You would really need to have someone who has had a miscarriage of justice respond to that, for instance the Birmingham six - Judge nearly cried because he couldn't execute them, of course it all turned out to be bullshit and they were freed, and, compensated by the state - not that you can ever really compensate for the loss of 16years, or whatever it was of their lives, know what I mean?Pug wrote:
Compared to life imprisonment?IG-Calibre wrote:
Game,set, and match! end of discussion..CameronPoe wrote:
Whether it deters crime or not it is still wrong purely on the basis that a miscarriage of justice can cost an innocent person their life.
What's more cruel?
It's weighing the risk and doing the most logical thing. Call it what you want.Bubbalo wrote:
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a view? That sounds an awful lot like Communism...................Kmarion wrote:
Is the rare case of one innocent worth the risk of between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer?CameronPoe wrote:
Whether it deters crime or not it is still wrong purely on the basis that a miscarriage of justice can cost an innocent person their life.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Murder. You support the killing of an innocent person, you support murder.
On the same note, countries like Jordan punish theft by the cutting of arms. That practice was condemned by the western "civilized" world... Makes you think...the article wrote:
Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).
ƒ³
How many people actually get off death row this way?IG-Calibre wrote:
You would really need to have someone who has had a miscarriage of justice respond to that, for instance the Birmingham six - Judge nearly cried because he couldn't execute them, of course it all turned out to be bullshit and they were freed, and, compensated by the state - not that you can ever really compensate for the loss of 16years, or whatever it was of their lives, know what I mean?Pug wrote:
Compared to life imprisonment?IG-Calibre wrote:
Game,set, and match! end of discussion..
What's more cruel?
Once in 20 years?
Plus how many people actually get the death penalty? Not many.
But since you made the point - what's more cruel - being imprisoned for life (and innocent) or being executed (and innocent)?
One person is enough.Pug wrote:
How many people actually get off death row this way?
Once in 20 years?
Plus how many people actually get the death penalty? Not many.
But since you made the point - what's more cruel - being imprisoned for life (and innocent) or being executed (and innocent)?
And being imprisoned for life at least gives one the opportunity to fight against his conviction. Execution is a bit more... how do you say... Final.
ƒ³
It's a cultural thing - we value the individual. and, the innocent. Justice is not infallible. In Jail a person loses their liberty, that's the punishment for crime, and the price of justice. Should someone later be proven innocent? they are reprieved and compensated. However keeping someone on Death Row for years is cruel & torture (especially if they are innocent), murdering an innocent person in the name of justice and to "deter"? is cruel & sounds American all right. That's why we in the civilised world don't have the death penalty & believe a person is innocent until proven guilty.Pug wrote:
How many people actually get off death row this way?IG-Calibre wrote:
You would really need to have someone who has had a miscarriage of justice respond to that, for instance the Birmingham six - Judge nearly cried because he couldn't execute them, of course it all turned out to be bullshit and they were freed, and, compensated by the state - not that you can ever really compensate for the loss of 16years, or whatever it was of their lives, know what I mean?Pug wrote:
Compared to life imprisonment?
What's more cruel?
Once in 20 years?
Plus how many people actually get the death penalty? Not many.
But since you made the point - what's more cruel - being imprisoned for life (and innocent) or being executed (and innocent)?
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2007-06-11 07:46:59)
But those were the studies that concluded that it did not dete crime. Surely this one is flawlessBubbalo wrote:
Except that there have been plenty of people who've said the studies are unreliable.
My point is that its more cruel to imprison someone for life...oug wrote:
One person is enough.Pug wrote:
How many people actually get off death row this way?
Once in 20 years?
Plus how many people actually get the death penalty? Not many.
But since you made the point - what's more cruel - being imprisoned for life (and innocent) or being executed (and innocent)?
And being imprisoned for life at least gives one the opportunity to fight against his conviction. Execution is a bit more... how do you say... Final.
So if you were wrongfully convicted, you mean to tell me you'd rather die and pass on the opportunity to prove your innocence?Pug wrote:
My point is that its more cruel to imprison someone for life...
ƒ³
Well, yes and no. I believe there are flaws within the legal system - general bending of the legal system. But you need to separate punishment from flaws within the legal system. The punishment phase is not flawed - your argument is that someone MIGHT noy be innocent and doesn't deserve to die. This is a problem within the legal system that occurs BEFORE punishment has been handed done.IG-Calibre wrote:
It's a cultural thing - we value the individual. and, the innocent. Justice is not infallible. In Jail a person loses their liberty, that's the punishment for crime, and the price of justice. Should someone later be proven innocent? they are reprieved and compensated. However keeping someone on Death Row for years is cruel & torture (especially if they are innocent), murdering an innocent person in the name of justice and to "deter"? is cruel & sounds American all right. That's why we in the civilised world don't have the death penalty & believe a person is innocent until proven guilty.
"we in the civilised world don't have the death penalty" - jackoff...may i worship you now or later?
There is a difference between someone who has incurred a loss of liberty and is imprisoned incorrectly & someone who is on "death row" and doesn't know if tomorrow may be their last. As I said above the agreed price of justice in the civilised world is loss of liberty, not, loss of life. For the simple reason that someone may later be found innocent and returned to a state of "liberty" with compensation.Pug wrote:
My point is that its more cruel to imprison someone for life...oug wrote:
One person is enough.Pug wrote:
How many people actually get off death row this way?
Once in 20 years?
Plus how many people actually get the death penalty? Not many.
But since you made the point - what's more cruel - being imprisoned for life (and innocent) or being executed (and innocent)?
And being imprisoned for life at least gives one the opportunity to fight against his conviction. Execution is a bit more... how do you say... Final.
The years of waiting to be executed serve this purpose? What is the average - 18 years? How much longer do you need?oug wrote:
So if you were wrongfully convicted, you mean to tell me you'd rather die and pass on the opportunity to prove your innocence?Pug wrote:
My point is that its more cruel to imprison someone for life...
No it isn't.Kmarion wrote:
Is the rare case of one innocent worth the risk of between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer?CameronPoe wrote:
Whether it deters crime or not it is still wrong purely on the basis that a miscarriage of justice can cost an innocent person their life.
In any case I'm extremely skeptical of this study, since it flies in the face of all readily availiable statistical data, which shows that states without the death penalty have, over the past couple of decades, had murder rates between 4% and 46% lower than states with the death penalty (and the margin is growing). That doesn't seem to support the findings of this study.
Nor do the findings of any other studies I've read support this studies findings. There are studies from the Universities of Arizona, Oklahoma, the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the statistics from the FBI all seem to contradict this study.
I'd like to see a stat that shows how many people have been wrongfully executed in the United States. I'm sure it has happened in the past but in the modern era of forensics and indisputable DNA I would think those chances are not as likely.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The death penalty affects so few in reality...
Skeptical because it goes against other studies?..lolBertster7 wrote:
No it isn't.Kmarion wrote:
Is the rare case of one innocent worth the risk of between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer?CameronPoe wrote:
Whether it deters crime or not it is still wrong purely on the basis that a miscarriage of justice can cost an innocent person their life.
In any case I'm extremely skeptical of this study, since it flies in the face of all readily availiable statistical data, which shows that states without the death penalty have, over the past couple of decades, had murder rates between 4% and 46% lower than states with the death penalty (and the margin is growing). That doesn't seem to support the findings of this study.
Nor do the findings of any other studies I've read support this studies findings. There are studies from the Universities of Arizona, Oklahoma, the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the statistics from the FBI all seem to contradict this study.
The anti-death penalty people sound like the guys who start their arguments with "There nothing you can say that will change my mind". This is new stuff, and yes I hope it will be available for the masses to debunk.
“Instead of people sitting down and saying ’let’s see what the data shows,’ it’s people sitting down and saying ’let’s show this is wrong,”’ said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. “Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend.”
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So what do you have to say about the fact that the murder rate is higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it (or other countries without it for that matter)?Kmarion wrote:
Skeptical because it goes against other studies?..lolBertster7 wrote:
No it isn't.Kmarion wrote:
Is the rare case of one innocent worth the risk of between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer?
In any case I'm extremely skeptical of this study, since it flies in the face of all readily availiable statistical data, which shows that states without the death penalty have, over the past couple of decades, had murder rates between 4% and 46% lower than states with the death penalty (and the margin is growing). That doesn't seem to support the findings of this study.
Nor do the findings of any other studies I've read support this studies findings. There are studies from the Universities of Arizona, Oklahoma, the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the statistics from the FBI all seem to contradict this study.
The anti-death penalty people sound like the guys who start their arguments with "There nothing you can say that will change my mind". This is new stuff, and yes I hope it will be available for the masses to debunk.
“Instead of people sitting down and saying ’let’s see what the data shows,’ it’s people sitting down and saying ’let’s show this is wrong,”’ said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. “Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend.”
Places with the death penalty have higher homicide rates. That is simple fact. It must be very difficult to show that the death penalty acts as a detterent to would be murderers when you take this into consideration. The argument must be that there are other factors in these areas that mean the homicide rate would be even higher if it were not for the death penalty. Whilst other factors certainly could be relevant, I find it suspicious that the obvious statistical evidence is utterly contradictory.
I'd say if the death penalty wasn't law in those states the murder rates would be even higher based on these studies.Bertster7 wrote:
So what do you have to say about the fact that the murder rate is higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it (or other countries without it for that matter)?Kmarion wrote:
Skeptical because it goes against other studies?..lolBertster7 wrote:
No it isn't.
In any case I'm extremely skeptical of this study, since it flies in the face of all readily availiable statistical data, which shows that states without the death penalty have, over the past couple of decades, had murder rates between 4% and 46% lower than states with the death penalty (and the margin is growing). That doesn't seem to support the findings of this study.
Nor do the findings of any other studies I've read support this studies findings. There are studies from the Universities of Arizona, Oklahoma, the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the statistics from the FBI all seem to contradict this study.
The anti-death penalty people sound like the guys who start their arguments with "There nothing you can say that will change my mind". This is new stuff, and yes I hope it will be available for the masses to debunk.
“Instead of people sitting down and saying ’let’s see what the data shows,’ it’s people sitting down and saying ’let’s show this is wrong,”’ said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. “Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend.”
Places with the death penalty have higher homicide rates. That is simple fact. It must be very difficult to show that the death penalty acts as a detterent to would be murderers when you take this into consideration. The argument must be that there are other factors in these areas that mean the homicide rate would be even higher if it were not for the death penalty. Whilst other factors certainly could be relevant, I find it suspicious that the obvious statistical evidence is utterly contradictory.
Deter does not mean stop.
I find it interesting you debate a study you have not seen. Is your judgment bias flawed?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I did...Kmarion wrote:
Did you read the entire article?JahManRed wrote:
Risking 3-18 lives? Of who? The victims if these people get out and re-offend? Sorry I'm a bit confused.Kmarion wrote:
Is the rare case of one innocent worth the risk of between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer?
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"
From the very same article:
Support for or against the “death penalty” is based/biased primarily upon social attitudes:(1)
Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.
(2)
"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."
And (3)
"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend." The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.
Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.)
Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven't gotten that kind of scrutiny.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0023-9 … nlargePage
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qs … 5000459741
Is it really a deterrent?
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DonohueDeter.pdf
And [therein in the above article] they find the methods and data (some being the studies that were cited in the thread topic article) - simply “are not credible”.
Homicide and the Death Penalty: A Cross-National Test of a Deterrence Hypothesis:
Article
& http://www.ocadp.org/educate/Deterrent.htm
& http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8 … nlargePage
http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/2/173
Abstract: This study examines the effect of the death penalty on the murder rate. A 50-year time series is employed for the period 1930-1980 for the five states with the largest number of executions during this period: Georgia, New York, Texas, California, and North Carolina. Taken together, these five states accounted for 40 percent of all the executions performed during this period. Incorporating a lag structure for the effect of executions, as well as several theoretically relevant explanatory variables for homicides, the study identifies no deterrent effect for executions. Several different policy-relevant analyses are performed, all with the same result. Neither the existence of the death penalty, its imposition, nor the level of imposition explains significant amounts of the variation in homicide rates in the 50-year period, 1930 to 1980.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-11 09:02:54)
Well then surely murder rates should be considerably higher in places that don't have the death penalty, yet statistically this is not the case.. that's fact not conjecture so you = failKmarion wrote:
I'd say if the death penalty wasn't law in those states the murder rates would be even higher based on these studies.Bertster7 wrote:
So what do you have to say about the fact that the murder rate is higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it (or other countries without it for that matter)?Kmarion wrote:
Skeptical because it goes against other studies?..lol
The anti-death penalty people sound like the guys who start their arguments with "There nothing you can say that will change my mind". This is new stuff, and yes I hope it will be available for the masses to debunk.
“Instead of people sitting down and saying ’let’s see what the data shows,’ it’s people sitting down and saying ’let’s show this is wrong,”’ said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. “Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend.”
Places with the death penalty have higher homicide rates. That is simple fact. It must be very difficult to show that the death penalty acts as a detterent to would be murderers when you take this into consideration. The argument must be that there are other factors in these areas that mean the homicide rate would be even higher if it were not for the death penalty. Whilst other factors certainly could be relevant, I find it suspicious that the obvious statistical evidence is utterly contradictory.
Deter does not mean stop.
I find it interesting you debate a study you have not seen. Is your judgment bias flawed?
Terrible logic in support of the death sentence. The life of an innocent man is paramount in importance, it is irrelevant whether more homicides occur when the death sentence is applicable. The life of the innocent trumps all. It is the fault of the police and the police alone if a murderer continues to kill for an extended period of time - it is incumbent on them to get their act together.Kmarion wrote:
Did you read the entire article?JahManRed wrote:
Risking 3-18 lives? Of who? The victims if these people get out and re-offend? Sorry I'm a bit confused.Kmarion wrote:
Is the rare case of one innocent worth the risk of between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer?
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six#Trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four
You are incapable of understanding high homicide rates can be reduced, however this doesn't mean they will drop to a level that would rank them lower than others. Your argument lacks any kind of depth.IG-Calibre wrote:
Well then surely murder rates should be considerably higher in places that don't have the death penalty, yet statistically this is not the case.. that's fact not conjecture so you = failKmarion wrote:
I'd say if the death penalty wasn't law in those states the murder rates would be even higher based on these studies.Bertster7 wrote:
So what do you have to say about the fact that the murder rate is higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it (or other countries without it for that matter)?
Places with the death penalty have higher homicide rates. That is simple fact. It must be very difficult to show that the death penalty acts as a detterent to would be murderers when you take this into consideration. The argument must be that there are other factors in these areas that mean the homicide rate would be even higher if it were not for the death penalty. Whilst other factors certainly could be relevant, I find it suspicious that the obvious statistical evidence is utterly contradictory.
Deter does not mean stop.
I find it interesting you debate a study you have not seen. Is your judgment bias flawed?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Why should that be the case? Why are these studies more credible than those they contradict?Kmarion wrote:
I'd say if the death penalty wasn't law in those states the Murder rates would be even higher based on these studies.Bertster7 wrote:
So what do you have to say about the fact that the murder rate is higher in states with the death penalty than in states without it (or other countries without it for that matter)?Kmarion wrote:
Skeptical because it goes against other studies?..lol
The anti-death penalty people sound like the guys who start their arguments with "There nothing you can say that will change my mind". This is new stuff, and yes I hope it will be available for the masses to debunk.
“Instead of people sitting down and saying ’let’s see what the data shows,’ it’s people sitting down and saying ’let’s show this is wrong,”’ said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. “Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend.”
Places with the death penalty have higher homicide rates. That is simple fact. It must be very difficult to show that the death penalty acts as a detterent to would be murderers when you take this into consideration. The argument must be that there are other factors in these areas that mean the homicide rate would be even higher if it were not for the death penalty. Whilst other factors certainly could be relevant, I find it suspicious that the obvious statistical evidence is utterly contradictory.
Deter does not mean stop.
I find it interesting you debate a study you have not seen. Is your judgment bias flawed?
Can you not see that the very fact that the murder rates in states with the death penalty and in countries with the death penalty is totally at odds with these claims? The fact that the vast majority of studies, conducted by a very wide range of institutions, also disagree with this particular study, which I have not had the opportunity to read, makes me doubt its findings.
The conclusion of the study commissioned by the UN was that:
Why should I believe this study over those conducted by the US law enforcement community, the international community and the vast majority of academics? I don't see anything that makes this report seem in any way special, other than the fact that it disagrees with the majority.The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective wrote:
it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment
The US is one of the very few highly developed countries with the death penalty, it also has an extremely high murder rate for a highly developed country. Why is this? It could be argued that the high availibility of firearms is a contributary factor, it could also be argued that the US has an inherently violent culture, the death penalty forming a part of that cultural acceptance of violence - but ultimately who knows, studies can only show so much and the fact that there have been so many studies about something so difficult to quantify, with wildly varying results, speaks volumes about the accuracy of all such studies.
Both 1975?CameronPoe wrote:
Terrible logic in support of the death sentence. The life of an innocent man is paramount in importance, it is irrelevant whether more homicides occur when the death sentence is applicable. The life of the innocent trumps all. It is the fault of the police and the police alone if a murderer continues to kill for an extended period of time - it is incumbent on them to get their act together.Kmarion wrote:
Did you read the entire article?JahManRed wrote:
Risking 3-18 lives? Of who? The victims if these people get out and re-offend? Sorry I'm a bit confused.
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six#Trial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four
Kmarion wrote:
I'd like to see a stat that shows how many people have been wrongfully executed in the United States. I'm sure it has happened in the past but in the modern era of forensics and indisputable DNA I would think those chances are not as likely.
Xbone Stormsurgezz