[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

If you don't believe in the death penalty, then your deterrence argument is hypocritical.

[Zyx]

Cheesecake_Marmalade, it's not easy on us when you drink. Consider quitting.

[Donna]

If you don't believe in the death penalty, then your deterrence argument is hypocritical.

Well, the death penalty isn't really a social issue where I live because it's been abolished for almost fifty years now. In recent years, we've started to adopt mandatory jail sentences for certain offenses (like child porn, for example) as part of a tougher approach toward sex crimes against children.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Cheesecake_Marmalade, it's not easy on us when you drink. Consider quitting.

Not drink, smoke weed.

Well, the death penalty isn't really a social issue where I live because it's been abolished for almost fifty years now. In recent years, we've started to adopt mandatory jail sentences for certain offenses (like child porn, for example) as part of a tougher approach toward sex crimes against children.

Well I like that Canada is getting tough on crime, but isn't it kind of weird to dispel deterrence in death penalty cases as unrealistic ("a killer isn't going to think about the death penalty when he kills someone") while using deterrence on child molesters?

[Donna]

Well I like that Canada is getting tough on crime, but isn't it kind of weird to dispel deterrence in death penalty cases as unrealistic ("a killer isn't going to think about the death penalty when he kills someone") while using deterrence on child molesters?

Not really. There is validity to the notion that the death penalty is no deterrence to murder. Premeditated murderers usually believe firmly that they will get away with it while others commit their crimes in fits of passion. Deterrence only works with a limited degree of criminal mindsets, and theoretically, all punishment is supposed to be a deterrence. Someone would have to also argue that life in prison is not a deterrence if they favored the death penalty for certain crimes.

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

If their acts are premeditated and you admit that they are thinking about the probability of getting away with it (in order to be assured they're getting away with it, they need to have thought about getting away with it), then I think it follows that steeper penalties for premeditated murders will add more risk to the risk-reward analysis.

Your interpretation of life in prison as a suitable punishment is obviously flawed. Even if people contemplate the philosophical pros and cons of life in prison vs the death penalty, obviously the death penalty is more feared or it wouldn't be outlawed. If, as people suppose, the death penalty and life in prison are equally horrific or that life in prison is more horrific, then why single out the death penalty as cruel and unusual? Obviously it's not cruel if you believe it is an equivalent punishment to something that we already use. Obviously it's not unusual for the same reasons.

[Donna]

As I see it, the practice is of a more older classification of justice and most of the developed world has abandoned it, with the distinct exceptions of the United States and Japan. Analytically and historically, punishment for crime is revolving more around the penitentiary and the prison industry than the destruction of criminals.

But, even if the death penalty were to be a deterrence, there is still the possibility of killing an innocent person.

Prison may be cruel and unusual, but at least you can buy off the falsely accused with a multi-million dollar settlement instead of his next of kin.

[Zyx]

Cheesecake_Marmalade, that discussion is quite separate than this one, and the debate is settled over statistical analysis. Why don't you familiarize yourself with the statistics before arguing.

I'd recommend that you Google "Death Penalty deterrence site:edu" or "Death penalty deterrence filetype:pdf" and fine some literature on the subject in order that your discussion doesn't come off as you being unfamiliar with what you are writing about.

Best,

[ccdan]

Other children, obviously. The logic behind charging this girl with an offense is to deter minors from creating and distributing their own child porn, which typically ends up in the hands of adults.

Why should other minors be deterred from "crating and distributing" their own child porn? If "child porn" (I'd rather say teen porn)ends up in the hands of adults, what exactly happens? Who's harmed?

These laws are based on completely retarded logic! I'd understand punishing those who force or pay kids to make porn, but punishing the kids for their own pictures/movies is stupid and cruel abuse!

[Igor Antunov]

This crappy law is the perfect example of defunct circular logic. It's like a man shooting himself on purpose then being charged for attempted murder. He would also be seen as guilty of 'promoting murder' and 'encouraging' murderers-to-be.

Whoever concocted this idiocy should be hung upside down and gutted on national television.

[Xopolis]

America, love it or leave it, I would choose the latter!

[SpecialOlympian]

I don't get it. If she's a registered sex offender, what is she going to say to the people in her neighborhood when she's forced to go door to door so they can be made aware of her presence?

"Yeah, I'm required by state law to tell you that I'm apt to put nude and underage pictures of myself (even though I am 30) on MySpace. So, like, watch out for that and shit.

No, you can't have my MySpace address."

[Dr House]

I don't get it. If she's a registered sex offender, what is she going to say to the people in her neighborhood when she's forced to go door to door so they can be made aware of her presence?

"Yeah, I'm required by state law to tell you that I'm apt to put nude and underage pictures of myself (even though I am 30) on MySpace. So, like, watch out for that and shit.

No, you can't have my MySpace address."

Anyway, yeah, necroposting is not cool, mmkay?