h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If your motive is to reduce the levels of murders and homicides then the way to do this is to reduce the access to lethal weapons.
To abuse a cliche - putting murderers to death to prevent reoffending without addressing the access to murder weapons in the first place is as stupid as parking an ambulance at the bottom a cliff instead of building a fence at the top.

"vengeance only, not justice". I agree - I was just wording it from a possible viewpoint of those who would see it as justice.

> The argument for the death penalty is all about preventing repeat offenses

Prison achieves this equally effectively, with the added benefit that when the system gets it wrong you can let the guy out and apologise.

> With capital punishment, 23 people died wrongly in 100 years. Without capital punishment, 234 people died wrongly in a single year.

I can hardly repsond to this without reference to bovine excrement.

Your figures make no mention of what the original offence was. Murder? Unlikely. Most murderers spend a long time in jail, and to suggest that nearly 10% of all murders were committed by people who had previously been jailed for murder defies belief, especially when youc onsider that most murders are committed during domestic disputes. The image of legions of Al Capones being let loose on society by a soft-hearted prison service is risible.

The figure also suggests that the parole board is incompetent, because you should only get parole when the chance of recidivism is judged to be low enough. Or maybe the person in question *is* a career criminal, and was insufficiently monitored and helped after initial release, continued in a life of crime, and ended up shooting someone. In a country where people genuinely believe that carrying loaded firearms is a contribution to public safety, anything is possible I guess.

Well put JZG.

By the Colonels argument, anyone who's actions have lead in the past to killing someone else should be executed. Because if their execution will save other lives, then it makes the execution justifiable. Like anyone with a contageous disease?

Ok. It may not be a valid example. But it show the danger of the previous argument.

I actually agree with the first half of Colonel Sellers' posting about nationalism. It certainly isn't just Americans who doggedly cling on to outdated national traditions (and I couldn't agree more with his comments about the British Royal Family.)
It's just that I don't think that tradition and bloody-minded nationalism are appropriate bases on which to formulate a penal policy. And as for the second half of the Colonel's posting - well, Just zis Guy has said it better than I could have done.
Excellent point from Xedni Deknil about the dreadful impact of capital punishment on execution victims' families. One particularly tragic example of this was the case of the son of Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in Britain. He was never able to come to terms with what had been done to his mother. After a short and unhappy life, he decided to join his mother in what seemed to him to be the most appropriate manner possible.
He hung himself.

"If your motive is to reduce the levels of murders and homicides then the way to do this is to reduce the access to lethal weapons." - Murder stats are not reduced in places where tough gun laws are in effect. In fact, in states with very relaxed laws, the numbers for all violent crimes are actually lower. Florida's numbers dropped significantly the year they permitted concealed-carry, and that in a year that saw an increase nationwide (I'll get you the real numbers when I get home, if anyone is interested). And I read something posted by another researcher in another thread that said that of 6 school shootings in one year in the US, 2 were halted by armed citizens before the police could arrive. In other countries where there is no access to firearms, the murder rates are not lower. The success rates might be, because they have to use dull knives and pitchforks and things, but they still commit murder.

"Your figures make no mention of what the original offence was. Murder? Unlikely." - I reread my post, and I wasn't clear enough on this issue, so I will clear it up. 2575 people were sentenced to death. Every one of them was sentenced on a homicide charge. 1 in 11 had a prior conviction of homicide. That makes it approximately 234 repeat homicide offenders. If each one of them killed only one person in their repeat offense, that still makes 234 people who died needlessly. We already knew they were killers, and we turned them loose on the streets. Explain to the families of those 234 victims why we allowed these people to kill again.

(1) The murder rate in the UK (per head, obviously) is MUCH lower than the US, the "troubles" notwithstanding. Similarily Canada and Australia.

(2) Guns make murder easier, because the killing takes less time and can be done at a distance. Although I don't know the figures on drive-by stranglings, I'd say they were pretty low.

(3) Comparing a state which allows concealed guns vs. one which doesn't is not the same as comparing it with places where guns are not legally available. For this, see Canada as the nearest comparison.

> Murder stats are not reduced in places where tough gun laws are in effect

Factually incorrect, unless you mean "places within the US" and "tough gun laws by US standards" - in which case you are referring to parts of a nation which is awash with guns and where, even if a state closed all the gun shops overnight, criminals would still be readily - and legally - able to buy weapons from out of state.

The UK has restrictive gun laws. In the UK a firearms fatality makes national headlines. The nations which have very high gun ownership tend to be those where homicides are common - like South Africa and the USA. One notable exception is Switzerland, but this can hardly be taken as evidence either as the Swiss have a mania for law and order and won't even spit unless there's a notice specifically permitting it.

The carrying of concealed weapons only reduces homicides in a state which is already so chronically gun-ridden that it is pretty much beyond hope.

I wish you could hear yourself. Of six school shootings in one yer, two were halted by armed citizens. SIX SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN ONE YEAR! We've had *one* in the whole history of the country, and that was by a madman from outside, not a school student. It's like relying on seat belts to compensate for car manufacturers ceasing to fit brakes!

> approximately 234 repeat homicide offenders

In which case the parole system is badly screwed up and needs reform. Someone is sentenced to life. Over here they can be released after the 'tariff' has been served (say 20 years) but this *won't* happen - or at least not usually - unless and until the parole board are satisfied that the person is unlikely to repeat offend. Notable cases where the convicted have not been released include the Moors murderers. If anything, Myra Hindley should have been released by now as she is almost certainly not a threat to society any more.

...another point to the 234 re-offenders.

Not only is the parol board not doing it's job, neither are the jails. One of the other points of the jails, which seems to have been lost, is to REFORM the offenders......

The parol board should then carefully release REFORMED offenders, not just because their original sentance is up. (Another way of literaly interpreting law without actually thinking; if No. years served == No. years sentanced, then release. No thought to reform what so ever!)

Just so.

This post has been removed.

I've seen a couple people in different forums who have touched on gun control. I wonder if it might be more appropriate to discuss the issue under the Gun Control in the US entry.

Up to a point, Colonel.

The UK, too, has a drugs war ongoing (especially in certain cities like Glasgow) - but even so, I would say that a homicide rate in the US of 63 per million against 19 in the UK is significant. More than three times higher, considering the vast tracts of the USA which are quiet rural communities (an extinct species in the UK) certainly counts as substantially higher. Also note that more restrictive legislation was introduced after 1992, and this was further tightened after 1997. To what effect I don't know.

It would be foolish to ignore the fact that in moments of stress people reach for the first weapon they can lay their hands on. Clubs and knives can be deadly, but not half as reliable as guns in the fatality stakes.

Yes, people kill poeple. But they kill them more readily if they have a gun to hand.

Scotland is much more rural than England and Wales, yet exhibits a murder rate almost twice as high as their neighbors. So there goes that theory...

Anyway, we are drifting off topic. Let's get back to the death penalty, shall we...

Due mainly to the conentration of urban deprivation in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and their drugs and gang warfare problems. The population of Scotland is very dispersed by comparison with England (can't build on a mountain, after all) but is highly concentrated in the cities. And the fatalities are probably mostly knifings after Rangers v Celtic matches, if my Caledonian friends' experiences are anything to go by....

Yes, lets get back to the jolly topic of the death penalty.

Let me make a questioning observation; now I think we have established that the death penalty is not really a daterrant against capital crimes? The statistics that were quoted seem to suggest that if it were, the murder rate in the UK would be much higher. Or is this simply because there just isn't enough guns in the UK for this theory to be fully tested?

This post has been removed.

I do not believe that the States defines materially more crimes as homicides, certainly not in numerical terms. Manslaugter is still counted, AFAIK.

I am however heartened to hear that controlling drugs is simply "a matter of checking the ports, the airports, and the Chunnel" No doubt the police will be on it right away - if only that had ocurred to them sooner we wouldn't have half the problems we do.

The last time I saw a handgun was in Belgium. The last time I saw a handgun (or a gun of any sort) being wielded by a felon was..... well, never.