Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it could simply be that those southern states have a more violent culture and without the death penalty the crime rates of those respective states would be even higher than they are with the death penalty.
But yeah, I generally agree that deterrence through the threat of death is generally ineffective. Although harvesting the organs of death row inmates benefits all, including the inmates.
I know for a fact that not everyone convicted will be guilty. I'm arguing the effectiveness as a deterrent based on people knowing "If you murder someone, you yourself are going to be killed".
Do you have any proof that it is an effective deterrent at all? Or are you just saying that because of a personal belief? Here are some sources suggesting that you may be wrong:
We have surveyed data on the time series of executions and homicides in the United States, compared the United States with Canada, compared non death penalty states with executing states, analyzed the effects of the judicial experiments provided by the Furman and Gregg decisions comparing affected states with unaffected states, surveyed the state panel data since 1934, assessed a range of instrumental variables approaches, and analyzed two recent state specific execution moratoria. None of these approaches suggested that the death penalty has large effects on the murder rate.
". . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment."
"Violent punishment as a deterrent produces a society of one-handed people. Ruling through fear is an unacceptable form of government. The ends -- having a (superficially) crime-free society, do not justify the means (human rights violations)."
I'd have to disagree with you there, Jason. Crime-free is crime-free, superficial or not. A crime-free status is a huge plus to any society and benefits the vast majority of people. If achieving it means that a few people have to suffer, isn't it worth it?
Of course it doesn't . . . thank you Mr. Statistics.
You'll note that I never said anything about causation. I merely said that this is enough evidence for me to say "I absolutely think the death penalty is not a deterrence for Murder." If the strongest evidence points towards one hypothesis . . .
Of course it doesn't . . . thank you Mr. Statistics.
You'll note that I never said anything about causation. I merely said that this is enough evidence formeto say "I absolutely think the death penalty is not a deterrence for Murder." If the strongest evidence points towards one hypothesis . . .
Yes, but that statistic is not even necessarily evidence against the deterrent effect of the death penalty, it's entirely possible that the murder rate in those states would be even higher if not for the death penalty. I don't think that's true, but it's not an unreasonable assertion.
Yes, but that statistic is not even necessarily evidence against the deterrent effect of the death penalty, it's entirely possible that the murder rate in those states would be even higher if not for the death penalty. I don't think that's true, but it's not an unreasonable assertion.
Actually he doesn't have to provide evidence against the deterrent effect because that is the default stance, which is there is no correlation between death penalty implementation and a lowering in murder rates. He never said that no death penalty would lower crime rates, he just pointed out that there was no reason to believe that the death penalty had any effect on murder rates. The onus is on you my friend to provide us evidence to the contrary.
A crime-free status is a huge plus to any society and benefits the vast majority of people. If achieving it means that a few people have to suffer, isn't it worth it?
What if you or one of your loved ones were the ones suffering? Would it still be worth it?
Do you have any proof that it is an effective deterrent at all? Or are you just saying that because of a personal belief?
Definitely my own personal belief. I stated on previous post that these were my assumptions, based I what I was thinking. I look at all three links you provided and came to a realization while reading them: How does not having the death penalty decrease the likelihood of murder? It seems to go against common sense. I do have to admit I only read about 20-30 pages of the Stamford Law paper, and I have my own personal bias toward Amnesty International. But from what I read of the other two links it talks about each state within our system. In the Stamford law article you linked to, I think I remember reading about statics on all the states that both instated and abolished the death penalty, and for the most part homicides rates went down both times. My argument is that the Death Penalty is not a good determent in a system where the guilty (and I use that to avoid the whole accused/morality argument) have a fairly good chance of avoiding having that punishment applied to them. You most likely have read the entire article, opposed to myself. Does it mention death penalty within system were people are in a different law system? I'm not even gonna go as far as the whole "guilty until innocent" systems, instead possibly any system that the guilty have a higher probability of actually receiving the death penalty? The best way to either prove or disprove my point would be to compare two systems that both have the death penalty, but with one having a much higher chance of receiving it.
cosmicenema: In response to your statistical evidence, of course the results may suggest that the death penalty is less than effective. That's because it's talking about OUR death penalty. A painless death is hardly as much of a deterrent as a horrible death.
Jason: Care to provide examples of how the methods of execution used in the Middle East come even close to what I'm supporting? As far as I can tell, the only thing stupid about some of their executions are the reasons why they occur . . .
hungryjoe: Of course. I've already said that the suffering of the individual is a small price to pay, even if that individual would be me. I wouldn't be so hypocritical as to offer a system I wouldn't be willing to be subject to.
The only people who will be deterred by something like the death penalty are the seasoned criminals. We're talking about people who are committing crimes in a well thought-out intentional manner. These are the people who are taking the consequences into consideration before they do the deed. I have a feeling that the vast majority of murders and such are crimes of passion or crimes of crazy people. These types of people can not be stopped by any sort of future consequences, especially not the crazy people. If we were having a problem of too many assassins and hit-men, then maybe the death penalty would be a better idea. Too bad we are dealing with people who do not have all of their mental and emotional faculties in order, so we can't possibly deter them no matter what we do.
Some of you may be surprised but I am against the death penalty as it is currently employed in the USA.
1. If you know that killing one person will lead to the death penalty why stop there? You might as well kill a whole bunch of people!
2. Appeals, appeals, appeals. If you are going to condemn someone to death you better have all your ducks in a row so that there will not be a lengthy (expensive) appeals process that drags on forever.
3. Expensive. Why do we fool around with all of the "humane" death devices. If someone deserves to die why do we not just take them around back and put a bullet in their head?
4. Not evenly applied. This is more about all criminal punishments in the American penal system. Why does the crime of pirating an mp3 file carry the same punishment as involuntary manslaughter? Punishments are not a deterrent when they are all set to high.
"Hey Joe, you just pirated that mp3! I'm going to call the RIAA on your ass." "Well then I'll just have to kill you." "What? Why?" "Because the penalty for pirating an mp3 is higher than that of murder!"
(yeah it's an exaggeration but you get my point.)
As for the Constitution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment... I think that was in reference to the stocks and drawing and quartering people. It was also designed to to say, "we can lock you in this cell or chain you to the wall but we can't hang you upside for 12 hours a day while we do it."
What if the trial prosecutor wanted the Attorney General to review your death penalty case because he didn't believe that the death penalty was appropriate due to forensic shenanigans. How long do you think the Attorney General would review the case? Maybe 10 minutes if you're lucky.
cosmicenema: In response to your statistical evidence, of course the results may suggest that the death penalty is less than effective. That's because it's talking about OUR death penalty. A painless death is hardly as much of a deterrent as a horrible death.
We have this funny part of the constitution that guarantees us free from "cruel and unusual punishment" by our government. It seems that any method of execution that could be described as "a horrible death" would also necessarily be described as "cruel" or "unusual" . . . or both.
Comments
But yeah, I generally agree that deterrence through the threat of death is generally ineffective. Although harvesting the organs of death row inmates benefits all, including the inmates.
You'll note that I never said anything about causation. I merely said that this is enough evidence for me to say "I absolutely think the death penalty is not a deterrence for Murder." If the strongest evidence points towards one hypothesis . . .
Jason: Care to provide examples of how the methods of execution used in the Middle East come even close to what I'm supporting? As far as I can tell, the only thing stupid about some of their executions are the reasons why they occur . . .
hungryjoe: Of course. I've already said that the suffering of the individual is a small price to pay, even if that individual would be me. I wouldn't be so hypocritical as to offer a system I wouldn't be willing to be subject to.
1. If you know that killing one person will lead to the death penalty why stop there? You might as well kill a whole bunch of people!
2. Appeals, appeals, appeals. If you are going to condemn someone to death you better have all your ducks in a row so that there will not be a lengthy (expensive) appeals process that drags on forever.
3. Expensive. Why do we fool around with all of the "humane" death devices. If someone deserves to die why do we not just take them around back and put a bullet in their head?
4. Not evenly applied. This is more about all criminal punishments in the American penal system. Why does the crime of pirating an mp3 file carry the same punishment as involuntary manslaughter? Punishments are not a deterrent when they are all set to high.
"Hey Joe, you just pirated that mp3! I'm going to call the RIAA on your ass."
"Well then I'll just have to kill you."
"What? Why?"
"Because the penalty for pirating an mp3 is higher than that of murder!"
(yeah it's an exaggeration but you get my point.)
As for the Constitution's protection against cruel and unusual punishment... I think that was in reference to the stocks and drawing and quartering people. It was also designed to to say, "we can lock you in this cell or chain you to the wall but we can't hang you upside for 12 hours a day while we do it."
Then, when he's asked about it by Congress whiles he's under oath he'll say he doesn't remember your case at all.