lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (09/23/83)
According the arguments I've seen here, horse-stealing would not
be a capital offense as it was in the 1800's.
But it seems that all of you have forgotten the reason for capital
punishment - and why the use of force is justified in protecting
property (quoth the executioner):
"You are not being hanged for stealing horses --
you are being hanged that horses might not be stolen."
Crime really follows a basic economic model - is the potential gain greater
than the potential loss? Potential loss arises from two factors: certainty
and severity of punishment. Between trial lawyers and trial and appellate
judges, these have been severely limited in the U.S., lowering the
potential cost and thus increasing the likelihood of the would-be criminal
to go ahead with his plans. However, if w-b-c knows that someone in the
vicinity of the crime is likely to do something (perhaps severe) to him,
the potential cost goes up, so the likelihood of the crime goes down.
The best time to stop a crime is BEFORE it happens.
Larry Bickford, {amd70,ittvax}!qubix!lab
{ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!labdxp@pyuxhh.UUCP (D Peak) (09/26/83)
It's 3.00am the homeowner awakened by noises downstairs takes his handgun
from his nightstand dresser drawer and descends the stairs quietly.Approaching
the study he sees an outline of a human silhouetted by the street light.His
heart pounds in his chest about the impending confrontation,never thinking
that he would find himself in this situation.Do I want to be here?Should I
go back to bed and hope he goes away?What if Ishoot and he sues me?All these
flash through his mind as he stands outside the study doorway.suddenly the
intruder turns.Make up your mind quick!.It has to be now!!
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Solution 1. You simultaneously kick open the study door and rapidly fire three
shots at the silhouetted figure,the intruder falls dying to the
floor.You cautiously walk forward and check their pulse.There is
none.You walk back to the door and switch on the light.Momentarily
blinded you grope for and find your desk.Vision clearing you put
down the gun noticing your still trembling hands as you pick up the phone to call the police.Your mind begins to flood in waves of
pictures of what the next hours,weeks & months will bring.
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Solution 2.
You wonder if you'll be able to pull the trigger!What if he's not
armed ???What if it's only a kid??You have to do something he's
almost at the door!Your resolve stiffens a little and you demand
he drops his weapon(if he has one).Your ears ring for a moment
a you see a blinding flash . Hell he's shooting at "ME"!You try to
raise your gun to return his fire,instead your knees buckle as your
body turns to jelly.Hell he's not shooting at "ME" he's SHOT "ME"."ME"
the victim it's not supposed to happen like this "HE"'s the criminal
"HE" deserves to lying here not "ME".steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (09/28/83)
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Scenario #3
Like John Wayne, you kick down the door!! Gun blazing, you nail
three - four - five - six times!! He falls with a sicking thud.
You slowly, cautiously, advance on the bleeding corpse. Groping
for the lights, you finally find them. "He" is your son.
Congradulations, chum, you just blew away your son. Pretty good
shot with that thing, now you wanna try for your head??
Steven Maurercwa@ihuxm.UUCP (09/28/83)
Certainly, anyone suprising an intruder in the dark should expect the worst.
Solution 2 could be the result regardless of whether or not you, the homeowner,
has a weapon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously, Solution 1 is the better solution!
ihuxm!cwa Carl W. Amportleiby@yeti.UUCP (Mike Leibensperger) (09/28/83)
You forgot to mention "Solution 3," in which you find your 16 year old son
dead on the floor with a half-eaten peanut butter sandwich in hand. How-
ever, you do get points for a dramatic literary style.
Mike Leibensperger
...!{tektronix,ucbcad,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!leibyhenry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/30/83)
D. Peak's article was good proof of a principle a lot of PRO-gun
folks would agree with: people who do not know how to handle guns,
and what their limitations are, should never be allowed within ten
feet of a loaded firearm. Consider Scenario 4:
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
Just as you reach the top of the stairs on the way down, you
realize that you are being an imbecile. When the police
(of a large American city, say) want to clear a house of a
possibly-armed-possibly-dangerous person (or persons), they
use a squad of professionals equipped with body armor and
automatic rifles. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PLAYING AT, TRYING
TO DO IT YOURSELF?!? You return to your bedroom, locking the
door (we assume that there are no other family members outside
it, otherwise minor modifications to this plan would be needed).
You call the police (you *do* have a phone by your bed, don't
you?). You sit tight. You will use your handgun only if the
person(s) out there try to break into the bedroom by force, in
which case it's a pretty good bet that your life is in serious
danger anyway.
Does sound a lot more sensible, doesn't it? People who think that a
handgun makes them invincible have no business owning a gun. Proper
training should be a prerequisite to owning a gun for defence.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrymmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/30/83)
The argument has been made that capital punishment deters others from performing the capital crime, but most statistics I have seen suggest the reverse: the criminal may not do it again, but more than 1.0 others will (as compared to the number that would have if the original criminal had just been imprisoned). In other words, capital punishment encourages capital crimes rather than deters them. I know you will want references for this, but it comes up periodically in various guises, and it's been a long time since the last time. Anyone have real statistics out there? Martin Taylor
dxp@pyuxhh.UUCP (10/01/83)
I appreciate and commend Harry Spencer's scenerio,with a couple of
minor amendments
1) put the handgun back in the dresser and sit tight with a shotgun
2) you would have certain logistics problems if your family occupied
more than 1 bedroom(in my case it doesn't)
The above would seem to suggest an optimum solution to protecting your
immediate family but not protect your possessions.But that is a different
story as some followers of the net seem very philanthropic about material
possessions.BTW I have no possessions of redeeming value that could not be
easily replaced so I probably would sit tight in the bedroom and save using
my handgun(s) until I next went to the range(it's been about 6 weeks since
I went so it's about time).
Dave Peak(BTL(CSO?),South Plainfield,N.J.)
ka@spanky.UUCP (10/02/83)
I looked at some studies of the effect of capital punishment on the incidence of crime about a year ago and came to the conclusion that there wasn't any solid evidence that capital punishment either in- creased or decreased crime. I would of course welcome comments from people who have investigated this matter more recently or who may have made a more thorough search. Personally, I do not like the idea of capital punishment. I also do not like the idea of people being murdered. Since there is no solid evidence that introducing capital punishment will decrease the number of muders and there is in fact some evidence that introducing capital punishment *increases* the number of murders, I am opposed to capital punishment. Kenneth Almquist
blenko@rochester.UUCP (Tom Blenko) (10/02/83)
I would sure love for one of you to explain to me how and why capital punishment increases the incidence of murder and other violent crimes. One of my high school teachers had a very simplistic argument in favor of capital punishment (and stiffer jail sentences, and so forth) that I have never been able to quite forget: If you keep a violent criminal off the streets, then he/she is never going to commit violent crimes again (against the general population). If you are really ambitious, you might try explaining this as well: why is your (or my) distaste for capital punishment an argument against it? I can think of any number of things I might like to have the world without, but which nevertheless appear to occupy a more or less permanent (and necessary) role in our world. Tom
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (10/03/83)
On the other hand, the recidivism rate for criminals who are
given capital punishment is indeed low.
Dave Sherman
(not speaking for any organization, of coure)
Toronto
--
{cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!lsuc!davebch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (10/03/83)
The logic which says that the murder rate actually increases with the use of capital punishment goes as follows: The stronger the potential punishment for a crime, the more likely the criminal is to act deliberately to remove all evidence that could be used to trace the crime. One of the strongest pieces of "evidence" that is of value to the police are any and all witnesses. So, the mugger who is merely threatening you with a handgun to take control of the situation is much more likely to kill you with it if capitol punishment becomes mandatory in cases of armed robbery. After all, there is nothing to be lost if the punishment is death anyway. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!unc!bch
bts@unc.UUCP (Bruce Smith) (10/03/83)
Byron's argument applies particularly to drug laws. You will be punished far more severely in some states for possession of drugs than for murder. Bruce Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill decvax!duke!unc!bts
ka@spanky.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (10/03/83)
One explanation of why capital punishment increases the incidence of murder is that the existance of capital punishment "legitimizes" the act of killing. One conclusion of studies on the effect of television violence is that television violence is much more likely to encourage violent behavior on the part of the viewer if the violence is portrayed as being justified. One textbook suggests that everybody considers their own behavior to be justified. It is possible that a similar principal applies to capital punishment. The killing of Gary Gilmore is presented on the evening news as an action that is justified by circumstances. During the following month, a number of people who are able to convince themselves that the deaths of other people would be justified by the circumstances proceed to put their beliefs into action. I should stress that this is only speculation. Murder rates are con- stantly fluctuating, and the increase in the number of murers after the execution of Gary Gilmore could easily be a random fluctuation entirely unrelated to the execution. On the other hand, the theory that capital punishment will deter murderers is also speculation. Tom repeats an argument made by one of his high school teachers that capital punishment decreases the number of crimes committed because a person who has been executed cannot commit any more crimes. This argument fails to distinguish between a decrease in the number of murders and a *significat* decrease. Mandatory birth control is a more effective method of decreasing the population than capital pun- ishment. However, while decreasing the population may decrease the number of murders, it will not decrease the murder *rate*. The only way capital punishment would decrease the murder rate is if the in- dividuals who were executed were more likely than the general popu- lation to commit a murder in the future. I don't believe that, as a class, convicted murderers are any more likely than anyone else to commit a murder in the future. The word "distasteful" in my previous article may have been poorly chosen. The term "morally wrong" might have been better. I didn't use that phrase is that I consider the terms "morally wrong" and "necessary" to be contradictory (you can't condemn an action unless there was a better alternative), and I am not prepared to prove that capital punishment is unnecessary. Actually, I don't see why I should be called upon to prove that anyway. If somebody out there is willing to take a human life and does not believe that he bears the burden of proof in showing that the action was necessary, I don't think that that person and I have any common ground for discussion. Kenneth Almquist ihnp4!hou3b!hou3c!ka
alle@ihuxb.UUCP (10/04/83)
> From: bch@unc.UUCP > So, the > mugger who is merely threatening you with a handgun to take control > of the situation is much more likely to kill you with it if capitol > punishment becomes mandatory in cases of armed robbery. After all, > there is nothing to be lost if the punishment is death anyway. How is this an argument against capitol punishment for murder?? Currently murder costs the criminal 5-10 years in prison and then he gets paroled. Capitol punishment for murder would save the cost of imprisoning these criminals and would prevent them repeating the crime. Allen England at BTL, Naperville, IL ihnp4!ihuxb!alle
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/04/83)
I basically agree with Dave Peak's amendments to my note. You are
indeed better off with a rifle or a shotgun than with a handgun, in
such circumstances. My discussion referred to a handgun simply because
the article that started the whole thing did. (Incidentally, the merits
of a shotgun in such situations are much exaggerated. At the sort of
range involved in such an incident, the spread of shotgun pellets is
negligible. It's probably still better than a rifle or handgun, but
you can't ignore the necessity of aiming it carefully.)
And there is indeed a problem if your family occupies more than one
bedroom. If one were truly concerned about issues of defence, one might
want to ensure that there is indeed a lockable door between the rest of
the house and the bedrooms, and then set up the defence line behind it.
Lockable doors on all bedrooms and communicating doors between them
would be second best. Failing such architectural assets, you'd just
have to improvise. The basic strategy should still be along the lines
of "hole up, call the police, and wait".
This choice of strategy is not a question of thinking one's property
of little account in such a situation. I have the same feelings about
my belongings as most everybody else -- possibly to an unusual extent,
in fact -- and have the same general feeling that the only good burglar
is a dead burglar. (Well, maybe not quite *that* fervent, but you get
the general idea.) The strategy of trying to avoid a confrontation and
leaving the hard work to the police is based on a simple fact: I value
my life rather more than my belongings. Confronting a possibly-armed
burglar is a terribly risky thing to do, and the police are far better
trained and equipped for such a job. If the local police are thoroughly
undependable or impractically far away, and there is something down there
that is absolutely vital to your continued survival (don't ask me what,
or why it isn't upstairs with you if it's that important), then you are
going to have to make a very sticky choice. Short of such an extreme
situation, anyone who deliberately sets out for an armed confrontation
is a fool.
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrybch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (10/04/83)
My response to the criticsm of my rationale against capital punishment can be found in the newsgroup net.politics, where it belongs. I urge all other participants in this discussion to move to net.politics. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill decvax!duke!unc!bch
dwl@hou5e.UUCP (D Levenson) (10/04/83)
Every year, there are a few cases where someone previously found guilty and sentenced is later found to be innocent, and given an appology. While this is a small number of cases, it is not insignificantly small. Does capital punnishment make sense in this environment? How do you reverse that sentence? Perhaps the sentencing judge should then be sentenced to death! :-) -Dave Levenson
engels@ihuxs.UUCP (SME) (10/05/83)
Henry Spencer brings up a half of a good point-- IF your local police are undependable or far away -- Then do something about your local police- attend town meetings and get involved--Do something constructive instead of destructive.
debenedi@yale-com.UUCP (Robert DeBenedictis) (10/08/83)
All this discussion about Capital Punishment bothers me.
One thing that that everyone seems to overlook (Yes, even YOU, dear
reader :-) ) is that PEOPLE CHANGE. Today's murderer could become
tomorrow's factory worker (or literary marvel, as some would have it).
Why are people so hell-bent on locking people into "negative"
behavior patterns? EX:
Juvenile does petty crime. "Teach him a lesson! (so he won't do
it again please)" his !parents! shout. In jail he becomes bitter,
abused, and learns how to pick locks. Once he gets out of the system
he no longer has respect for it (read: the police and the law). ETC.
I'm not proposing that we just igno re mudrers BUT people do change
(say eyvery 7 years?) and they should be given a second chance.
[Prof.:"I'm sorry, I can't accept late assignments.
You've forced me to flunk you."]
Robert DeBenedictis