Slap Happy
-
It's been a while since I did the research, and I'm not going to retrace my steps for this thread, so I would suggest a quick Google search. My results list a bunch of academic studies showing weak correlation to inverse correlation, and a metric buttload of religious(?!) sites extolling the biblical virtues of killing convicted criminals. Statistics lie, of course, so it's your choice which side to believe. I'd suggest deathpenaltyinfo.org. Ignore the obvious bias, look at the data and its sources. (BTW, if you'd like to start a death penalty thread, I'd be happy to debate that issue, but this thread isn't the place.) That point aside, would you care to refute the fact that stiffer penalties have had little to no deterrent effect on drug use? Do higher fines reduce speeding? Can you point me to any two areas where harsher punishment has served as an effective deterrent?
I think you're definately wrong there. http://www.johansens.us/sane/law/capstate.htm[^] This link looks dubious, but he backs up his data. I'm inclined to think that there isn't much of a deterrent effect, but the death penalty clearly does not increase murder rates as the per capita murder rate is lower in death penalty states. It looks like the states with the lowest murder rates are also the coldest...probably because people don't get out as much. I would imagine that life in prison would be as much of a deterrent to murder as the death penalty. I'm pro death penalty not because of any sort of deterrent effect, but because it delivers justice to the guilty. If you kill someone, that's really the only true way to pay for your actions.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
US has a culture of fear
yep. Due to a lot of feminazi PR crap from the NOW (National Organization of Women)
Christian Graus wrote:
lot of women in particular are probably more scared than they need to be
yep. see above. now before the wackos start wacking, yes SOME men prey on women. MOST (99%) men don't. It's also true that MOST women don't understand how men think and operate and often unintentionally send signals that SOME men take the wrong way. Should we ALL be ostrasized and stigmatized because of few bad apples? That is soooo junior high. Remember when the entire class would be punished by the teacher because 1 or 2 students did something the teach didn't like? Remember how that felt and how unfair that was?
ahz wrote:
MOST (99%) men don't.
That's an assumption.
ahz wrote:
Should we ALL be ostrasized and stigmatized because of few bad apples?
And like you've never tried to talk (pick up or wish you could in reality) to a chick when she didn't want to be bothered. It gets annoying from her point ya know. I've had friend that wore wedding rings, not becuase she was married, but because the guys wouldn't stop trying to pick up on her. And guess what, the ring didn't stop it. So maybe you don't understand their point of view as much as you'd like to think. Jeremy Falcon
-
What's the big deal? You KNOW she liked it!
Or that's what desperate dorks want to think. ;P Jeremy Falcon
-
I think you're definately wrong there. http://www.johansens.us/sane/law/capstate.htm[^] This link looks dubious, but he backs up his data. I'm inclined to think that there isn't much of a deterrent effect, but the death penalty clearly does not increase murder rates as the per capita murder rate is lower in death penalty states. It looks like the states with the lowest murder rates are also the coldest...probably because people don't get out as much. I would imagine that life in prison would be as much of a deterrent to murder as the death penalty. I'm pro death penalty not because of any sort of deterrent effect, but because it delivers justice to the guilty. If you kill someone, that's really the only true way to pay for your actions.
espeir wrote:
If you kill someone, that's really the only true way to pay for your actions.
Amen to that! Jeremy Falcon
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
What I said -- and you ignored, so I'll say it again
I did not ignore it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
is that extremely harsh punishment doesn't work as a deterrent, never has, and never will.
And if I came to your house with a gun and threaten to kill you're family if you say that again, I doubt you'll be back here saying that on CP.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Studies show a consistently higher murder rate in death penalty states.
Bullshit, texas is a great example of this being wrong.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
these all make more sense than four years of the man's life.
Good, I'll come slap your wife on the ass a couple times when I visit to shoot you. I mean, seeing that it's no big deal and all.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So if your hypothetical child went on a serial slapping spree, and slapped, let's say 30 women on the butt, and the courts put him away for 120 years, that would be equitable?
Now you're being retarded. If my son went on a slapping spree he'd have to answer to me before he did the courts.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I feel sorry for your current or future children.
No I feel sorry for your kids. They are probably gonna grow up spoiled babies that expect the world to bow down to them. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I did not ignore it.
You did.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And if I came to your house with a gun and threaten to kill you're family if you say that again, I doubt you'll be back here saying that on CP.
I happen to believe that gun ownership is a deterrent. If I were to let you know that I keep a gun in my house and I know how to use it, I believe that might deter you from coming to my house and threatening me and my family. But on the larger scale, I don't think specific and extreme punishment works as a general deterrent.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
bull****, texas is a great example of this being wrong.
Texas? Care to support that assertion? I'd say any advantage Texas has in decreased violent crime is most likely due to a bunch of reasonably well trained gun owners.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Good, I'll come slap your wife on the ass a couple times when I visit to shoot you. I mean, seeing that it's no big deal and all.
Do that, and I'll beat you down personally. If you slapped my wife's ass on the street, I'd be inclined to do the same. And I wouldn't altogether mind seeing you arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced; just not to four years of captivity. I believe that would be extreme, and would not serve as a deterrent.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Now you're being retarded. If my son went on a slapping spree he'd have to answer to me before he did the courts.
So it would be a spanking, then 120 years? (That "whoosh" you heard was the point going right over your head.) Look, It comes down to a matter of degree. You seem to think four years imprisonment is appropriate punishment for an ass-slap, and nothing less would suffice. I beg to differ, and, in fact, think you're a misogynistic, reactionary idiot. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
-
I think you're definately wrong there. http://www.johansens.us/sane/law/capstate.htm[^] This link looks dubious, but he backs up his data. I'm inclined to think that there isn't much of a deterrent effect, but the death penalty clearly does not increase murder rates as the per capita murder rate is lower in death penalty states. It looks like the states with the lowest murder rates are also the coldest...probably because people don't get out as much. I would imagine that life in prison would be as much of a deterrent to murder as the death penalty. I'm pro death penalty not because of any sort of deterrent effect, but because it delivers justice to the guilty. If you kill someone, that's really the only true way to pay for your actions.
Interesting data. In his case, dropping the extremes is a valid technique to remove statistical anomalies, so it would be fine to drop DC, but interesting nonetheless. For a counterpoint, take a look at Murder Rates 1995-2004[^]. Again, there's bias in the presentation, but the data looks good, and is certainly from a reputable source. I'd actually like to see a study that took into account local drug laws, population density, economic distribution, and other potentially influencing factors. I haven't seen a study yet that established a compelling causal connection either way. Just correlations, and most of them weak. That said, I'm against the death penalty for a whole truckload of reasons, from ethical (economic factors, false convictions) to practical (expensive). If you kill someone, society's interest should be in not allowing you to do so again. If the murder was heinous enough that you can never again be trusted, life in prison certainly does the job from a practical standpoint, allows for mistakes (117 since 1973), and avoids the whole "eye-for-an-eye" thing that plays so well in Saudi Arabia, but that we're supposed to have outgrown.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I did not ignore it.
You did.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And if I came to your house with a gun and threaten to kill you're family if you say that again, I doubt you'll be back here saying that on CP.
I happen to believe that gun ownership is a deterrent. If I were to let you know that I keep a gun in my house and I know how to use it, I believe that might deter you from coming to my house and threatening me and my family. But on the larger scale, I don't think specific and extreme punishment works as a general deterrent.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
bull****, texas is a great example of this being wrong.
Texas? Care to support that assertion? I'd say any advantage Texas has in decreased violent crime is most likely due to a bunch of reasonably well trained gun owners.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Good, I'll come slap your wife on the ass a couple times when I visit to shoot you. I mean, seeing that it's no big deal and all.
Do that, and I'll beat you down personally. If you slapped my wife's ass on the street, I'd be inclined to do the same. And I wouldn't altogether mind seeing you arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced; just not to four years of captivity. I believe that would be extreme, and would not serve as a deterrent.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Now you're being retarded. If my son went on a slapping spree he'd have to answer to me before he did the courts.
So it would be a spanking, then 120 years? (That "whoosh" you heard was the point going right over your head.) Look, It comes down to a matter of degree. You seem to think four years imprisonment is appropriate punishment for an ass-slap, and nothing less would suffice. I beg to differ, and, in fact, think you're a misogynistic, reactionary idiot. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You did.
I didn't. And act like an adult.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I happen to believe that gun ownership is a deterrent.
It is, but that's not the point. The point is harsher penalities do more to stop crime than saying "naughty naughty".
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'd say any advantage Texas has in decreased violent crime is most likely due to a bunch of reasonably well trained gun owners.
Care to support that assertion?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I believe that would be extreme, and would not serve as a deterrent.
And beating the snot out of someone isn't extreme? After all, what if you break something that takes more than 4 years to recover?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So it would be a spanking, then 120 years? (That "whoosh" you heard was the point going right over your head.)
Stop acting like an ass. Also, realistically, he wouldn't serve 120 years. Also, if you must know 120 years is a bit over the top, but 4 isn't.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You seem to think four years imprisonment is appropriate punishment for an ass-slap, and nothing less would suffice.
Odd thing about dumb people is they love to assume a lot with no real basis.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I beg to differ, and, in fact, think you're a misogynistic, reactionary idiot.
If you think I value your opinion of me when you obviously did a piss poor job to even hold an intellectual conversation you're dead wrong. Go sniff some more paint.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Well still, since it's not a big deal, I guess your wife's ass is open ground. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I did not ignore it.
You did.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And if I came to your house with a gun and threaten to kill you're family if you say that again, I doubt you'll be back here saying that on CP.
I happen to believe that gun ownership is a deterrent. If I were to let you know that I keep a gun in my house and I know how to use it, I believe that might deter you from coming to my house and threatening me and my family. But on the larger scale, I don't think specific and extreme punishment works as a general deterrent.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
bull****, texas is a great example of this being wrong.
Texas? Care to support that assertion? I'd say any advantage Texas has in decreased violent crime is most likely due to a bunch of reasonably well trained gun owners.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Good, I'll come slap your wife on the ass a couple times when I visit to shoot you. I mean, seeing that it's no big deal and all.
Do that, and I'll beat you down personally. If you slapped my wife's ass on the street, I'd be inclined to do the same. And I wouldn't altogether mind seeing you arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced; just not to four years of captivity. I believe that would be extreme, and would not serve as a deterrent.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Now you're being retarded. If my son went on a slapping spree he'd have to answer to me before he did the courts.
So it would be a spanking, then 120 years? (That "whoosh" you heard was the point going right over your head.) Look, It comes down to a matter of degree. You seem to think four years imprisonment is appropriate punishment for an ass-slap, and nothing less would suffice. I beg to differ, and, in fact, think you're a misogynistic, reactionary idiot. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
misogynistic
BTW, look up big words before you use them. You look more like a fool when you use them wrong. Jeremy Falcon
-
Interesting data. In his case, dropping the extremes is a valid technique to remove statistical anomalies, so it would be fine to drop DC, but interesting nonetheless. For a counterpoint, take a look at Murder Rates 1995-2004[^]. Again, there's bias in the presentation, but the data looks good, and is certainly from a reputable source. I'd actually like to see a study that took into account local drug laws, population density, economic distribution, and other potentially influencing factors. I haven't seen a study yet that established a compelling causal connection either way. Just correlations, and most of them weak. That said, I'm against the death penalty for a whole truckload of reasons, from ethical (economic factors, false convictions) to practical (expensive). If you kill someone, society's interest should be in not allowing you to do so again. If the murder was heinous enough that you can never again be trusted, life in prison certainly does the job from a practical standpoint, allows for mistakes (117 since 1973), and avoids the whole "eye-for-an-eye" thing that plays so well in Saudi Arabia, but that we're supposed to have outgrown.
That list doesn't indicate any sort of causality betweent the death penalty and murder rates, and I doubt that a causal relationship could actually be made. Why would New Hampshire have the lowest murder rate in the country while also having the death penalty if it actually did not (or did) play a role as a deterrent. It could also reasonably be said that states with higher murder rates have the death penalty BECAUSE they have the higher rate to begin with. There is a higher correlation with temperature. 17 of the 20 lowest murder rate states are "cold", compared to only 9 of the lowest rate states having no death penalty (also note that more states at the lower murder rate end DO have the death penalty). Also, 14 of the top 20 states are "warm" states. There are also a lot of other factors, like Utah is very religious, so it's not surprising that they're near the bottom.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you kill someone, society's interest should be in not allowing you to do so again.
I disagree with this. Justice is the giving to each what is his own, and if you take a life, I believe that you owe yours. Just curious. What would you want to happen to a guy that raped your wife and daughter, then violently killed them...then started peeing on their bodies just as you walked in, catching him in the act? Would you be satisifed with giving him life in prison?
-
That list doesn't indicate any sort of causality betweent the death penalty and murder rates, and I doubt that a causal relationship could actually be made. Why would New Hampshire have the lowest murder rate in the country while also having the death penalty if it actually did not (or did) play a role as a deterrent. It could also reasonably be said that states with higher murder rates have the death penalty BECAUSE they have the higher rate to begin with. There is a higher correlation with temperature. 17 of the 20 lowest murder rate states are "cold", compared to only 9 of the lowest rate states having no death penalty (also note that more states at the lower murder rate end DO have the death penalty). Also, 14 of the top 20 states are "warm" states. There are also a lot of other factors, like Utah is very religious, so it's not surprising that they're near the bottom.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you kill someone, society's interest should be in not allowing you to do so again.
I disagree with this. Justice is the giving to each what is his own, and if you take a life, I believe that you owe yours. Just curious. What would you want to happen to a guy that raped your wife and daughter, then violently killed them...then started peeing on their bodies just as you walked in, catching him in the act? Would you be satisifed with giving him life in prison?
All I was trying to get across to Jeremy is that no one has presented convincing evidence for a causal relationship between extreme punishment and deterrent. I've seen more reputable studies, compiled by people without an agenda, that show negative or weak correlations, but I'm not entirely convinced either way. In that light, any argument made for harsh punishment comes down to a personal sense of justice. (Incidentally, I think if you looked at churches per capita, you'd be back to zero correlation. Utah is, in pretty much every way, an anomaly.)
espeir wrote:
I disagree with this. Justice is the giving to each what is his own, and if you take a life, I believe that you owe yours. Just curious. What would you want to happen to a guy that raped your wife and daughter, then violently killed them...then started peeing on their bodies just as you walked in, catching him in the act? Would you be satisifed with giving him life in prison?
Right, so we've established that you believe in an eye for an eye. Asking me what I'd want to happen is not at all the same as asking me what I think society should do (Do I look like Dukakis?). If someone stole your car, would you want to cut off his hands?
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
misogynistic
BTW, look up big words before you use them. You look more like a fool when you use them wrong. Jeremy Falcon
You're right. I did not intend to imply that you hate women, but rather that you're condescending, patronizing, and have no respect for them. I stand corrected.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You did.
I didn't. And act like an adult.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I happen to believe that gun ownership is a deterrent.
It is, but that's not the point. The point is harsher penalities do more to stop crime than saying "naughty naughty".
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'd say any advantage Texas has in decreased violent crime is most likely due to a bunch of reasonably well trained gun owners.
Care to support that assertion?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I believe that would be extreme, and would not serve as a deterrent.
And beating the snot out of someone isn't extreme? After all, what if you break something that takes more than 4 years to recover?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So it would be a spanking, then 120 years? (That "whoosh" you heard was the point going right over your head.)
Stop acting like an ass. Also, realistically, he wouldn't serve 120 years. Also, if you must know 120 years is a bit over the top, but 4 isn't.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You seem to think four years imprisonment is appropriate punishment for an ass-slap, and nothing less would suffice.
Odd thing about dumb people is they love to assume a lot with no real basis.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I beg to differ, and, in fact, think you're a misogynistic, reactionary idiot.
If you think I value your opinion of me when you obviously did a piss poor job to even hold an intellectual conversation you're dead wrong. Go sniff some more paint.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Well still, since it's not a big deal, I guess your wife's ass is open ground. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
act like an adult.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stop acting like an ass.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Go sniff some more paint.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Odd thing about dumb people
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
your wife's ass is open ground.
I bow to your power of reason and your aptitude for intellectual discourse. You may continue ranting to yourself.
-
You're right. I did not intend to imply that you hate women, but rather that you're condescending, patronizing, and have no respect for them. I stand corrected.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You're right. I did not intend to imply that you hate women, but rather that you're condescending, patronizing, and have no respect for them. I stand corrected.
And how the hell do you get this? Because I think 4 years of house arrest is acceptable punishment? Are you on drugs? Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
act like an adult.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stop acting like an ass.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Go sniff some more paint.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Odd thing about dumb people
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
your wife's ass is open ground.
I bow to your power of reason and your aptitude for intellectual discourse. You may continue ranting to yourself.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I bow to your power of reason and your aptitude for intellectual discourse.
Yeah go ahead and reverse roles now. :| Jeremy Falcon
-
All I was trying to get across to Jeremy is that no one has presented convincing evidence for a causal relationship between extreme punishment and deterrent. I've seen more reputable studies, compiled by people without an agenda, that show negative or weak correlations, but I'm not entirely convinced either way. In that light, any argument made for harsh punishment comes down to a personal sense of justice. (Incidentally, I think if you looked at churches per capita, you'd be back to zero correlation. Utah is, in pretty much every way, an anomaly.)
espeir wrote:
I disagree with this. Justice is the giving to each what is his own, and if you take a life, I believe that you owe yours. Just curious. What would you want to happen to a guy that raped your wife and daughter, then violently killed them...then started peeing on their bodies just as you walked in, catching him in the act? Would you be satisifed with giving him life in prison?
Right, so we've established that you believe in an eye for an eye. Asking me what I'd want to happen is not at all the same as asking me what I think society should do (Do I look like Dukakis?). If someone stole your car, would you want to cut off his hands?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
All I was trying to get across to Jeremy
First you do so in an attacking, insulting, and demeaning manor. That's not a very smart tactic to get people to listen.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
no one has presented convincing evidence for a causal relationship between extreme punishment and deterrent. I've seen more reputable studies, compiled by people without an agenda, that show negative or weak correlations, but I'm not entirely convinced either way.
Go stand on the street corner holding up a sign that says "I won't press charges if you rob my house" and provide your address. You'll have all the evidence you need. Jeremy Falcon
-
It's been a while since I did the research, and I'm not going to retrace my steps for this thread, so I would suggest a quick Google search. My results list a bunch of academic studies showing weak correlation to inverse correlation, and a metric buttload of religious(?!) sites extolling the biblical virtues of killing convicted criminals. Statistics lie, of course, so it's your choice which side to believe. I'd suggest deathpenaltyinfo.org. Ignore the obvious bias, look at the data and its sources. (BTW, if you'd like to start a death penalty thread, I'd be happy to debate that issue, but this thread isn't the place.) That point aside, would you care to refute the fact that stiffer penalties have had little to no deterrent effect on drug use? Do higher fines reduce speeding? Can you point me to any two areas where harsher punishment has served as an effective deterrent?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That point aside, would you care to refute the fact that stiffer penalties have had little to no deterrent effect on drug use? Do higher fines reduce speeding? Can you point me to any two areas where harsher punishment has served as an effective deterrent?
My comment is this: correlation does not equal causation. To set up such a "study" would require seting up control groups with the requisite parameters. You are confusing the creation of laws/increase of fines/punishments due to behaviour that came BEFORE the laws/fines with the fact that people who ALREADY disgregarded proper commonsense behaviour or existing law continue to do so afterwards. The law/fine was created/improved/increased due to the increase in unlawful behaviour. The people that were violating the law/commonsense before that point merely continue to do so until caught. Many such individuals, once caught, refuse to modify their behaviour due to rebeliousness, pride or ignorance. However, I think we can agree that laws probably will not modify behaviour in either direction until the violator is caught. Laws are created primarily to be able to inflict punishment which threat of punishment in many cases DOES cause the potential violator to modify their behavior. For instance, I got a few speeding tickets and now I don't speed so much because I do not wish to pay the fines. I've also matured somewhat and out of consideration of others as well as my own life, I don't speed nearly as much as I used to.
-
That list doesn't indicate any sort of causality betweent the death penalty and murder rates, and I doubt that a causal relationship could actually be made. Why would New Hampshire have the lowest murder rate in the country while also having the death penalty if it actually did not (or did) play a role as a deterrent. It could also reasonably be said that states with higher murder rates have the death penalty BECAUSE they have the higher rate to begin with. There is a higher correlation with temperature. 17 of the 20 lowest murder rate states are "cold", compared to only 9 of the lowest rate states having no death penalty (also note that more states at the lower murder rate end DO have the death penalty). Also, 14 of the top 20 states are "warm" states. There are also a lot of other factors, like Utah is very religious, so it's not surprising that they're near the bottom.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you kill someone, society's interest should be in not allowing you to do so again.
I disagree with this. Justice is the giving to each what is his own, and if you take a life, I believe that you owe yours. Just curious. What would you want to happen to a guy that raped your wife and daughter, then violently killed them...then started peeing on their bodies just as you walked in, catching him in the act? Would you be satisifed with giving him life in prison?
espeir wrote:
BECAUSE they have the higher rate to begin with.
exactly
-
ahz wrote:
MOST (99%) men don't.
That's an assumption.
ahz wrote:
Should we ALL be ostrasized and stigmatized because of few bad apples?
And like you've never tried to talk (pick up or wish you could in reality) to a chick when she didn't want to be bothered. It gets annoying from her point ya know. I've had friend that wore wedding rings, not becuase she was married, but because the guys wouldn't stop trying to pick up on her. And guess what, the ring didn't stop it. So maybe you don't understand their point of view as much as you'd like to think. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
So maybe you don't understand their point of view as much as you'd like to think.
i never claimed that i did. i'm pretty sure i don't.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That point aside, would you care to refute the fact that stiffer penalties have had little to no deterrent effect on drug use? Do higher fines reduce speeding? Can you point me to any two areas where harsher punishment has served as an effective deterrent?
My comment is this: correlation does not equal causation. To set up such a "study" would require seting up control groups with the requisite parameters. You are confusing the creation of laws/increase of fines/punishments due to behaviour that came BEFORE the laws/fines with the fact that people who ALREADY disgregarded proper commonsense behaviour or existing law continue to do so afterwards. The law/fine was created/improved/increased due to the increase in unlawful behaviour. The people that were violating the law/commonsense before that point merely continue to do so until caught. Many such individuals, once caught, refuse to modify their behaviour due to rebeliousness, pride or ignorance. However, I think we can agree that laws probably will not modify behaviour in either direction until the violator is caught. Laws are created primarily to be able to inflict punishment which threat of punishment in many cases DOES cause the potential violator to modify their behavior. For instance, I got a few speeding tickets and now I don't speed so much because I do not wish to pay the fines. I've also matured somewhat and out of consideration of others as well as my own life, I don't speed nearly as much as I used to.
Sure, but if you build up enough data, with enough correlating factors, you can maybe start to form some at least scientific wild-ass guesses. I wouldn't claim that such studies are conclusive; just that, in this case, they would be interesting.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
All I was trying to get across to Jeremy
First you do so in an attacking, insulting, and demeaning manor. That's not a very smart tactic to get people to listen.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
no one has presented convincing evidence for a causal relationship between extreme punishment and deterrent. I've seen more reputable studies, compiled by people without an agenda, that show negative or weak correlations, but I'm not entirely convinced either way.
Go stand on the street corner holding up a sign that says "I won't press charges if you rob my house" and provide your address. You'll have all the evidence you need. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
First you do so in an attacking, insulting, and demeaning manor. That's not a very smart tactic to get people to listen.
Oh, *this* is fucking rich, coming from you. Most of the time when you argue, you sound like a 13 year old. I am being serious when I say that, and I am not trying to be a dick. Almost every single sentence you use either accuses someone of assuming something (without actually backing that up), or uses an ad-hominem attack. When you are debating something, calling someone "retarded", "gay", or "dumb", or saying talking to them is "like talking to a brick wall" is a sure-fire way to make everyone else reading the argument think your arguments are worthless. Why don't you grow the hell up and stop arguing like you're in 8th grade...maybe some people will actually start listening to you. Or you could simply leave, since it seems that arguing on these boards is not good for you. For reference, here you go:
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And if I came to your house with a gun and threaten to kill you're family if you say that again, I doubt you'll be back here saying that on CP. Good, I'll come slap your wife on the ass a couple times when I visit to shoot you. I mean, seeing that it's no big deal and all. Now you're being retarded.
http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1386804&forumid=2605#xx1386804xx[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Care to support that assertion? [where he was countering an assertion you initially made that you did not back up. Wow!] Stop acting like an ass. Odd thing about dumb people is they love to assume a lot with no real basis If you think I value your opinion of me when you obviously did a piss poor job to even hold an intellectual conversation you're dead wrong. Go sniff some more paint. Well still, since it's not a big deal, I guess your wife's ass is open ground. BTW, look up big words before you use them. You look more like a fool when you use them wrong.