Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb From: geb@cadre.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Re: Bastille mentality alive and well in USA Message-ID: <98@cadre.UUCP> Date: Sun, 2-Dec-84 09:10:36 EST Article-I.D.: cadre.98 Posted: Sun Dec 2 09:10:36 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 06:57:52 EST References: <259@spp2.UUCP>, <1220@dciem.UUCP> <90@cadre.UUCP>, <2153@randvax.UUCP> Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh. Lines: 49 Xref: watmath net.flame:7060 net.politics:5989 The two posters who pointed out that my argument is false if the acts of execution cause more people to commit murder are correct, provided the fractional increase in the murder rate due to the executions exceeds the decrease due to recidivism. Some data on recidivism is available, (not being a sociologist, I am not aware of the proper references) but due to complex psychological factors, I doubt if it would be possible to find out for sure how many kill because of executions. I agree the death penalty only for killing police is improper, since why should police be valued above ordinary citizens. If anything, they go looking for trouble by nature of their job, and are a little like soldiers, but murder of an innocent is even more heinous. It may well attract suicides. Certainly cross-cultural data is not valid, since societies that ban the death penalty democratically usually have less violent cultures by nature (not cause-and-effect), while many countries with draconian death penalties for crimes much more minor than murder (China, USSR) have very low rates of murder (even if you don't wholly believe their own statistics). I suppose that I have to admit there is no way to "prove" such sociological arguments statistically. My "gut" feeling based on the fact that I have dealt with psychopaths a lot in a professional capacity (MD), is that there are a lot of people who will kill because they lack any form of conscience whatsoever (Gary Gilmore is a good example, and reading Mailer's book gives a good insight into what a psychopath is like, I think). Most psychopaths do not kill, of course, and part of the reason is that there is a severe punishment for it. (I define psychopath as someone who lacks a conscience, by the way). But killing wouldn't "bother" them if they could get away with it. Most people who have a strong conscience find it hard to believe that there exist people without one, but it is amazing how many there are. The smart ones almost never become murderers but instead politicians, lawyers, doctors, etc. and often get in trouble in other ways than murder. But a psychopath doesn't learn to kill by seeing that society approves of killing, he does it because he wants something that he can get by killing (robbing a 7-11, for example), or because he is just feeling mean and out of sorts. Of course, he may use murder as of form of suicide (a typical psychopathic thing to do), whereas a non-psychopath will usually only kill themselves (quite easy to do, if you really want to) unless especially deranged, the psychopath often wants to take a few with him. I have personally seen too many cases where a psychopath has killed once, been let off on parole, and then killed again (often let off again), and so I do favor the death penalty in these cases, but respect the reasons why moral people do not.