Death Penalty

[Tinwhistler]

Death penalty cases cost more. A simple Google search will easily prove that to anyone who doubts.

But as Boner says, can we really put a price on human life? Consider this:

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
--John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

Seven recent studies have concluded that that the death penalty definitely acts as a deterrent against future crime. (see The Death Penalty IS a Deterrent! ) Here is one example:
(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.

and (cited on the same website):

Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that "The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data's aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable to measure executions."

So, while whether or not you put a heinous murderer away for life or give him the death penalty may have no effect on the future murders he may commit, the punishment has a definite effect on the heinous murders others may commit. Therefore, each death penalty execution saves lives.

Morally, and economically, the price of the death penalty is high, no doubt. But what each person has to ask themselves is, is the price worth it? If it means that more innocent people are saved at the cost of the life of one piece of shit murderer, then yes, I personally believe it is worth it. What if one of those innocent lives saved goes on to become the next Hawking, or JFK, or Nelson Mandela? Even if they live a rather ordinary life and even if the deterrent effect saved only half as many future innocents as projected, are those 5-10 lives worth less than the life of the murderer one would seek to spare? I don't think so. Because that's what we're weighing: The cost of one life on death row versus several lives saved due to the deterrent effect of the death penalty.

It's a simple fact, borne out by the evidence: When there is a moratorium on the death penalty, murders increase. How can you honestly know that and then say that you will be willing to do away with the death penalty, knowing that somewhere, in the future, some child will likely be brutally raped and murdered because of that decision? A child that would have gone on to live a happy life, but for your unwillingness to take a hard stance on these kinds of crimes?

 

[Dave]

The sky in Charlie's world is azure.

Some people are just plain evil and need to be exterminated. Do I think we do the death penalty well? No. But in the instances where it's obvious, proven and admitted that the bad guy is the actual perpetrator of the crime - murder and above only - I'm all for eradication.

 

[SpecialKO]

Tin, that study was heavily criticized in its methodology and conclusions. A follow-up study using the same data-set concluded the opposite was true.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Yeah, every credible study/source I've read says that the Death Penalty utterly fails as a deterrent.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Tin, that study was heavily criticized in its methodology and conclusions. A follow-up study using the same data-set concluded the opposite was true.

Got it...the same huffpost article you mention says:

Other studies also refute the deterrence theory. For example, researchers Lawrence Katz, Steven Levitte and Ellen Shustorovich analyzed state data between 1950 and 1990 and did not find a correlation between the death penalty and crime rates. Moreover, one of the Emory researchers, Joanna Shepherd, published a state study of her own and found that while the death penalty deterred murder in six states, it actually increased murder in 13 states, and had no effect on the murder rate in eight states.

Which makes sense to me. One blanket solution is not appropriate for all areas. Interestingly enough, the death penalty, and how it's applied, is a state-controlled issue, not a federal one. So, it seems to make sense that those states that can benefit from the death penalty should retain it.

Some of the other studies in the article are useless, for instance taking the one about how Southern states have highest murder rates and highest death penalty rates. The editorial slant of the article might lead one to believe that the death penalty rates cause the murder rates, but that would be a fallacy without supporting evidence. It could be that there are higher death penalty rates simply because there are higher murder rates.

So, if even if we're back to square one, that there may or may not be a deterrence effect, and we just don't have the scienc to know for sure yet, I still have to side with my man McAdams, previously quoted:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
--John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

 

[Dubyamn]

some who should never ever get the possibility of release.

Do you not understand the concept of "life without parole"?

You do know that people sentanced to life in prison continue to rape and kill right? Those people they rape and kill are usually lesser offenders who actually have some small chance of becoming worthwhile human beings while when they are on death row they aren't kept with the general population and thus can't kill or rape their fellow man anymore.

 

[SpecialKO]

Interestingly enough, the death penalty, and how it's applied, is a state-controlled issue, not a federal one.

I do agree with you on that, at least. I don't think a federal law, in either direction, is particularly appropriate unless it specifically pertains to federal offenders. In which case, I suspect the sample size is a bit too small to make any credible statement on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent against federal capital crimes.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Interestingly enough, the death penalty, and how it's applied, is a state-controlled issue, not a federal one.

I do agree with you on that, at least. I don't think a federal law, in either direction, is particularly appropriate unless it specifically pertains to federal offenders. In which case, I suspect the sample size is a bit too small to make any credible statement on the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent against federal capital crimes.
[/QUOTE]

A little digging, interestingly enough, shows that the paper you quoted, critiquing the paper I quoted, has itself been critiqued.

http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/Reflections_on_a_Critique.pdf

Critiques of scholarly research contain their own flaws; sometimes even more so than the work they are critiquing. Such is the case of the critique of our research authored by John Donohue and Jason Wolfers. Published in the Stanford Law Review their paper avoided the blind peer review process and consequently contains elements that undoubtedly would not have survived peer review. That possibility aside, we show that their alternative measures of criminal activity have no theoretical basis nor any empirical precedent within the modified portfolio approach employed in our research. Putting even that aside, we show that their empirical results are not inconsistent with ours. Thus, upon reflection, we see no justification to amend, modify or otherwise alter our methods or results.

also:
Statistical Variability and the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty -- Zimmerman 11 (2): 370 -- American Law and Economics Review

In a recent paper Donohue and Wolfers (D&W) critique a number of modern econometric studies purporting to demonstrate a deterrent effect of capital punishment. This paper focuses on D&W's central criticism of a study by Zimmerman; specifically, that the estimated standard errors on the subset of his regressions that suggest a deterrent effect are downward biased due to autocorrelation. The method that D&W rely upon to adjust Zimmerman's standard errors is, however, potentially problematic, and is also only one of several methods to address the presence of autocorrelation. To this end, Zimmerman's original models are subjected to several parametric corrections for autocorrelation, all of which result in statistically significant estimates that are of the same magnitude to his original estimates. The paper also presents results obtained from an alternative model whose specification is motivated on theoretical and statistical grounds. These latter results also provide some evidence supporting a deterrent effect. Finally, the paper discusses D&W's use of randomization testing and their contention that executions are not carried out often enough to plausibly deter murders.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

You do know that people sentanced to life in prison continue to rape and kill right? Those people they rape and kill are usually lesser offenders who actually have some small chance of becoming worthwhile human beings while when they are on death row they aren't kept with the general population and thus can't kill or rape their fellow man anymore.

Death Row is not the only way to keep a dangerous convict away from other people.

 

[Dave]

You do know that people sentanced to life in prison continue to rape and kill right? Those people they rape and kill are usually lesser offenders who actually have some small chance of becoming worthwhile human beings while when they are on death row they aren't kept with the general population and thus can't kill or rape their fellow man anymore.

Death Row is not the only way to keep a dangerous convict away from other people.[/QUOTE]

But it is the most foolproof way.

 

[Jay]

Once again, I’ll reiterate the genre of people who are targeted by the death penalty. Those putrid scumbags whom have been convicted with infallible proof of extreme crimes… such as pre-meditated murderer, serial murders, inhumane actions… etc. These are the targets of the death penalty.


Sometimes people can really be daft marshmallows for the sake of pure ignorance in their own personal agenda that they completely and utterly forget what the justice system is there for. So willing are they to defend these “people” of their rights they completely and utterly forget the most important thing in all of the justice system…. the victims. What about Anna Foti? Where were you oh dear defenders of the anti-death penalty when this 16 year old was kidnapped after work in a shopping mall parking lot then repeated raped and beaten over the course of days in a cabin in the woods then brutally strangled and buried behind the wood shed? What about her rights? What justice is there for such a man to plea-bargain 15 years of jail for insanity? Where he’ll comfortably be provided all the food to sustain himself. A warm bed to sleep in every night. Even be provided an hour or two of leisure time every day for “good behavior”. Bums who have done society no harm try to survive harsh Canadian winters by sleeping under bridges or shelter homes where food is hard to come by.


And for those of you who think that death sentences are expensive. Once again, we try to give them peaceful deaths with injections that send them to sleep. They don’t have to be, there’s perfectly acceptable ways to kill them for little to no costs. Get a shovel and a pile of rocks, it works well for Iran. Some rope, a chair and a butter knife. A Freezer. Go to Walmart and buy a case of bullets for 39.95$.... or just buy bulk.

 

[Espy]

And I just don't buy that someone loses their humanity through any action. That's way too easy to just say "oh, that person's not even human, so we can write them off completely". That's bullshit.

I don't think you understand what some are saying here, no one is saying (well, not most anway) that one "loses" their humanity (technically impossible) or is "less human", it's that by taking the life of another they choose to GIVE UP their rights as a part of society. No matter what consequence you decide is appropriate (life in prison? Death?) they are losing their rights as a human. They will no longer have freedom, nor should they, even you seem to be agreeing on that.

 

[Tinwhistler]

The cost of the death penalty is not in the execution method. It only costs about $87.00 for Texas to put someone to death.

It's mostly in the extra pre-trial preparation and initial trial that most of the money is spent.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm late to the party. I support the death penalty, and think it should be applicable to more crimes than it is. If you want to see the value of human life, tour the darker streets of Calcutta for a while. To put intrinsic value on human life is folly - every life may start with potential, but not every life actualizes that into worth.

 

[Jay]

Oh ok. That's perfectly fine in my opinion. It's every person's right is to be defended regardless of charge.

 

[Dave]

I'm late to the party. I support the death penalty, and think it should be applicable to more crimes than it is. If you want to see the value of human life, tour the darker streets of Calcutta for a while. To put intrinsic value on human life is folly - every life may start with potential, but not every life actualizes that into worth.

True. Some become Republicans instead.



BAM!!

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?

 

[Espy]

What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?

Probably the same thing putting them in a hole for the rest of their life does.

 

[Dave]

What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?

Probably the same thing putting them in a hole for the rest of their life does.[/QUOTE]

With the added bonus that the guilty party will never get out, never write the family letters, never have the chance to escape, etc.

Some of these victims are afraid and scarred for the rest of their lives from these monsters. They are the Human equivalent of rabid dogs. They should be treated the same way.

 

[Chazwozel]

What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?

I'm just wondering how locking up the murderer and throwing away the key is any different? Being sequestered away in some hole isn't exactly a life worth living either. There's a reason why some convicts go on suicide watch. The victims don't get their lives back either way.

I gotta dig up some stuff on pedophiles and child molesters. They seem to be insanely good at being repeat offenders, no matter how tightly they're controlled. Defend their civil rights all you want, Charlie, some people don't want to or can't play by society's rules, and nothing you do for them is going to change that.

This argument is akin to people trying to help crackhead bums. Nothing you do for them is going to help them. They don't want to help themselves. Why do you think that people can change and be different? You attempt the sympathetic approach to you're stance, stating that everyone is somebody's baby. I've encountered bums in Philly and said the same thing to myself. This person was once somebody's baby; an innocent arrival into the world. You have to realize that once a person grows into an adult their actions define who they are, not the mere fact that they share the same species designation as yourself.

The people that murderers and rapists destroy were somebody's baby too. It's not a matter or right and wrong; whether the state killing someone is wicked in the same fashion as the murderers crime. It's a matter of justice. A 30+ serial killer needs to be met with justice, not compassion.

 

[Jay]

What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?

I truly wonder how you'll feel if you got a loved one who would receive such an ill fate. I refuse to believe you're this daft.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Putting them away for life doesn't benefit the victims either, it benefits society.

 

[Dave]

Putting them away for life doesn't benefit the victims either, it benefits society.

So does killing them. And it's a permanent fix instead of the reminder that the evil is still alive and could get out.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?

I truly wonder how you'll feel if you got a loved one who would receive such an ill fate. I refuse to believe you're this daft.[/QUOTE]

I actually had a pretty good friend get tortured and murdered, and whoever was responsible hasn't been caught. I really won't feel any better or different if the person(s) were dead instead of locked up so they can't do the same to anyone else.

---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

Putting them away for life doesn't benefit the victims either, it benefits society.

So does killing them. And it's a permanent fix instead of the reminder that the evil is still alive and could get out.[/QUOTE]

Because mass murders escaping is something that happens every day.

 

[GasBandit]

Because mass murders escaping is something that happens every day.

 

[Dave]

What does killing the murderer do for the victims again?

I truly wonder how you'll feel if you got a loved one who would receive such an ill fate. I refuse to believe you're this daft.[/QUOTE]

I actually had a pretty good friend get tortured and murdered, and whoever was responsible hasn't been caught. I really won't feel any better or different if the person(s) were dead instead of locked up so they can't do the same to anyone else.

---------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ----------

Putting them away for life doesn't benefit the victims either, it benefits society.

So does killing them. And it's a permanent fix instead of the reminder that the evil is still alive and could get out.[/QUOTE]

Because mass murders escaping is something that happens every day.[/QUOTE]

You're right they don't...every day. But it does and can happen. And then there's the guy who killed the daughter of a family and then wrote them lots and lots of letters mocking them. 1 bullet and a blindfold would have stopped that cold, too.

Those poor murderers! Who thinks of the poor murderers? Boo fucking hoo! For some of these jackholes cruel and unusual should be the rule and not the exception.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Those poor murderers! Who thinks of the poor murderers? Boo fucking hoo! For some of these jackholes cruel and unusual should be the rule and not the exception.

We should house them at Boner's house..like a half-way house kind of arrangement. They're still people, for god's sake! And he knows just how to treat them best. What's the worst that could happen?

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

You're right they don't...every day. But it does and can happen. And then there's the guy who killed the daughter of a family and then wrote them lots and lots of letters mocking them. 1 bullet and a blindfold would have stopped that cold, too.

Those poor murderers! Who thinks of the poor murderers? Boo fucking hoo! For some of these jackholes cruel and unusual should be the rule and not the exception.

You can also stop someone from sending hurtful letters out of a prison in a lot of ways that don't involve killing someone.

I don't mean to be all elitist, but I mean, congrats on wanting to be just as evil as those "jackholes".

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

We should house them at Boner's house..like a half-way house kind of arrangement. They're still people, for god's sake! And he knows just how to treat them best. What's the worst that could happen?

I still think murderers should be in some type of heavy-security prison. I don't think I said anything resembling that they should be out with good behavior.

 

[Dave]

Justice is evil now? Then I guess I'm evil for wanting to make sure these guys can't and won't ever reoffend. I can live with that designation if that's the circumstances.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I think wishing cruel and unusual punishment on people, no matter what they've done, is kind of evil.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I'm against the death penalty, and my reasons have already been stated more eloquently than I likely would have managed.

I'm also against the way the american prison system is set up. It's little more than a warehouse to store people so that they don't have to be dealt with by other means. I really don't think prison works as a deterrent, and would like to see more rehabilitation systems and less extended prison sentences for nonviolent crimes (that means you, war on drugs).

There are a lot of people that need to be warehoused away from the law-abiding public. The folks that turn their backs on the education system, and all the other outreach programs out there, pretty much deserve to be locked away from breaking the public trust.

I had a student in my detention class, who said that no one ever gave him a break. I laid out many of the breaks afforded him, in the hopes that he would act like a better citizen... I think I did get through to him at that point.

I do feel that there are way too many people in prison for long terms for breaking non-violent laws. I feel everyone in prison for pot possession should be out of there.

 

[crono1224]

Deterrence is a silly thing, now why would people be more willing to spend the rest of their lives trapped in prison vs dying? The real thing goes back to either A the crime is heat of the moment and they aren't thinking about the consequences, or B they simply don't think they will get caught. Honestly you want a better murder deterrent? Increase police friendliness in the gang land areas, have it so people actually report and testify against the gangs that murder people. In these super bad areas the criminals know that they have a power hold on the citizens, they don't need to fear being caught cause no one is going to say anything anyways.

As for the infallible proof, that is like an oxymoron when it comes to the justice system. It is clear that it has flaws, and that mistakes are made one way or another. People make mistakes, but there is no coming back from killing a person, no rewind button when you kill an innocent person.

Also how do you think it would make someone feel either as the jury who convicted him, the judge who sentenced him, or the executioner to kill someone who hasn't committed the crime?

 

[Chazwozel]

I think wishing cruel and unusual punishment on people, no matter what they've done, is kind of evil.

Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.

 

[Soliloquy]

I think this conversation needs more Terry Pratchett.

"Do you really think all this deters crime, Mr. Trooper?" he said.
"Well, in the generality of things I'd say it's hard to tell, given that it's hard to find evidence of crimes not committed," said the hangman, giving the trap door a final rattle. "But in the specificality, sir, I'd say it's quite effacious."
"Meaning what?" said Moist.
"Meaning I've never seen someone up here more than once, sir. Shall we go?"

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I think wishing cruel and unusual punishment on people, no matter what they've done, is kind of evil.

Yeah, ok, let me know when you're done being Jesus.[/QUOTE]

You're the one deciding who's worthy to live or die.