12

Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Justification of Punishment Backward looking –Retributive Forward looking –Detterence –Rehabilitation –Reconciliation

Citation preview

Page 1: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010
Page 2: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Death Penalty Trials and AppealsPertemuan 11Pertemuan 11

Matakuliah : L0472 - Psikologi ForensikTahun : Feb -2010

Page 3: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Justification of Punishment• Backward looking

– Retributive

• Forward looking– Detterence– Rehabilitation– Reconciliation

Page 4: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Detterence• Cross-sectional research• Longitudinal research

Page 5: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Types of Punishment• Positive punishment• Negative punishment

Page 6: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Side Effects of Punishment• Skinner (1938)• Boe & Church (1967)

Page 7: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Death Penalty, Does It Matter?• Severity, or• Immediateness and• Consistency

Page 8: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Capital Punishment• Link between attitude toward death penalty and

likelihood of conviction– Cannot bar person from serving on jury due to beliefs against

death penalty unless bias would result in ignoring evidence presented

– Research: pro-death penalty more likely from high status, conservative, authoritarian males

Page 9: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Methods of execution• Electrocution• Lethal injection• Hanging• Shooting• Beheading• Stoning

Page 10: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Arguments for death penalty• Deter perpetrators – would-be murderers fear being

caught• Protect society - convicted murderers prevented from

killing again• Provide justice for victim – a life for a life• Is state’s responsibility – to preserve order, to right

wrong• Is more humane than alternatives – life imprisonment is

a “living tomb”

Page 11: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Arguments for death penalty• “Following the prison spokesman's

announcement that Ted (Bundy) was officially dead, sounds of cheers came from the jubilant crowd and fireworks lit the sky. Shortly thereafter, a white hearse emerged from the prison gates with the remains of one of the countries most notorious serial killers. As the vehicle moved towards the crematorium, the surrounding crowd cheerfully applauded the end of a living nightmare.” From www.crimelibrary.com

Page 12: Pertemuan 11 Death Penalty Trials and Appeals Pertemuan 11 Matakuliah: L0472 - Psikologi Forensik Tahun: Feb -2010

Arguments against death penalty• Is barbaric – against human rights, base vengeance,

state-sanctioned murder• Does not deter crime – no substantial proof of

decreasing crime rates• Takes innocent lives – eg. Timothy Evans, prejudice

against certain groups• Has high costs – cases time-consuming• Has no possibility of rehabilitation – extenuating

circumstances