This is a complete goalpost shift. You said previously that the death penalty should be imposed on anyone who committed crimes that a "decent" person would not commit. That's an odd standard to begin with, but if that's your standard, I would say that people who defraud senior citizens and prey on their loneliness and propensity for confusion are not good people. That's why I asked whether fraudsters and common thieves would receive the death penalty in Luciomtopia.

But now you seem to be using two completely different measuring sticks, namely: (1) was the crime violent; and (ii) is the perpetrator a net positive contributor to society.

Strangely enough, most people who commit serious property crimes would prefer to spend X years in prison rather than be executed. (For that matter, most people who commit murder would choose life in prison over the death penalty, but I guess you just assume that those people don't know what's good for them.)

There is very little evidence that the death penalty, at least as used in the United States, has a significant deterrent effect.

Ah well if we are even against removing them from society for long then we disagree on other things as well, it's not a DP debate only.

And again I am not sure why you focus on property crimes here as I didn't here (that's a preference of mine, but it's orthogonal as you like me to say to the debate).

The idea that a rapist or a violent robber can ever be allowed back in society is alien to me for example possibly more than a repeated car theft offender.

You enter a shop with a weapon to steal stuff, you should never be part of society again, no one should even think they can do that and still be able to participate in society ever again. No normal person would ever do that, only someone who is blatantly damaging to society can even think of doing that.

Who is so crazy to think those people can ever become capable of cohabiting with others?

Homicide rate in England was about 7 times higher in 1800 than it is today.

Well it should be mandatorily execution the day of the appeal sentence.

Also if you use the death penalty only for ultra rare and weird crimes that require massive mental health problem, or a model of the world very distant from reality and not working very well, IE crimes not done by rational people, you won't deter.

Those crimes aren't committed usually by people assessing the benefit they gain from crime, the risk of being caught properly, and making tradeoff calculations.

Deterrence only work in those cases, when you change the payoff matrix of a rational or pseudo rational agent.

What you want to deter is evil behavior by people that are at least pseudo rational most of the times, if someone know he will die, rapidly, if caught robbing, and most of all he know thousands have been killed for that credibly, repeatedly, in the last couple of years, you will deter robbery


But the main deterrence is "horrible people objectively incompatible with society aren't around anymore".

Keep in mind those people will commit crimes inside jails as well often against people you could have thought could have been recovered somehow, so by not killing them you are exposing other, lesser criminals to violence as well

Control for young male adults as a percentage of the population, education and income pls.

As we do today to compare countries, or demographics inside countries, apples with apples.

Decent meaning someone without an history of violence, who has always been a normal part of society and so on. The backbone middle class of society.

Someone like that needing money could end up doing some frauds in some cases.

Not raping randomly on the tube or entering with a gun to steal 200$ of stuff from a liquor shop

He won't end up with a gun in a shop.

I focus first on violent crime because it's easier to identify objectively, easier to find a majority supporting my idea, easier to understand it's a completely non acceptable behavior, and clearer to understand people who do that are bad people worth of death.

But for people who repeatedly steal or defraud (this clarifying they are on net clearly bad to society) I said I am ok with the death penalty, I didn't shift any goalpost

"Libertarians" on board with state executions, lol

I would say that understates things. There is mountains of evidence that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to violent crimes.

I have seen heard that they tend not to reoffend after the death penalty. Sadly I can't find any articles or studies to prove that

It's like how that jerk in Argentina passes as a libertarian despite how he's an anti-choice extremist who sent the jackbooted thugs out into the streets first thing.

anarchism is another thing ye

Lol

Which countries had the death penalty for robberies and the like where we could study deterrence, in the last decades?

Isn't Singapore very tough on crime?

Ye but most of their death sentences are for drug dealing which shouldn't be a crime at all so it wouldn't be an example to learn from at least for me

It should be an example of why you would want to keep the power of executions at all away from the state, if you weren't such a Utopian Statist anyway.

Life no parole for drug dealing is still worse than death penalty for drug dealing though.

Is your model country run with no jails? Or you actually think taxing the Public a couple millions dollars to cage someone for 50-60 years is a less abusive form of state power than a cheap bullet or drug overdose?

No jails could be fine, but I'm not talking about anything wildly unusual. For example, the Scandi countries handle criminal justice better than most. Your execute every violent criminal idea is quite radical if you're not Maoist China and in a world where that can happen, the state is immensely powerful and feared and will certainly not be confined to whatever policies you considered just.



That's why I keep saying you're a Utopian. You imagine some government kills and kills and kills and only kills who you think they should kill and then everything will be perfect. It's a wild fantasy.

The first part of this video is a great example of shitty right wing media making **** up to stoke outrage. They claim that Schumer said if the bill didn't pass the US would have to put boots on the ground in Ukraine.

He said nothing of the sort. They played the clip of his actual words and then still lied about it. He said that if Russia defeated Ukraine we could find ourselves fighting in a NATO ally country a few years from now. Ukraine isn't a NATO ally and we have no treaty with them saying we will come to their defense if they are attacked unlike the NATO treaty that says an attack on any member is an attack on all members.

So they completely make up a false straw man to attack even though they play the tape that shows they are lying.

Trash media

I imagine it kills instead of jailing for a long time. It's the same people we target today with immense state power.

I am also proposing reducing the amount of crimes (drugs in particular but not exclusively).

Not sure why you think that a system that kills instead of jailing for a long time, and has a shorter crime list, would require or bring about a stronger state.

Jailing is a continuous endeavor that requires more manpower and facilities (and money) than killing.

I would also reduce sentences on the other side of the spectrum, you are wither unfit for society or you are, and if you are why should I jail you? Recidives would then be killed.

And of course bracelet house arrest everytime you have a house to be arrested in.

I am talking about jailing 90-95% less than the USA does today approx. That's less state power, far less, even with 5-10-15k death penalties administered per year.

Scandi countries didn't face the crime rates the USA does.

Now that they do thanks to open border policies, they are hapless and are taking it to the chin without knowing how to deal with it.

When the ultra leftist guardian says you have a crime problem it's going to be a hell of a crime problem

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...in-five-charts

We handle violent criminals better than most!

Most of that gun crime in Sweden is because drugs are illegal. Yeah, you're right on that issue. I guess it's one of the reasons you imagine that you're a libertarian.

I only posted this video to prove that the new border deal in reference to money for Israel had no oversight attached to it . That was the only reason as I was asked for a reference to my comment .
That was the only reason it was posted it was not posted to promote their message or what they were saying . I even attached time stamps to the fact .

This was part of thread the mods moved that deserved to be on its own .

And your right the one individual is very right the gal is very left