NationStates Jolt Archive

....Of the death penilty, it's like saying, I condemm killing of anyone so for killing someone I will kill you plus if you put them in jail they have to live with it forever. As long as the jails not to comfy.

The death penilty: As pointless as putting the death Sentancee for attempted suicide.

It satisfies a kneejerk demand for retributory violence among people who get off on that sort of thing and who have little expectation of bumping up against the sharp end of the law, and it allows politicians with empty heads and empty agendas to grandstand to this unpleasant demographic and gain some ersatz machismo. Apart from that, no point.

Yep.

Because of the faith people put in religion, this punishment seems smart.
The rationality is that by killing them they will enter into hell all the sooner, rather than spend some time in a comfy prison and maybe get out of jail on an appeal to hurt and kill again. So seen from that view point it seems right. Unfortunately too many innocent people have been subjected to this punishment while the truly deserving have not.

However from my point a view, (an Athist)it just end it quickly for them and it kills innocents, plus it's totally illogical.

Then please approve this resolution to Ban the Death Penalty (scroll down a little):

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/90323/page=UN_proposal/start=5


Thank you!

Because of the faith people put in religion, this punishment seems smart.
The rationality is that by killing them they will enter into hell all the sooner, rather than spend some time in a comfy prison and maybe get out of jail on an appeal to hurt and kill again. So seen from that view point it seems right. Unfortunately too many innocent people have been subjected to this punishment while the truly deserving have not.

Hot damn, a serious post from BPL!

I say that it's to deter other killers. Hey, besides that, no dead person has commited any other crime.

I say that it's to deter other killers.

Except that, indisputably, it doesn't -- as can be seen by a comparison of murder rates in US states with and without the death penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168), or by comparing murder rates in the UK or other nations before and after the abolition of the death penalty. So, since it doesn't deter other killers, why are you in favour of it?

The problem with the death penalty as i see it is that it is a bit final.

Like...if they find they got the wrong guy they can posthumously pardon him but what the heck does that do? It doesn't restore him to life, does it?

Nor does it undo the crime committed.

The death penalty seems an uncivilised way of dealing with criminals...no matter what they have done.

I say that it's to deter other killers.

Except that, indisputably, it doesn't -- as can be seen by a comparison of murder rates in US states with and without the death penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168), or by comparing murder rates in the UK or other nations before and after the abolition of the death penalty. So, since it doesn't deter other killers, why are you in favour of it?

Some of the biggest obstacles in the DP being a deterrent is the immense time in allowing for appeals..what types of murders encompass a capital case..etc..etc..in the old days...if you killed someone..they found a rope and hung you outside the courthouse..no lengthy appeals..no 20 yrs spent on death row..12 citizens making up the will of the people in due process of the law and of the facts made available grant the DP...THAT would be a deterrent..if you as a criminal knew that if you took a life..your own life is forfeit unless that death be in self-defense of life or property.

I say that it's to deter other killers.

Except that, indisputably, it doesn't -- as can be seen by a comparison of murder rates in US states with and without the death penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168), or by comparing murder rates in the UK or other nations before and after the abolition of the death penalty. So, since it doesn't deter other killers, why are you in favour of it?
This is demonstrably untrue. I can't be bothered finding the links right now but every execution prevents around 8 murders. Lots of people smoke pot now but if the punishment were execution virtually nobody would, this is obvious. People respond to incentives. These studies generally fail to take into account such things as likelyhood of being caught, likelihood of conviction, how often the penalty is enforced and how long it takes for the process. Simply comparing murder rates between states with and without the death penalty is crude and unscientific.

Of course, by itself this is not an argument for the death penalty. Just a fact that both sides need to recognise. The idea that the death penalty does not deter murder is a myth.

Quoth Aust: " it's like saying, I condemm killing of anyone so for killing someone I will kill you"

Do you approve of putting kidnappers in jail? Would you approve of seizing the property of thieves to compensate their victims? So why not kill the killers? It isn't killing that's wrong, it's murder, i.e. *unjustified* killing. This is not a contradiction.

The arguments for the death penalty are (a) deterrent, (b) by violating others rights you forfeit your own rights - i.e. they deserve punishment.

The best argument against the death penalty is that innocents will sometimes be killed. This only means that you can't execute people unless you are 100% sure they are guilty. I think this could be arranged by insisting that if an innocent is killed then the judge, jury and executioner are themselves put on trial for murder.

The death penalty for attempted suicide would be irrational because suicide is not a violation of anyone's rights, whereas murder is.

I can even imagine a scenario where I'd approve of the death penalty for robbery. Imagine you are a subsistence farmer 5000 years ago. Someone steals part of your crop thus threatening your family with starvation but you catch him. You can't let him go because if he steals your stuff again you will die. You can't imprison him because you don't have the resources. Your only choice is to kill him

The death penalty makes perfect sense. The worst crime that you can commit in our society is to kill another person, but how do you punish that? Sure, you could send them to jail, but frankly that just makes jails a more dangerous place for all of the non-violent offenders. Also, by committing such a serious crime, a person has, in effect, voided their own right to live in our society. And, since it would make no sense to exile such a person, the only possible solution is to eliminate them.

There is also another factor: plea bargains. The death penalty is still something that most people want to avoid, so if they know that there is a chance that they might get it, they are more likely to plead guilty for a lesser sentence or jail time.

Most of you keep saying that it is illogical to kill someone for committing murder. That simply is not true. It makes perfect sense: the punishment fits the crime. This is the way our justice system works. If you commit a crime, you are assigned a number of years in jail based upon the severity of your offense. However, this doesn't make sense for the most serious of crimes, since the jail sentences can be so long that the person who committed the crime will likely die before their sentence is over. If we cannot make them serve their time, they ought to be punished in some other way. The death penalty is the simplest solution.

Some of the biggest obstacles in the DP being a deterrent is the immense time in allowing for appeals..what types of murders encompass a capital case..etc..etc..in the old days...if you killed someone..they found a rope and hung you outside the courthouse..no lengthy appeals..no 20 yrs spent on death row..12 citizens making up the will of the people in due process of the law and of the facts made available grant the DP...THAT would be a deterrent..if you as a criminal knew that if you took a life..your own life is forfeit unless that death be in self-defense of life or property.

And yet that doesn't explain why the states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without:

"As executions rose, states without the death penalty fared much better than states with the death penalty in reducing their murder rates. The gap between the murder rate in death penalty states and the non-death penalty states grew larger (as shown in Chart II). In 1990, the murder rates in these two groups were 4% apart. By 2000, the murder rate in the death penalty states was 35% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty. In 2001, the gap between non-death penalty states and states with the death penalty again grew, reaching 37%. For 2002, the number stands at 36%."

(from the site I linked to above).

The death penalty seems to have an effect, all right: it makes your state or nation much more dangerous. It actually seems to encourage murder. This of course is only correlation, and not evidence of causation -- but there definitely seems to be a pattern. Possible causes could be: a cheapening of life in general; a more reactionary government, creating the social problems which lead to higher murder rates; a more corrupt legal system in general.

I don't see how a lengthy (and, given the number of innocent people on various death rows across America, vitally necessary) appeals process can make murder more likely. Rapid executions would only lead to many, many more innocent people being judicially murdered; and, of course, those cases would be closed by the police, with no likelihood of them ever being reopened. So the real killers could walk free, and continue to murder. Maybe that's why death penalty states have higher murder rates than non-DP ones.

Fear of capture is the only true deterrent to (major) crime. If people think they'll probably get caught, they tend not to break the law. Nobody is unafraid of 20 to life in jail. If you don't think so, try spending some time there.

This is demonstrably untrue. I can't be bothered finding the links right now but every execution prevents around 8 murders.

I found statistics to back up my argument. Bring 'em on, and we'll compare.

Lots of people smoke pot now but if the punishment were execution virtually nobody would, this is obvious.

Except for the fact that, back when the punishment for practically everything (stealing a loaf of bread, etc.) was death -- crime still happened! How could that be? Maybe it was because a) people were unlikely to be caught (cf. "fear of capture" above), and b) when such cases came to court, juries would very often refuse to convict the prisoner, because they didn't want to send someone to their death for a trivial crime. A brief look at some 18th and early 19th century Scottish or English court records will prove this point.

I can even imagine a scenario where I'd approve of the death penalty for robbery. Imagine you are a subsistence farmer 5000 years ago. Someone steals part of your crop thus threatening your family with starvation but you catch him. You can't let him go because if he steals your stuff again you will die. You can't imprison him because you don't have the resources. Your only choice is to kill him.

Fortunately, though, none of us are neolithic subsistence farmers. Here and now, there is no justification for the death penalty -- and, in this thread at least, only evidence that it actively makes society more dangerous.

You can still be hung for horsetheft in Texas.

....Of the death penilty.
It's cheap. You don't have to waste resources to keep alive some a-hole who's committed murder, possibly more than once.

Keeping them in prison, for the rest of their lives, gets expensive.

The question of innocence is not a key part of my objection to the death penalty. It's this: When the state kills, it kills in the name of the people it serves. It puts the blood on ALL our hands.

Besides which, the death penalty is illogical as, by its nature, it sets off a chain of executions that leave only one person standing at the end.

I support Capital Punishment. As many here have said: the punishment fits the crime. If you kill someone, you have commited a crime extremely henious, and you deserve to be punished.

Prison is bad, sure, but I dont like the fact that the man (or woman) that commited that crime will be spending (probably) the rest of thier life being able to read, smoke, watch TV, play cards, etc., all on MY TAX MONEY!!

....Of the death penilty, it's like saying, I condemm killing of anyone so for killing someone I will kill you plus if you put them in jail they have to live with it forever. As long as the jails not to comfy.

The death penilty: As pointless as putting the death Sentancee for attempted suicide.

if a person kill somebody then they forfeit their own right to life. if the state choses to kill them that's fine, though i would prefer they be sentenced to life without the possibility of parrol in a prison camp where they work to earn money for the victims family.

Besides which, the death penalty is illogical as, by its nature, it sets off a chain of executions that leave only one person standing at the end.The death penalty is based on emotion rather than logic. I was in the middle of the road on this topic until I saw the number of prisoners on death row who ended up being innocent by DNA testing. You can't place the numbers of death penalty vs. non-death penalty states side by side for crime comparison, because of the huge major city/state population differences. So, logic and morality are the only things left to judge by. An eye for an eye can no longer work in a society with other ways to deter crime. Looking for justice through the death penalty is guaranteed to leave you empty at the end. (They actually have researched the justice issue for victims, and OVERWHELMINGLY the victims do not feel better after the perp is killed. Vengeance is apparently not the answer here, either...)

And yet that doesn't explain why the states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without:

"As executions rose, states without the death penalty fared much better than states with the death penalty in reducing their murder rates. The gap between the murder rate in death penalty states and the non-death penalty states grew larger (as shown in Chart II). In 1990, the murder rates in these two groups were 4% apart. By 2000, the murder rate in the death penalty states was 35% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty. In 2001, the gap between non-death penalty states and states with the death penalty again grew, reaching 37%. For 2002, the number stands at 36%."

(from the site I linked to above).

The death penalty seems to have an effect, all right: it makes your state or nation much more dangerous. It actually seems to encourage murder. This of course is only correlation, and not evidence of causation -- but there definitely seems to be a pattern. Possible causes could be: a cheapening of life in general; a more reactionary government, creating the social problems which lead to higher murder rates; a more corrupt legal system in general.

You're conclusions are not implied by the data. It is irrelevant whether one state with the death penalty has more murders than another without. The relevent question is would the death penalty in the same state reduce murders. Your comparisons are too crude. It's like comparing a parrot to a worm and saying that legs help you speak.

An alternative explaination of your "facts" might be that states with higher murder rates are more likely to institute the death penalty, that is the arrow of causation points the opposite way.


I don't see how a lengthy (and, given the number of innocent people on various death rows across America, vitally necessary) appeals process can make murder more likely. Rapid executions would only lead to many, many more innocent people being judicially murdered; and, of course, those cases would be closed by the police, with no likelihood of them ever being reopened. So the real killers could walk free, and continue to murder. Maybe that's why death penalty states have higher murder rates than non-DP ones.

Facing immediate execution is far more terrifying than being executed in 20 years time! If cigarettes killed you immediately would you have as many smokers?


Fear of capture is the only true deterrent to (major) crime. If people think they'll probably get caught, they tend not to break the law. Nobody is unafraid of 20 to life in jail. If you don't think so, try spending some time there.
20 to life is far longer than most murderers serve, I imagine. Immediate death is far more of a deterrent than imprisonment.


This is demonstrably untrue. I can't be bothered finding the links right now but every execution prevents around 8 murders.

I found statistics to back up my argument. Bring 'em on, and we'll compare.

*Sigh* Okay.

http://www.simonsays.com/content/content.cfm?isbn=0029177766&sid=33&agid=2

The relevant quote

Criminal law is a critical area for understanding how people respond to incentives. To what extent do harsh punishments deter criminal activity? A case of particular interest is the death penalty. The deterrent effect of the death penalty has been studied intensely by innumerable government commissions and academic scholars. Often their studies consist of nothing more than examining murder rates in states with and without capital punishment laws. Economists tend to be harshly critical of these studies because they fail to account for other important factors that help to determine murder rates. (Often they fail even to account for how stringently the death penalty is enforced, although this varies appreciably from state to state.) On the other hand, the refined statistical techniques collectively known as econometrics are designed precisely to measure the power of incentives. This makes it natural to apply econometrics in examining the effect of the death penalty. The pioneer in this effort was Prof. Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Buffalo, whose work was published in 1975. His sophisticated analysis led to a striking conclusion: During the 1960s, on average, each execution that took place in America prevented approximately 8 murders.



Lots of people smoke pot now but if the punishment were execution virtually nobody would, this is obvious.

Except for the fact that, back when the punishment for practically everything (stealing a loaf of bread, etc.) was death -- crime still happened! How could that be? Maybe it was because a) people were unlikely to be caught (cf. "fear of capture" above), and b) when such cases came to court, juries would very often refuse to convict the prisoner, because they didn't want to send someone to their death for a trivial crime. A brief look at some 18th and early 19th century Scottish or English court records will prove this point.

The fact that crime still happened with a death penalty doesn't mean it wasn't less than it would have been without it. I'm not advocating capital punishment for trivial offences. Restitution is the most effective way of dealing with most crimes.


I can even imagine a scenario where I'd approve of the death penalty for robbery. Imagine you are a subsistence farmer 5000 years ago. Someone steals part of your crop thus threatening your family with starvation but you catch him. You can't let him go because if he steals your stuff again you will die. You can't imprison him because you don't have the resources. Your only choice is to kill him.

Fortunately, though, none of us are neolithic subsistence farmers. Here and now, there is no justification for the death penalty -- and, in this thread at least, only evidence that it actively makes society more dangerous.
I was just illustrating a point. I haven't seen convincing evidence that the death penalty makes society more dangerous. All the good data seem to imply the opposite.

It's cheap. You don't have to waste resources to keep alive some a-hole who's committed murder, possibly more than once.
Keeping them in prison, for the rest of their lives, gets expensive.Actually, the death penalty is more expensive for the state due to court costs and the automatic appeals that are generated. Life in prison is cheaper.

Besides which, the death penalty is illogical as, by its nature, it sets off a chain of executions that leave only one person standing at the end.The death penalty is based on emotion rather than logic. I was in the middle of the road on this topic until I saw the number of prisoners on death row who ended up being innocent by DNA testing. You can't place the numbers of death penalty vs. non-death penalty states side by side for crime comparison, because of the huge major city/state population differences. So, logic and morality are the only things left to judge by. An eye for an eye can no longer work in a society with other ways to deter crime. Looking for justice through the death penalty is guaranteed to leave you empty at the end. (They actually have researched the justice issue for victims, and OVERWHELMINGLY the victims do not feel better after the perp is killed. Vengeance is apparently not the answer here, either...)
I don't understand your post. Especially "An eye for an eye can no longer work in a society with other ways to deter crime." What is locking prisoners up for 20 years but vengeance? How is killing people vengeance but imprisoning them is not?

Jeldred...your stats are not causal so I must take them with a grade of salt..let's just take this on a simple level....Ted Bundy...if executed would no longer kill women...Timothy McVeigh if executed will no longer bomb a building..there is a military acronym...Keep It Simple & Stupid..If I execute a killer..that killer will no longer kill another human being.

I do not desire my tax-paying dollars spent on lengthy appeals or in keeping a murderer fed, schooled, with cable tv, gymnasiums, or housed. if he can pay for it on his own..fine..but not with my money.

And people on death row while the slim chance exists they may be innocent of the crime convicted..I'd venture a guess that no one currently on death row hasn't earned it for other crimes he/she has previously committed...recidivism is 80% for convicted felons to go back to prison.

You're conclusions are not implied by the data. It is irrelevant whether one state with the death penalty has more murders than another without. The relevent question is would the death penalty in the same state reduce murders. Your comparisons are too crude. It's like comparing a parrot to a worm and saying that legs help you speak.

An alternative explaination of your "facts" might be that states with higher murder rates are more likely to institute the death penalty, that is the arrow of causation points the opposite way.

True -- although in my defence I will point out that I did say these statistics only showed correlation, not causation. Another alternative explanation could be that violent societies will be more likely to have the death penalty; or that right-wing, pro-DP governments cause higher crime rates. But either way, the statistics imply that the death penalty is indicative of a high murder rate. Given that these are from states within the same (albeit very large and diverse) nation, it's worth considering. Also, given that murder rates did not jump up when various nations outlawed the death penalty, it seems to indicate that the death penalty does not have a beneficial effect on the murder rate in a society.

Facing immediate execution is far more terrifying than being executed in 20 years time! If cigarettes killed you immediately would you have as many smokers?

Facing immediate execution may be more immediately terrifying than spending most of your life on death row, then being executed. Whether or not it's a more unpleasant prospect is debatable.



"Criminal law is a critical area for understanding how people respond to incentives. To what extent do harsh punishments deter criminal activity? A case of particular interest is the death penalty. The deterrent effect of the death penalty has been studied intensely by innumerable government commissions and academic scholars. Often their studies consist of nothing more than examining murder rates in states with and without capital punishment laws. Economists tend to be harshly critical of these studies because they fail to account for other important factors that help to determine murder rates. (Often they fail even to account for how stringently the death penalty is enforced, although this varies appreciably from state to state.) On the other hand, the refined statistical techniques collectively known as econometrics are designed precisely to measure the power of incentives. This makes it natural to apply econometrics in examining the effect of the death penalty. The pioneer in this effort was Prof. Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Buffalo, whose work was published in 1975. His sophisticated analysis led to a striking conclusion: During the 1960s, on average, each execution that took place in America prevented approximately 8 murders. "

Professor Ehrlich's arguments are not, as you might expect, universally accepted, and rely heavily on the assumption that murderers, and criminals in general, weigh the pros and cons of their actions before committing crimes. Given the often self-induced imbalance of the brain chemistry of most violent criminals, their obvious poor impulse control, and the passionate nature of most violent crimes, this seems highly unlikely. Stating that "8 (or, depending on the sources, 7) murders" are prevented for every execution is untestable (obviously) and, therefore, unscientific, and frankly of little practical use. So we are reduced to comparing the murder rates of DP states and nations, and non-DP states and nations, where, whatever explanation you might choose, there are clear correlations between the death penalty and higher murder rates.

I was just illustrating a point. I haven't seen convincing evidence that the death penalty makes society more dangerous. All the good data seem to imply the opposite.

Except for the fact that those states and nations with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without. Although here I admit that I am trying to compare like with like, as far as possible: this should be rephrased as "Western democracies with the death penalty have higher murder rates than western democracies without the death penalty." I don't have figures for, and wouldn't know how far to trust, statistics from non-western non-democracies. In short, if you're a western democracy, having the death penalty is an indication -- to me, at least -- that something is badly wrong with your society.

Jeldred...your stats are not causal so I must take them with a grade of salt..let's just take this on a simple level....Ted Bundy...if executed would no longer kill women...Timothy McVeigh if executed will no longer bomb a building..there is a military acronym...Keep It Simple & Stupid..If I execute a killer..that killer will no longer kill another human being.

The stats are not necessarily causal, true. But they are still real. So is the fact that the state of Illinois alone put 17 innocent people on death row. By the way, the acronym is "Keep It Simple, Stupid" -- although when it comes to the death penalty I think your version is more apt.

I do not desire my tax-paying dollars spent on lengthy appeals or in keeping a murderer fed, schooled, with cable tv, gymnasiums, or housed. if he can pay for it on his own..fine..but not with my money.

And people on death row while the slim chance exists they may be innocent of the crime convicted..I'd venture a guess that no one currently on death row hasn't earned it for other crimes he/she has previously committed...recidivism is 80% for convicted felons to go back to prison.

Oh, well, as long as you're happy to invent prison conditions and "guess" whether or not people should be in jail, that's fine. Why bother with the rule of law at all? If the cops arrest you, you probably look guilty. And if you're in the dock, you must have done something wrong. Brilliant. :roll:

I don't understand your post. Especially "An eye for an eye can no longer work in a society with other ways to deter crime." What is locking prisoners up for 20 years but vengeance? How is killing people vengeance but imprisoning them is not?Death takes away the possibility for change. Life in prison does not. I have actually known a number of former prisoners who totally changed their lives due to their extensive time in prison and realizing the mistakes they have made. There are many outreach programs for current prisoners to contribute to society through their time and effort like highway cleanup, crime education, manual labor jobs, etc. If they had been put to death, they would have no way to contribute to society. So, yes, there is an obvious difference once you think about it.

I don't understand your post. Especially "An eye for an eye can no longer work in a society with other ways to deter crime." What is locking prisoners up for 20 years but vengeance? How is killing people vengeance but imprisoning them is not?Death takes away the possibility for change. Life in prison does not. I have actually known a number of former prisoners who totally changed their lives due to their extensive time in prison and realizing the mistakes they have made. There are many outreach programs for current prisoners to contribute to society through their time and effort like highway cleanup, crime education, manual labor jobs, etc. If they had been put to death, they would have no way to contribute to society. So, yes, there is an obvious difference once you think about it.
You didn't answer the question. Both imprisonment and execution are about vengeance and deterrence (essentially the same thing since we probably evolved the capacity for revenge because of its effect in producing deterrence). Of course there are other ways in which they are different and yes this is obvious. So obvious in fact that I don't know why you mention it.

You're conclusions are not implied by the data. It is irrelevant whether one state with the death penalty has more murders than another without. The relevent question is would the death penalty in the same state reduce murders. Your comparisons are too crude. It's like comparing a parrot to a worm and saying that legs help you speak.

An alternative explaination of your "facts" might be that states with higher murder rates are more likely to institute the death penalty, that is the arrow of causation points the opposite way.

True -- although in my defence I will point out that I did say these statistics only showed correlation, not causation. Another alternative explanation could be that violent societies will be more likely to have the death penalty; or that right-wing, pro-DP governments cause higher crime rates. But either way, the statistics imply that the death penalty is indicative of a high murder rate. Given that these are from states within the same (albeit very large and diverse) nation, it's worth considering. Also, given that murder rates did not jump up when various nations outlawed the death penalty, it seems to indicate that the death penalty does not have a beneficial effect on the murder rate in a society.

As far as I can tell the evidence from econometric studies and interviews with criminals have pretty much established the deterrence effect of DP.


Facing immediate execution is far more terrifying than being executed in 20 years time! If cigarettes killed you immediately would you have as many smokers?

Facing immediate execution may be more immediately terrifying than spending most of your life on death row, then being executed. Whether or not it's a more unpleasant prospect is debatable.

If it's more terrifying then it is more of a disincentive pretty much by definition.




"Criminal law is a critical area for understanding how people respond to incentives. To what extent do harsh punishments deter criminal activity? A case of particular interest is the death penalty. The deterrent effect of the death penalty has been studied intensely by innumerable government commissions and academic scholars. Often their studies consist of nothing more than examining murder rates in states with and without capital punishment laws. Economists tend to be harshly critical of these studies because they fail to account for other important factors that help to determine murder rates. (Often they fail even to account for how stringently the death penalty is enforced, although this varies appreciably from state to state.) On the other hand, the refined statistical techniques collectively known as econometrics are designed precisely to measure the power of incentives. This makes it natural to apply econometrics in examining the effect of the death penalty. The pioneer in this effort was Prof. Isaac Ehrlich of the University of Buffalo, whose work was published in 1975. His sophisticated analysis led to a striking conclusion: During the 1960s, on average, each execution that took place in America prevented approximately 8 murders. "

Professor Ehrlich's arguments are not, as you might expect, universally accepted, and rely heavily on the assumption that murderers, and criminals in general, weigh the pros and cons of their actions before committing crimes. Given the often self-induced imbalance of the brain chemistry of most violent criminals, their obvious poor impulse control, and the passionate nature of most violent crimes, this seems highly unlikely. Stating that "8 (or, depending on the sources, 7) murders" are prevented for every execution is untestable (obviously) and, therefore, unscientific, and frankly of little practical use. So we are reduced to comparing the murder rates of DP states and nations, and non-DP states and nations, where, whatever explanation you might choose, there are clear correlations between the death penalty and higher murder rates.
Even if momentarily enraged the prospect of immediate execution, being more terrifying than a 10 year prison stretch, will be enough to prevent the "marginal" murderer from killing.

Such studies are not unscientific. Scientific means trying to gain knowledge from studying the real world (as opposed to inferring "a priori" knowledge). If something has to be testable to be scientific then claims like "Napoleon was short" are unscientific, to say nothing of Darwinian evolution. Even if you take a narrower definition of the word "scientific" so that you can claim that these studies are not scientific then it doesn't follow that they are irrational or useless. It just means that you are using "unscientific" (by your definition) but empirical methodology.

I was just illustrating a point. I haven't seen convincing evidence that the death penalty makes society more dangerous. All the good data seem to imply the opposite.

Except for the fact that those states and nations with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without. Although here I admit that I am trying to compare like with like, as far as possible: this should be rephrased as "Western democracies with the death penalty have higher murder rates than western democracies without the death penalty." I don't have figures for, and wouldn't know how far to trust, statistics from non-western non-democracies. In short, if you're a western democracy, having the death penalty is an indication -- to me, at least -- that something is badly wrong with your society.
Not all western democracies are the same. You're making the same mistake gun control advocates make when they compare the US with guns to the UK without guns. The thing that's badly wrong with society is that the socialised justice system works about as well as socialised Russian agriculture did.

I don't understand your post. Especially "An eye for an eye can no longer work in a society with other ways to deter crime." What is locking prisoners up for 20 years but vengeance? How is killing people vengeance but imprisoning them is not?Death takes away the possibility for change. Life in prison does not. I have actually known a number of former prisoners who totally changed their lives due to their extensive time in prison and realizing the mistakes they have made. There are many outreach programs for current prisoners to contribute to society through their time and effort like highway cleanup, crime education, manual labor jobs, etc. If they had been put to death, they would have no way to contribute to society. So, yes, there is an obvious difference once you think about it.

Why should they be allowed to contribute to society...their victims can't?

Jeldred...your stats are not causal so I must take them with a grade of salt..let's just take this on a simple level....Ted Bundy...if executed would no longer kill women...Timothy McVeigh if executed will no longer bomb a building..there is a military acronym...Keep It Simple & Stupid..If I execute a killer..that killer will no longer kill another human being.

The stats are not necessarily causal, true. But they are still real. So is the fact that the state of Illinois alone put 17 innocent people on death row. By the way, the acronym is "Keep It Simple, Stupid" no..said it like i meant it..at least where I've always heard it said -- although when it comes to the death penalty I think your version is more apt.

I do not desire my tax-paying dollars spent on lengthy appeals or in keeping a murderer fed, schooled, with cable tv, gymnasiums, or housed. if he can pay for it on his own..fine..but not with my money.

And people on death row while the slim chance exists they may be innocent of the crime convicted..I'd venture a guess that no one currently on death row hasn't earned it for other crimes he/she has previously committed...recidivism is 80% for convicted felons to go back to prison.

Oh, well, as long as you're happy to invent prison conditions and "guess" whether or not people should be in jail, that's fine. Why bother with the rule of law at all? If the cops arrest you, you probably look guilty. And if you're in the dock, you must have done something wrong. Brilliant. :roll:

[b]If you'd actually read all my posts you'll see that that the overwhelming majority of criminals on death row are repeat offenders, of various violent crimes, some of which they've already committed and served previous prison time..I'm not making up anything..What I'm saying is..."if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, acts like a duck"..it must therefore be a duck...why don't you read the dossiers on some of the men on death row and try to tell me they don't belong there.

As far as I can tell the evidence from econometric studies and interviews with criminals have pretty much established the deterrence effect of DP.

Opinion, not fact. Econometrics is not a science -- it's an offshoot of economics. Which itself is not a science.


Facing immediate execution is far more terrifying than being executed in 20 years time! If cigarettes killed you immediately would you have as many smokers?

Facing immediate execution may be more immediately terrifying than spending most of your life on death row, then being executed. Whether or not it's a more unpleasant prospect is debatable.

If it's more terrifying then it is more of a disincentive pretty much by definition.

Only if you assume that people stop and think, "now, should I really do this?" before committing a murder.

Even if momentarily enraged the prospect of immediate execution, being more terrifying than a 10 year prison stretch, will be enough to prevent the "marginal" murderer from killing.

Really? You have proof? Or is this just opinion? How do you define a "marginal killer"? How many "marginal killers" stop and think before committing murder? This is unquantifiable, to say nothing of untestable -- and not supported by statistical evidence.

Such studies are not unscientific. Scientific means trying to gain knowledge from studying the real world (as opposed to inferring "a priori" knowledge). If something has to be testable to be scientific then claims like "Napoleon was short" are unscientific, to say nothing of Darwinian evolution. Even if you take a narrower definition of the word "scientific" so that you can claim that these studies are not scientific then it doesn't follow that they are irrational or useless. It just means that you are using "unscientific" (by your definition) but empirical methodology.

The studies may not be unscientific, but drawing unwarranted and untestable conclusions from them certainly is. The claim that "8 (or 7) murders" are prevented every year by the death penalty is utterly untestable, and therefore unscientific. And, frankly, unjustifiable. Since no-one can prove it one way or the other, what's the point in making the statement, except to lend spurious weight to a political stance? And attaching a hard number to it is just ludicrous, a pretense at scientific accuracy and objectivity.

Not all western democracies are the same. You're making the same mistake gun control advocates make when they compare the US with guns to the UK without guns. The thing that's badly wrong with society is that the socialised justice system works about as well as socialised Russian agriculture did.

Indeed, not all western democracies are the same. Then ones with the death penalty have higher murder rates than the ones without the death penalty. That's a big difference right there. Also, when various western democracies abolished the death penalty, they were not overrun with murderers suddenly saying "Hooray! Now I can murder without fear of execution! Oh, I've waited so long!" So I think the hypothesis can be advanced with some confidence that the death penalty does not have any beneficial impact on murder rates, Professor Ehrlich's statistical tinkering notwithstanding. In Canada, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2002, 26 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.85 per 100,000 population, 40 per cent lower than in 1975. Where did Prof Ehrlich's magical missing murders go to? Back up the dark hole he plucked them from, I suspect.

Now, since it is apparently clear that the death penalty does not have any beneficial impact on murder rates, and since a principal objection to the death penalty is that it allows no correction of the inevitable and often alarmingly frequent errors -- what, as the original poster asked, is the point?

Jeldred...your stats are not causal so I must take them with a grade of salt..let's just take this on a simple level....Ted Bundy...if executed would no longer kill women...Timothy McVeigh if executed will no longer bomb a building..there is a military acronym...Keep It Simple & Stupid..If I execute a killer..that killer will no longer kill another human being.

I do not desire my tax-paying dollars spent on lengthy appeals or in keeping a murderer fed, schooled, with cable tv, gymnasiums, or housed. if he can pay for it on his own..fine..but not with my money.

And people on death row while the slim chance exists they may be innocent of the crime convicted..I'd venture a guess that no one currently on death row hasn't earned it for other crimes he/she has previously committed...recidivism is 80% for convicted felons to go back to prison.
You've hit my one big problem with the prison systerm their. IT'S TO CONFY. No way should a nprisnor should be given Cable TV, a Gym, school ect. Put them in solatary confiment, give them food every day and leave them, it's the same treat,ment millions of innocents get and we don't try to help them.

Actually, the death penalty is more expensive for the state due to court costs and the automatic appeals that are generated. Life in prison is cheaper.
Then that's a flaw in the system. But really, I really doubt what you say.

I don't believe that for a second. They're going to be in court, anyway, and if you think taking care of Fido is expensive, try to pay for a grown man's expenses, while paying for the prison building, guards, warden, electricity, gymnasium, water, food, medical bills, dental hygiene (prisoners get braces for free. I didn't even get fucking braces!), etc.

I call bullshit.