Another Libertarian theory fails in experimental reality.

[MSimon]

You yourself produced the WRONG argument earlier that the areas with death penalty had a lower crime rate. You were wrong!

You're having a senior moment, Skippy. I didn't offer any sort of statistical analysis. All I did was state what I thought were undisputed facts. Now that the National Academies are denying the plain reading of the data--data that so far as I know was beyond dispute until 2012, I guess we're stuck. But traditionally there has been little question of the deterence value of the death penalty and one doesn't need more than common sense, and the testimony of a proper sampling of inmates to have clear answers.

My guess is the National Academies produced a study for political reasons specifically to deny the standing evidence.

And no Skippy, just as I've already said, you cannot read data like that. Only people looking to decieve you will pretend such a simple-minded approach to data is a useful option. Do some states with higher murder rates have them because they have the death pernalty, or do they have the death penalty because their unique culture creates a higher murder rate? As I said, at best all you can get is a correlation and not even that comes from that surface level of data. For useful data you have to have many more controls. Completely missing is the best sort of data that comes when a state changed from one to the other and then you compare. It's that sort of data that is the most trustworthy and for exmaple, gives the best evidence that concealed carry permits reduce crime.

No my point was that you can NOT make any conclusions either way. It is NOT as clear as you say that the death penalty has any effect either way.
You were the one who stated that it had. I explicitely kept this off the topic because I felt that it was NOT as clear as the fact that 5 years of life in freedom for an innocent man are better than 0 years of life when he has been executed.
It is a matter of simple math. By your logic anyone who has ever been incarcerated innocently and later released would have been just as happy, had he been executed.
You are sounding like one could have just as well let the innocent people that Saddam Hussein had in his prisons die there, since noone cant give them their lost years back anyway.
It makes no sense!!!

A man with REAL faith needs neither logic nor reason. I have never heard of Faith Based Engineering. I have heard of Faith Based Government. My understanding is that Faith Based Government does not adapt well to changing conditions.

There are compensations I guess. In the Middle East they hang gays - probably for the deterrent value - and behead dopers - no doubt because it makes the ones not yet caught quit. Except they always seem to be able to find new ones for the yearly beheadings. Perhaps they just accuse the inconvenient of dope use. Who would know?

[Stubby]

88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

The criminologists surveyed included - 1) Fellows in the American Society of Criminology (ASC), (2) Winners of the ASC’s Sutherland Award, the highest award given by that organization for contributions to criminological theory, or (3) Presidents of the ASC between 1997 and the present. Those presidents before 1997 had been included in the prior survey. Respondents were asked to base their answers on existing empirical research, not their views on capital punishment.

Nearly 78% of those surveyed said that having the death penalty in a state does not lower the murder rate. In addition, 91% of respondents said politicians support the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime – and 75% said that it distracts legislatures on the state and national level from focusing on real solutions to crime problems. Over all, 94% agreed that there was little [empirical] evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And 90% said the death penalty had little effect overall on the committing of murder. Additionally, 91.6% said that increasing the frequency of executions would not add a deterrent effect, and 87.6% said that speeding up executions wouldn't work either.

(the 1996 survey had very similar results)

bold emphasis is mine

[Stubby]

Proponents base their views on many studies:

Isaac Erlich's study

Which was the basis for reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. One of his statements was that earlier studies showing the opposite effect might have been premature.

Mocan-Gittings study?

They examined 6,143 death sentences imposed in the United States between 1977 and 1997, and built a
data set with 1,050 observations (one observation per state for twenty-one
years). Their results indicated that each execution resulted in five fewer
homicides, and each commutation of a death sentence to a long or life
prison term resulted in five additional homicides. Further, each additional
removal from death row—primarily occurring when appellate courts vacate
death sentences that were imposed with various improprieties by trial
courts—resulted in one additional homicide.

Given this kind of data, who would doubt the deterrence factor of the death penalty? Hell even pardoning innocent people killed people.

Or the Emory studies

which specifically looked at the 1972-1976 moratorium period and its affect on murder rates.
They conclude that up to 18 homicides are prevented by each execution.

Again given this kind of data, who could argue against the best interests of society?

Well it seems that Erlich's methodology was flawed. At least the National Academy Of Science thought so.
The Mocan-Gittings study was reviewed by criminologists and they found errors specially with dealing with date from states having no executions in a given year. It seems that some of the calculations ended up dividing by zero. To overcome this, M&G divided by .99 instead. When the calculations were redone with 0.01, the deterrence factor disappeared.
The Emory studies are interesting in that the murder rates for 1972-1976 were higher and then dipped after the reintroduction of capital punishment. I also note that the homicide rate was even higher in 1980 and there was another spike in 1991 as high 1973.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Were there 2 other moratoriums in effect or is something else at work?

[Stubby]

I guess the big question is

Are we going to believe economists (pro) or criminologists (con) regarding the issue of deterrence?

[GIThruster]

I think there are a lot more "big questions" than that. But just to address your big question:

You're posing a false dilemma. The choice of who's opinion to take seriously is not between criminologists and economists. It's between progressives and traditionalists. Furthermore, you're asking the wrong question.

It has been in fashion for criminologists to ascribe to the nurturing function and theory of punishment now for about 60-70 years. Just to recap, theories of justice fall into about 5 categories. There is the retributional, the debt to society theory, retaliation theory, utilitarian theory and nurturing/reform theory. Most people ascribe to more than one of these theories.

The last of these holds that punishment's entire purpose is to reform the criminal so they become a positive participant in society. Despite the data is against them, they believe the goal of all incarceration is to reform the criminal so that when they are released into society, they will not offend again. The trouble is the sheer numbers of repeat offenders make this theory seem oddly out of touch.

Now you want to site criminologists as authorities on the question of capital punishment and I'm here to tell you, this is the very worst group to select as an authority figure. You're talking about a group of people who are all reading the same books, all ascribing to the same broken theory, all ignoring the facts of life as regards the numbers of repeat offenders and the inability of the justice system to "fix" morally broken individuals. This is the group reponsible for the broken system we now have and you want to make them authorities about the theories behind their broken system.

Are you mad?

Just noting, it absolutely must be a very recent thing that studies are being shopped around to promote this progressive argument against capital punishment. As I explained, even the most hard nosed progressives had all admitted the utilitarian function of the death penelty based on the statistical analysis for many years. You have a 2012 study telling us to ignore those studies because 3 people say they are flawed. To know what to make of their assetion, we would need to do our own very thorough analysis of their study, and not being trained sociologists, we'd find that not in our skill set. So that National Academies study basically shuts down any real appeal to statistical analysis. Cleverly done, progressives.

But the fact remains, if it isn't obvious to you that the death penalty is a strong deterent, you lack common sense. That is obviously the opinion of the tens of thousands of criminals surveyed on this over the years, and it is that group's opinion that matters. So given the National Academy has rendered the real studies done over the decades all null and void, and given social pressures and fashion have made criminologists all susceptible to the same obviously and stupidly wrong theory, all you have left is common sense. So the big queston is:

do you have any common sense?

And just to reiterate, when you want to replace 6,000 years of human behavior with something new and "progressive" it is clearly your responsibility to show how your offer progress over that tradition. The onus is clearly on anyone who wants to remove capital punishment to show this is a superior justice system measure. You obviously have not made that case, and having 3 people from the National Academies say they don't like the studies they've seen, is not a reason to remove the death penalty.

[Skipjack]

I think that the whole discussion about whether the death penalty increases or decreases violent crime is going nowhere. It is almost religious. Plus, I dont believe in the possibility of reintegrating violent people into society. There is a genetical factor to this and prison wont make these criminals better people.
In fact, here in Austria I am arguing against the so called "humane punishment" idea of the left.
BUT, that is completely irrelevant for the discussion of the death penalty. When I was young, I used to be for the death penalty. I changed my mind, when I realized how many mistakes are made by the system all the time. I find the killing of innocent people unacceptable.

[Diogenes]

Regarding the death penalty being a deterrent. This statistic here shows no clear correllation either way (states without DP actually seem to have a lower rate, but that might be deceiving):
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder- ... -and-state

I would expect that every person who posts on this website understands what is Positive and Negative feedback. In controlled systems, negative feedback is a good thing, but just having negative feedback isn't the only requirement. You have to deal with latency and magnitude.


A negative feedback signal which is too weak won't correct the system properly. A negative feedback signal which has too much latency also won't correct the system properly.


Do you know where I'm going with this, or do I have to spell it out?

[Diogenes]

Assassination Attempt on FDR (1933): On February 15, 1933, President-elect Franklin D. Roosevelt had just sat down after giving a speech at the Bayfront Park in Miami, Florida when five shots rang out. Giuseppe Zangara, an Italian immigrant and unemployed bricklayer, had emptied his .32 caliber pistol while aiming the best he could at FDR while standing on a wobbly chair about 25 feet away. Although none of the shots hit FDR, Chicago's Mayor Anton Cermak was mortally hit in the stomach and four others received minor injuries.

In an interview with officials after the shooting, Zangara stated that he wanted to kill FDR because he blamed FDR and all rich people and capitalists for his chronic stomach pain. After Cermak died of his wounds on March 6, 1933 (19 days after the shooting), Zangara was charged with first-degree murder. Zangara pleaded guilty to the charge and was then sentenced to death.
On March 20, 1933, Zangara died in the electric chair.

This is how you create a deterrence effect.

[Diogenes]

I think that the whole discussion about whether the death penalty increases or decreases violent crime is going nowhere. It is almost religious. Plus, I dont believe in the possibility of reintegrating violent people into society. There is a genetical factor to this and prison wont make these criminals better people.
In fact, here in Austria I am arguing against the so called "humane punishment" idea of the left.
BUT, that is completely irrelevant for the discussion of the death penalty. When I was young, I used to be for the death penalty. I changed my mind, when I realized how many mistakes are made by the system all the time. I find the killing of innocent people unacceptable.

As do I. The legal system should only utilize the death penalty when the certainty of guilt is unquestionable.


Jurors for death penalty cases ought not be made up of just the people too stupid to dodge jury duty. There ought to be competency requirements for jurors when a death penalty case is being tried. Idiots, such as were on the O.J. Simpon murder trial, should never be permitted as jurors on serious cases.

[williatw]

Jurors for death penalty cases ought not be made up of just the people too stupid to dodge jury duty. There ought to be competency requirements for jurors when a death penalty case is being tried. Idiots, such as were on the O.J. Simpon murder trial, should never be permitted as jurors on serious cases.

Actually I think OJ was possibly innocent of the murders of Nicolle Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. That rather it was his son, Jason Simpson who did it, and OJ helped him cover it up after the fact.


http://www.dallasobserver.com/2001-04-1 ... tial/full/

He Jason was 24 yr old muscular 511 over 200lbs, (not a 46 yr old ex-footballer with arthritic knees) at the time with a boatload of violence issues, and was at the time off his meds. Had allegedly some kind of strange obsession with Nicole his former stepmom. He also had access to a set of personal chef's knives he owned (he was a chef), his alibi at the time didn't check out. He was also ex-navy trained in hand to hand combat; OJ as far as I know had no particular experience with knives; also heard he was actually rather squeamish at the sight of blood.

[Skipjack]

I think that the whole discussion about whether the death penalty increases or decreases violent crime is going nowhere. It is almost religious. Plus, I dont believe in the possibility of reintegrating violent people into society. There is a genetical factor to this and prison wont make these criminals better people.
In fact, here in Austria I am arguing against the so called "humane punishment" idea of the left.
BUT, that is completely irrelevant for the discussion of the death penalty. When I was young, I used to be for the death penalty. I changed my mind, when I realized how many mistakes are made by the system all the time. I find the killing of innocent people unacceptable.

As do I. The legal system should only utilize the death penalty when the certainty of guilt is unquestionable.


Jurors for death penalty cases ought not be made up of just the people too stupid to dodge jury duty. There ought to be competency requirements for jurors when a death penalty case is being tried. Idiots, such as were on the O.J. Simpon murder trial, should never be permitted as jurors on serious cases.

The problem is that today a court case can be an extremely complex matter with evidence that is hard to understand and weight even by smart and semi informed people. One example is the perceived importance and validity of DNA evidence, the other of fingerprints. There is (finally) more effort under way to scientifically validate and evaluate the various forensic methods commonly used by investigators today. Some of the conclusions of this effort have been rather shocking, putting a lot of what has been considered safe evidence for decades into question.
I currently have no way of knowing the guilt of a person with 100% certainty.
Witnesses can be wrong, testimonies can be coerced or bought, investigators can be lazy and sloppy, or just too eager to finish a case. Prosecutors can be greedy for success and defense lawyers can be incompetent. Jurors are generally to be considered fallible and only capable of understanding the most obvious and simple cases and even then they will most likely fail for so many reasons. E.g. they are not paying attention, because they need to be with their work and just want to get this over with as quickly as possible. Especially in long high profile cases, jurors are known to just go along with the flow to accelerate matters, sometimes pressured by their peers, who loose business every day the stay there. Some might even been bribed. I once believe in the system and was pro capital punishment. In the last 20 years I have learned that the system is flawed and that humans are flawed. They can not be trusted to make the right call.

[GIThruster]

I currently have no way of knowing the guilt of a person with 100% certainty.

I think this is the crux of the issue for most people. The mere thought that they could be wrong and have a person executed is so distainful that it compels them because of their better natures to hold this position. The problem comes that if you consider long and hard what prison time means, you come up with exactly the same outcome--an unwillingness to cause that suffering. If people knew just how harsh prison life is, and the social pressures on those who have been convicted, and even from their own families, they feel sorry for the suffering--and well we should.

But ya know. . .if you think long and hard on the suffering caused a Perdue chicken, you'll be tempted to become Vegan too. Sooner or later you need to learn to live with tension and recognize life is not perfect and we are all responsible in part for the imperfections. I'm sorry that chickens have miserable lives but I'm not giving up eatting chicken. I'm sorry that criminals suffer so much from their punishments, but we need to punish them for lots of reasons. I'm sorry some innocent people will die as result of the imperfections in the justice system, but we need execution as a deterent, not to mention the fact that alternate theories of justice such as social contract and retributive justice require it.

The first time you meet someone whose family is slaughtered by a couple bad guys with whom there is no doubt of their guilt, that little voice inside your head is gonna be fairly shouting "these guys need to die". The thing to remember is, this is not about you, or however sophisticated you might like to deem yourself, how above retaliation you are, etc. It is about justice.

[Skipjack]

I currently have no way of knowing the guilt of a person with 100% certainty.

I think this is the crux of the issue for most people. The mere thought that they could be wrong and have a person executed is so distainful that it compels them because of their better natures to hold this position. The problem comes that if you consider long and hard what prison time means, you come up with exactly the same outcome--an unwillingness to cause that suffering. If people knew just how harsh prison life is, and the social pressures on those who have been convicted, and even from their own families, they feel sorry for the suffering--and well we should.

But ya know. . .if you think long and hard on the suffering caused a Perdue chicken, you'll be tempted to become Vegan too. Sooner or later you need to learn to live with tension and recognize life is not perfect and we are all responsible in part for the imperfections. I'm sorry that chickens have miserable lives but I'm not giving up eatting chicken. I'm sorry that criminals suffer so much from their punishments, but we need to punish them for lots of reasons. I'm sorry some innocent people will die as result of the imperfections in the justice system, but we need execution as a deterent, not to mention the fact that alternate theories of justice such as social contract and retributive justice require it.

The first time you meet someone whose family is slaughtered by a couple bad guys with whom there is no doubt of their guilt, that little voice inside your head is gonna be fairly shouting "these guys need to die". The thing to remember is, this is not about you, or however sophisticated you might like to deem yourself, how above retaliation you are, etc. It is about justice.

Prison life is horrible and hard, especially in the US. I agree with you on that. But, at least you can still have some bits of a life after you are released and you might even get the satisfaction of seeing the real killer convicted. When you are dead, you wont get either of that. You will never never know the outcome. Plus, once someone has been executed, the chances of a case getting reexamined, even in the light of new evidence are basically zero.

[KitemanSA]

This is how you create a deterrence effect.

Who did it deter?

[Stubby]

In a way digot is right, the Emory studies showed more deterrence when the wait times post-trial-pre-execution where shorter. But then one of researchers of the Emory studies, through what I hope is a true scientist's conscience, further looked at why their data broke down for some states, was neutral for most states and positive for some states.

In contrast to the economic studies [PRO], recent studies by sociologists and
law professors [CON] have reached an opposite conclusion. The studies are often
restricted to a single state or small group of states rather than economists’
examination of the average for the nation as a whole. They usually find no
deterrence. Death penalty opponents cite these studies.
Each group tends to ignore the other’s research. In this paper, I reconcile
the results and show that both conclusions can be correct.

Deterrence is the single most cited reason for capital punishment.
According to the new research, deterrence really depends on the number of executions per year. States like Texas have more of a deterrent than ones like Utah.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

in other words, in order for deterrence to even begin to overcome the moral problem of executing innocent citizens, each state would have to set a quota system to achieve the minimum executions for deterrence.

Using a large data set of all U.S. counties from 1977 to 1996, I have examined
whether capital punishment’s impact on murder rates differs among
states. The results are striking. Of the twenty-seven states in which at least
one execution occurred during the sample period, capital punishment deters
murder in only six states. In contrast, in thirteen states, or more than twice
as many, capital punishment actually increases murder. In eight states, capital
punishment has no effect on the murder rate. Equivalently, in only
twenty-two percent of states did executions have a deterrent effect. In contrast,
executions induced additional murders in forty-eight percent of states.
Executions created no deterrence in seventy-eight percent of states. These
results are generally robust in models using data from other time periods
and state-level data.