The Death Penalty

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley wrote

"Evidence shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent, it cannot be administered without racial bias, and it costs three times as much as life in prison without parole. What's more, there is no way to reverse a mistake if an innocent person is put to death."

/thread.

Except the only 'real' reason to pause on the Death Penalty is the last reason you quoted (executing an innocent man).

There is contradictory evidence that shows the Death Penalty is indeed a deterrent:

Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders.[17] Using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000, Professors Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd were able to compare the relationship between executions and murder incidents before, during, and after the U.S. Supreme Court's death penalty moratorium.[18] They found that executions had a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents. Additionally, the implementation of state moratoria is associated with the increased incidence of murders.

Separately, Professor Shepherd's analysis of monthly data from 1977 to 1999 found three important findings.[19]

First, each execution, on average, is associated with three fewer murders. The deterred murders included both crimes of passion and murders by intimates.

Second, executions deter the murder of whites and African-Americans. Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African-Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races.

Third, shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2.75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, one murder is deterred.

Professors H. Naci Mocan and R. Kaj Gittings of the University of Colorado at Denver have published two studies confirming the deterrent effect of capital punishment. The first study used state-level data from 1977 to 1997 to analyze the influence of executions, commutations, and removals from death row on the incidence of murder.[20] For each additional execution, on average, about five murders were deterred. Alternatively, for each additional commutation, on average, five additional murders resulted. A removal from death row by either state courts or the U.S. Supreme Court is associated with an increase of one additional murder. Addressing criticism of their work,[21] Professors Mocan and Gittings conducted additional analyses and found that their original findings provided robust support for the deterrent effect of capital punishment.[22]

Two studies by Paul R. Zimmerman, a Federal Communications Commission economist, also support the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Using state-level data from 1978 to 1997, Zimmerman found that each additional execution, on average, results in 14 fewer murders.[23] Zimmerman's second study, using similar data, found that executions conducted by electrocution are the most effective at providing deterrence.[24]

Using a small state-level data set from 1995 to 1999, Professor Robert B. Ekelund of Auburn University and his colleagues analyzed the effect that executions have on single incidents of murder and multiple incidents of murder.[25] They found that executions reduced single murder rates, while there was no effect on multiple murder rates.

In summary, the recent studies using panel data techniques have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives. Each additional execution appears to deter between three and 18 murders. While opponents of capital punishment allege that it is unfairly used against African-Americans, each additional execution deters the murder of 1.5 African-Americans. Further moratoria, commuted sentences, and death row removals appear to increase the incidence of murder.

The strength of these findings has caused some legal scholars, originally opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds, to rethink their case. In particular, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago has commented:

If the recent evidence of deterrence is shown to be correct, then opponents of capital punishment will face an uphill struggle on moral grounds. If each execution is saving lives, the harms of capital punishment would have to be very great to justify its abolition, far greater than most critics have heretofore alleged.[26]


Further... racial bias is not as much in play as face value might suggest:

Under a competitive grant process, the National Institute of Justice awarded the RAND Corporation a grant to determine whether racial disparities exist in the federal death penalty system. The resulting 2006 RAND study set out to determine what factors, including the defendant's race, victim's race, and crime characteristics, affect the decision to seek a death penalty case.[3] Three independent teams of researchers were tasked with developing their own methodologies to analyze the data. Only after each team independently drew their own conclusions did they share their findings with each other.

When first looking at the raw data without controlling for case characteristics, RAND found that large race effects with the decision to seek the death penalty are more likely to occur when the defendants are white and when the victims are white.[4] However, these disparities disappeared in each of the three studies when the heinousness of the crimes was taken into account.[5] The RAND study concludes that the findings support the view that decisions to seek the death penalty are driven by characteristics of crimes rather than by race. RAND's findings are very compelling because three independent research teams, using the same data but different methodologies, reached the same conclusions.

While there is little evidence that the federal capital punishment system treats minorities unfairly, some may argue that the death penalty systems in certain states may be discriminatory. One such state is Maryland. In May 2001, then-Governor Parris Glendening instituted a moratorium on the use of capital punishment in Maryland in light of concerns that it may be unevenly applied to minorities, especially African-Americans. In 2000, Governor Glendening commissioned University of Maryland Professor of Criminology Ray Paternoster to study the possibility of racial discrimination in the application of the death penalty in Maryland. The results of Professor Paternoster's study found that black defendants who murder white victims are substantially more likely to be charged with a capital crime and sentenced to death.[6]

In 2003, Governor Robert L. Ehrlich wisely lifted the moratorium. His decision was justified. In 2005, a careful review of the study by Professor of Statistics and Sociology Richard Berk of the University of California, Los Angeles, and his coauthors found that the results of Professor Paternoster's study do not stand up to statistical scrutiny.[7] According to Professor Berk's re-analysis, "For both capital charges and death sentences, race either played no role or a small role that is very difficult to specify. In short, it is very difficult to find convincing evidence for racial effects in the Maryland data and if there are any, they may not be additive."[8] Further, race may have a small influence because "cases with a black defendant and white victim or 'other' racial combination are less likely to have a death sentence."[9]

The costs associated with the Death Penalty are only due to the process we could most certainly streamline if we so desired; however, costs have little to do with whether or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong.

While statistics might differ and one may choose to support whichever statistic works for their belief system... the bottom line is that we are dealing with people who have acted very badly. They have murdered someone and often in very gruesome fashion. You don't wish to be executed? Don't go kill someone. Leave other people's children alone.

Statistics are funny things: they can be manipulated to show just about anything. Regardless of whatever statistics one might choose to support... how does one quantify the pain surviving parents might feel and the need they might have to see the murderer of their child pay for his demonic crime in appropriate fashion?

It's just my opinion, but we sure seem to go out of our way to make sure devilish, sick, and demented freaks get the full measure of our compassion and mercy when maybe... our efforts should be about compensating those that need it. Again... it's easy to be sympathetic towards a foul creep who might have raped and mutilated a child when that child isn't ours; but try living in those shoes knowing the murderer is alive and well in a prison somewhere with hot meals, cable television, and pen pals and nuns that tell them they love them and forgive them.

Source: http://www.heritage.org/research/testim ... aves-lives

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African-Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races.

Third, shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2.75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, one murder is deterred.

Sorry, but I really find it hard to take this one seriously.

80% of the Worlds top criminologists have stated that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Each execution prevents the murder of one white person, 1.5 African-Americans, and 0.5 persons of other races.

Third, shorter waits on death row are associated with increased deterrence. For each additional 2.75-year reduction in the death row wait until execution, one murder is deterred.

Sorry, but I really find it hard to take this one seriously.

80% of the Worlds top criminologists have stated that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent.

That statistic was offered by one of the several studies noted in the passage that said the same thing: the death penalty does act as a deterrent. They are in contrast to statistics provided by others that say the opposite thing. Believe what you wish, but my point for offering the piece was to highlight what I already stated and what I am sure you already know or can at least gather given what is on the table right now: that statistics can be manipulated to support almost anything one wishes to say.

Regardless of the deterrent variable... I don't argue for the Death Penalty so it might serve us as a deterrent. As nice as this might be, I argue the DP so that, for some, closure to a horrific event might be facilitated. It's not right that we stand on the sidelines, pat people on the head, and tell them we know what's best with regards to what justice should look like because they are emotionally attached to the event and cannot think straight. The grieving parents that wish for the death of the murderer that rape and kill their child should get that. And so should the memory of the deceased.

I would just as soon have nobody kill anybody and then we wouldn't have to worry about what to do with people after the fact; but the bottom line is some people commit very, very grievous offences. Because they have forced our hands with their homicidal capacity... they need to be dealt with in a manner befitting of their crime.

You will never get anywhere telling me that after raping a 6 month old, murdering the infant in the process, that death is too harsh for Steven Smith (executed in Ohio). You might get somewhere arguing that we might execute the wrong person.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley wrote

"Evidence shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent, it cannot be administered without racial bias, and it costs three times as much as life in prison without parole. What's more, there is no way to reverse a mistake if an innocent person is put to death."

/thread.

Except the only 'real' reason to pause on the Death Penalty is the last reason you quoted (executing an innocent man).

the only "real" reason in your eyes I suppose, is the only reason I need. But I also, even as a non-theist, believe it is not up to any man to determine the ultimate demise of another. But because it cannot be administered without racial bias is pretty huge to me as well.

to me, the "playing god" reason is even more important than the "executing an innocent person" reason.

BESIDES BEING CAUGHT ON TAPE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THAT.

dudeman

Our government is working hard to ensure that everything is caught on tape.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

dudeman wrote:

Our government is working hard to ensure that everything is caught on tape.

that doesn't bother me. you wanna see me on the toilet? I'll hold up the damn dirty paper for you.

dudeman

It bothers the hell out of me. What bothers me more is some people's indifference to the intrusion. I'd like to know how we went from a system of checks and balances being necessary to the security of our people to the government being able to do whatever they see fit with no recourse...........and that the majority of people don't seem to give a shit.

Rant aside, I think that capital punishment is antiquated and panders to the lowest common denominator of rational thinking. In matters of life and death the "Fuck it. He did it first" mentality is a poor fit, at best.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

dudeman wrote:

Our government is working hard to ensure that everything is caught on tape.

that doesn't bother me. you wanna see me on the toilet? I'll hold up the damn dirty paper for you.

Byrnzie

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

dudeman wrote:

Our government is working hard to ensure that everything is caught on tape.

that doesn't bother me. you wanna see me on the toilet? I'll hold up the damn dirty paper for you.

Governmental erosion of civil liberties was also tolerated by the majority of Germans in the 1930's. Most of them knew they wouldn't be effected. Unfortunately though, a lot of other people were effected.

You seriously wouldn't mind living in a mass surveillance, police state?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

the only "real" reason in your eyes I suppose, is the only reason I need. But I also, even as a non-theist, believe it is not up to any man to determine the ultimate demise of another. But because it cannot be administered without racial bias is pretty huge to me as well.

to me, the "playing god" reason is even more important than the "executing an innocent person" reason.

BESIDES BEING CAUGHT ON TAPE, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THAT.

One can doubt anything if they believe hard enough. Look how idiots bought OJ's can't fit my hand into this glove spectacle.

Multiple pieces of evidence can assure us of guilt. Blood, semen, other DNA, witnesses, testimony, confessions and other various pieces of evidence such as text messages, emails, and phone calls can add up to absolute certainty without video footage. I mean... are you doubting Steven Smith's guilt? Look into that case if you have the fortitude. And, after you're done... tell me you feel the death penalty was too harsh.

We are not deciding the fate of guys like Clifford Olson. He decided his own fate when he kidnapped, raped, and mutilated multiple children. "Gee, Clifford. We really wish you never killed all those kids, but seeing as you did... it's time to go to sleep. It didn't have to end this way you know."

Of course, fate for Clifford was far better than he deserved. In my mind, we're not better for sparing his life- we were weak and the parents of his victims were tortured with knowledge of his prison cell antics, sex dolls, cash for bodies, pension plan on behalf of taxpayers' money and just the simple fact that he lived while their most precious commodities had to be dug out of the ground in pieces. These people deserved much better and frankly, Olson deserved death.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dudeman wrote:

Rant aside, I think that capital punishment is antiquated and panders to the lowest common denominator of rational thinking. In matters of life and death the "Fuck it. He did it first" mentality is a poor fit, at best.

Well, I guess this one settles it then.

What an over-simplification that shows little to no regard for the murdered and the survivors. What are you saying to these people? "Hey. Get over it already. Fuk's sakes, man. What's your problem? Just chill!"

If it's at the lowest common denominator of rational thinking... that is because some homicidal bastard dragged us there. It's not like anybody wants to be there- we're forced to be there.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Well, I guess this one settles it then.

What an over-simplification that shows little to no regard for the murdered and the survivors. What are you saying to these people? "Hey. Get over it already. Fuk's sakes, man. What's your problem? Just chill!"

If it's at the lowest common denominator of rational thinking... that is because some homicidal bastard dragged us there. It's not like anybody wants to be there- we're forced to be there.

This just presumes that a life behind bars is a trivial punishment, which it isn't: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=171029&start=675#p5084774

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Well, I guess this one settles it then.

What an over-simplification that shows little to no regard for the murdered and the survivors. What are you saying to these people? "Hey. Get over it already. Fuk's sakes, man. What's your problem? Just chill!"

If it's at the lowest common denominator of rational thinking... that is because some homicidal bastard dragged us there. It's not like anybody wants to be there- we're forced to be there.

This just presumes that a life behind bars is a trivial punishment, which it isn't: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=171029&start=675#p5084774

Well, in some cases it is. Read a bit on Clifford Olson (The Butcher of BC) and his life of luxury:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... death.html

Don't skim over this part: Family members of Olson's victims had been complaining that killers like Olson could have a hearing every two years, each time requiring them to relive the original ordeal. They had been calling for changes to the law, "so that the families don't have to go through this grief and aggravation every two years," Michael Massing, whose daughter was murdered by Olson, said at the time.

Yeah. Really fucking cool. Let's pat our indifferent selves on the back while we leave those families to just get over it already.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Yeah. Really fucking cool. Let's pat our indifferent selves on the back while we leave those families to just get over it already.

Who's indifferent? And who's telling the victims families to 'just get over it already'? Nobody is.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Yeah. Really fucking cool. Let's pat our indifferent selves on the back while we leave those families to just get over it already.

Who's indifferent? And who's telling the victims families to 'just get over it already'? Nobody is.

Nobody is directly saying it (other than Dudeman who came about as close as you can), but by placing the families through these types of ordeals and ignoring their pleas for a more definitive measure of justice... we act indifferently towards their needs and are essentially telling them they need to move on.

You cannot advocate for a sick mutant and the grieving survivors at the same time.

I know this makes no difference to you, but to be sure you know what my position is... I do not advocate for wide sweeping death sentences. I wish for it in the extreme cases- ones involving children, confinement and torture, pre-planned, mass or serial style, etc. In short... the nature of the crime should reflect our sentiments towards the murderer and dictate the level of punishment.

The guy who comes home from his second job to see his diva wife in bed with the neighbour, gets in a fight and kills someone (or both) in a fit of rage should not receive the death penalty- prison suits me just fine for such an individual who momentarily lost their mind and went out of control. The guy who pounds nails into children's heads after he rapes them needs to die.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Byrnzie wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

dudeman wrote:

Our government is working hard to ensure that everything is caught on tape.

that doesn't bother me. you wanna see me on the toilet? I'll hold up the damn dirty paper for you.

Governmental erosion of civil liberties was also tolerated by the majority of Germans in the 1930's. Most of them knew they wouldn't be effected. Unfortunately though, a lot of other people were effected.

You seriously wouldn't mind living in a mass surveillance, police state?

I guess I just don't see it getting the point that you do. I personally think what the brits have done having surveillance cameras on every street corner is a good start in fighting crime and making people safer.

dudeman

I never told anyone to "Get over it". In fact, I am a member of such a family. The loss of a loved one at the hand of a murderer is something that one never gets over.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dudeman wrote:

I never told anyone to "Get over it". In fact, I am a member of such a family. The loss of a loved one at the hand of a murderer is something that one never gets over.

I am sorry to hear this, Dudeman.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Governmental erosion of civil liberties was also tolerated by the majority of Germans in the 1930's. Most of them knew they wouldn't be effected. Unfortunately though, a lot of other people were effected.

You seriously wouldn't mind living in a mass surveillance, police state?

I guess I just don't see it getting the point that you do. I personally think what the brits have done having surveillance cameras on every street corner is a good start in fighting crime and making people safer.

Call me naïve, but I feel the same.

dudeman

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

dudeman wrote:

I never told anyone to "Get over it". In fact, I am a member of such a family. The loss of a loved one at the hand of a murderer is something that one never gets over.

I am sorry to hear this, Dudeman.

Thank you.

dudeman

You feel the same as in you don't see governmental surveillance of it's citizens as getting to the point where it is problematic?

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Governmental erosion of civil liberties was also tolerated by the majority of Germans in the 1930's. Most of them knew they wouldn't be effected. Unfortunately though, a lot of other people were effected.

You seriously wouldn't mind living in a mass surveillance, police state?

I guess I just don't see it getting the point that you do. I personally think what the brits have done having surveillance cameras on every street corner is a good start in fighting crime and making people safer.

Call me naïve, but I feel the same.