The Death Penalty

wolfamongwolves

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Glenn Ford's case (and other similar cases) speak exclusively to the investigative and judicial processes that find innocent people guilty of crimes they did not commit than they do of the 'punishment' (whether death or life in prison) after having been found guilty.

I'm not saying it is something we should not consider as a safeguard for the inherent flaws in the aforementioned processes- I'm saying it bears no weight when considering the appropriateness or morality of the penalty itself.

Oh come off it, Thirty! Do you really think the investigative and judicial processes are isolated from the ethical considerations of a judicial system that seeking to execute those investigated and tried by those processes?! They are inextricably intertwined and they actively contribute to the wider questions of the morality of the penalty. To use Glenn Ford's case as an example, it is the investigative and judicial processes that sought the death penalty for him, that actively sought an all-white jury, that propagates a capricious system in which a black man is far more likely to be killed for the same crime as a white man, that disregarded falsified testimony, that provided him with hopelessly unqualified legal support, that continued to seek his execution despite severe questions over.his guilt. The staggering injustice of all of these investigative and judicial processes contribute enormously to the wider reasons for the moral and legal legitimacy of state-sanctioned killing. To suggest they are "exclusive", that they are somehow not connected, to say they "bear no weight" to the overall ethical question of the penalty itself is as hopelessly naive as it is flatly false.

What are you saying here?

Are you saying that only the judicial system interested in executing a man operates unethically to achieve their end result? Are you implying judicial systems interested in incarcerating a man for the remainder of his life have not operated with similar unethical methodology to achieve their end?

No, of course I'm not saying that, and I'm at a loss to see how on earth you could have concluded anything of the sort from anything I said.

Nevertheless, it's completely beside the point, and makes no difference whatsoever to my point. Whether or not similar flaws also exist in other areas of the justice system does not excuse or justify them existing in the capital system. Your point is irrelevant, and in any case ignores the infinitely more serious and uniquely irreversible consequence - death - that result in the capital system from those flaws.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The investigative and judicial processes that sought the death penalty for him (Ford) were unethical tactics employed to establish him as 'guilty'. States have differing viewpoints on what justice should look like for some murderers, but they have similar examples of blatantly corrupt tactics to see some cases brought to closure- whether that means life in prison or execution. Both sentences are intertwined to the processes that lead a man to them somewhat- it's not strictly the death penalty that is in question given the imperfect systems allowed to occur prior to issuing such a sentence.

As such, the innocent man in jail or the innocent man on death row are victims of these processes I speak to much more than they are the punishments that await them after the fact.

I'm sorry, but this is still nonsense. It is just not valid to try and divorce the judicial system from the penal system as though the left hand does not wash the right hand. They are connected elements of the same system. Cases are tried as capital cases with the potential of the death penalty implicit - or even explicit - in the trial. It is simply not true to suggest it only becomes an issue at sentencing.

Furthermore, while you are right that both penalties are intertwined and it is not strictly the DP that defines the ethics of the process, it's again putting the cart before the horse and as such makes no difference to my point. The fact still remains that unethical processes that deny a person a fair trial, that discriminate, that ignore key evidence and allow false evidence are all elements in why executing someone is unethical and unjust. There are other elements beyond the processes that also affect the ethics of the penalty, but - I'll say it again because my point still stands - it is false and naive to suggest that the failures in the processes do not contribute to the overall ethical failure in the death penalty itself.

chadwick

hang in there, thirty bills undone
you're a trooper & a good man

now... let's burn something down
you know - like a sick twisted monster
who has enjoyed hurting folks

http://vikingbrewhouse.com/viking/wp-content/Pics/Viking Fire Close 01.jpg

Thirty Bills Unpaid

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

wolfamongwolves said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Glenn Ford's case (and other similar cases) speak exclusively to the investigative and judicial processes that find innocent people guilty of crimes they did not commit than they do of the 'punishment' (whether death or life in prison) after having been found guilty.

I'm not saying it is something we should not consider as a safeguard for the inherent flaws in the aforementioned processes- I'm saying it bears no weight when considering the appropriateness or morality of the penalty itself.

Oh come off it, Thirty! Do you really think the investigative and judicial processes are isolated from the ethical considerations of a judicial system that seeking to execute those investigated and tried by those processes?! They are inextricably intertwined and they actively contribute to the wider questions of the morality of the penalty. To use Glenn Ford's case as an example, it is the investigative and judicial processes that sought the death penalty for him, that actively sought an all-white jury, that propagates a capricious system in which a black man is far more likely to be killed for the same crime as a white man, that disregarded falsified testimony, that provided him with hopelessly unqualified legal support, that continued to seek his execution despite severe questions over.his guilt. The staggering injustice of all of these investigative and judicial processes contribute enormously to the wider reasons for the moral and legal legitimacy of state-sanctioned killing. To suggest they are "exclusive", that they are somehow not connected, to say they "bear no weight" to the overall ethical question of the penalty itself is as hopelessly naive as it is flatly false.

What are you saying here?

Are you saying that only the judicial system interested in executing a man operates unethically to achieve their end result? Are you implying judicial systems interested in incarcerating a man for the remainder of his life have not operated with similar unethical methodology to achieve their end?

No, of course I'm not saying that, and I'm at a loss to see how on earth you could have concluded anything of the sort from anything I said.

Nevertheless, it's completely beside the point, and makes no difference whatsoever to my point. Whether or not similar flaws also exist in other areas of the justice system does not excuse or justify them existing in the capital system. Your point is irrelevant, and in any case ignores the infinitely more serious and uniquely irreversible consequence - death - that result in the capital system from those flaws.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The investigative and judicial processes that sought the death penalty for him (Ford) were unethical tactics employed to establish him as 'guilty'. States have differing viewpoints on what justice should look like for some murderers, but they have similar examples of blatantly corrupt tactics to see some cases brought to closure- whether that means life in prison or execution. Both sentences are intertwined to the processes that lead a man to them somewhat- it's not strictly the death penalty that is in question given the imperfect systems allowed to occur prior to issuing such a sentence.

As such, the innocent man in jail or the innocent man on death row are victims of these processes I speak to much more than they are the punishments that await them after the fact.

I'm sorry, but this is still nonsense. It is just not valid to try and divorce the judicial system from the penal system as though the left hand does not wash the right hand. They are connected elements of the same system. Cases are tried as capital cases with the potential of the death penalty implicit - or even explicit - in the trial. It is simply not true to suggest it only becomes an issue at sentencing.

Furthermore, while you are right that both penalties are intertwined and it is not strictly the DP that defines the ethics of the process, it's again putting the cart before the horse and as such makes no difference to my point. The fact still remains that unethical processes that deny a person a fair trial, that discriminate, that ignore key evidence and allow false evidence are all elements in why executing someone is unethical and unjust. There are other elements beyond the processes that also affect the ethics of the penalty, but - I'll say it again because my point still stands - it is false and naive to suggest that the failures in the processes do not contribute to the overall ethical failure in the death penalty itself.

Forgive me for not following your writing efforts as efficiently as some others might. Among the various idioms, dramatics, and efforts to paint me the moron... I believe you might have said something along the lines of:

The unethical processes that deny a person a fair trial, that discriminate, that ignore key evidence and allow false evidence leave the death penalty in a precarious position. If this is what you have said, I'd tend to agree with you. I said as much in an earlier post.

I believe you might also be saying something like the death penalty is (excuse my own idiom) 'part in parcel' with malicious investigative and trial processes that ultimately places the death penalty under the same microscope as the investigative and trial efforts. If this is what you have said, I choose to disagree with you. I think malicious investigate and trial work does not place the death penalty on trial- it places malicious investigative and trial work on trial.

I think I have been respectful to this point in time, but when you begin to use words such as 'nonsense' and 'naïve' in your responses to me... I begin to bare my fangs as well. Trust me when I say I accept some of the things you say even though they are not even remotely close to my way of thinking. I don't, however, attempt to belittle you when I challenge them. In fact, it is my opinion that once a person begins to resort to such tactics... well... I'll leave it at that.

Bronx Bombers

Byrnzie said:

wolfamongwolves said:

One country employs the DP with great frequency and nearly has the lowest homicide rate in the world. Another country rarely uses it (0.0007% of the time)... and enjoys a homicide rate 6X greater,

Hmmmm? Interesting.

As Wolf said, there's no comparison.The majority of those executed aren't executed for committing violent crimes, which is a rarity in this country, but for anything from tax evasion, to 'subversion of State power' (I.e, upsetting those in authority), and a long list of petty crimes, including minor drug offenses. The low homicide rate in China has nothing to do with any deterrence effect from the application of the death penalty.

In 2012, an estimated 14,827 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 1.1 percent increase from the 2011 estimate, but a 9.9 percent decrease from the 2008 figure, and a 10.3 percent drop from the number in 2003

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/murder

China had 13410 murders in 2010 but those numbers are definitely manipulated to the downside due to how they classify murders.

http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode:1

China’s statistics bureau does not disclose which crimes are included in its murder data. Chinese scholars say that a single case might include several deaths, and that some killings which occur in the course of other violent crimes such as rape or robbery might be excluded. In a 2006 report, the World Health Organisation estimated that in 2002, when 26,300 murder cases were recorded in China, 38,000 people died from “homicide-related injuries”.

http://www.economist.com/news/china/21575767-official-figures-showing-sharp-drop-chinas-murder-rate-are-misleading-murder-mysteries

Its pretty amazing how you continue to downplay everything that goes on in that country.

http://youtu.be/UmzsWxPLIOo

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I offered the comparison because it is at least as strong as some of the unsubstantiated assertions you continue to make that have no legitimate statistical backing (as expressed by the scientific community after comprehensive review).

Th scientific community? What scientific community? Wasn't your 'study' taken from a blog?

Byrnzie

Bronx Bombers said:

In 2012, an estimated 14,827 persons were murdered in the United States. This was a 1.1 percent increase from the 2011 estimate, but a 9.9 percent decrease from the 2008 figure, and a 10.3 percent drop from the number in 2003

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/murder

China had 13410 murders in 2010 but those numbers are definitely manipulated to the downside due to how they classify murders.

http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode:1

China’s statistics bureau does not disclose which crimes are included in its murder data. Chinese scholars say that a single case might include several deaths, and that some killings which occur in the course of other violent crimes such as rape or robbery might be excluded. In a 2006 report, the World Health Organisation estimated that in 2002, when 26,300 murder cases were recorded in China, 38,000 people died from “homicide-related injuries”.

http://www.economist.com/news/china/21575767-official-figures-showing-sharp-drop-chinas-murder-rate-are-misleading-murder-mysteries

Its pretty amazing how you continue to downplay everything that goes on in that country.

Ha ha ha!

You're gonna be fucked when I leave China next month. How are you gonna attempt to deflect my comments then?

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Surveys that ask what your hunch is do not count.

Except no such question was asked. So your point is moot.

Scroll down to the appendix to see the questionnaire yourself. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf

2008 SURVEY

DO EXECUTIONS LOWER HOMICIDE RATES?


1. Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment to murder—that it lowers the murder rate, or not?

Yes: 5.3%
No: 88.2%
No Opinion: 6.6%

2. Abolishing the death penalty (in a particular state) would not have any significant effects on the murder rate (in that state).

I'm sure it is true 33.8%
I think it's true 53.2%
I have no idea whether it is true or false
2.6%
I think it's false 5.2%
I'm sure it's false 5.2%

3. Over the years, states which have had the death penalty have had lower murder rates than neighboring states which did not have a death penalty.

I'm sure it is true 2.7%
I think it's true 6.7%
I have no idea whether it is true or false 16.0%
I think it's false 40.0%
I'm sure it's false 34.7%

4. Politicians support the death penalty as a symbolic way to show they are tough on crime.

Totally accurate 23.4%
Largely accurate 67.5%
Largely inaccurate 5.2%
Totally inaccurate 1.3%
Not sure 2.6%

5. Debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.

Totally accurate 27.3%
Largely accurate 48.1%
Largely inaccurate 10.4%
Totally inaccurate 1.3%
Not sure 13.0%

6. The death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides.

Totally accurate 0%
Largely accurate 9.2%
Largely inaccurate 32.9%
Totally inaccurate 56.6%
Not sure 1.3%

The questionnaire was answered by 84% of 'every living person who (1) was a Fellow in the American Society of Criminology (ASC), (2) had won the ASC’s Sutherland Award, the highest award given by that organization for contributions to criminological theory, or (3) was a president of the ASC between 1997 and the present.
The American Society of Criminology was founded in 1941 and is the world’s largest organization of academic criminologists, boasting a membership in 2008 of 3,500 criminologists from fifty countries. ASC presidents who served prior to 1997 were not included in this survey because they were already surveyed by Radelet and Akers in 1996, and we did not want the opinions of this group to unfairly weight the 2008 results. Using this methodology, we identified ninety-four distinguished scholars as our pool of experts.'

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

There is no credible research either for or against the DP serving as a deterrent.

Yes there is.

http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/deathpenalty.htm

Studies on Deterrent Value:

One argument in support of capital punishment is that the threat of death deters murder more effectively than prison. However, research indicates that the death penalty is no more effective as a deterrent to murder than the punishment of life in jail. States with the death penalty on average do not have lower rates of homicide than states without the penalty. The average murder rate per 100,00 people in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5 and the average murder rate among non-death penalty states was 3.6 (US Dept. of Justice, 2001). A study examining executions in Texas between 1984 and 1997 found that the murder rate was steady and that there was no evidence of a deterrent effect. The number of executions was found to be unrelated to murder rates (Sorenson, Wrinkle, Brewer and Marquart, 1999). Furthermore, a survey of experts from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association shows that the overwhelming majority of these experts do not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Over 80% believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty. Similarly, over 75% of those polled do not believe that increasing the number of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would produce a general deterrent effect (Radelet and Akers, 1995). Additionally, Attorney General Janet Reno stated at a Justice Department news briefing, "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." (US Dept. of Justice, 2001).

Advocates of the death penalty argue that if more executions actually take place, the death penalty will work better to deter crime. Only a small proportion of first-degree murderers are sentenced to death, and even fewer are executed. The option of having a mandatory death penalty law was ruled unconstitutional in the 1976 case, Woodson v. North Carolina (428 U.S. 280) so this cannot be used to increase the number of executions. The lengthy appeals process that occurs in death penalty cases also reduces the number of executions. In order to reduce the delays and costs of the death penalty, the rights of American citizens would be impaired by abandoning the constitutional rights of suspects, defendants, and convicts. There is also the chance of convicting the wrong person and executing an innocent human being (Cheleff, 1987).

Deterrence is the number one reason that supporters of the death penalty cite (Newsweek Poll 2000). However, 26% of people claim that their justification for supporting the death penalty is "eye for an eye" (Newsweek Poll 2000). Furthermore, 55% would favor the death penalty even if it were found that it does not act as a deterrent, that it does not reduce the murder rate (Gallup Poll 1999).


Sources

Bright, Stephen. 1996. Capital Punishment. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.)

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2001. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

Cheleff, Leon S. 1987. Ultimate Penalties. (Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.)

Cook, Philip & Slawson, Donna. 1993. "The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina." Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University.

Dallas Morning News. March 8, 1992.

Death Penalty Information Center. 2001. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Gallup Poll. Feb. 8-9, 1999. Published at www.pollingreport.com

Lacayo, Richard. 1987. "Clearing a Path to the Chair." Time. 129:80. May 4, 1987.

Miami Herald. July 10, 1988.

Newsweek Poll. 2000. Published at www.pollingreport.com

Radelet, M. & Akers,R. 1995. Deterrence and the Death Penalty? The Views of the Experts. http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dppapers/mike.deterence

Sacramento Bee. March 18, 1988.

Sorenson, J., Wrinkle, R., Brewer, V., & Marquart, J. 1999. "Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas." 45 Crime and Delinquency. pp. 481-493.

State of Vermont Department of Public Safety. 2001. www.dps.state.vt.us

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. www.census.gov

U.S. Department of Justice. 2001. www.usdoj.gov

Byrnzie

Murder Rates in Death Penalty States and Non-Death Penalty States



The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990.


The statistics speak for themselves. Other than that, we can only go on empirical research, and on the opinions of those who work in the field - the top criminologists. Ad what do they say? 88% say that it does not work as a deterrent.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf

The death penalty might deter some murders, but it could also stimulate others.See, e.g.,William J. Bowers & Glenn L. Pierce, Deterrence or Brutalization:
What Is the Effect of Executions?, 26 CRIME & DELINQ. 453, 481 (1980) (finding that in the state of New York, every execution leads on average to two additional homicides in the following month). Furthermore,the proper question for public policy is the death penalty’s marginal deterrent effect—that is,whether it deters homicides over and above the deterrent effect of life imprisonment without parole.

....The first question included in the 2008 questionnaire is also regularly asked in Gallup Polls. Here, 88.2% of the polled criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, up slightly from 83.6% in 1996. With the not sure responses eliminated, the proportion of responses that reject the deterrence argument increased from 87.5% in 1996 to 94.3% in 2008. This difference is not statistically significant, which indicates that there has been virtually no change in the experts’ opinions over the twelve years between the two surveys. In contrast, when the question was last posed by Gallup in 2006, 64% of the general public expressed the belief that the death penalty did not lower homicide rates.

Question 2 asks the experts if they believe that abolishing the death penalty in a given state would affect that state’s homicide rate. Again, the data is similar between the two samples: 86.5% of the experts in 1996 responded that they are “sure” or “think” it is true that abolition would significantly affect the murder rate, compared to 87% in 2008.

...our survey indicates that the vast majority of the world’s top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed the deterrence hypothesis for a myth. There isn’t a shred of evidence that supports the New York Times’s assertion that there is “an intense new debate about one of the central justifications for capital punishment,”namely deterrence.
Recent econometric studies, which posit that the death penalty has a marginal deterrent effect beyond that of long-term imprisonment, are so limited or flawed that they have failed to undermine consensus.
In short, the consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Yah. Brevik is really remorseful right now. You can tell by the way he's threatening a hunger strike because his game modem is outdated and he doesn't get his choice of video games and that his allowance is not enough and... and...

In a recent post I acknowledged that Stephen Hayes is a remorseful type, but he's a rarity. Most of the losers on death row care very little for the people rotting in pieces, in the ground, at their hands- they care about themselves and thankfully for them, despite the fact that you suggest otherwise, there are others that care for them as well.

Justice for 77 people gunned down as a madman played real life video game is not affording their murderer a country club experience and a university degree on the taxpayers' dime. This doesn't make us 'enlightened' and 'sophisticated'... this makes us soft. We don't ask to deal with these events- we are forced to deal with them. Given such... the punishment should fit the crime.

Everywhere I look in society we have lowered the bar and consequences and look at how our society has degenerated. For example, in schools, kids now cannot receive late marks because it is not a true indication of their level of achievement. In other words, measure the learning outcomes and not the process. Heaven forbid a kid gets a zero for not turning an assignment in on time. While some kids legitimately need more time to complete assignments, many others, who do not need it, take the time anyways and submit pieces of crap well after the deadline. The nice sounding concept, in effect, has resulted in many kids taking the path of least resistance knowing full well the consequences for doing so are... nothing.

On the larger scale, look at our governments and how they conduct themselves with impunity.

Standard operating procedure for mankind: do what the fuck you want because really... who's going to do anything about it and what are they going to do if they bother?

We will never solve murder. There are serial murderers conducting their business right now. As we speak, someone is at the hands of some sick lunatic and as they are in their final moments... they can take some comfort in knowing that, with any luck, their captor will get caught and they will be forced to eat three squares a day, play outdated PS3s and sub-rate video games, earn a pension, get an allowance, and access internet and fan mail.

Tell them that's justice. You might feel better that we've taken the high road... but I can pretty much assure you the victims wouldn't be feeling the same way.

Once again you trot out examples of brutal murderers in the hope of convincing us that they need to be killed in turn, while continuing to ignore my earlier point:


What we're talking about here is the fact that society should not operate on the level of a murderer, by snuffing out the lives of those it condemns, that's exactly what it's doing: committing murder. Opposition to the death penalty is not about people feeling sorry for somebody being executed, and about wishing to white-wash over whatever crime they may have committed.
This boils down to a choice between wanting to live in a society that promotes blood-lust and killing as solutions to problems (i.e, reactions based on emotions, such as revenge), and a society that demonstrates that it values life above all else, and exists on a higher footing than that of emotions, violence, and murder.
If the society you live in hopes to set an example for people that murder is wrong, and that violence shouldn't be used as a solution to lifes problems, then it should quit killing people in the name of justice.
The death penalty brutalizes society by stepping onto the same playing field, and playing by the same rules, as those it seeks to punish. How does this benefit that society in the long term? It doesn't. It just creates a vicious circle.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I offered the comparison because it is at least as strong as some of the unsubstantiated assertions you continue to make that have no legitimate statistical backing (as expressed by the scientific community after comprehensive review).

Th scientific community? What scientific community? Wasn't your 'study' taken from a blog?

No. It was the study Wolf presented about 10 pages ago that you glossed over and completely ignored. Even he, as driven as he is for the same cause you pound your fist on, admitted to the obvious deficiencies that render any study useless that attempted to paint the DP for or against serving as a deterrent.

But I'm done trying to help you understand the concept that fails you so badly. If you think studies that suggest that the DP is ineffective as a deterrent based on statistical driven analysis are telling it like it is- when it is used in 0.0007% of murder cases- then fill your boots. You are blinded by your beliefs.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Yah. Brevik is really remorseful right now. You can tell by the way he's threatening a hunger strike because his game modem is outdated and he doesn't get his choice of video games and that his allowance is not enough and... and...

In a recent post I acknowledged that Stephen Hayes is a remorseful type, but he's a rarity. Most of the losers on death row care very little for the people rotting in pieces, in the ground, at their hands- they care about themselves and thankfully for them, despite the fact that you suggest otherwise, there are others that care for them as well.

Justice for 77 people gunned down as a madman played real life video game is not affording their murderer a country club experience and a university degree on the taxpayers' dime. This doesn't make us 'enlightened' and 'sophisticated'... this makes us soft. We don't ask to deal with these events- we are forced to deal with them. Given such... the punishment should fit the crime.

Everywhere I look in society we have lowered the bar and consequences and look at how our society has degenerated. For example, in schools, kids now cannot receive late marks because it is not a true indication of their level of achievement. In other words, measure the learning outcomes and not the process. Heaven forbid a kid gets a zero for not turning an assignment in on time. While some kids legitimately need more time to complete assignments, many others, who do not need it, take the time anyways and submit pieces of crap well after the deadline. The nice sounding concept, in effect, has resulted in many kids taking the path of least resistance knowing full well the consequences for doing so are... nothing.

On the larger scale, look at our governments and how they conduct themselves with impunity.

Standard operating procedure for mankind: do what the fuck you want because really... who's going to do anything about it and what are they going to do if they bother?

We will never solve murder. There are serial murderers conducting their business right now. As we speak, someone is at the hands of some sick lunatic and as they are in their final moments... they can take some comfort in knowing that, with any luck, their captor will get caught and they will be forced to eat three squares a day, play outdated PS3s and sub-rate video games, earn a pension, get an allowance, and access internet and fan mail.

Tell them that's justice. You might feel better that we've taken the high road... but I can pretty much assure you the victims wouldn't be feeling the same way.

Once again you trot out examples of brutal murderers in the hope of convincing us that they need to be killed in turn, while continuing to ignore my earlier point:


What we're talking about here is the fact that society should not operate on the level of a murderer, by snuffing out the lives of those it condemns, that's exactly what it's doing: committing murder. Opposition to the death penalty is not about people feeling sorry for somebody being executed, and about wishing to white-wash over whatever crime they may have committed.
This boils down to a choice between wanting to live in a society that promotes blood-lust and killing as solutions to problems (i.e, reactions based on emotions, such as revenge), and a society that demonstrates that it values life above all else, and exists on a higher footing than that of emotions, violence, and murder.
If the society you live in hopes to set an example for people that murder is wrong, and that violence shouldn't be used as a solution to lifes problems, then it should quit killing people in the name of justice.
The death penalty brutalizes society by stepping onto the same playing field, and playing by the same rules, as those it seeks to punish. How does this benefit that society in the long term? It doesn't. It just creates a vicious circle.

You mean the same way you trot out examples of wrongfully convicted people in the hopes that we say to ourselves, "Yes. Yes indeed jolly fellows. Even though Joshua Komisarjevsky was caught red-handed fleeing the scene where he just raped and burned alive three young women... he might be innocent."

You haven't really made any points. Your garbage about rising above the murderers and refusing to step out on the same playing field is fluff that you, and obviously some others, believe. Good on you!

Here's some other fluff... you wrestle with pigs and you get dirty.

So go beat on your chest some more and spout about values and moral superiority. Just don't do it too close to the grieving parents of the raped and murdered 8 year old girl. They're likely not feeling the same way as you- shitheads they are.

Geezuz.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I offered the comparison because it is at least as strong as some of the unsubstantiated assertions you continue to make that have no legitimate statistical backing (as expressed by the scientific community after comprehensive review).

Th scientific community? What scientific community? Wasn't your 'study' taken from a blog?

No. It was the study Wolf presented about 10 pages ago that you glossed over and completely ignored. Even he, as driven as he is for the same cause you pound your fist on, admitted to the obvious deficiencies that render any study useless that attempted to paint the DP for or against serving as a deterrent.

But I'm done trying to help you understand the concept that fails you so badly. If you think studies that suggest that the DP is ineffective as a deterrent based on statistical driven analysis are telling it like it is- when it is used in 0.0007% of murder cases- then fill your boots. You are blinded by your beliefs.

Ha ha. I see. Your rationale is that until we kill more people, we have no way of determining it's deterrence capacity. Very scientific.

In the meantime, 84% of the top criminologists in the U.S who were asked to give their opinions, based on all of the empirical evidence at their disposal, agreed that the DP does not work as a deterrent. But you dismiss their opinions. And you also dismiss the statistics that show that states that employ the DP have a higher rate of murder and other violent crimes, than those states that don't employ it.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

go beat on your chest some more and spout about values and moral superiority. Just don't do it too close to the grieving parents of the raped and murdered 8 year old girl. They're likely not feeling the same way as you- shitheads they are.

Geezuz.

Nice touch.

When finding yourself backed into a corner, throw out some insults, and make shit up. %-(

Have you been reading Arthur Schopenhauer's '38 Ways To Win An Argument', with particular emphasis on numbers 6, and 38? http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm :-B

wolfamongwolves

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Forgive me for not following your writing efforts as efficiently as some others might. Among the various idioms, dramatics, and efforts to paint me the moron... I believe you might have said something along the lines of:

The unethical processes that deny a person a fair trial, that discriminate, that ignore key evidence and allow false evidence leave the death penalty in a precarious position. If this is what you have said, I'd tend to agree with you. I said as much in an earlier post.

I believe you might also be saying something like the death penalty is (excuse my own idiom) 'part in parcel' with malicious investigative and trial processes that ultimately places the death penalty under the same microscope as the investigative and trial efforts. If this is what you have said, I choose to disagree with you. I think malicious investigate and trial work does not place the death penalty on trial- it places malicious investigative and trial work on trial.

I think I have been respectful to this point in time, but when you begin to use words such as 'nonsense' and 'naïve' in your responses to me... I begin to bare my fangs as well. Trust me when I say I accept some of the things you say even though they are not even remotely close to my way of thinking. I don't, however, attempt to belittle you when I challenge them. In fact, it is my opinion that once a person begins to resort to such tactics... well... I'll leave it at that.

Dramatics? Such as? Have I written anything as dramatic as (eg.) Chadwick's violent splenetic diatribes? Have I been as dramatic as continuing to try and justify the death penalty by posting examples of outrageous crimes, ignoring the fact that it has been pointed out countless times that appealing to subjective outrage invalidates the possibility of justice, which must necessarily be objective and dispassionate? It's not me who's being dramatic. I'm simply trying to appeal to reason through all the blind rage and hot-blooded vengeance.

As for efforts to paint you the moron, not true. Simply this; if your argument makes no sense, then it is nonsense. That's just the meaning of the word. There's no intention to belittle or offend, but I do want to state it plainly and strongly - your argument does not make sense. The investigative and trial processes in a capital case are an irreducibly integral part of the capital punishment system. This is not a tangential issue as you are attempting to portray it. In terms of the prosecution, the methods used in investigating and prosecuting are conducted with the intention of securing a conviction that may carry the death penalty. They are carried out under full awareness of the potential of that penalty. To carry out that penalty based on the corrupt methods of conducting those processes is absolutely a factor of what renders the death penalty itself unethical. It is completely contrary to the reality to try to artificially separate them as you are attempting to do. And simply restating the point, without supporting it in any way, does not make your attempt to do so one iota more convincing. When I say it is naïve to continue to hold to a position that is demonstrably undermined by the reality - that is the meaning of the word naïve, and again I think it's a valid word to use. Again, the intention is not to offend or belittle, so if you don't like the word naïve, I'll say instead that it is completely unrealistic.

On a side note: speaking of respect and "resorting to such tactics", I have to say, it betrays something of a double-standard to accuse me of belittling you when I read the way in which you frequently address Byrnzie.

callen

Never allow the state to silence permanently.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I offered the comparison because it is at least as strong as some of the unsubstantiated assertions you continue to make that have no legitimate statistical backing (as expressed by the scientific community after comprehensive review).

Th scientific community? What scientific community? Wasn't your 'study' taken from a blog?

No. It was the study Wolf presented about 10 pages ago that you glossed over and completely ignored. Even he, as driven as he is for the same cause you pound your fist on, admitted to the obvious deficiencies that render any study useless that attempted to paint the DP for or against serving as a deterrent.

But I'm done trying to help you understand the concept that fails you so badly. If you think studies that suggest that the DP is ineffective as a deterrent based on statistical driven analysis are telling it like it is- when it is used in 0.0007% of murder cases- then fill your boots. You are blinded by your beliefs.

Ha ha. I see. Your rationale is that until we kill more people, we have no way of determining it's deterrence capacity. Very scientific.

In the meantime, 84% of the top criminologists in the U.S who were asked to give their opinions, based on all of the empirical evidence at their disposal, agreed that the DP does not work as a deterrent. But you dismiss their opinions. And you also dismiss the statistics that show that states that employ the DP have a higher rate of murder and other violent crimes, than those states that don't employ it.

Validity refers to how well a test measures what it is purported to measure.

You quoted me earlier saying no 'surveys' said anything at all like "what's your hunch?"... and in your reply, the very first question you produced to show how legitimate the surveys are, the question reads: Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment to murder—that it lowers the murder rate, or not?

So, in other words, it is asking "what's your hunch?" Hardly scientific.

That question measures people's 'feelings' on the subject. It doesn't measure the true effectiveness of the DP one way or another. No study ever could given its current capacity.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

go beat on your chest some more and spout about values and moral superiority. Just don't do it too close to the grieving parents of the raped and murdered 8 year old girl. They're likely not feeling the same way as you- shitheads they are.

Geezuz.

Nice touch.

When finding yourself backed into a corner, throw out some insults, and make shit up. %-(

Have you been reading Arthur Schopenhauer's '38 Ways To Win An Argument', with particular emphasis on numbers 6, and 38? http://www.mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm :-B

I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to have a discussion.

I was rather indifferent to the grieving parents there, but that wouldn't be the first time in this thread where such people were treated with very little regard.

Make shit up? WTF are you talking about?

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

You quoted me earlier saying no 'surveys' said anything at all like "what's your hunch?"... and in your reply, the very first question you produced to show how legitimate the surveys are, the question reads: Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment to murder—that it lowers the murder rate, or not?

So, in other words, it is asking "what's your hunch?" Hardly scientific.

That question measures people's 'feelings' on the subject. It doesn't measure the true effectiveness of the DP one way or another. No study ever could given its current capacity.

These are people who have worked up close with the DP all their lives, and understand more about criminology and the potential deterrence effects of the DP than anybody else. Of course any study of any potential deterrent effects of the DP can only be a purely empirical study - based on the available evidence, and the history of it's use. It's not asking for their feelings. It's asking what they think. You're cherry-picking, and twisting the meaning of the question. Why don't you also address the other 5 questions asked in the survey?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Byrnzie said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

You quoted me earlier saying no 'surveys' said anything at all like "what's your hunch?"... and in your reply, the very first question you produced to show how legitimate the surveys are, the question reads: Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment to murder—that it lowers the murder rate, or not?

So, in other words, it is asking "what's your hunch?" Hardly scientific.

That question measures people's 'feelings' on the subject. It doesn't measure the true effectiveness of the DP one way or another. No study ever could given its current capacity.

These are people who have worked up close with the DP all their lives, and understand more about criminology and the potential deterrence effects of the DP than anybody else. Of course any study of any potential deterrent effects of the DP can only be a purely empirical study - based on the available evidence, and the history of it's use. It's not asking for their feelings. It's asking what they think. You're cherry-picking, and twisting the meaning of the question. Why don't you also address the other 5 questions asked in the survey?

This wasn't a case of cherry picking at all. I refuted your claim to me that the question wasn't 'what's your hunch'? Because ... it was.

The other questions cannot measure what they are trying to measure. They are useful, but It is impossible to tell if the DP works as a deterrent or not given it's extremely rare application. Period.

And just because the majority of 'experts' feel the DP wouldn't serve as a deterrent doesn't mean people must accept it as the gospel. History is littered with countless moments where the overwhelming majority of 'experts at the time' were proven wrong by a minority and that their 'hunches' were not correct.