NationStates Jolt Archive

To me this is another reason why the DP needs to stay in place. what say you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

I've never supported the death penalty for that specific reason; however, if it is true, then it is indeed another good reason to maintain death as the ultimate penalty for the worst of crimes.

It also cuts down on repeat offenders. :)

To me this is another reason why the DP needs to stay in place. what say you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

Citing studies isn't hard. Heres one that says there is no effect.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=1176

The death penalty is uncivilized, cruel, and expensive. There is no way around it. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"... or, a death for a death makes the whole world dead.

That's funny. Every single other study I've ever found, and that's a lot of them, says that the death penalty is far, far less of a deterrent than life in prison. Personally, I'm going to trust them, since there's way more of them and I've actually had access to them.

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."


From the article.
Also: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168

Citing studies isn't hard. Heres one that says there is no effect.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=1176

The death penalty is uncivilized, cruel, and expensive. There is no way around it. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"... or, a death for a death makes the whole world dead.

Except that it is less expensive than life in prison.
Also, it isn't "a death for a death". It is a "we give you the death sentence because of your crimes, we kill you, done"

Except that it is less expensive than life in prison.

No. No it is not. It's not even close. Seriously, do some research.

Or, the death of a killer for the death of an innocent person makes a killer dead. Either way. ;)

Of course, that assumes that the person executed is the person who was the murderer. And the death penalty has a very, very bad track record on this.

The death penalty is uncivilized, cruel, and expensive. There is no way around it. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"... or, a death for a death makes the whole world dead.

Or, the death of a killer for the death of an innocent person makes a killer dead. Either way. ;)

And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

"You are sentinced to die by lethal injection... but don't worry, it's for a study." ;)

Except that it is less expensive than life in prison.
Also, it isn't "a death for a death". It is a "we give you the death sentence because of your crimes, we kill you, done"

I've always been of the understanding it was more expensive than life in prison.

To Google!

Yep, here it is:
http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
http://6news.ljworld.com/section/deathpenalty/story/119087
http://greensboropeerpressure.blogspot.com/2006/08/economic-impact-of-death-penalty-vs_03.html

And more!

Except that it is less expensive than life in prison.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=557&scid=60#A.1F
says: "Although the costs of incarceration are expensive (about $25,000 per year per inmate), that amounts to $750,000 to $1,000,000 depending on whether a person lives 30 or 40 years after his or her sentencing. The death penalty, on the other hand, costs an additional $2 million per execution."

There is no way around it. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"... or, a death for a death makes the whole world dead. no it won't
If I don't commit a grislly or multiple Murders (not simply killing someone, but murder) then I won't be put to death.

and If I am sentenced to die by state funded execution, how would the killing cycle continue?

Except that it is less expensive than life in prison.

Nah, it just relieves the overcrowding in prisions.

No. No it is not. It's not even close. Seriously, do some research.

I sit corrected.
My question now is why the hell do the trials cost so much? And why is the state paying so much for them?

Once someone is convicted and then sentence to death, four bullets and five rifles aren't that expensive.

I sit corrected.
My question now is why the hell do the trials cost so much? And why is the state paying so much for them?

Once someone is convicted and then sentence to death, four bullets and five rifles aren't that expensive.

because those on Death Row are entitled to a set number of appeals and reviews. that requires lawyers, judges, investigators, etc...

I sit corrected.
My question now is why the hell do the trials cost so much? And why is the state paying so much for them?

Once someone is convicted and then sentence to death, four bullets and five rifles aren't that expensive.

An extensive system of checks, balances, and appeals which can be drawn out for ten years if you have a good enough lawyer. Of course you could eliminate it all, but then far more innocents would be executed. Just another reason to oppose such barbarities.

I sit corrected.
My question now is why the hell do the trials cost so much? And why is the state paying so much for them?

Once someone is convicted and then sentence to death, four bullets and five rifles aren't that expensive.

No, but making sure they are the murderer is expensive. The state is paying that much to eliminate wrongful exectutions and it is still questionable in its ability to do so.

because those on Death Row are entitled to a set number of appeals and reviews. that requires lawyers, judges, investigators, etc...

Do they get the same appeals for life in prison?

Otherwise it seems kind of ridiculous.

Do they get the same appeals for life in prison?

Otherwise it seems kind of ridiculous.

Oh, they should get more trials to, but money is more important, apparently. But, if you look at the website I have linked to about 3 times in 2 pages you would see that: "for every 8 executions carried out, there has been one person formerly death on row who is now deemed innocent.(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=557&scid=60#A.4T)" They were deemed innocent through these trials so yes, it is fair.

Perhaps we simply need to make better use of those on death row and awaiting appeals.

Perhaps power generation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8wZaeTL_M0)

:)

Or we could just take their mud away from them, although that might fall under cruel and unusual punishment.

Perhaps we simply need to make better use of those on death row and awaiting appeals.

Perhaps power generation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8wZaeTL_M0)

:)

Oh, they should get more trials to, but money is more important, apparently. But, if you look at the website I have linked to about 3 times in 2 pages you would see that: "for every 8 executions carried out, there has been one person formerly death on row who is now deemed innocent.(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=557&scid=60#A.4T)" They were deemed innocent through these trials so yes, it is fair.

Well, sorry about not clicking every link, I happen to be an ignorant buffoon and like the status quo.

Note the fact that they were deemed innocent.
Doesn't mean they were.
Maybe.
Maybe not.

But it is good for them at any rate.

Well, sorry about not clicking every link, I happen to be an ignorant buffoon and like the status quo.
You would cost people their lives because you like the status quo?

Note the fact that they were deemed innocent.
Doesn't mean they were.


If you are on deathrow it takes strong evidence to get you off it so yes, they probably were.

To me this is another reason why the DP needs to stay in place. what say you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

That's a ridiculously simplistic reduction of what the story actually said. There's a lot of debate over the methodology of the studies that said capital punishment acts as a deterrent, and they're mentioned in the article. Why'd you leave that out? Did you even read the article, or did you simply see the headline and decide you agreed with it?

Or we could just take their mud away from them, although that might fall under cruel and unusual punishment.

Indeed. :(

no it won't
If I don't commit a grislly or multiple Murders (not simply killing someone, but murder) then I won't be put to death.

Unless you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Being the wrong color doesn't hurt either.

Studies have also shown that smoking has no negative health effects and that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

You would cost people their lives because you like the status quo?


Um...what? Not only did you miss the blatant(or not so) sarcasm there...
but who do you think I am that would actually mean my opinion on this matters?

Studies have also shown that smoking has no negative health effects and that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Studies have also shown that eggs are good for you.

Studies have also shown that eggs are bad for you.

I suspect that depends on which orifice you attempt to consume them with. :)

Unless you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Being the wrong color doesn't hurt either.

and the investigating officers are extremely corrupt.

then there is the fact that I could request an Independant investigation.

but that doesn't show how a death for a death makes everyone dead.

Um...what? Not only did you miss the blatant(or not so) sarcasm there...
but who do you think I am that would actually mean my opinion on this matters?
Generally the majority of what people think matters and sense you are part of that majority without having researched the topic you are partly to blame. The opinion of voters matter.

And to LG: Ewwwwwwwwwwww................

Studies have also shown that eggs are good for you.

Studies have also shown that eggs are bad for you.

I suspect that depends on which orifice you attempt to consume them with. :)

Ai no corrida flashback.

and the investigating officers are extremely corrupt.Not really. They just have to be lazy or incompetent, or believe you did it and "find" enough evidence to convict.

then there is the fact that I could request an Independant investigation.If you can afford it. Police departments won't do it on their own dime. And if you're broke, a public defender will have very limited resources.

but that doesn't show how a death for a death makes everyone dead.
That's a stretch, certainly, but it's not a stretch to say that we've almost certainly executed innocent people already and that there are more sitting on death row even as we speak. And that there but for the grace of gods go you or I.

I doubt it.

I've never supported the DP, but what I support is much, much worse. it goes along the same line as Capitol Punishment, but its more intense and its every day.


much like the prisons of old, you'll get thrown into a musty cell, ge fed very little, and there will be no windows to see light from. you'd get beaten, insulted, humiliated and downright broken down into a catatonic shape.


you'd only wish for death. and I'd make sure it continues to elude you.

I've never supported the DP, but what I support is much, much worse. it goes along the same line as Capitol Punishment, but its more intense and its every day.


much like the prisons of old, you'll get thrown into a musty cell, ge fed very little, and there will be no windows to see light from. you'd get beaten, insulted, humiliated and downright broken down into a catatonic shape.


you'd only wish for death. and I'd make sure it continues to elude you.

1. Suicide

2. That's horrible.

3. For what crimes?

I've never supported the DP, but what I support is much, much worse. it goes along the same line as Capitol Punishment, but its more intense and its every day.

much like the prisons of old, you'll get thrown into a musty cell, ge fed very little, and there will be no windows to see light from. you'd get beaten, insulted, humiliated and downright broken down into a catatonic shape.

you'd only wish for death. and I'd make sure it continues to elude you.

Up your medication, kid.

I've never supported the DP, but what I support is much, much worse. it goes along the same line as Capitol Punishment, but its more intense and its every day.


much like the prisons of old, you'll get thrown into a musty cell, ge fed very little, and there will be no windows to see light from. you'd get beaten, insulted, humiliated and downright broken down into a catatonic shape.


you'd only wish for death. and I'd make sure it continues to elude you.

Good thing the US has a Constitutional amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. Not that we follow it that closely, but it's good we have it.

Nah, it just relieves the overcrowding in prisions.

I was not aware that there were enough killed to even put a dent in the inmate population

I was not aware that there were enough killed to even put a dent in the inmate population

There aren't.

Ai no corrida flashback.

Ooh. I've heard of that. I'll take it as a compliment. :)

Generally the majority of what people think matters and *sense you are part of that majority without having researched the topic you are partly to blame. The opinion of voters matter.

And to LG: Ewwwwwwwwwwww................

Other than being a person, what majority am I a part of?

Ooh. I've heard of that. I'll take it as a compliment. :)

You haven't seen it? It was on TV here a couple of years ago... I was so not expecting the egg scene... or anything else, really, since I just switched to the film as it was starting, thinking it would be some sort of Japanese horror flick. I was sort of correct.

Other than being a person, what majority am I a part of?

If you are from the USA the people that support the death penalty. If you are not then I apologise.

One does not rent that sort of movie at Blockbuster. ;)

I forget where you live...

You haven't seen it? It was on TV here a couple of years ago... I was so not expecting the egg scene... or anything else, really, since I just switched to the film as it was starting, thinking it would be some sort of Japanese horror flick. I was sort of correct.

One does not rent that sort of movie at Blockbuster. ;)

Not really. They just have to be lazy or incompetent, or believe you did it and "find" enough evidence to convict.
If you can afford it. Police departments won't do it on their own dime. And if you're broke, a public defender will have very limited resources. and there are organizations out there that do look into wrongful imprisonments. should they take my case, and help me out (litterally) they will get some serious and regular donations from me. ;)


That's a stretch, certainly, but it's not a stretch to say that we've almost certainly executed innocent people already and that there are more sitting on death row even as we speak. And that there but for the grace of gods go you or I.which still doesn't show how that would still fuel the cycle of death. say I do end up on Death Row. Innocent or Guilty. I get put to death, how does my Death continue the cycle?

I was not aware that there were enough killed to even put a dent in the inmate population

well duh... with each state wimping out... :rolleyes: ;) :D

and there are organizations out there that do look into wrongful imprisonments. should they take my case, and help me out (litterally) they will get some serious and regular donations from me. ;)

The smart move would be to start funding them now, to help ensure they'll still be around if it happens to you. Sad thing is that there's a far greater need for groups like that than exists currently. Sadder still is that we're so bloodthirsty as a society that we need them in the first place.

The smart move would be to start funding them now, to help ensure they'll still be around if it happens to you. Sad thing is that there's a far greater need for groups like that than exists currently. Sadder still is that we're so bloodthirsty as a society that we need them in the first place.

unforunatly, no extra funds to even give to the United Way. but you can bet they are on my list...

and we are so bloodthirsty, that sometimes, and I do mean sometimes, the only option is to permamently remove them from society.

Hawaii is currently shipping inmates to Texas for incarceration. how bad is that where one state is exporting criminals?

The smart move would be to start funding them now, to help ensure they'll still be around if it happens to you. Sad thing is that there's a far greater need for groups like that than exists currently. Sadder still is that we're so bloodthirsty as a society that we need them in the first place.

Yea, if the damned criminals wouldn't kill so many people, we wouldn't need to sentence them to death, and then try to find out if they did it or not.

If you are from the USA the people that support the death penalty. If you are not then I apologise.

Accepted.

Ai no corrida flashback.
Haha, yes.
One does not rent that sort of movie at Blockbuster. ;)
Netflix. ;)


Edit: It was an incredibly "interesting" movie to watch with my parents. Good times.

On the bright side, I couldn't ask for a better place to mess with peoples' heads. :)

Yeah, you'd be behind the mainstream pack here, so I guess it turned out best for you.

I forget where you live...

It wasn't my fault! When I was in the womb, I repeatedly kicked my mom's innards in an attempt to get her to move me somewhere more enlightened for my birth, but she just thought I was going to be a soccer player.

By third grade, I had mindlessly pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States hundreds of times. :(

On the bright side, I couldn't ask for a better place to mess with peoples' heads. :)

Well of course it deters crime. One murderer executed=one more murderer who is never, ever, going to harm anyone else.

Well of course it deters crime. One murderer executed=one more murderer who is never, ever, going to harm anyone else.


It has not been proven that it does therefore it isn't "of course". And detering is "To prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt" so killing someone who may or may not be guilty would not qualify as a deterrent.

To me this is another reason why the DP needs to stay in place. what say you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

The death penalty is hypocritical in the cases it is used and wrong in any case.

Well of course it deters crime. One murderer executed=one more murderer who is never, ever, going to harm anyone else.

Duh ... what they mean by "deter" is convincing OTHER people to not commit the crime

It is a no brainer that if the justice system was right conconviction that there would be one less potential recommittal

Another problem being that one person executed may or may not be a murder so one execution != removing a murder nessisarily

Studies have also shown that eggs are good for you.

Studies have also shown that eggs are bad for you.

I suspect that depends on which orifice you attempt to consume them with. :)
Naw. It depends on whether you shell them before eating.

I cannot help but notice something in the New Zealand homicide statistics. In 1961, we got rid of the death penalty for all crimes except for treason (that was dropped in 1989). The rate of homicide had been reasonably low, about 2 homicides a month. Not long after the death penalty was scrapped, the rate of homicide in New Zealand started increasing and thirty years after the death penalty was scrapped, it was no longer 2 homicides a month, but 3 homicides a week. Although it has decreased slightly, I cannot help but suspect a correlation.

Well of course it deters crime. One murderer executed=one more murderer who is never, ever, going to harm anyone else.
And one innocent person, wrongly found guilty of murder, executed = ....what exactly?

I cannot help but notice something in the New Zealand homicide statistics. In 1961, we got rid of the death penalty for all crimes except for treason (that was dropped in 1989). The rate of homicide had been reasonably low, about 2 homicides a month. Not long after the death penalty was scrapped, the rate of homicide in New Zealand started increasing and thirty years after the death penalty was scrapped, it was no longer 2 homicides a month, but 3 homicides a week. Although it has decreased slightly, I cannot help but suspect a correlation.

I smell penguin...

Or, in other words, correlation=/=causation.

Either way what does it matter? The fact is, regardless of whether or not your are innocent you are still going to spend the rest of your life in jail. Sure even if they find evidence then what? That conviction still hangs over you for life. You'll find it with any aquittle. Frankly I would rather just die than spend my life in a hell hole. We should make executions public then it will be a real deterence. It worked in the days of yore when they hanged people in public.

And one innocent person, wrongly found guilty of murder, executed = ....what exactly?

Sad, but forgetten.

I cannot help but notice something in the New Zealand homicide statistics. In 1961, we got rid of the death penalty for all crimes except for treason (that was dropped in 1989). The rate of homicide had been reasonably low, about 2 homicides a month. Not long after the death penalty was scrapped, the rate of homicide in New Zealand started increasing and thirty years after the death penalty was scrapped, it was no longer 2 homicides a month, but 3 homicides a week. Although it has decreased slightly, I cannot help but suspect a correlation.
Correlations are easy to prove you can do more then suspect if you wish statistically

And as far as that goes there are SO many different sociatal factors that could individually or with interaction effect that it is not even an informed guess at this point

http://media.npr.org/blog/sep/19/piratechart_big.jpg

I smell penguin...

Or, in other words, correlation=/=causation.

What else would have caused the massive surge in crime. Let us not forget that fear of losing ones life is quite a massive deterrent. Certainly it was not until much later that economic conditions tanked, so it could not be that.

Let us not forget that fear of losing ones life is quite a massive deterrent.

Proof.

Unfortunately, the death penalty has been used to put innocent individuals to death, and as such, is entirely too high of a cost for society to bear.

I don't think whether the death penalty deters crime or not is a significant factor in shaping peoples' opinions of the death penalty. I've met lots of both pro- and anti- death penalty people, and none of cited deterrance (or lack thereof) as a reaon they supported/opposed it.

What else would have caused the massive surge in crime.

population growth and increasing urbanization

What else would have caused the massive surge in crime.

Oh, you know what, you're right. I'm sorry, HOW could I forget that the only reason for crime is a lack of government-funded deterrent? :headbang:

:rolleyes:

population growth and increasing urbanization

A ring-a-ling-a-ding!

New Zealand's urban population did not even double between 1961 and 1991 and our population in general increased by 65% in that period. In the West in general, we have had a massive surge in crime since most nations dropped the death penalty, and it cannot be because of urbanisation or population growth due to the two (crime and the other factors) being very disproportionate. It is common sense that fear of losing one's life is a deterrent - why do you think people have most phobias? It is related to the fear of something going wrong and the person dying

It is common sense that fear of losing one's life is a deterrent - why do you think people have most phobias? It is related to the fear of something going wrong and the person dying

It is common sense that fear of losing one's freedom is a deterrent - why do you think people have most phobias? It is related to the fear of something going wrong and the person being imprisoned.

Seriously, there is no proof that the death penalty is a better deterrent then life in prison, or time in prison.

In the West in general, we have had a massive surge in crime since most nations dropped the death penalty,

Nonsense.

With all this never-ending confabulation and utterly wasted dialogue, we might as well flip a coin to decide, with all the headway we are making.

To me this is another reason why the DP needs to stay in place. what say you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

very simple for me.
if you pissed me off enough to want to kill you,i would not care about the d/p.not even in the slightest.
hell i would prefer death to life in prison anyhow.
that said,i am against it cause innocent people get murdered by the state in my name,and i dont like that.

Seriously, there is no proof that the death penalty is a better deterrent then life in prison, or time in prison.Is there Proof that Life in Prison is a better deterrent than the DP?

We should just do away with the death penalty and prisons. I say we bring back trial by battle. If you are innocent, the gods will surely grant you victory! Only the wicked will perish and we can put it on ESPN; it'll be awesome.

That's a ridiculously simplistic reduction of what the story actually said. There's a lot of debate over the methodology of the studies that said capital punishment acts as a deterrent, and they're mentioned in the article. Why'd you leave that out? Did you even read the article, or did you simply see the headline and decide you agreed with it?

Indeed. And aside from the obvious criticisms mentioned in the article, the absurdity of the causal relationship these studies make isn't even mentioned. There are numerous other explanations for different rates of homicide/death penalty ratios aside from those stated by the article.

Is there Proof that Life in Prison is a better deterrent than the DP?

I believe that there are links earlier in the thread that have studies that show that. Or maybe that was some other Death Penalty thread.

I cannot help but notice something in the New Zealand homicide statistics. In 1961, we got rid of the death penalty for all crimes except for treason (that was dropped in 1989). The rate of homicide had been reasonably low, about 2 homicides a month. Not long after the death penalty was scrapped, the rate of homicide in New Zealand started increasing and thirty years after the death penalty was scrapped, it was no longer 2 homicides a month, but 3 homicides a week. Although it has decreased slightly, I cannot help but suspect a correlation.
Population:
Population in NZ in 1961 = 2.4 million
Population in NZ in 2006 = 4.2 million
Population increase = 175%

You say that the murder rate has soared from 1/fortnight to 2/week = an increase of 400%.
Population growth alone accounts for almost 1/2 that increase.

Urbanisation:
NZ, 1961 = 73%
NZ, 2006 = 86% (higher than most of Europe and the USA incidently)
Urban increase = 118%

Doesn't sound like much, but we need to take into account the nature of the urban increase.

The population in rural areas has changed very little in the last century. In 1916 there were 501 000 people living in rural areas. In 2001 the rural population had increased to 533 000 (a 6% increase in 85 years). Yet the urban population has increased a lot more - from 600 000 in 1916 to 3.7 million in 2006 (a 617% increase).
Getting back to 1961 - urban population more than doubled between 1961 - 2006.

for example:
Auckland city
Population, 1961 = 420 000
Population, 2006 = 1 100 000
Population increase = 262%

That sort of population increase - especially as it overwhelmingly came from immigration - is obviously going to cause social problems. Social problems leads to crime (i.e. murder).
This gives us more explanation for the rise in the murder rate.

All the above figures were taken from http://www.stats.govt.nz/ btw.

Then there's unemployment:
"From 1948 to 1955 the monthly average of disengaged persons registered for employment peaked at 1,656 in July 1959. Since then it has again fallen."
(from 'An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand', edited by A. H. McLintock, originally published in 1966).
During the period of 1951 to 1963, unemployment rate did not exceed 0.1%.
That's right - in 1950's and 60's NZ, the unemployment rate was measured in 10ths of a percent.
Indeed, up to 1978 the highest unemployment ever got to was 0.5%.

During the 1980's, unemployment rose and average 4.2% for that decade (5% from 1984 to 1990). This upward trend continued in the 1990's, which averaged 8%. It peaked at 10.6% in 1992 (though 1993, at 10% wasn't far behind). This was 10 600% higher than the unemployment rate was in 1961.
Thankfully it has fallen a lot since then (down to 3.6% now), but the social effects of such high unemployment will be felt for a while yet.

To put it simply:
More unemployment = more crime = another explanation for higher murder rates.

And the above figures don't tell the whole story. During the 1990's unemployment rates for Maori and PIs were much, much higher - peaking at 28% in 1993. Even today, their unemployment rate is close to 3 times the national average
Disadvantaged, marginalised, disposessed minority group with an unemployment rate of nearly 1 in 3 = lots and lots of social unrest = lots and lots more crime = yet another explanation for higher murder rates.


(above info from History of Employment in NZ (http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/L/LabourDepartmentOf/Employment/en)
andMeasuring Unemployment in NZ (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410562_measuring_UBR_NZ.pdf)

To sum up, murder rates in NZ have increased over the past 50 years NOT because of the abolition of the death penalty but because of a big increase in it's population due to immigration, increased urbanisation, massive increase in the population of Auckland, massive social upheaval in the 1980s and 90s, a dramatic increase in unemployment during that time, minority groups facing extreme unemployment and lots more other reasons but I'm bored and want to go home.
Lots of reasons. Abolition of the Death Penalty ain't one of them.

i don't know about fear, but being dead is probably a pretty good deterant against repeating an offence. the only problem, well one of them anyway, is that there is no such thing as a reliably infallable legal system. not to mention the precident of killing people set by exicuting them.

=^^=
.../\...

With all this never-ending confabulation and utterly wasted dialogue, we might as well flip a coin to decide, with all the headway we are making.
Ditto Israel/Palestine and big government/small government.

That's funny. Every single other study I've ever found, and that's a lot of them, says that the death penalty is far, far less of a deterrent than life in prison.
Which seems patently absurd with the rate we are filling up prisons with similar crimes.

Which seems patently absurd with the rate we are filling up prisons with similar crimes.

It may seem that way but not necessarily be

Just because life in prison is not a great deterrent for those who would commit crimes does not mean death is more so

Either way those that are "filling" our prisons right now for the most part are not people who would be currently eligible for death anyways

Be cheaper if they just put a bullet in their head right after the trial.

Just wasting everyones money keeping them in jail to suffer.... 1 bullet and all done. :sniper:

Be cheaper if they just put a bullet in their head right after the trial.

Just wasting everyones money keeping them in jail to suffer.... 1 bullet and all done. :sniper:

Except for all the you know innocent people ...

Except for all the you know innocent people ...

Silly, everyone knows that there's no way you could be mistakenly found guilty.

A study by an Economist? Okay... Am I the only one who remembers the joke about Economists? Less likely to be correct than a weatherman? Yeah, that's what I thought. :p

Seriously, though, it's social sciences. "Studies" are pretty damn unreliable, especially this kind. Not even considering the mounds of evidence to the contrary.

But don't mind me, the public likes to spill blood, and they shall have their fun.

Silly, everyone knows that there's no way you could be mistakenly found guilty.

http://bubba1982.jumbahost.com/main.php/d/473-1/lolcat.jpg

http://bubba1982.jumbahost.com/main.php/d/473-1/lolcat.jpg

I can has kitteh? iz gift?

You say that the murder rate has soared from 1/fortnight to 2/week

which reminds me, anyone come across confirmation of those numbers? i didn't, but i didn't look too hard.

which reminds me, anyone come across confirmation of those numbers? i didn't, but i didn't look too hard.

On the subject of numbers, one can be sure of a 0% recividism rate with the death penalty, regardless of the type of crime.

On the subject of numbers, one can be sure of a 0% recividism rate with the death penalty, regardless of the type of crime.

good call. death penalty for reckless driving! death penalty for littering! it'll be just like the good old days.

good call. death penalty for reckless driving! death penalty for littering! it'll be just like the good old days.

Well, as long as there's not a death penalty for posting in forums.

good call. death penalty for reckless driving! death penalty for littering! it'll be just like the good old days.

Death penalty for failure to produce children! HANG THE WITCHES! RAISE THE FLAG! AVAST! WE BE GATHERED HERE TODAY IN LOVING TRIBUTE! AMEN! GAY MARRIAGE WILL DESTROY AMERICA!

Ahem. That will be all.

I believe that there are links earlier in the thread that have studies that show that. Or maybe that was some other Death Penalty thread.

so violent crime is noticably down because of the removal of DP and not due to other factors such as heightened police presence, more community involvement, changes in policies, etc... ;)

so violent crime is noticably down because of the removal of DP and not due to other factors such as heightened police presence, more community involvement, changes in policies, etc... ;)

Violent crime in the US plummeted from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s because of the dismantling of centralized government housing projects.

Police presence, community involvement, etc., had zero to do with it.

Yeah, I'll wait for better confirmation and the adressing of the flaws before jumping to any conclusions.

However, the conclusions won't really matter. I'm still against the death penalty because the possibility of error.

Oh, and remember this thread? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529513)

Survivors of the slaughter welcomed the decision, noting that the death penalty had existed in Rwandan law before the genocide.

"It didn't deter people from picking up machetes to slaughter their fellows - that's why we are not bothered by its removal," said Theodore Simburudali, president of the Ibuka genocide survivors' group.

To me this is another reason why the DP needs to stay in place. what say you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence
Hmm.

Death penalty deters crime, you say? Well, then let's make all crimes punishable by the death penalty! That should deter ALL crime!

Hmm.

Death penalty deters crime, you say? Well, then let's make all crimes punishable by the death penalty! That should deter ALL crime!

It should, actually.

I know of someone who was raped by her father (incest), and the death penalty is a big possibility. My cousin's lawyer used DP to make a deal: if he pleads guilty, then they won't pursue DP (and instead life imprisonment). That settled the 17 counts of rape, but not the 10+ more.

It should, actually.

Surely you can't be serious.

Citing studies isn't hard. Heres one that says there is no effect.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=1176

The death penalty is uncivilized, cruel, and expensive. There is no way around it. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"... or, a death for a death makes the whole world dead.

It's only expensive because we try to make it "humane."

A rope is quite cheap.

So is a bullet.

And a knife across the jugular is quite effective.

And each of these is not only inexpensive, but are reusable indefinitely.

It's only expensive because we try to make it "humane."

A rope is quite cheap.

So is a bullet.

And a knife across the jugular is quite effective.

And each of these is not only inexpensive, but are reusable indefinitely.

Well, the bullet is not reusable. You can, however, reload the cartridge.

Ropes eventually wear out, and you have to sharpen the knife occasionally.

I don't believe the death penalty deters crime. I believe that getting caught, and being given a sentence of some consequence that matters to the offender deters crime.

Without the certainty of being caught, they will commit the crime, no matter what the punishment may be.

I do believe in holding violent prisoners until they "age out" - that is, until they are around 60 years old, and too feeble to do anything violent.

Since 94 percent of violent crime in the US is committed without a weapon, this would age out violent criminals, and over time, sharply reduce their recidivism.

A small handful actually deserve the death penalty. If we were to curtail a lot of the appeal process (and I believe a lot of it is arrant nonsense, designed to manipulate the court system in ways that extend beyond the case under defense), it would be relatively cheap.

I bet it's cheaper in Texas and Virginia.

Depends on who you ask. Levitt and Dubner (Freakonomics) said the legalization of and easy access to abortion in the 70s had a lot to do with it. It's an interesting theory.

I find it correlates quite well with the 1994 Clinton policy that bulldozed the projects.

Violent crime in the US plummeted from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s because of the dismantling of centralized government housing projects.

Police presence, community involvement, etc., had zero to do with it.

Depends on who you ask. Levitt and Dubner (Freakonomics) said the legalization of and easy access to abortion in the 70s had a lot to do with it. It's an interesting theory.

Do they get the same appeals for life in prison?

Otherwise it seems kind of ridiculous.

I remember my Criminal Justice professor telling us that for a capital punishment trial you have only 1 (!) step in the appeals process that all other people in any other kind of criminal trial do not have. (Note: of course, in any other kind of criminal trial you hardly ever have reason to actually go through all the appeals...).
It's too long ago, so that's all I remember, sorry. :/

And other say i does not.

However, I am against it, as it is cruel and unusual, and you can't bring back a wrongfully executed person from the dead.

And other say i does not.

However, I am against it, as it is cruel and unusual, and you can't bring back a wrongfully executed person from the dead.
Which is, to my mind, the most important reason to oppose it, especially in a system like we have in the US where there's documented proof that the system is biased against the poor.

To me this is another reason why the DP needs to stay in place. what say you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence
Oh yes, the death penalty is definitely a deterrant, which is why the US has a lower murder rate than Canada or most of Europe or Japan, to name a few. Man, I don't know how those poor people in non-death penalty countries get by with their horrible, horrible crime rate!



Also, was I the only one who felt a little off when the death penalty was referred to, cutely, as DP?

It's only expensive because we try to make it "humane."

A rope is quite cheap.

So is a bullet.

And a knife across the jugular is quite effective.

And each of these is not only inexpensive, but are reusable indefinitely.
Actually, I think it's the appeals process that makes it so expensive. But if we do away with appeals then you end up with even more people who are wrongfully convicted and executed.

cruel

They're dead anyway.

unusual

hardly. Killing's been around the chopping block a few times.

Actually, I think it's the appeals process that makes it so expensive. But if we do away with appeals then you end up with even more people who are wrongfully convicted and executed.

This is true. So maybe stage death row gladiatorial combats? Think of the viewer ratings...

Oh I can smell lucrative business already

EDIT: After rereading the posts, I have decided that the appeals process is also part of the attempt to make it humane, and thus part of the problem

This is true. So maybe stage death row gladiatorial combats? Think of the viewer ratings...

Oh I can smell lucrative business already

The Romans beat you to it by centuries.

They're dead anyway.



hardly. Killing's been around the chopping block a few times.

A lot of things have ... we still don't find them acceptable as a society

The Romans beat you to it by centuries.

Well, yes, but you see, they used slaves. And slavery is so inhumane. This makes it SO much more interesting...hey, they're in line to die anyway, why not make it interesting? A little glory before you go out, a little cheering, maybe we could even vote for our favorite gladiator to get a few extra months on the 'row

EDIT: After rereading the posts, I have decided that the appeals process is also part of the attempt to make it humane, and thus part of the problem
Oh yes, making sure that a person is guilty before killing them for a crime is definitely part of the problem.

This is true. So maybe stage death row gladiatorial combats? Think of the viewer ratings...

Oh I can smell lucrative business already

EDIT: After rereading the posts, I have decided that the appeals process is also part of the attempt to make it humane, and thus part of the problem

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/HPM/BM1162~Crazy-Doesn-t-Cover-It-Posters.jpg

However, I am against it, as it is cruel and unusual, and you can't bring back a wrongfully executed person from the dead.
and you can't give back the time lost to those who were wrongfully incarcerated.

and you can't give back the time lost to those who were wrongfully incarcerated.

True but at least all they lost was time... they still have a chance to live happily after release.

True but at least all they lost was time... they still have a chance to live happily after release.

And economic compensation helps a bit, takes the edge off...

And sons will still have their fathers, wives their husbands etc.

To me this is another reason why the DP needs to stay in place. what say you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

The "legal" mass genocide of a population by the State cuts down on crime. Less people means less crime occurs. Why don't we just kill everyone and get rid of crime that way? :headbang:

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/HPM/BM1162~Crazy-Doesn-t-Cover-It-Posters.jpg

YAY! Happy Bunny!

*loves Happy Bunny* :)

Not until the Justice System is 100% accurate. Sorry.:)
And even then, no one is beyond redemption. No study about the effectiveness of the death penalty could make me in favor of it.
As it's already been said, public torturing of thieves would probably cut down on thievery. Doesn't make it right.

And economic compensation helps a bit, takes the edge off...

And sons will still have their fathers, wives their husbands etc.

actually... that is not a given.
saw two stories on Dateline.

One was a man wrongfully accused of sexually abusing children. he was convicted with several others suspected of being part of a "ring of molesters". years after he got out, his son still won't speak to him, the Son was still convinced that his father is a child rapist because of the trial and incarceration. He would give up the Hundred of thousands of dollars to take his son fishing, just once, like his father took him.

another story of a man wrongfully incarcerated had his wife leave him after she worked hard for his release... even to the point of finding the real killer for the police. but due to the hardships she endured and the struggle to earn his release, that changed their relationship to the point where they were no longer Husband and Wife. they are/were still good friends, but she no longer felt the love that she did when they got married.

and there were other stories of people still being seen as the convict of the crime that they were exhonerated from. their lives shattered and they end up struggling to rebuild the life that was taken from them.

EDIT: I am in no way saying the DP is better. my stance is that sometimes... SOMETIMES... the DP should be used. but only in "Special" cases.

I don't know if this has been mentioned already (sorry, I did not read the 6+ pages of replies), but Italian lifers have recently asked for the death penalty to be reinstated, because, to quote one of them, "I would like to die once". That may not be a direct quote, it's from memory, but the gist was they felt a life sentence was just a slow death, whereas the death penalty was quick. To me, that does not make it any less immoral, but it does make the issue a little fuzzier.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/HPM/BM1162~Crazy-Doesn-t-Cover-It-Posters.jpg

Well, hey, they're bringing back chariot races...why not the other exciting blood-pumping performances? I was born in the wrong era, I swear...

studies also say that death deters life and life is a fundamental, inalienable human right.

YAY! Happy Bunny!

*loves Happy Bunny* :)

I figured you would :)

I don't know if this has been mentioned already (sorry, I did not read the 6+ pages of replies), but Italian lifers have recently asked for the death penalty to be reinstated, because, to quote one of them, "I would like to die once". That may not be a direct quote, it's from memory, but the gist was they felt a life sentence was just a slow death, whereas the death penalty was quick. To me, that does not make it any less immoral, but it does make the issue a little fuzzier.
I've always felt it was wrong to condemn a person to living out the rest of their lives in a cage. (read: Life without the possiblity of parole.) for all the talk of rights and freedoms, people think that living in a cage without some of the basic freedoms those outside enjoy and will never again enjoy is better than being removed permenatly and without the suffering.

think about it. in Prision, you don't have...
1) Right to Privacy
2) Freedom of Choice
3) Freedom from searches and sezures
4) Freedom of Speech (by way of being able to call anyone, anytime)
5) The ability to vote (most prisioners can't vote)
6) The Freedom to have children (wasn't there some case a while back where a female prisioner was punished for sneaking in her lover's sperm to be impregnated?)
7) Right to ownership

all those things that people here say they would rather die than live without are actually forcing others to live without those rights and freedoms and calling it moral and humane. its only one ticket and the price of admission of being a zoo.

note, this is only talking about lifers. those with no chance of seeing the world outside, without the means of a prision break.

I've always felt it was wrong to condemn a person to living out the rest of their lives in a cage. (read: Life without the possiblity of parole.) for all the talk of rights and freedoms, people think that living in a cage without some of the basic freedoms those outside enjoy and will never again enjoy is better than being removed permenatly and without the suffering.

think about it. in Prision, you don't have...
1) Right to Privacy
2) Freedom of Choice
3) Freedom from searches and sezures
4) Freedom of Speech (by way of being able to call anyone, anytime)
5) The ability to vote (most prisioners can't vote)
6) The Freedom to have children (wasn't there some case a while back where a female prisioner was punished for sneaking in her lover's sperm to be impregnated?)
7) Right to ownership

all those things that people here say they would rather die than live without are actually forcing others to live without those rights and freedoms and calling it moral and humane. its only one ticket and the price of admission of being a zoo.

note, this is only talking about lifers. those with no chance of seeing the world outside, without the means of a prision break.

And such is the problem of having a prison system based on deterrence and vengeance rather than rehabilitation and repayment.

And such is the problem of having a prison system based on deterrence and vengeance rather than rehabilitation and repayment.

How many "lifers" are in the Rehabilitation/Repayment prision system?

http://bubba1982.jumbahost.com/main.php/d/473-1/lolcat.jpg

Cute kitty. :)

Violent crime in the US plummeted from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s because of the dismantling of centralized government housing projects.

Police presence, community involvement, etc., had zero to do with it.
and... according to you... neither was the removal of DP...

I don't know if this has been mentioned already (sorry, I did not read the 6+ pages of replies), but Italian lifers have recently asked for the death penalty to be reinstated, because, to quote one of them, "I would like to die once". That may not be a direct quote, it's from memory, but the gist was they felt a life sentence was just a slow death, whereas the death penalty was quick. To me, that does not make it any less immoral, but it does make the issue a little fuzzier.

Not to be gross about it, but those Italian lifers have an option--they can take matters into their own hands if they're serious about wanting to die once. I have no problem with people taking their own lives--I have a serious problem with the state doing it for them.

Surely you can't be serious.
He is serious and don't call me Shirley.

Well, yes, but you see, they used slaves. And slavery is so inhumane. This makes it SO much more interesting...hey, they're in line to die anyway, why not make it interesting? A little glory before you go out, a little cheering, maybe we could even vote for our favorite gladiator to get a few extra months on the 'row
they weren't all slaves. A good many of them were convicted criminals, sentenced to fight to the death in the arena.
Your grasp of ancient history is on par with your grasp of death penalty arguments.

I'll support death penalty...

IF, and ONLY if, whenever an innocent is found to get it, the judge, the prosecutor and the jury dies for killing a man.

Deal?

I'll support death penalty...

IF, and ONLY if, whenever an innocent is found to get it, the judge, the prosecutor and the jury dies for killing a man.

Deal?

I have a better idea. If we get rid of everyone, there won't be any crime.

Of course, there won't be anything left of civilization or humanity, but those are the breaks, eh?

I have a better idea. If we get rid of everyone, there won't be any crime.

Of course, there won't be anything left of civilization or humanity, but those are the breaks, eh?

Well, my idea makes sense. Death penalty applies to murder, right? The people that got a man executed committed murder, right? So, they die. Should the man have found to be guilty afterwards, the judge and jury that acquitted the man die as well. And on and on until it gets through some people's minds that irreversible penalties for crimes are a bad idea!

Well, my idea makes sense. Death penalty applies to murder, right? The people that got a man executed committed murder, right? So, they die. Should the man have found to be guilty afterwards, the judge and jury that acquitted the man die as well. And on and on until it gets through some people's minds that irreversible penalties for crimes are a bad idea!

Say you make a mistake in your system of no death penalty, and a guy is wrongly imprisoned for 20 years.

How do you give him his 20 years back? Eh?

Say you make a mistake in your system of no death penalty, and a guy is wrongly imprisoned for 20 years.

How do you give him his 20 years back? Eh?

You can make some reparations towards the person. You can pay them lots (and lots) of cash and so on. You can free the person and let them walk. Can you do that to a dead person?

You can make some reparations towards the person. You can pay them lots (and lots) of cash and so on. Can you do that to a dead person?

I don't think money makes you younger, or gives you back your previous life.

You go to prison for 20 years - your wife divorces you, your kids grow up and are ashamed of you (and don't visit).

And then they release you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

probably far more cruel than killing him...

I don't think money makes you younger, or gives you back your previous life.

You go to prison for 20 years - your wife divorces you, your kids grow up and are ashamed of you (and don't visit).

And then they release you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

probably far more cruel than killing him...

Then the person gets the option to die or not and so on. Death penalty offers NO possibility of reparation, prison does. That's the point.

Each execution deters 18 murders? I laugh at that statistic. That means you'd only need to execute 5% of murderers to completely eliminate murder as a crime altogether.

I feel a certain quote is appropriate here.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I feel a certain quote is appropriate here.careful with that quote TID... after all, statistics are also used to prove that DP doesn't deter crime. ;)

Then the person gets the option to die or not and so on. Death penalty offers NO possibility of reparation, prison does. That's the point.

actually, Reparation can be made to the surviving members of his/her immediate family.

the name can be restored honor-wise, but since the majority of people tend not to hold family members with the same contempt as those who committed the crime, they (family members) are not as affected as someone who has to live with what they experienced.

Say you make a mistake in your system of no death penalty, and a guy is wrongly imprisoned for 20 years.

How do you give him his 20 years back? Eh?
You don't. But that's what economic compensation is meant to do - go some way to repair the damage.

But yes, we know, you'll rather die than serve 20 years in prison and be released afterwards and possibly live another 30 - 40 years...
actually, Reparation can be made to the surviving members of his/her immediate family.

the name can be restored honor-wise, but since the majority of people tend not to hold family members with the same contempt as those who committed the crime, they (family members) are not as affected as someone who has to live with what they experienced.
Doesn't help the dead guy.

Doesn't help the dead guy.neither does a paltry check and saying 'sorry' help those who were wrongfully incarcerated and lost everything.

neither does a paltry check and saying 'sorry' help those who were wrongfully incarcerated and lost everything.

Will you try to argue with a straight face that a life you can rebuild (Especially with the reparation money) is the same end result as a life you can't due to untimely demise caused by a psychopathic DA, an incompetent judge, and bloodthirsty jurors?

actually, Reparation can be made to the surviving members of his/her immediate family.

I want to see the guy that got wrongfully executed take a step out of the prison and a whiff of fresh air again. Until then, you have nothing to offer. My alternative offer still stands, though: Death penalty for the DA, jury and judge in case of a wrongful execution.

neither does a paltry check and saying 'sorry' help those who were wrongfully incarcerated and lost everything.

No but he gets something that the dead guy does not, a chance, at a better life

neither does a paltry check and saying 'sorry' help those who were wrongfully incarcerated and lost everything.

Actually, it does. It helps them by giving them a chance to rebuild their lives and move on. Alive.