Death penalty

[Katzndogz]

Shoplifting laws have never prevented shoplifting. Shoplifters never think they will be caught.

Laws apply only to the law abiding.

You have lost and are now hiding behind some fake emotional argument that you created so that you can use it for cover.

 

[Meathead]

Shoplifting laws have never prevented shoplifting. Shoplifters never think they will be caught.

Laws apply only to the law abiding.

You have lost and are now hiding behind some fake emotional argument that you created so that you can use it for cover.

Sorry Katz, laws only applying to the law-abiding is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard - anywhere at anytime. Do I really have to explain this beyond your shoplifting analogy? If the rank stupidity of your statement is not apparent to you, I have neither the time nor the will to explain it to you.
This is one of my few experiences with sites such as this. I realize that there is an element of irrational, faceless and sometimes idiot posters that one sometimes deals with.

Let's cease with this exchange. You can call it a victory if you wish.

 

[Katzndogz]

Shoplifting laws have never prevented shoplifting. Shoplifters never think they will be caught.

Laws apply only to the law abiding.

You have lost and are now hiding behind some fake emotional argument that you created so that you can use it for cover.

Sorry Katz, laws only applying to the law-abiding is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard - anywhere at anytime. Do I really have to explain this beyond your shoplifting analogy? If the rank stupidity of your statement is not apparent to you, I have neither the time nor the will to explain it to you.
This is one of my few experiences with sites such as this. I realize that there is an element of irrational, faceless and sometimes idiot posters that one sometimes deals with.

Let's cease with this exchange. You can call it a victory if you wish.

Okay.

Sorry you lost but you were asking for it.

 

[Meathead]

Shoplifting laws have never prevented shoplifting. Shoplifters never think they will be caught.

Laws apply only to the law abiding.

You have lost and are now hiding behind some fake emotional argument that you created so that you can use it for cover.

Sorry Katz, laws only applying to the law-abiding is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard - anywhere at anytime. Do I really have to explain this beyond your shoplifting analogy? If the rank stupidity of your statement is not apparent to you, I have neither the time nor the will to explain it to you.
This is one of my few experiences with sites such as this. I realize that there is an element of irrational, faceless and sometimes idiot posters that one sometimes deals with.

Let's cease with this exchange. You can call it a victory if you wish.

Okay.

Sorry you lost but you were asking for it.

FFS, don't you have any pride?!

 

[Katzndogz]

Sorry Katz, laws only applying to the law-abiding is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard - anywhere at anytime. Do I really have to explain this beyond your shoplifting analogy? If the rank stupidity of your statement is not apparent to you, I have neither the time nor the will to explain it to you.
This is one of my few experiences with sites such as this. I realize that there is an element of irrational, faceless and sometimes idiot posters that one sometimes deals with.

Let's cease with this exchange. You can call it a victory if you wish.

Okay.

Sorry you lost but you were asking for it.

FFS, don't you have any pride?!

You are the one admitting that you lost! Be proud of yourself. It takes a big person to admit they lost an internet argument.

 

[Unkotare]

katz never won an argument in her so-called life. That includes arguments with her half-finished ashtray.

 

[Gadawg73]

People DO NOT COMMIT crimes believing they will get caught.

 

[Noomi]

katz never won an argument in her so-called life. That includes arguments with her half-finished ashtray.

I actually think she has it right this time.

 

[JoeB131]

katz never won an argument in her so-called life. That includes arguments with her half-finished ashtray.

I actually think she has it right this time.

Shhhhh... Punkotard enjoys his random anger. He's angry at everyone, he just doesn't know why.

 

[dudleysharp]

I hope this is helpful.

Death Penalty Deterrence Clarified
Dudley Sharp

There is much confusion about deterrence, some, understandable and, some, intentional.

There are many examples of:

1) murder rates dropping in death penalty jurisdictions and
2) murder rates being lower in death penalty jurisdictions

and many examples of

3) murder rates dropping in non death penalty jurisdictions and
4) murder rates being lower in non death penalty jurisdictions

In different instances, murder/crime rates might suggest deterrence or non deterrence of sanctions.

In other words, gross murder/crime rates are not an accurate method of showing or understanding deterrence.

Some anti death penalty folks work hard to muddy the waters - as with this study, wherein some thought the criminologists had agreed that the death penalty deters none, a finding not confirmed within the study:

"Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"


Confusion and understanding, respectively, are revealed by these two questions from a death penalty opponent.

Confusion: "If the deterrence contention holds true, why does the enthusiastic application of the death penalty not suppress the overall murder rate across all death penalty states?"

Then, with understanding:

"I understand your point that the death penalty has some deterrent effect. Perhaps the citizens of South Dakota are simply more homicidal than their northern neighbors, and without the death penalty keeping them in check, the murder rate would go through the roof."

Yes, it has some deterrent effect, but it is clear he had not read the provided deterrence studies because they contradicted his comment about murder rates going through the roof.

The deterrent effect has a very small impact on murder rates, but a substantial savings in innocent lives, as reviewed below.

The death penalty, as all criminal sanctions, deters some, which will be reflected in net murder/crime rates, not gross ones, as explained: Whether murder/crime rates are high or low, whether they are rising, falling or staying, roughly, the same, all sanctions deter some.

A perfect example of this is:

"Henderson, Nev., takes the No. 2 spot (America's Safest Cities) despite its location within the Metropolitan Statistical Area of Las Vegas-Paradise, which ranked ninth this year on Forbes’ list of America’s Most Dangerous Cities." (1)

Does this mean no potential criminals are deterred in Las Vegas-Paradise and yet some are deterred in Henderson?

Of course not. Some are deterred in both.

It means that there are different factors in each jurisdiction which provide for different crime rates, as with all jurisdictions, inclusive of the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions, within both jurisdictions.

This should come as no surprise.

Death penalty opponent response: "However, the fact that murder rates are lower across the board in non death penalty (USA) states suggests that there is something else, some more effective deterrent which you would do well to investigate, if you weren't hidebound by your single minded advocacy of the death penalty."

They are not lower across the board. Even if they were, it could not contradict the clear and accurate point.

Furthermore, anti death penalty folks neglect the obvious reality that there are a very wide range of murder/crime rates between communities/cities/counties, within each individual state, be they death penalty or not, revealing the obvious error of the opponents intended point (2).

I think everyone knows that there are multiple deterrents to committing crime: Morality, change of social status if caught, the prospect of being caught and/or sanctioned, being some of the most obvious (2).

Note that the 28 recent studies, finding for deterrence (3), find for deterrence of from 1-28 murders prevented per execution. Deterrence was also found to exist just by the presence of the death penalty statute.

While this represents a substantial and very important savings of innocent lives, it has a very small impact on murder rates.

The US has averaged around 33 executions per year since 1973, which equals a deterrent savings of innocents lives of from 33 to 924 per year.

My guesstimate is that the US has averaged about 18,000 murders per years since 1973.

The deterrent effect provides a near negligible impact on the murder rate (min 0.2% to max 5%), based upon those deterrence studies, but provides a huge savings in innocent lives.

Even without those studies, most of us realize that all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is an unqualified truism, for which no exception exists.

Some are so hidebound by their opposition to the death penalty that they must find that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the ONLY criminal sanction that deters none - a truly absurd notion.

Some questions the accuracy of the studies. '

The nature of social science studies are that they are not an exact science, as reflected in the range of deterrence strength. Yet, no social scientist will say that the death penalty deters none. That is because all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism.

The question is not does the death penalty deter. It does. The question is "How much does it deter?" - a question that will never have a consensus answer.

The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over life without parole.

Therefore, death penalty opponents must live with sacrificing more innocent lives, if they accomplish their goal - a sacrifice they have admitted they are more than willing to allow others to make, as detailed within:

Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty

===================

1) "America's Safest Cities", Lifestyle section, Forbes, 12/15/2011,



2) See Sections C and D within:

The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives


3) 28 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

 

[dudleysharp]

Of course the death penalty deters. A review of the debate

Reason, common sense, history and the facts support that the death penalty deters and deters more than lesser sanctions.

1) Anti death penalty folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death penalty deters. Untrue. It is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some - there is no exception. It is the burden of death penalty opponents to prove that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot. NO DETERRENCE STUDY FINDS THAT THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS NONE. THEY CANNOT.

2) There have been 28 recent studies finding for death penalty deterrence. A few of those have been criticized. The criticism has, itself been rebutted and/or the criticism doesn't negate no. 1 or nos. 3-10.

3) Anti death penalty columnists Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune states, "No one argues that the death penalty deters none." "Will someone bent on murder turn from the crime when he contemplates the fact that he may be executed for it? Obviously that will happen."(1). More precisely, it "does" happen and always has. Yes, some do argue, beyond reason, that the death penalty deters none. But Zorn is correct, the issue is not "Does the death penalty deter?". It does. The only issue is to what degree. Therefore, anti death penalty efforts must contend with the reality that sparing murderers does sacrifice more innocent lives , by reduced deterrence, lesser incapacitation and lesser due process, and executing murderers does save more innocent lives, by enhanced incapacitation, enhanced deterrence and enhanced due process.

4) The evidence is expressly clear and overwhelming that death is feared more than life and life is preferred over death, not just for murderers facing death, but by a majority of all of us.

When 99.8% of murderers, who are subject to the death penalty, tell us they fear death more than life (2) and when about 99.9% of the rest of us (excluding the terribly ill) tell us they prefer life over death, it is a certainty that potential murderers, overwhelmingly feel the same, and thus fear execution more than life.

What we fear the most deters the most.

Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise. Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course - just as we all do.

5) There are a number of known cases of individual deterrence, those potential murderers who have stated that they were prevented from committing murder because of their fear of the death penalty. Individual deterrence exists.

6) General deterrence exists because individual deterrence cannot exist without it.

7) Even the dean of anti death penalty academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death penalty deters .. . but he doesn't believe it deters more than a life sentence (3). Number 4, specifically, and Nos. 5, 6 and 10 provide anecdotal and rational evidence that the death penalty is a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Bedau has not and cannot rebut that. In addition, the 28 studies finding for deterrence, find that the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence.

8) All criminal sanctions deter. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen if we ended all criminal sanctions? No rational person has any doubt. Some would have us, irrationally, believe that the most severe sanction, execution, is the only sanction which doesn't deter.

9) If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared even more additional innocent lives via deterrence. If we don't execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths, via the loss of a greater deterrent, as well as by lesser incapacitation.

10) Overwhelmingly, people prefer life over death and fear death more than life.

===============

"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

============

(1) "Death penalty and deterrence -- the argument from anecdote", Eric Zorn, Change of Subject page, Chicago Tribune,4/23/2011,


(2) About 99.8% of those murderers who are subject to the death penalty do everything they can to receive a lesser sentence, in pre trial, plea bargains, trial, in appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings. Only about 1/3 of all murderers who have a death penalty trial receive that sanction, meaning 2/3 receive a sentence less than life, as they had hoped and even more murderers plea bargained to a sentence less than death, pre trial. Only 1.7% of those sentenced to death "volunteer" for executions by waiving appeals - 98.3% do not.

(3) "An Abolitionist's Survey of the Death Penalty in America Today", Hugo Adam Bedau, Chapter 2, within Debating the death penalty: should America have capital punishment? : the experts on both sides make their case, editors Hugo Adam Bedau, Paul G. Cassell, Oxford University Press, 2004. SHARP REVIEW: AN EXCELLENT BOOK PRESENTING BOTH SIDES.

 

[Unkotare]

joeb doesn't really enjoy being an insecure little bigot, but as a faceless nobody he's used to just shuffling along and keeping his mouth shut. That's why he comes here to indulge his asinine wanna-be marxist fantasies.

 

[JoeB131]

joeb doesn't really enjoy being an insecure little bigot, but as a faceless nobody he's used to just shuffling along and keeping his mouth shut. That's why he comes here to indulge his asinine wanna-be marxist fantasies.

Yawn, guy, have accomplished more than you ever will... .

Sad little angry man, lashing out at everyone.

 

[Unkotare]

, have accomplished more than you ever will... ..

Yeah, you've filled a seat and done what you're damn well told. That's all you're good for.

 

[JoeB131]

, have accomplished more than you ever will... ..

Yeah, you've filled a seat and done what you're damn well told. That's all you're good for.

At least I have a job, which you apparently don't.

 

[Gadawg73]

Death penalty deters ONLY the person put to death from future crimes.
And in most cases that is a good thing.
MOST does not and should not apply in the criminal code.
Innocent folk have been put to death and the different criteria even within states on who are indicted for it and why make it uneven.

 

[Bfgrn]

Death penalty deters ONLY the person put to death from future crimes.
And in most cases that is a good thing.
MOST does not and should not apply in the criminal code.
Innocent folk have been put to death and the different criteria even within states on who is indicted for it and why make it uneven.

In an economic reality of shrinking state and local revenues, it makes no sense to continue to spend 10 times as much on one case. The money spent will never bring the murder victim back to life, and those resources could be put to better use preventing new murders and crimes.

 

[Unkotare]

, have accomplished more than you ever will... ..

Yeah, you've filled a seat and done what you're damn well told. That's all you're good for.

At least I have a job, which you apparently don't.

Guess again, nobody. Now keep your head down and shut the fuck up before your boss sees you wasting time and gets rid of your useless ass.

 

[Gadawg73]

Death penalty deters ONLY the person put to death from future crimes.
And in most cases that is a good thing.
MOST does not and should not apply in the criminal code.
Innocent folk have been put to death and the different criteria even within states on who is indicted for it and why make it uneven.

In an economic reality of shrinking state and local revenues, it makes no sense to continue to spend 10 times as much on one case. The money spent will never bring the murder victim back to life, and those resources could be put to better use preventing new murders and crimes.

Economic policy should never influence The Constitution and the rights granted by it be it to the state or the accused.
But I see your point and unfortunately in rural counties that is what is the motivation behind not indicting death penalty.

 

[Bfgrn]

Death penalty deters ONLY the person put to death from future crimes.
And in most cases that is a good thing.
MOST does not and should not apply in the criminal code.
Innocent folk have been put to death and the different criteria even within states on who is indicted for it and why make it uneven.

In an economic reality of shrinking state and local revenues, it makes no sense to continue to spend 10 times as much on one case. The money spent will never bring the murder victim back to life, and those resources could be put to better use preventing new murders and crimes.

Economic policy should never influence The Constitution and the rights granted by it be it to the state or the accused.
But I see your point and unfortunately in rural counties that is what is the motivation behind not indicting death penalty.

The Constitution doesn't mention the death penalty. Try again...

When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.
Edmund Burke