>Singapore manages to have a low crime rate with the death penalty.
>In contexts where executions are widespread and public, death penalty is a good deterrent.
>"NOOO MY HECKIN DEATH PENALTY IS BAD!!! NO WE MUST SHOW COMPASSIONARINO!"
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
Beware Cat Shirt $21.68 |
I think the main argument against the death penalty is that it's traumatizing to the executioner and other persons required to participate in the execution. It's one thing to kill somebody in battle who is actively trying to kill you. It's another thing to kill a person who is completely restrained and rendered powerless
I have never heard this argument made, but it sounds like a super shitlib thing to say. I'd have no problem executing criminals only homosexuals like you have not thought out their moral or ethical system are challenged by it.
If someone is that unfazed by executing someone, they are one bad day away from becoming a criminal themselves
>wow you killed that israelite poisoning our wells dad!
>arent you afraid you might do the same one day?
moronic argument is moronic
If you look at other countries and not just infographics from the S'porean govt, you see less of a clear relationship between crime and the death penalty. Murder rates in Canada actually fell after the abolition of the death penalty.
OP is an edgekid
1. Not all research. 2. Only stupid research done stupidly on purpose, and I say that charitably in that it is unbelievable that any qualified researcher is stupid enough to buy into their own narrative here. What's stupid about it? Look at the numbers in this research. Look at the context through which it is done. Then look at alternatives that come to the opposite conclusion and compare the contexts. Research showing that death penalty is an effective deterrent is
performed in contexts where executions
are frequent, widespread, and public "Research" (aka propaganda) showing
the death penalty does not act as a deterrent is VERY carefully cherry picked
from contexts where the death penalty is
rare and hidden away from the public
Anyone can produce a fictional story
using cherry picked facts. Do better.
Stop pretending like all "research' and
"studies" are equal. I promise you they
Stop typing word salad on your phone. The numbers don't lie.
Show me them, then.
using Canada as an example ? yeah no aim lower, those french wannabes can’t do shit
Not an argument.
Canada's murder rate peaked in the early 70s and fell from then on, despite the abolition of capital punishment in the mid 70s.
>Correlation is causation.
My point is that there isn't a causative effect. If the death penalty was such a useful and essential policy, why did its abolition not produce a crime wave?
Because in the West the death penalty is purposely made a complicated, expensive, process that takes years of appeals and finally happens decades later behind closed doors when everyone’s forgotten about the original crime.
Why then did the US see a crime wave in the 1930s? Executions were both more common and more immediate before the 1970s.
Prohibition and mass immigration
Shouldn't the death penalty have fixed the problem? Or is it not really that useful?
BTW immigration laws got a lot stricter starting around 1924.
>you can still get sick despite washing your hands
>therefore you shouldn't wash your hands
Where's the evidence it would have helped at all?
The 18th amendment was repealed in 1933 and thus has limited explanatory power.
almost like they were trying to avoid judicial murder of innocent people
Canada got rid of the death penalty as one small part of a massive sweeping reform to its criminal justice system, with the most important change being a focus on rehabilitation and fixing problems at home for juvenile offenders rather than stuffing them in 'juvenile corrections facilities' which were basically training camps for murderers staffed entirely by men who just loved to abuse young boys, in every way. My uncle went in to one as a delinquent who skipped school and came out as a career criminal.
The problem with analysis like this is that the effects of a large change in laws arent noticed immediately because people raised under a certain legal system will behave as if it still existed. Like legal echoes that still direct people.
If it works so well, why have they had to use it for so long? At what point will it stop all crime?
>In contexts where executions are widespread and public, death penalty is a good deterrent
Not really considering that murders and crime still take place here. The government doesn't hand out death penalties like how people imagine it unless the crime is severe enough that it warrants it
Also, have a nice day moronic homosexual cuck. I fricking hate moronic edgelords or /misc/gays who worship Singapore
t.Singaporean
All of crime is statistics; no policy will ever stop all of it. So the best to do is mitigate it. And the death penalty seems like the best one.
>And the death penalty seems like the best one.
Not even close
>we can’t stop you, but if we catch you, you get your head chopped off
literally below 100 Black person tier thinking
>t. Bernie Waller, fat white American sitting in his mothers basement in the suburbs
East Asia always BTFOs redditurd arguments “noooooo you have to legalize literally everything prohibition will never heckin work nooooooo”
GIVE DRUG DEALERS THE ROPE
Shut up Flip
The failure of the war on drugs in the Philippines debunks this.
what "failure". the phillipines is textbook of why it works.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-10/20/c_139454432.htm
Because it wasn't seriously conducted, it was just optics by local strongmen.
I would prefer 1000 guilty men walk free than let 1 innocent man be martyred
1000 Guilty men can destroy everything you hold dear in an instant. Can you say the same for the 1 innocent?
Hitler was innocent and we martyred him
Justice is blind
I am not the judge, jury, and executioner
>Crime rates drop globally over the years
>30% crime drop when compared to 1970's!
Look, im all for death penalty but pretending that its some kind of deterrent is moronic.
Most crimes are committed in a spur of a moment or because the offender is mentally ill (psychopathy etc)
the death penalty is the correct response to drug dealing. a hard drug dealer opening up shop in a community will result in theft, assault, crime, murder, accidents, broken families, miscarriages, etc. etc. and should be treated precisely as someone who is threatening the community with all of those crimes.
That makes sense but it wouldn't be a problem if people were intelligent enough to consume drugs with moderation. But I know that is not the case for a lot of people.
Do you ban alcohol too? Because that generates all the problems that you said too.
why are you shilling for singapore on IQfy
I'm not completely against the concept of the death penalty but you dumb homosexuals on here think that Singapore is just randomly lynching by the thousands drug dealers, homeless people, libtards and degenerates because of some tweet made by some soilooking gay groomer? First of all the amount of people executed in Singapore on a yearly basis is very low and the number of people in jail is low as well. Do people on IQfy actually think that Singapore is just this conservative based redpilled country that kills people that they don't like? No stupid because the govt of Singapore does not have the time to kill every single individual that don't align with your views. Singapore may be an authoritarian state but its not a tinhorn regime.
There is something off-putting about attempting to find the most "humane" way of killing someone on death row. I'm not personally for the death penalty but If you're gonna do it at least be honest aboutit and fricking just shoot the guy or hang him even instead of this "ok now it's time to go night-night :)" shit we try and pull with lethal injection(which we can't truly prove to be "humane" anyway).
Singapore has low crime because it’s a police state with CCTV cameras everywhere, weapons are completely banned for civilian usage, and police have free reign to crack down on anyone who looks even the least bit shady, the death penalty is a tiny aspect of this.
good
agreed. but shitlibs are our (the west) great undoing. I would be for hanging them or just shooting them (without a fire squad) just one person shoots 5 rounds into their chest from a rifle).
> Do people on IQfy actually think that Singapore is just this conservative based redpilled country that kills people that they don't like?
no one thinks this troons.
> Singapore may be an authoritarian state but its not a tinhorn regime.
authoritarian is such a shitlib perjorative. shitlibs themselves go one step further and are totalitarian.
>Living in a censored nanny state where you can’t defend yourself, and have zero privacy is a good thing!
You decry shitlibs but you’re exactly the same as them.
Anon you're not edgy or avant-garde for simping for Singapore. You're a homosexual.
>authoritarian is a pejorative
>has never even remotely come close to living in, or has comprehension of, the realities of an authoritarian state
I swear the majority of directionalbrain morons would cease posting if they spent more than five minutes outside their own country.
Conservatives will rail against twitter banning chuds for telling people to kill themselves and then support this.
If it works for them then good. I doubt you'd see approval rates in the 70s if there was even an insignificant amount of worry people don't have they'd be falsely implicated and sentenced to death.
How many African heritage people live in Singapore?
None, but they have a huge population of South Indians
None but they have Indians, Malay and Chinese.
Drug use rates is simply a function of purchasing power per capita and access to ports. Meaning that you are going to have higher rates of drug use in rich countries with a lot of access points, such as in Western Europe and the US.