In fact, I don’t even understand what the logical argument(s) for the death penalty are?
China has a population of over a billion people; even light corruption can harm tens of thousands of people as evidenced in a case mentioned somewhere here that led to 50,000 infants being hospitalized; the worse the corruption, the more and more people who are harmed, and the lighter the sentence, the more likely people will mentally balance whether they’re fine in engaging with corruption vs a light sentence they may receive. Studies have even shown that punishing the wealthy is more likely to deter crime from their class than it does with poorer people (so there’s data proving it works). China has a billion people, and even light corruption can destroy the lives of millions.
Being against the death penalty at this point would be more a personal aversion than a reasoned stance.
being against the death penalty is always a reasoned stance, it has nothing to do with the population density. get a grip.
Can the subject be with absolute certainty the correct perpetrator? Can we make people execute this person?–is that okay? What is the benefit to society of killing this person vs. reforming or extracting labor from them? this is in a stable context, we’re not talking about white army officers in the middle of a civil war here.
Studies have even shown that punishing the wealthy is more likely to deter crime from their class than it does with poorer people
So, still very little?
For deterrence to have any impact, detection needs to be very high and close in time to the offence.
In this instance, the former minister took bribes from 2007 to 2024, so if anything it’s a signal that if you only did a little bit of corruption, briefly, you’d probably be fine.
People also don’t weigh the death penalty in rational ways against other punishments.
I could be wrong but I highly doubt the study is actually capable of measuring literally death penalty vs life in prison as two punishments and whether the life in prison option leads to much more corruption than the death option–both are probably big deterrents if literally instituted as such.
It could also be argued that the death of certain individuals could potentially cause social unrest, dissent, or some type of martyrdom in a negative socialist direction, vs. life in prison ensuring that does not happen. Therefore possibly being the more reasonable stance.
I don’t consider this an overly important point personally nor do I give a shit about some corrupt billionaire getting got.
Have studies ever shown that execution is actually more of a deterrent than life in prison? My understanding is that it isn’t, but I’m happy to be corrected.
China has a population of over a billion people; even light corruption can harm tens of thousands of people as evidenced in a case mentioned somewhere here that led to 50,000 infants being hospitalized; the worse the corruption, the more and more people who are harmed, and the lighter the sentence, the more likely people will mentally balance whether they’re fine in engaging with corruption vs a light sentence they may receive. Studies have even shown that punishing the wealthy is more likely to deter crime from their class than it does with poorer people (so there’s data proving it works). China has a billion people, and even light corruption can destroy the lives of millions.
Being against the death penalty at this point would be more a personal aversion than a reasoned stance.
being against the death penalty is always a reasoned stance, it has nothing to do with the population density. get a grip.
Can the subject be with absolute certainty the correct perpetrator? Can we make people execute this person?–is that okay? What is the benefit to society of killing this person vs. reforming or extracting labor from them? this is in a stable context, we’re not talking about white army officers in the middle of a civil war here.
So, still very little?
For deterrence to have any impact, detection needs to be very high and close in time to the offence.
In this instance, the former minister took bribes from 2007 to 2024, so if anything it’s a signal that if you only did a little bit of corruption, briefly, you’d probably be fine.
People also don’t weigh the death penalty in rational ways against other punishments.
I could be wrong but I highly doubt the study is actually capable of measuring literally death penalty vs life in prison as two punishments and whether the life in prison option leads to much more corruption than the death option–both are probably big deterrents if literally instituted as such.
It could also be argued that the death of certain individuals could potentially cause social unrest, dissent, or some type of martyrdom in a negative socialist direction, vs. life in prison ensuring that does not happen. Therefore possibly being the more reasonable stance.
I don’t consider this an overly important point personally nor do I give a shit about some corrupt billionaire getting got.
Have studies ever shown that execution is actually more of a deterrent than life in prison? My understanding is that it isn’t, but I’m happy to be corrected.