|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
(personal anecdote alert), my wife tells me Korea is really cracking down on serious crime such as rape, murder, etc. (belatedly, according to her. I rarely see her get wound up, but this issue has - she thinks this is long overdue).
Anyway, we know how many Koreans and the media here follow "trends", and this currently seems to be one of them. I personally don't follow K jurisprudence or its criminal justice system very closely, but I guess the pendulum is swinging in that direction.
Whether that means any long-term substantive changes will be made remains to be seen, I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tiger fancini
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Location: Testicles for Eyes
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I reckon he'll get the death sentence. Didn't Kang Ho Soon, the Gyeonggi serial killer, get the death sentence last year? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| We can see this borne out, at least in terms of correlation, by examining states in the United States which do and do not have the death penalty. According to data I posted some time ago on these forums, the states without the death penalty have a substantially lower overall average murder rate than the states which do have the death penalty. |
I think it's nothing more than correlative. Those states with low murder rates and no capital punishment statutes are also overwhelmingly the richest.
| Fox wrote: |
| In my estimation, societies marked by compassion produce overall better results. |
| Fox wrote: |
| A society willing to give men like Mr. 김 the chance to reform -- whether he deserves it or not -- is a better society overall, and one I for one would be happier to live in. |
What do you mean by "better?"
I know you qualified your first statement with overall, but I would still like to use Singapore as an example. While I would never choose to visit, let alone live, there because of the insane strictness of their laws, it's hard to argue that their responses to crime haven't been extremely effective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| We can see this borne out, at least in terms of correlation, by examining states in the United States which do and do not have the death penalty. According to data I posted some time ago on these forums, the states without the death penalty have a substantially lower overall average murder rate than the states which do have the death penalty. |
I think it's nothing more than correlative. Those states with low murder rates and no capital punishment statutes are also overwhelmingly the richest. |
I think you're understating this correlation. Whether rich or poor, according to this the only state without the death penalty that has a murder rate equal to or higher than the national average is Alaska, and Alaska's rate is just barely over it. With regards to the point about wealth, while most of the states in the union which lack the death penalty are in the top 50% of states by wealth, of the top 5 states by wealth 4 still actively enforce the death penalty (California, Texas, Florida, and Illinois), and 1 does not (New York). California, Texas, and Illinois have murder rates above the national average, and Florida's is just under the national average. New York, on the other hand, is noticably below the national average. So in actuality, states which lack the death penalty actually have lower murder rates than richer states which do have the death penalty.
There's a noticable pattern here. I simply don't see any data that suggests having the death penalty improves society in any way, while at the same time, I see evidence that suggests lacking the death penalty has positive benefits. The idea that killing someone for breaking the law is wrong seems to have a strong impact on how prone the citizens of a given state are to murder in general. And is that particularly surprising?
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| In my estimation, societies marked by compassion produce overall better results. |
| Fox wrote: |
| A society willing to give men like Mr. 김 the chance to reform -- whether he deserves it or not -- is a better society overall, and one I for one would be happier to live in. |
What do you mean by "better?"
I know you qualified your first statement with overall, but I would still like to use Singapore as an example. While I would never choose to visit, let alone live, there because of the insane strictness of their laws, it's hard to argue that their responses to crime haven't been extremely effective. |
If a society can espouse virtues like mercy and compassion (I guess we could argue whether these things are truly virtues, but I certainly think they are), while simultaneously benefitting from a lower murder rate, wouldn't you say they've done better than a comparable society which has either a higher crime rate, a less merciful system of justice, or both? I would, and that's what we see when we compare states without the death penalty to states with the death penalty.
Singapore has done a good job of eliminating crime, but it has done so using fairly brutal methods. That creates room for discussion about whether the lack of crime is worth it. If we can reduce crime using mercy instead of brutality, though, I don't see why a similar discussion is warranted. It seems like a win-win situation to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| No barbarism? What do you call the death penalty? |
Barbaric is a loaded term that has no business being used in any intelligent discussion (unless, of course, that discussion pertains specifically to the Germanic tribes of yore). If we could be 100% confident in the legitimacy of murder convictions (which we can't), there would be no reason not to use the death penalty as a form of punishment; appropriately-placed vengeance doesn't lower society to the level of people like 김길태. |
I disagree with this. While the possibility of mistakenly executing someone is one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty, I personally feel it is by no means the only one. I can't think of any possible crime wherein the potential for the criminal to reform doesn't exist. So long as the potential for reform exists, we aren't justified in executing criminals. |
Not only that, but it is like saying, "We are going to show you that killing is wrong by...killing you!"  WTF? |
I never understood this line of reasoning. Is it legal for a person to speed? Should the police be allowed to speed to catch those who are speeding? Are people allowed to take money from others? Should the government be allowed to levy fines as a punishment? Are people allowed to lock people up and confine them to a small room in their basement? Should the government be allowed to lock people up in cells? |
The death penalty is qualitatively different from those other punishments which mimic the crime in that it is irreversible should the defendant be shown later to be not guilty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We really need to make up our minds one way or the other when it comes to capital punishment and reform. Either make executions quick, cheap, and certain (Murder=Death Penalty, 1 Appeal within 90 days, 1 final appeal week before, execution by single .44 to skull within 100 days) or sentence people to a turn in a genuine rehabilitation facility/colony, NOT PRISON. We either punish or we reform. What we don't do is put people out of sight out of mind and then turn them loose after seven and a half to 15 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
First, I would like to apologize for the incredible delay in my response. Life happens sometimes. 
| Fox wrote: |
| I think you're understating this correlation. Whether rich or poor, according to this the only state without the death penalty that has a murder rate equal to or higher than the national average is Alaska, and Alaska's rate is just barely over it. With regards to the point about wealth, while most of the states in the union which lack the death penalty are in the top 50% of states by wealth, of the top 5 states by wealth 4 still actively enforce the death penalty (California, Texas, Florida, and Illinois), and 1 does not (New York). California, Texas, and Illinois have murder rates above the national average, and Florida's is just under the national average. New York, on the other hand, is noticably below the national average. So in actuality, states which lack the death penalty actually have lower murder rates than richer states which do have the death penalty. |
Where did you get your income statistics from? Is it reporting only gross income? From the same article you linked:
| Quote: |
Almost all of the nation's wealthiest twenty states, which included northern mid-western and western states such as Wisconsin and California, had crime rates below the national average. In addition to having the country's lowest crime rates, New England states also had the country's highest median household income, while the Southern states have the lowest.
This contrasts starkly to some of the nation's poorer states such as Georgia, Florida or Louisiana. Louisiana had a crime rate 27% and a homicide rate 130.9% above the national average and ranked as the nation's fourth poorest state with a median household income 20% below the national median. While poorer states generally have higher crime rates, several states who fell below the national median for household income such as Maine and Kentucky also had crime rates below the national average, while some wealthier states such as Maryland and Hawaii had crime rates above the national average. |
That definitely supports the correlation between poverty and crime.
Note, I'm not suggesting that this would be the only influence. In places like the Dakotas, for example, there are extremely poor areas with little to no violent crime. These areas are mostly fairly racially homogenous, which I believe to be another key factor, among others. (Also, you'll notice that both Dakotas have extremely low violent crime rates despite having radically different capital punishment statutes.)
| Quote: |
| There's a noticable pattern here. I simply don't see any data that suggests having the death penalty improves society in any way, while at the same time, I see evidence that suggests lacking the death penalty has positive benefits. |
I see states with and without the death penalty having low violent crime rates as well as states with and without the death penalty having high violent crime rates. The data doesn't consistently support a link between the two.
| Quote: |
| The idea that killing someone for breaking the law is wrong seems to have a strong impact on how prone the citizens of a given state are to murder in general. And is that particularly surprising? |
I wouldn't normally suggest the death penalty to be more of a deterrent than life imprisonment (Singapore is a rare example), as the people most likely to commit murder are either not in a state of mind conducive to rationally considering the consequences of their actions or they believe they won't get caught. These same people would at least be equally unlikely to more often decide to commit murder because there is more punishment. But furthermore, I don't see how any sane person (again, the insane wouldn't be making these considerations anyway) would see a society that utilizes capital punishment as more of a reason to put themselves at risk of death by committing murder. You could make the case that a society using the death penalty has fewer resources to direct towards preventative police enforcement, but that's not a case against capital punishment in theory, just in how it's practiced (in the US anyway).
| Quote: |
| If a society can espouse virtues like mercy and compassion (I guess we could argue whether these things are truly virtues, but I certainly think they are) |
I definitely would not list mercy as a virtue. I define mercy as knowingly giving an individual a punishment less severe than what is deserved. Giving a murderer three years probation would be an example of mercy. Giving a murderer life imprisonment if you think he deserves nothing more would not be an example of mercy. If someone has been deemed worthy of a particular punishment, I don't see how it's virtuous to punish him any less.
| Quote: |
| If a society can espouse virtues like mercy and compassion (I guess we could argue whether these things are truly virtues, but I certainly think they are), while simultaneously benefitting from a lower murder rate, wouldn't you say they've done better than a comparable society which has either a higher crime rate, a less merciful system of justice, or both? I would, and that's what we see when we compare states without the death penalty to states with the death penalty. |
Society A: merciful, distinctly low murder rate
Society B: merciful, distinctly high murder rate
Society C: not merciful, distinctly low crime rate
Socety D: not merciful, distinctly high crime rate
Given what I said above, I think you can see this coming... I would rate these societies as follows: C >= A > D >= B
| Quote: |
| Singapore has done a good job of eliminating crime, but it has done so using fairly brutal methods. That creates room for discussion about whether the lack of crime is worth it. If we can reduce crime using mercy instead of brutality, though, I don't see why a similar discussion is warranted. It seems like a win-win situation to me. |
For me at least, Singapore is less-then-desirable not only because of the severity of the punishments but the combination of severe punishment and relative lack of freedom. As for whether mercy or brutality (another word that we really shouldn't be using) is favorable, well, why should we punish someone less than what they deserve? What makes that more desirable? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I think you're understating this correlation. Whether rich or poor, according to this the only state without the death penalty that has a murder rate equal to or higher than the national average is Alaska, and Alaska's rate is just barely over it. With regards to the point about wealth, while most of the states in the union which lack the death penalty are in the top 50% of states by wealth, of the top 5 states by wealth 4 still actively enforce the death penalty (California, Texas, Florida, and Illinois), and 1 does not (New York). California, Texas, and Illinois have murder rates above the national average, and Florida's is just under the national average. New York, on the other hand, is noticably below the national average. So in actuality, states which lack the death penalty actually have lower murder rates than richer states which do have the death penalty. |
Where did you get your income statistics from? Is it reporting only gross income? |
I was basing it just on GDP.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
From the same article you linked:
| Quote: |
Almost all of the nation's wealthiest twenty states, which included northern mid-western and western states such as Wisconsin and California, had crime rates below the national average. In addition to having the country's lowest crime rates, New England states also had the country's highest median household income, while the Southern states have the lowest.
This contrasts starkly to some of the nation's poorer states such as Georgia, Florida or Louisiana. Louisiana had a crime rate 27% and a homicide rate 130.9% above the national average and ranked as the nation's fourth poorest state with a median household income 20% below the national median. While poorer states generally have higher crime rates, several states who fell below the national median for household income such as Maine and Kentucky also had crime rates below the national average, while some wealthier states such as Maryland and Hawaii had crime rates above the national average. |
That definitely supports the correlation between poverty and crime. |
I've been focusing on comparing, specifically, murder rates, not crime rates in general. The death penalty is only used for a very few crimes, after all, and murder is the easiest and most universal example.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There's a noticable pattern here. I simply don't see any data that suggests having the death penalty improves society in any way, while at the same time, I see evidence that suggests lacking the death penalty has positive benefits. |
I see states with and without the death penalty having low violent crime rates as well as states with and without the death penalty having high violent crime rates. The data doesn't consistently support a link between the two. |
The data certainly, undeniably, 100% lacks any suggestion that the death penalty effectively lowers murder rates. At the same time, it shows trends which at the very least imply (I think far more than imply, but I suppose it's arguable) that lacking the death penalty has a positive impact. I don't see how putting people to death for crimes makes society better if it doesn't actually reduce the crimes its meant to deter against.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| But furthermore, I don't see how any sane person (again, the insane wouldn't be making these considerations anyway) would see a society that utilizes capital punishment as more of a reason to put themselves at risk of death by committing murder. |
I don't think their thought process would be as you describe. Rather, I suggest the possibility that a society sufficiently blood-thirsty to accept the death penalty is going to be more prone to murder in general. Surely we can agree that one's culture affects their likelihood to commit crimes like murder?
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I definitely would not list mercy as a virtue. I define mercy as knowingly giving an individual a punishment less severe than what is deserved. |
Well, then we disagree on the definition, because I don't think people deserve punishment; it doesn't make things better, ever. Rather, I define mercy as showing restraint in a situation where you have both the power to inflict harmful retribution, and the desire to do so. This may simply be an impasse with regards to our respective world-views.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Giving a murderer three years probation would be an example of mercy. Giving a murderer life imprisonment if you think he deserves nothing more would not be an example of mercy. If someone has been deemed worthy of a particular punishment, I don't see how it's virtuous to punish him any less. |
To adapt this to my worldview, sparing the life of a murderer who killed children in hopes that he could one day reform is mercy. On an emotional level, many people no doubt would have an urge to kill him, and perhaps even torture him. Restraining ourselves from acting upon such impulses is merciful.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
Society A: merciful, distinctly low murder rate
Society B: merciful, distinctly high murder rate
Society C: not merciful, distinctly low crime rate
Socety D: not merciful, distinctly high crime rate
Given what I said above, I think you can see this coming... I would rate these societies as follows: C >= A > D >= B |
And obviously I feel the opposite; in Society C, more people would have harm needlessly inflicted on them than in Society A, with no reciprocal gains. I don't see how it's better in any real sense. Justice in my estimation consists of righting wrongs and preventing future possible harm, not in vengeful retribution.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| As for whether mercy or brutality (another word that we really shouldn't be using) is favorable, well, why should we punish someone less than what they deserve? What makes that more desirable? |
I don't think anyone deserves punishment. Some actions by the state that resemble punishment (fines as deterrants, for example, or incarceration to keep dangerous individuals from harming others in society) are required for order, but punishment for its own sake is not a notion I consider reasonable; it doesn't right any wrongs. Indeed, from my perspective it actually compounds previous wrongs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I see states with and without the death penalty having low violent crime rates as well as states with and without the death penalty having high violent crime rates. The data doesn't consistently support a link between the two. |
The data certainly, undeniably, 100% lacks any suggestion that the death penalty effectively lowers murder rates. At the same time, it shows trends which at the very least imply (I think far more than imply, but I suppose it's arguable) that lacking the death penalty has a positive impact. I don't see how putting people to death for crimes makes society better if it doesn't actually reduce the crimes its meant to deter against. |
You're right, it's fairly clear that except in extreme cases (like Singapore), the death penalty doesn't do much to lower murder rates. At the same time, though, I also don't see the data even implying that lacking the death penalty has an effect either.
As for your last point, I'll address that at the end.
| Fox wrote: |
| I don't think their thought process would be as you describe. Rather, I suggest the possibility that a society sufficiently blood-thirsty to accept the death penalty is going to be more prone to murder in general. Surely we can agree that one's culture affects their likelihood to commit crimes like murder? |
I thought you were probably going in that direction with your comments.
I don't see how a society that teaches that people who (for example) rape, torture, and kill others should themselves be punished with death fosters a "bloodthirsty" mentality among the populace. You steal, expect to pay a fine and maybe spend some time in jail. You assault someone, expect to spend some time in jail. You kidnap children, lock them up in your basement, kill them, and serve them to your neighbors, expect to be put to death. How would that expectation lead people to become more prone to violence?
| Fox wrote: |
Well, then we disagree on the definition, because I don't think people deserve punishment; it doesn't make things better, ever. Rather, I define mercy as showing restraint in a situation where you have both the power to inflict harmful retribution, and the desire to do so. This may simply be an impasse with regards to our respective world-views.
I don't think anyone deserves punishment. Some actions by the state that resemble punishment (fines as deterrants, for example, or incarceration to keep dangerous individuals from harming others in society) are required for order, but punishment for its own sake is not a notion I consider reasonable; it doesn't right any wrongs. Indeed, from my perspective it actually compounds previous wrongs. |
I think you may be right about our difference in world-views, which is why I'd like to switch from debate to mere discussion for a bit.
It seems that you've adopted an ends-only-justified approach. Capital punishment is undesirable because it has no observable benefits. Do you see it that way?
I see punishment as a 'negative earning.' When I signed my current employment contract, I agreed to do X amount of work and be paid X amount of money. I do the appropriate amount of work, and as a result I have earned the previously agreed upon X amount of money. I deserve it. In the same manner, if I knowingly the break the law, I have earned whatever punishment is appropriate for that crime*. I deserve it.
As a result of my positive actions, I receive a positive earning. Similarly, as a result of my negative actions, I receive a negative earning. If my negative earning can be made into an observable, material benefit to society, that's great... but I don't think it should be dismissed merely because it can't be converted as such.
*Assuming of course that punishment actually is appropriate for the crime. $200 ticket for going 4 miles over the speed limit in Gordo, Mississippi? No. Lopping my hands off for stealing some fruit to fit my starved stomach? No. Executing Dahmer? (Assuming he was guilty of everything he did) yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I don't see how a society that teaches that people who (for example) rape, torture, and kill others should themselves be punished with death fosters a "bloodthirsty" mentality among the populace. You steal, expect to pay a fine and maybe spend some time in jail. You assault someone, expect to spend some time in jail. You kidnap children, lock them up in your basement, kill them, and serve them to your neighbors, expect to be put to death. How would that expectation lead people to become more prone to violence? |
In the text you quoted, I was actually suggesting the opposite. Rather than the implementation of the death penalty actually leading to increased bloodthirstiness, I was suggesting the idea that the implementation of the death penalty might be a symptom of increased bloodthirstiness, which could create a correlation without genuine causation. The death penalty is more, after all, than merely an expectation about what will happen if you commit a given crime. It's a knowingly and willingly adopted policy. Adopting a policy like that can't help but say something about the culture that adopts it. In my eyes, it says "Bloodthirsty." In your eyes, I assume it would -- if implemented as you envision -- say "Just."
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| It seems that you've adopted an ends-only-justified approach. Capital punishment is undesirable because it has no observable benefits. Do you see it that way? |
In my view, capital punishment is undesirable because it involves killing people who are in no position at the time of execution to harm anyone, who can be prevented from harming anyone without executing them, and who may one day be redeemed. The fact that it also seems to have no observable benefits in terms of deterrence is just a factor that counters the arguments made by many people that the death penalty is justified due to being an effective deterrent.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I see punishment as a 'negative earning.' When I signed my current employment contract, I agreed to do X amount of work and be paid X amount of money. I do the appropriate amount of work, and as a result I have earned the previously agreed upon X amount of money. I deserve it. In the same manner, if I knowingly the break the law, I have earned whatever punishment is appropriate for that crime*. I deserve it. |
In my conception of the State, the State acts out of necessity for the benefit of its citizens, nothing more. It doesn't operate in terms of desert, but in terms of well-being. The man who harms others can't be trusted to roam the land, so he unfortunately must be imprisoned for the sake of others. Whether or not he deserves to be imprisoned is a complex ethical question which I'd rather the State didn't involve itself in.
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| *Assuming of course that punishment actually is appropriate for the crime. $200 ticket for going 4 miles over the speed limit in Gordo, Mississippi? No. Lopping my hands off for stealing some fruit to fit my starved stomach? No. Executing Dahmer? (Assuming he was guilty of everything he did) yes. |
I can't think of any crime I feel the death penalty is appropriate for, which is part of what I was talking about earlier with regards to bloodthirstiness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="geldedgoat"]
| Fox wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I see states with and without the death penalty having low violent crime rates as well as states with and without the death penalty having high violent crime rates. The data doesn't consistently support a link between the two. |
The data certainly, undeniably, 100% lacks any suggestion that the death penalty effectively lowers murder rates. At the same time, it shows trends which at the very least imply (I think far more than imply, but I suppose it's arguable) that lacking the death penalty has a positive impact. |
Lacking the death penalty certainly lowers the rate of murder by the state.
| Quote: |
| *Assuming of course that punishment actually is appropriate for the crime. $200 ticket for going 4 miles over the speed limit in Gordo, Mississippi? No. Lopping my hands off for stealing some fruit to fit my starved stomach? No. Executing Dahmer? (Assuming he was guilty of everything he did) yes. |
No. Dahmer suffered from mental illness (paranoid schizophrenia, I believe). He should have been kept in a secure facility, treated, and studied in an attempt to identify and prevent future Dahmers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
