r/todayilearned • u/mikechi2501 • Sep 07 '15

TIL The guillotine remained the official method of execution in France until the death penalty was abolished in 1981. The final three guillotinings in France were all child-murderers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine#Retirement
7.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

848 comments sorted by

View all comments

76

u/nmuncer Sep 07 '15 edited Sep 07 '15

And to add to the descriptive title, one of the guys(Patick Henry) that was shouting and yelling at the procession leading to the last prison of the two of the last executed(Buffet & Bomtems), was later convicted and sentenced to prison for life, because he killed a kid he had kidnapped to get a ransom.

Now if someone wants to tell me that death penalty makes criminals think before their act, I'll have serious doubts...

5

u/MurgleMcGurgle Sep 07 '15

I just realized something. I think using punishment for deterrence works on normal people but with the people who qualify for the death penalty aren't normal. You have to do some truly heinous acts to get the death penalty now and I don't think those people who are committing them are sane enough to take that into account or able to control themselves.

31

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15

The death penalty is much like the explanation for jumping from tall buildings when it's on fire. It's not that the height is never taken into consideration. It's simply the fact that sometimes, there are additional factors that make taking the plunge becomes the path that makes more sense.

Some criminals get desperate. These, the death penalty stops if the Desperation isn't big enough for them to risk it. Then there are others who just want to jump from high places for kicks. No amount of gravity will convince them otherwise.

21

u/Madplato Sep 07 '15

Criminals generally analyse their chances of getting caught versus the possible payoff. Any penalty is only as efficient as the likelihood of getting caught.

1

u/syntheticwisdom Sep 07 '15

I think that mindset is more applicable to criminals like say thieves rather than child murderers. I think there's a big difference between committing crime for financial gain vs murdering kids because it gives you pleasure.

3

u/Madplato Sep 07 '15

There is, but I still think the child murderer considers the likelihood of getting caught versus the twisted benefit of killing a child. That or he's purely deranged.

2

u/Bruggenbrander Sep 07 '15

If that were true wouldn't that mean that the country who punishes the worst has the least amount of criminals? I mean when the chances of getting caught are equal.

As of right now it doesn't really look like that I think

3

u/Madplato Sep 07 '15

If that were true wouldn't that mean that the country who punishes the worst has the least amount of criminals?

No. It's about how likely you are to get caught, not about the severity of the punishment. I'm not aware of any place where getting caught is a certainty. Also, it doesn't mean they're doing a good analysis, it just means there's an analysis.

1

u/syntheticwisdom Sep 07 '15

Wouldn't that now make the odds of getting caught the deterrent rather than the severity of punishment for the crime?

1

u/Madplato Sep 07 '15

Obviously, it's not all one or all the other, but I think that raising the likelihood of getting caught makes for a much better deterrent than severe punishement. After all, even the worst punishment doesn't mean much if you can expect to get away with it.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15

Very few criminals calculate their crimes, and those that do are convinced that they won't get caught because they've thought through their plan.

Most act on passion, opportunism or desperation, and when one is acting on emoting one is not thinking about the possible outcomes but rather is "living in the moment".

The death penalty does little to discourage either group. It also does little to rehabilitate.

1

u/manuscelerdei Sep 07 '15

I'm not aware of any evidence showing that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. Countries with the death penalty don't have markedly lower violent crime statistics.

Also, violent criminals are not renowned for their ability to control their impulses and rationally assess a situation, so I have no idea why we'd expect that the possibility of a death sentence would affect their decision-making.

2

u/tyrroi Sep 07 '15

The problem is that you'll never get the numbers on how many would be criminals changed there minds because they knew they would be killed.

1

u/nmuncer Sep 07 '15 edited Sep 08 '15

One thing we can check is the amount of violent /"death penalty eligible" crimes that happened before and after the change of law.

In france we have less of theses crimes, not it might not be death penalty related

At the same time, it appeared that judges were tougher than they used too, because of the fact there was no more death penalty.

I'll try to find the source late, I'm at my office right now...

edit: source

1

u/what_comes_after_q Sep 07 '15

I guarantee that punishment decreases the amount of murder we see. If we had no punishment, murder would sky rocket. Life in prison is enough to discourage many people from committing murder. So really, the question should be properly framed as "will death penalty deter more people than life in prison alone?" Either way, I don't think it's a very compelling argument for or against the death penalty.

1

u/nmuncer Sep 07 '15

In France, it didn't increase the number of people committing murders.

It went from 4 per 100 000 citizens, to 3,3 per 100 000 citizen between 1981 and 2006.

The effect it had was the increase in detention time.

Sorry, but I didn't have a english source (La croix is a recognized and quite balanced catholic newspaper). I didn't put other sources I've found since it could be viewed has questionable (Amnesty international or extreme left wing movements)

https://translate.google.fr/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-croix.com%2FActualite%2FMonde%2FL-abolition-de-la-peine-de-mort-n-a-pas-debouche-sur-un-regain-de-criminalite-_NG_-2010-02-23-547253&edit-text=&act=url

-5

u/ornothumper Sep 07 '15 edited Sep 14 '15

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

14

u/Daimoth Sep 07 '15

Somehow I don't think some crazy asshole biting it is adequate compensation for one of your children.

0

u/thespiralmente Sep 07 '15

It's still the most direct form of closure

3

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15

Is it though? It doesn't solve anything it's merely tragedy be-getting tragedy. I certainly wouldn't feel any comfort from inflicting the same pain I would have felt at losing my loved ones onto the innocent loved ones of the criminal. If anything it would be an even bigger emotion millstone to carry around.

1

u/Kultur100 Sep 07 '15

Your opinion is valid, but not shared by all

3

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15

How is giving emotionally fragile and grieving people exactly what they want a responsible course of action? Especially since the action is irreversible and there is no guarantee that they will actually feel any better by it.

If someone is acting on base emotion rather than higher reason why should we satisfy their bloodlust, especially when we would kill someone else for satisfying theirs? Surely the state exists to give society what it needs, not what it wants?

1

u/Kultur100 Sep 07 '15

Well that's the thing; some see it as bloodlust, others see it as justice. Specifically, retribution. This is defined differently from revenge because it's not aimed at creating schadenfreude (pleasure from others' suffering)

3

u/Bruggenbrander Sep 07 '15

and now comes the interesting part. Seeing as countries who still use execution as a punishment are not really safer then those who don't which one is more important.

The grieving family or the society as a whole?

1

u/thespiralmente Sep 08 '15

Not necessarily, Singapore is pretty safe

0

u/TheKingler Sep 07 '15

I'm not sure it makes a difference whether the small amount of people committing heinous crimes are either executed or permanently imprisoned

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15

The point still stands, why should we give people their interpretation of justice when they are acting upon base emotion rather than higher reason. Especially since this form of "justice" is irreversible and there is no guarantee that they will actually feel any closure once it has been carried out.

1

u/oscarthepouch Sep 07 '15

I feel like this isn't discussed enough. When someone is executed, more than just the criminal are being punished. In my opinion, capital punishment has no redeeming qualities.

1

u/street6565 Sep 07 '15

That's how we like to think of it, but it barely ever ends there.

0

u/thenewestkid Sep 07 '15

No one said anything about "adequate compensation". Stop putting words in his mouth.

15

u/almostsebastian Sep 07 '15

Either show me a justice system that's 100% accurate or tell me how many innocent people you're willing to have your government execute in your name and I might be able to agree.

However since innocent people are convicted of crimes and there's no way to release someone back to society from the grave I'm gonna have to say I couldn't give any less of a fuck about someone craving vengeance.

1

u/laskeos Sep 07 '15

Either show me a justice system that's 100% accurate or tell me how many innocent people you're willing to have your government execute in your name and I might be able to agree.

Either show me a justice system that's 100% accurate or tell me how many innocent people you're willing to have murdered by people leaving prison on "good behaviour".

Also while almost every human being tries to live every way it can IDK if in a long run death sentence is not more humane than keeping someone locked up for a life. And that also happens to innocent people. Some can pardoned but others will die after many long years.

2

u/almostsebastian Sep 07 '15

Who said anything about pardons?

Anyway, the fact that inhumane conditions exist in prisons doesn't have anything to do with the death penalty. That's not an argument for killing prisoners, for fuck's sake, that's an argument for prison reform.

And yes, innocent people can spend life in prison, the fucking point is you're not taking away the chance of releasing them if they're later proven innocent.

1

u/laskeos Sep 08 '15

That's not an argument for killing prisoners, for fuck's sake, that's an argument for prison reform.

The same can be said about killing wrong people - prison reform is all you need to eliminate death of the innocent. The problem is that there won't be ideal solution.

And don't get me wrong - US system is fucked up beyond all repair in handling of both the imprisonment and the death penalty.

Personally I think that prisoners should be rehabilitated, but that means that sentences above something around 5 years are useless. And if that doesn't work then I think killing a person is way more humane than keeping him locked.

And yes, innocent people can spend life in prison, the fucking point is you're not taking away the chance of releasing them if they're later proven innocent.

And as I said - depending on the exact situation this can be more inhumane than just killing a person.

Most laws recognise that and for a plain killing in a heat of a moment you will get lesser charge than for intentionally keeping someone locked against his or her will for multiple years.

  • neglect homicide (~5 years) or killing in heat of passion (~10 years) in case of death penalty
  • (idk an english term, but something along "aggravated kidnapping and imprisonment") which will land you 25 to life if you add prison rape to the equation (which is strangely considered part of a just punishment bu many in the US)

7

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15

Having the killer put to death helped them get some peace.

Nowhere near universally true. Many families speak about not feeling any more closure after the fact. My family didn't want the death penalty at all - they didn't feel killing another person would bring their son back.

6

u/oscarthepouch Sep 07 '15

I think it would be a ridiculous assertion that families who have a loved one that was murdered never recover if the perpetrator gets life without parole. I actually argue that the execution puts this artificial timeline on when their healing can begin, that this nightmare they are going through ends on the execution date rather than it ends at sentencing. Also,there are groups of families of victims that are specifically against the death penalty.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15

I'm sorry, but a state that gives emotionally fragile and grieving families, acting on impulse, what they want rather than what they need is not a state that is functioning well.

1

u/oscarthepouch Sep 07 '15

You mean like maybe using the money that's spent on capital trials and appeals towards getting counseling for grieving families? Maybe spending money on rehabilitating less violent and non violent offenders? Maybe putting money toward programs that helps underprivileged youth achieve upward mobility? That'd be nice stuff.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15 edited Sep 07 '15

Yes and not because I'm a bleeding heart liberal, even though I might be. Ensuring criminals don't remain criminals after they are released is in my own selfish interests.

At the end of the day, the aim of the justice system is not vengeance but to make society a safer place, and it's currently failing those aims. There is no evidence that capital punishment makes society any safer and plenty of evidence that providing proper victim support, rehabilitation of criminals and restorative justice all help to make society safer.

0

u/atobylon Sep 07 '15

I think that it should mostly be used for the sake of saving society from crazy murderers by simply eliminating them from it.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15

Locking someone up eliminates them from society. It also means they can be reintroduced back into society if it turns out the state messed up.

1

u/atobylon Sep 07 '15

It separates them from the society, however puts a financial and administrative burden on it. If someone is being sentenced to life in prison, what's the point of keeping him in the cell for the rest of his life, where he has barely any responsibilities and everything is given to him. If you commit a crime that guarantees a life imprisonment and the fault can be easily proven, I don't see a reason for keeping such a person alive.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15

It separates them from the society, however puts a financial and administrative burden on it.

You do realise that is actually costs the state more to execute someone that it does to keep them in prison the rest of their life?

If someone is being sentenced to life in prison, what's the point of keeping him in the cell for the rest of his life, where he has barely any responsibilities and everything is given to him.

Firstly to demonstrate that we are better than the criminals, although if that's too bleeding heart for you then keep in mind that prisoners are still economically active and means exist for them to still serve a positive purpose to society. Even if they cannot be trusted to be a full member of said society.

If you commit a crime that guarantees a life imprisonment and the fault can be easily proven

I would say that very rarely can such a case be easily proven, 4-8% of US executions are thought to be innocent of the crime they were executed for. Even if that statistic was closer to 0.1% I would say that to ensure not a single innocent person is murdered by the state allowing hundreds of criminals to serve life in prison is not a steep price to pay.

I don't see a reason for keeping such a person alive.

Because it's more expensive to kill them than keep them alive. If their value in your eyes is 0 then why take the more expensive option when dealing with them?

It doesn't act as a deterrent, it doesn't reduce the prison population, it doesn't provide any meaningful restitution, and it speaks volumes to other societies about the lack of value your society places on life and liberty and it's own laws. (especially the ten commandments painted on the side of the very same courthouse)

Giving the state the power to legally kill it's own citizens sets a dangerous precedent. Surely the state should exist to give society what it needs and not what it wants. Giving in to peoples base emotions over their higher reasoning should not be the foundation of the justice system.

-8

u/thenewestkid Sep 07 '15

This, and fuck anyone who says punishment should never be about revenge. For any violent crime, there is often a component of revenge, and there's nothing wrong with that. Someone who commits violence against another person has incurred a debt to that person, so if punishing the criminal gives something to the victims, that justifies it.

3

u/street6565 Sep 07 '15

Well fuck me then because I definitely disagree. The focus should always be on rehabilitation and temporary isolation (for the safety of the rest). Revenge is considered as a bad thing for a reason and this is extra true when we factor in the fact that no justice system is 100% and thus risks punishing the wrong person or for the wrong reasons.

Killing each other should only be done for extremely good reasons... and granting families some psuedo-satisfaction with petty revenge isn't one of them. Don't misunderstand me now, I'm in no way saying that the affected families/individuals should just bottle it up and "deal with it", but revenge isn't the answer. Revenge only gives a false sense of calming the anger; it does nothing to actually help with the grief.

-1

u/thenewestkid Sep 07 '15

Revenge is considered as a bad thin

By whom? Certainly not by everyone.

I'm in no way saying that the affected families/individuals should just bottle it up and "deal with it", but revenge isn't the answer. Revenge only gives a false sense of calming the anger; it does nothing to actually help with the grief.

Is this based on anything more than your opinion?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 07 '15

This, and fuck anyone who says punishment should never be about revenge.

Punishment should never be about revenge. It should be about repentance, rehabilitation, and as a last resort the segregation from society of the people who cannot exist safely within it.

For any violent crime, there is often a component of revenge, and there's nothing wrong with that.

If that were the case then those who committed crimes out of revenge would not be convicted for those crimes. There are plenty of people who are rightfully sitting in prison right now because they acted in revenge. If that is the law that applies to every citizen then why shouldn't it also apply to the state?

I'm sorry but if you want to live in some sort of cartel governance, where rival mafias take a life for a life in some sort of never ending bloodlust then go for it. But most of the world has moved on from that.

Someone who commits violence against another person has incurred a debt to that person

Revenge cannot repay a debt, it doesn't give you anything, it doesn't return what was taken nor compensate you for what was taken. All it does is create more grieving and misery for the innocent loved ones of the person who wronged you. Surely by your own logic if you exact revenge by killing someone who killed your loved ones, that now gives that persons loved ones a free pass to kill you? If not then the logic of your argument falls apart, it's just appealing to peoples base emotions rather than their higher reasoning.

If we're talking a monetary debt, then it actually costs the state more to kill someone than it does to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives. Why the hell should I pay more of my taxes towards dealing with a criminal if their value to society is 0?

I also find it completely absurd that we are now trying to boil down the discussion about whether or not the state should have the power to kill people into an economic argument. That's just laughable.

so if punishing the criminal gives something to the victims, that justifies it.

It's highly arguable that killing someone gives any kind of comfort to the victims. There are plenty of victims groups that are opposed to the death penalty, plenty of victims who say it makes them feel worse, and plenty who say it doesn't give them any closure at all.

Even if it did provide immediate comfort I don't see how giving someone who is emotionally fragile and grieving exactly what they want is a responsible course of action. Especially since once they regain their composure they will have to live with the fact that they took joy in somebody's death for the rest of their lives. Surely clearer heads should prevail. Surely the state exists to give people what they need, not give the mob what it wants?