Capital Punishment

[Sakke]

I am certainly no expert on criminal psychology, but I feel if someone truly wants to commit a crime, I doubt even the consequence of death would deter them.

I'm no expert either, but I'm not sure you're right. I think it depends on who it is that 'wants to commit a crime'. Of course I think you're right about some people in some situations.

[GUARD!AN]

I am certainly no expert on criminal psychology, but I feel if someone truly wants to commit a crime, I doubt even the consequence of death would deter them.

I'm no expert either, but I'm not sure you're right. I think it depends on who it is that 'wants to commit a crime'. Of course I think you're right about some people in some situations.

Which is a valid point...I suppose if you look at it in the sense of "will instating the death penalty deter even at least ONE single crime from happening" which I think would be true, and we define just a few heinous crimes like murder or rape that it applies to then it actually might not be a pretty good tool to save people.

[MajorMajor]

Many criminals, murderers, don't think through their actions. So for those who kill in the heat of the moment nothing is a deterrent. The deterrent factor of the death penalty is most easily found in the fact that if the person is executed they will be permanently deterred from comitting any future crimes. It is best used upon those who cannot for whatever reason be redeemed. (I should say those who CHOOSE not to be redeemed).

[Ramshi]

Many criminals, murderers, don't think through their actions. So for those who kill in the heat of the moment nothing is a deterrent. The deterrent factor of the death penalty is most easily found in the fact that if the person is executed they will be permanently deterred from comitting any future crimes. It is best used upon those who cannot for whatever reason be redeemed. (I should say those who CHOOSE not to be redeemed).

Yeah, like the crazy psychopaths who laugh about their crimes in court and stuff

[Sakke]

Many criminals, murderers, don't think through their actions. So for those who kill in the heat of the moment nothing is a deterrent. The deterrent factor of the death penalty is most easily found in the fact that if the person is executed they will be permanently deterred from comitting any future crimes. It is best used upon those who cannot for whatever reason be redeemed. (I should say those who CHOOSE not to be redeemed).

One thing I'd really like to know, but is probably hard to study: Two unrelated men have for some unknown reason identical minds. Then, one of them kills his wife for cheating. Now, is any one of them more likely to kill another person than the other? And who?

Also Guard, I'm having trouble understanding your post, me being foreign and all. Are you saying that 'death penalty might prevent some crimes from happening, but not nearly enough'?

[Turquoise Dragon]

One thing I'd really like to know, but is probably hard to study: Two unrelated men have for some unknown reason identical minds. Then, one of them kills his wife for cheating. Now, is any one of them more likely to kill another person than the other? And who?

I believe I might be able to afford some sort of answer there. As much as psycholigists have attempted to argue otherwise, it's all genetics. Now, there's your DNA genetics, and your 'epigenetics', which is basically how your DNA code is regulated, modified before yews, and enabled/disabled by the yews of DNA-attaching compounds (active, inactive, and everywhere in between), and RNA message modifying compounds (cuts, adds, code swaps). While having a gene (or not ahving one) does not automatically make you a killer, it makes you more sussceptable. I belive in my genetics class, we talked about some genes that have been linked to aggression (kind of like genes linked to hair color, hieght, eye color).

Now, here's where the epigenetics comes into play. These genes may be completely deactivated by your epigenome, and therefore never become a factor. On the other hand, they could be unrestricted, causing higher aggression. On a third hand (borrowing a second person here), they could be partially restricted to various degrees, causing expression to varying degrees.

Now, this brings up the whole 'nature vs. nurture' question of psychology, which has been answered by genetics. Epigenetic modifications are affected by a person's environment. For example, the presence of say a certain sugar in the body prompts the body to unregulate the DNA code for an enzmyme to break down the sugar. External influences, such as family structure, other actions of relatives, even the color of your clothes, is known to have slight effects though an unknown method (at least unknown when I took the class over a year ago).

So, in effect it is both nature AND nurture. Your DNA code basically makes you 'susceptable' to being a certain way. Your epigenome determines how much you 'develop' along your susceptability. In that way, people with identical DNA codes (such as fraternal? twins) can become different. One sat to the left, while one sat to the right, and thus a small change to DNA expression is made.

With all that groundwork out of the way, to answer your question, it can be dificult to say outright who is more likely to kill another person. However, since one man already killed his wife, he has sumitted considerable evidence that his epigenome has tailored him to be more likely to kill.

[Sakke]

I believe I might be able to afford some sort of answer there. As much as psycholigists have attempted to argue otherwise, it's all genetics. Now, there's your DNA genetics, and your 'epigenetics', which is basically how your DNA code is regulated, modified before yews, and enabled/disabled by the yews of DNA-attaching compounds (active, inactive, and everywhere in between), and RNA message modifying compounds (cuts, adds, code swaps). While having a gene (or not ahving one) does not automatically make you a killer, it makes you more sussceptable. I belive in my genetics class, we talked about some genes that have been linked to aggression (kind of like genes linked to hair color, hieght, eye color).
(...)
With all that groundwork out of the way, to answer your question, it can be dificult to say outright who is more likely to kill another person. However, since one man already killed his wife, he has sumitted considerable evidence that his epigenome has tailored him to be more likely to kill.

Thank you for the reply! While that first section actually reminds me that I'd better get back to studying for my Cell Biology exam (to read more along the lines of what you just described) I thought I may address your post first.

I believe what you have just described to be true. What I'd like to know, however, is not what makes a man (or woman for that sake) who (s)he is. I think I must have been unclear in my original question.
What I'm asking is, what does it do to an individual to have killed someone (perhaps without the intent). Does it make it more likely for him to kill someone, should the same situation rise again, or would it make him less likely to kill his 'victim'.

This may very well have to do with epigenetics, or it may not. If not, let's call is psychology.
If an individual ends up in a situation where he kills someone, will it change the way he will act if put in the same situation years later?
Put it this way: would someone 'learn to read the signs' and avoid killing, or would it be 'easier to kill again'. And since people are different, and the answer is probably different for different people, the question should probably be more like: what would happen to the majority?

[Ramshi]

Those types of people like psychopath serial killers always find it easier to kill again. According to the numerous crime fiction books I've read, there's always a pattern to their killings. In between killings they live like normal people, but when the time comes and the telltale signs appear, they can't change and will kill again.

[Sakke]

They are called serial killers for a reason. I'm more interested in 'regular' people who made a (giant) mistake.

[Turquoise Dragon]

[quote="SakkeThank you for the reply! While that first section actually reminds me that I'd better get back to studying for my Cell Biology exam (to read more along the lines of what you just described) I thought I may address your post first.

I believe what you have just described to be true. What I'd like to know, however, is not what makes a man (or woman for that sake) who (s)he is. I think I must have been unclear in my original question.
What I'm asking is, what does it do to an individual to have killed someone (perhaps without the intent). Does it make it more likely for him to kill someone, should the same situation rise again, or would it make him less likely to kill his 'victim'.

This may very well have to do with epigenetics, or it may not. If not, let's call is psychology.
If an individual ends up in a situation where he kills someone, will it change the way he will act if put in the same situation years later?
Put it this way: would someone 'learn to read the signs' and avoid killing, or would it be 'easier to kill again'. And since people are different, and the answer is probably different for different people, the question should probably be more like: what would happen to the majority?[/quote]

Well, I'm not an expert on that part of it, but, by my own resoning, if someone who kills someone without intending to would probably be a bit less likely to kill somone in the future. Someone who kills someone intentionally in defense of themselves, their family/freinds, or property would be more likely to kill again in a similar situation, but not to go after somebody to kill them aggressively. Someone who kills intentionally in an aggressive manner would find it eassier to kill again in an aggressive manner, or have the opposite reaction of less likely to kill (not as common).