link only shows the different murder rates of different states, and concludes that states without death penalty have lower murder rates than states with that have the death penalty. You might also note that most states with death penalty are southern states, not very liberal, not very educated and poorer. If you think the death penalty has an effect on this difference, you might also conclude that the “southern-ness” of some states increases murder rates.
On the countrary, the link I have provided shows that Texas has had success in lowering murder rates after the introduction of the death penalty.
Texas Murder rate in 1980 : 16.88 for every 100,000 of the population
National average in 1980 : 10.22 for every 100,000 of the population
1983, the year Charlie Brooks became the first person to be executed by lethal injection in America.
Texas Murder rate in 2000 : 5.94 for every 100,000 of the population
National average in 2000 : 5.51 for every 100,000 of the population
(5.94 value is corroborated by your own link. Too bad it didn’t cite murder rates up to 1980).
I think I have made my point.
Why do you always ask for empirical evidence on SLn legal system? Every decision is not taken only considering the empirical evidence. We have to consider the limitations in our system. US is a developed country and we can safely assume they have better capabilities (like forensic) to make sure whether an accused is guilty. Still they take a very long time to come to the final judgment after appeal after appeal. Anybody can understand with poorer resources SL would take a longer time to do that.
By saying “beyond doubt” I didn’t wish to imply any legal meaning. I am not a lawyer.
For me the problem is not whether the death penalty cost more or less, but whether it can make innocents to be hanged and does it really deliver justice? Given the situation in SL it could be disastrous. It can become a tool for the politicians.
Moar malarkey!
Look at that data set Rorschach. There are plenty of states where the murder rate has dropped as fast or faster than Texas over past couple of decades without either having the death penalty or without executing people. For example Alaska, New Mexico, Kanas. Maybe it was Palin maybe it was the moose conspiracy.
You’re also not making it easier for yourself by bringing in education & development int0 the argument. What it means is that what ever deterrence effect capital punishment ‘might’ have is easily dwarfed by education and development.
Na na na! I never said the death penalty makes people want to kill more. I said there is a proportional relationship between the number of people executed & number of murder per capita. That much is evident by look at that website.
As a supporter of justice system which incarcerates people for life without parole, if an innocent person is incarcerated for life without parole, do you take the responsibility? Further, if an convict escapes from the prison and kills 10 people, do you take the responsiblity for their deaths?
someone’s brain oil is leaking :)
sach,
For one thing, if there are empirical evidence, we should use them when we make decisions. If you don’t beleive this, you can jump off your roof.
Two, if people make empircally testable claims, in a way that suggests that they have already emprically tested them and found them to be true, you should present that evidence.
For me the problem is not whether the death penalty cost more or less, but whether it can make innocents to be hanged and does it really deliver justice? Given the situation in SL it could be disastrous. It can become a tool for the politicians.
Cost was hardly the case when I said I don’t want to pay to keep the guy who murdered my friend alive. It has more to do with justice, as I said to Carasek.
But as I said to Carasek, you people have don’t have a lot of problem with sending a person for life without parole, which could result innocent people being incarcerated for the rest of their lives. That is bad. But you understand that it is necessary for the greater good.
So you do your calculations for greater good to a certan extent. But you don’t want to deal with the conclusion.
It doesn’t matter even if I prove to you that death penalty is indeed a deterrent. Your morals are deontological. Murder is inherently bad, and that’s the end of reasoning. Whatever reasons you present later are just rationalizations; arguments aimed at ending up at your preferred goal.
Sharanga, Correlation is a necessary but not sufficient to conclude causation (http://bit.ly/Qg0I8S) . It is inconsistent of you to demand data about the effect of the death penalty and then ignore the logical fallacy of assuming that a correlation between the two variables (murder rate and death penalty in this case) implies a causal relationship when analysing that data. By assuming that this causal relationship holds, even with the caveat *most* of the time – aren’t you rationalising your position that the death penalty is a dominant factor in reducing violent crime and is therefore the right deterrent to use in Sri Lanka?
As Dodo points out, it is possible that education, development, better training / resourcing of law enforcement and the judiciary, has an equal if not larger effect on violent crime.
the way of the dodo,
Look at that data set Rorschach. There are plenty of states where the murder rate has dropped as fast or faster than Texas over past couple of decades without either having the death penalty or without executing people. For example Alaska, New Mexico, Kanas. Maybe it was Palin maybe it was the moose conspiracy.
It seems it is more worthwhile to argue with rock than with you.
You’re also not making it easier for yourself by bringing in education & development int0 the argument. What it means is that what ever deterrence effect capital punishment ‘might’ have is easily dwarfed by education and development.
As if development and higher education levels are easier to achieve than implementing death penalty.
Bye!
Lankan Thinker,
Correlation is a necessary but not sufficient to conclude causation
Exactly what I said.
It is inconsistent of you to demand data about the effect of the death penalty and then ignore the logical fallacy of assuming that a correlation between the two variables (murder rate and death penalty in this case) implies a causal relationship when analysing that data.
Logical fallacy? If you want to understanding anything from looking at statistical data, that is going to be through correlation. What do you think? That in statistics there is a causal chain under all those numbers?
As Dodo points out, it is possible that education, development, better training / resourcing of law enforcement and the judiciary, has an equal if not larger effect on violent crime.
As if development and higher education levels are easier to achieve than implementing death penalty.
here’s something amusing about texas
between 1980-90 the murder rate dropped from 16.9-14 with 33 executions.
Then dropped from 14-5.9 with 133 executions in the 90s.
This seems impressive and then with their governor in the white house they went on murdering people with gay abandon. between 2000-2009 they executed 248, a 50% increase. But alas the murder rate dropped from 5.9 to 5.4. Wonder what happened there?
I also wonder wonder why Rorschach’s source stopped looking at numbers after 2000. :?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_people_executed_in_Texas
@sharanga
Your main point, surely, is that you have way more free time than anyone else to try to justify your position? Sorry, unfair comment, perhaps.
I used to favour the death penalty (in certain circumstances) a very long time ago, but I thought about it a lot and I changed my mind. I listened to both sides, dismissed the zealots and thought about the pure argument. I’m interested in following up a few of your comments about the death penalty with queries of my own, but you have lapsed into setting traps that means I’m not sure one can have a serious conversation with you. You provide and analyse some evidence, a bit selectively, but it’s interesting to read. However, you then you slip in dubious value judgements based on no evidence at the same time. A few examples:
“As a supporter of justice system which incarcerates people for life without parole, if an innocent person is incarcerated for life without parole, do you take the responsibility? Further, if an convict escapes from the prison and kills 10 people, do you take the responsiblity for their deaths?”
First point is a fair question, but simply answered. Yes, I take responsibility for supporting a system that protects society from dangerous people. I also support having an equitable justice system with safeguards and ready access to legal aid for access to skilled lawyers. An innocent man imprisoned can be released on appeal. I support that ideal, for sure. Your second point is specious and barely deserves a response. Very few lifers escape, far fewer still kill again. The solution to that is to make sure they can’t escape. The death penalty guarantees innocent people being killed, locking them up for life presents a very low possibility of criminals killing in future. Yours is a straw man argument.
You state “Absolute certainty is not exactly 100% certainty, since it’s unrealitic. It’s more in the region of 99, 98%” Where did these figures come from if you didn’t just make them up? Reasonable doubt is a lot lower than that, and can change depending on new evidence, not available at the trial.
Picture this: a baby dies from a head injury and the doctors find multiple bone fractures that have healed over time, it looks like a history of abuse and the mother is charged with murder. She says that the baby fell over backwards and hit his head. Doctors say that the skull fracture was too severe to be from a fall, it was from a blow. Standard of proof? On these facts there’s no reasonable doubt the child was struck with a fatal blow to the head, it just comes down to who did it. The mother accepts she was the only one present at the time. She’s convicted and sentenced to life, or in your preferred world, death. From the facts provided, seems clear. But is it absolute? 98, 99%? Meaningless, really. This is similar to an actual case in the UK. Some time later, the baby’s corpse was tested for rickets and came up positive. A small fall would have killed him and his undiagnosed condition explained the history of fractures. Suddenly considerable doubt. However, by my way she can be released, by your way the government just killed an innocent mother who had just lost her baby.
Next up: “If correlation does not imply causation, what does? It would be wise to say that correlation does not always imply causation. But most of the time it does.”
‘Most’ of the time? Where’s that from if not made up? Any half-decent statistician will say that unless there are very good reasons to conclude causality, one should only conclude correlation. Any reasonable alternative to causality negates its terminological use statistically. It’s a fundamental principle of statistics. Most of the time one can only accept correlation.
As they say, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. As a matter of fact the death penalty doesn’t deter all murder as there’s plenty going round even in countries which execute. Some murderers just don’t care at the time of the crime, have a severe mental illness or don’t think they’ll be caught. Sure, the death penalty will deter some, long prison sentences will also deter some, as will an effective police force. But there can be other ‘reasonable alternatives’ to your claim of the death penalty being the cause, or even the primary cause of a lower murder rate. Consider increased incarceration for one, increased police, less corruption, better detection rates, even abortion. I can’t quite be bothered to get into the full argument here, as this this last part is quite well presented in Freakonomics, a short summary of which can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChCZi-ruat0). However, even this causation analysis has come under considerable criticism.
Even if you accept the points above, I’m sure you’ll still argue until the cows come home that there are justifications of deterrent, cost or whatever for the death penalty. It’s easy because you can turn a blind eye to the statistical analysis that you don’t agree with and turn to the analysis that (to a certain extent) might support your existing viewpoint. That’s what lobbyists in the US on both sides have been doing for years. Think on this, though: if you have a death penalty for crimes lower than murder, there’s really no reason not to kill the victim and every reason to do so (less chance of being caught for one). So more rape victims, for example, might be murdered, too.
I am convinced that if you look more deeply, it’s clear that the death penalty is not an effective solution. However, in the end it really does come down to a simple rule: you support the death penalty because you’re willing to accept the State killing innocent people, I don’t because I am not.
… oh and the whole argument about paying to keep the murderer of your friend alive as he lives his life out in prison is specious, too. Turn it around. Your son is convicted of a crime you’re damn sure he didn’t commit, those who did it laugh in your face but when you tell that to the police they say it’s just heresay. You know it’s a matter of time before someone talks, before too many people get to hear about it, before there’s the opportunity to build a case for appeal. Life imprisonment buys you that time. Still want a death penalty?
Sharanga,
As if development and higher education levels are easier to achieve than implementing death penalty.
I am not saying it is easier, but it also not a foregone conclusion that doing the easier thing will achieve the best outcome. It would be easy to just have the prisons department to hire their two executioners and start executing people. However, I wouldn’t want this to happen in the present law enforcement culture of Sri Lanka. As far as I know, the Sri Lankan police are not required to provide an accused with legal representation during questioning and are often accused of beating confessions out of suspects. Our courts accept these confessions and sentence people depending on the crime. I say it would deeply unjust if a person confessed to rape under such circumstances and was convicted to hang.
However, to get our society and law enforcement culture to a point where there is minimum chance of the death penalty resulting in irreversible injustices being carried out, is going to require investment in education and development. This investment should also aim to increase the capability of the police in investigating crimes and the prosecution services in ensuring that the guilty are convicted. I doubt such measures would result in an increase in violent crime, so we should do this before advocating killing people.
I feel that replying to anyone other than Carasek is going to be pointless. So this is my reply to Carasek, and will be my last comment on this thread.
Your main point, surely, is that you have way more free time than anyone else to try to justify your position? Sorry, unfair comment, perhaps.
Wish you hadn’t said that.
“As a supporter of justice system which incarcerates people for life without parole, if an innocent person is incarcerated for life without parole, do you take the responsibility? Further, if an convict escapes from the prison and kills 10 people, do you take the responsiblity for their deaths?”
Thank you for answering “yes” to the first question. If I’m complicit in killing an innocent man, you are at least complicit in keeping an innocent man in living hell for a long time, until he eventually dies.
But your answer to the second question was questioning the question itself. You say “Your second point is specious and barely deserves a response. Very few lifers escape, far fewer still kill again. The solution to that is to make sure they can’t escape. The death penalty guarantees innocent people being killed, locking them up for life presents a very low possibility of criminals killing in future. Yours is a straw man argument.”
Let me take that as true that very few lifers escape. Still, some do escape. So in the event that it really does happen, should you not take the responsibility if that person goes and starts killing again? I think it deserves an Yes/No answer.
You have also conveniently looked over an important point I made. If a person is sent for life without parole, he/she still has some influence over the society. They are desperate than most other human beings and they really do kill prison guards, rape and beat up other prisoners, and harden-up other criminals. You cannot deny that this actually happens. So even if your answer to the last question was No because you don’t think it’s important, still you have to take responsibility if a desperate lifer did something anti-social.
Your whole point was I should be responsible for the inadequacy of the system. If so, you should be responsible for the inadequacies of your system.
You state “Absolute certainty is not exactly 100% certainty, since it’s unrealitic. It’s more in the region of 99, 98%” Where did these figures come from if you didn’t just make them up? Reasonable doubt is a lot lower than that, and can change depending on new evidence, not available at the trial.
Maybe. But still, you are complicit in sending an innocent mother for life without parole. I’m responsible for killing her. But I think the death penalty is really a deterrent. It would be fine if we had better system. But death penalty works.
Next up: “If correlation does not imply causation, what does? It would be wise to say that correlation does not always imply causation. But most of the time it does… Most of the time?
I should have qualified the statement so that it includes only the type of correlation that I was talking about. This is an obvious correlation, just like in quantum mechanical experiments, where the positions of particles are obviously correlated to the experimental results. Now if you want to get hanged up in the term “most of the time”, do so, except it is entirely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. The Lankan Thinker was saying that simply because there is a correlation, that doesn’t mean there’s causation. My point is, when there is causation, correlations look exactly like this. I cannot prove causation without doing an experiment. But it still looks very much like that there is causation. You can cry there are lies, damn lies and statistics. But if statistics are total lies, we shouldn’t even teach them in universities.
****
The bottom line is, death penalty works. Not because it is death we are talking about. It is because tough punishments actually work. Take Singapore or China for example. They have tough laws, and have lower crime rates.
Torture works too. No matter what some of the politically correct people might say, it really does work. It might cause people to testify falsely. But if you want to extract information, it really does work.
Now you can come up with good reasons for not torturing people, for not executing people. But don’t make ridiculous rationalizations like death penalty is not a deterrent. This argument doesn’t make any sense. Somehow, it makes sense to fine a guy for reckless driving and imprison a guy for stealing, but it doesn’t make sense to kill a guy for murder. If death penalty really doesn’t work, it makes no sense that sending guy to prison for stealing should work. We should just fine him and let him go. But that doesn’t work like that, does it?
It’s just that what special quality for death that makes death penalty not a deterrent, while imprisonment is a deterrent?
Whatever.
@sharanga
I respect you saying that it’ll be your last post, so I will try not to comment in a way that compels you to respond. So I won’t respond to all your comments.
If you want to be reductive, I’ll play along. I believe we have to have a justice system and a mechanism for (a) protecting the public from criminals and (b) to punish those criminals. So, yes, if an innocent person is imprisoned for life I will take responsibility for that to a degree. The degree is that I also take responsibility to advocate a better justice system so that fewer innocents are convicted, that convicts should not be abused in prison and that there remains a fair process to overturn improper convictions. You can advocate the former two, but not the latter if you support a death penalty.
“Let me take that as true that very few lifers escape. Still, some do escape. So in the event that it really does happen, should you not take the responsibility if that person goes and starts killing again? I think it deserves an Yes/No answer.”
There are very few yes/no answers in life. Anything that has a scintilla of complexity demands more, so your demand is unreasonable. What if a death row inmate kills someone in prison, or escapes and does the same? I should take responsibility for those, too? Why not you? Hell, there’s a strong correlation (note not causation!) between kids abusing animals and them then going on to commit violent crime, most psychopaths start out that way. Not all kids who do that will kill, but some will. Very few prisoners will escape and kill, but some will. Should I take responsibility for animal abusers’ later crimes because I failed to act on a slight risk? If so, you should start advocating the death penalty for those kids pronto. If, on the remote possibility that as a consequence of the convicted murderer not being executed, he escapes and kills again do I take a little bit of responsibility because I supported him not being killed? Perhaps. But you must take full responsibility for the innocent people who will be killed by the State, because that’s not a mere possibility, that is certain. It troubles me that this bothers you less.
Citing abuses in prison is pragmatic (it happens), and probably the point at which I most agree with you. No-one wants to spend money on prisoners, so they get little rehabilitation, no counselling, poor food, bad conditions and they are definitely subject to less protection. However, these things can be tackled if necessary.
That recent Norweigan mass murderer complained that prison was too comfortable. I imagine a Nigerian prison would be terrifying. These are matters of policy and resources. So no, I don’t have to take great responsibility if they do something anti-social, so long as I support prison reform, but I do take some responsibility for what they get up to beyond the age at which you would have killed them. If your real argument is that a dead prisoner doesn’t cause or be subjected to anti-social behaviour I’d say this: it doesn’t get much more anti-social than killing them. If you’re saying they’re better off dead, I’ll leave that for them to decide and potentially allow suicide. If you say they might attack lesser criminals, then I say put all lifers in together. If you say I’m responsible for all the negatives they might get up to as a lifer, I’ll take credit for the positives – the innocents who are released, the innocents that live even in confinement and the guilty who reform. With either of our standpoints, we both have to take responsibility for the inadequacies of our systems.
The inadequacies you see in my system include cost, the deterrent effect, the risk of escape and anti-social behaviour in prison itself. Note that I said that the death penalty will deter some – please don’t put words in my mouth or ignore the rather important words I do use. Of course there’s some deterrent effect, but only to some criminals. Not to the insane, not for the crimes of passion and definitely not to people who don’t care or don’t think they’ll be caught. I think all these inadequacies are significantly overstated and don’t balance out the certainty that innocent people will be killed by the State by your system. How many innocents are killed by the State depends on the State: the more corruption and ineffective the justice system, the more innocents they will kill.
We will likely never get to a point where your system’s inadequacies will be fixed (innocents being wrongly killed), but with an effective prison service we can get to a point where my system’s inadequacies are almost eliminated, save for innocents being imprisoned for life.
Where I offer some consensus is this: if you care about innocent people being killed by criminals, but don’t care if the State kills innocent people, then your system does address the perceived weaknesses in mine. It even acts as more of a deterrent, not to the extent that you argue, but to some potential criminals, for sure. Further, a dead man can’t escape, can’t be anti-social, and (after he’s dead) doesn’t cost very much. But he may well have been innocent.
Sharanga, frankly you are a moron. You cannot differentiate between being able to pardon a person who has a life sentence because of new evidence and bringing back a dead person. You don’t understand that multiple factors can affect one outcome and you think that burning a house down is punishable by death? Please do the world a favour and sterilize yourself?
The best thing i can do here, share what George Carlin said about death penalty, and i agree to carlin (minus the hyper). i think the punishment with life would reduce the frequency crimes are committed.
check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI
Excellent find.
I think the media can do a lot more than it is at present, instead of just reporting these incidents in a sensational manner, assuming that the media has that much freedom. (We can’t rely on the police anymore)
They should
Educate the public on what is acceptable behaviour, how best to protect themelves, what should be done in case of a violation and what help is available to a victim.
Call for swift action from the police and courts.
Relentlessly expose the links these criminals have with powerful people, which is the reason for delaying the arrest of suspects.
Follow up on the progress of investigations and report on them, put pressure on officials and politicians to expedite procedures.
Agree with you. A strong judiciary, Police and democratic governance will ensure less people breaking the law. We should have a ‘name and shame’ program with all sex offenders photo and details published in the national newspapers.
If you know your going to get caught that is the one and only deterrent. Especially after the buggers who get caught get buggered in jail by other inmates they will see better.
However for any sentence to work, people must trust justice to be served.
Not every one buggered in jail by other inmates. Like i said before if you have the power or money, you can live comfortably even in jail. there are mob bosses who run mobs from inside the jail.
“if you have the power or money, you can live comfortably even in jail”
True for Sarath Fonseka.
I like to know how philosophical you get or how your knees jerk if it is your son, daughter, wife or mother that is raped (not that I ever wish it). I do not know how I will act in a real situation, but putting myself in the shoes, I want to kill the MF myself. Perhaps the education and other solutions combined with death penalty might work better.
Making policy on justice based on what you’d do if the crime was committed against you or your family is retarded. If someone committed even a low-level crime against a loved one I would most likely react in a highly unfriendly fashion, but I’d expect to be punished if my response was a crime itself. The individual can be blinded by hate and anger and make rash, even though understandable, decisions. The State should not act like an angry individual out for vengeance.
The death penalty isn’t an effective deterrent anywhere, either. The US has by far the worst murder rate of any developed country, yet is one of the only developed countries to kill its citizens. It’s estimated China executes over 10,000 people a year, so even with the corruption in their justice system (organs being sold, highly suspect conviction rates etc), serious crimes are still committed. They commit these crimes because they don’t think they’ll be caught, or they don’t care if they are caught. The death penalty isn’t about prevention or justice, it’s about revenge and blood lust. I might rather child rapists and murderers were not alive, but I don’t want the State to bring that about, even were I to trust them to only ever execute the right person (which of course I don’t).
What’s needed in Sri Lanka isn’t an active death sentence, it’s an active interest in giving enough of a shit to protect children from these rapists. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard of girls being raped by fathers, uncles and neighbours in villages. The victims suffer from social stigma and aren’t much supported if they speak out, the criminals get away with it as if it’s normal. If they are connected, they are often immune. This isn’t a new story, although the papers are finally taking a little interest now. It’s been going on for years, and the police, politicians and the media have turned a blind eye and for the most part continue to do so.
The government want to hang a child rapist so they can say, “we’re disgusted by this like you are, see?” whereas what they should be doing is to clamp down, hard, on the crime in the first place, starting with a public awareness campaign to de-stigmatise victims, providing money for shelters for the victims, finally moving to the justice system acting in the best interest of the victims for a change. Further, there needs to be more support for soliders suffering from PTSD – the things some of these young men have seen and done will affect them, and makes them potentially dangerous.
Writer of this is a result of a rape.
You missed the most important thing in your list which is lack of law and order in the society. All the other stuff comes next. Police do not have the authority to carry out their duties because of political interference. What an innocent girl or a family can do in this kind of situation really? You can educate them or whatever. You are living comfortable social life in high middle-class. Things are different in real “common –man” life. This government was created by the JVP, JHU,LTTE and Sinhala middle class which says a lot!
There is another down side of instigating the death penalty (and actually following through with the hanging) for child rape or rape in general. While incidents of rape are alarmingly high is Sri Lanka, rape-murders are proportionally low. I fear an introduction of the death penalty would lead to a increase in the number of victims being murdered on the simple basis that the rapists have nothing to loose, so they might as well reduce the number of witnesses and make a conviction more difficult.
There has to be a difference in the sentencing for rape and murder or one will very easily lead into the other.
Actually, not only death penalty, but a HORRIBLE death penalty, like boiling a person in big Oil stove, Electric chair etc. and all these punishments to be made in front of public and his relatives should also be present there at the spot.
Do this 10 times only in this country, JUST 10 Times…….Trust me, you will not see this bad crime happening in this country for nex t50 years……!!
i personally believe giving a good sex education for girls who are above 10-11 in age can somewhat reduce this problem. Some girls who are subject to abuse do not even know what is happening to them or whether they are being abused. Those who have at least a basic understanding realize what he is doing to her is not good and will get out of it. I personally know a girl in a remote village who could avoid such a situation basically because she could undestand what was going to happen.
[...] are majorly concerned about the spate of rape and sexual abuse stories in the news. While many are calling for the death penalty, killing offenders isn’t an effective solution. If we put heads on stakes and the social [...]
[...] we want to address the problem. It’s really not productive to say these are horrible people, execute them. That’s honestly just lazy and doesn’t address the problem, plus we’d need to [...]