The Death Penalty

[jetmonkey]

Originally Posted by High EGT

You might get a disagreement from someone whose visited or are from certain counties like Saudi Arabia who practice public executions.

I believe the studies were based soley on data from the US. Also, the crime increase was a temporary phenomenon.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by edinsomd

What do you have against circumstantial evidence? For example, I hear a gunshot, and open a door. There you stand with a smoking gun in your hand, and a dead body is on the floor. I didn't actually see you pull the trigger, but the circumstances leave little doubt as to what occurred.
Ed

...and Vince Bugliotti, (Manson) said he preferred having circumstantial evidence over a witness every time; circumstances are what they are. Witnesses change their minds, don't have a clear picture to begin with, make mistakes.

It's amazing how perceptions work; TV lawyers make us think 'circumstantial' is suspect evidence when, in fact, it is the most important and reliable evidence.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by edinsomd

What do you have against circumstantial evidence? For example, I hear a gunshot, and open a door. There you stand with a smoking gun in your hand, and a dead body is on the floor. I didn't actually see you pull the trigger, but the circumstances leave little doubt as to what occurred.
Ed

Little doubt might be left but is it unreasonable to say for certain that the fatal shot came from that smoking gun, maybe. That would be why there would be physical evidence used to validate the circumstantial evidence, ballistics, GSR, etc. and move it beyond reasonable doubt.

[edinsomd]

Originally Posted by Ken King

Little doubt might be left but is it unreasonable to say for certain that the fatal shot came from that smoking gun, maybe. That would be why there would be physical evidence used to validate the circumstantial evidence, ballistics, GSR, etc. and move it beyond reasonable doubt.

Of course. That’s why detectives get the big bucks! I was attempting to give an example of circumstantial evidence, which could be used in conjunction with physical evidence, to get a conviction without an eye-witness.
Ed

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally Posted by edinsomd

Of course. That’s why detectives get the big bucks! I was attempting to give an example of circumstantial evidence, which could be used in conjunction with physical evidence, to get a conviction without an eye-witness.
Ed

If that was what you were attempting then you missed it. It seemed to me that you were endorsing the use of circumstantial evidence to replace physical evidence for obtaining a conviction carrying a death penalty. That doesn't cut it in our judicial system.

[High EGT]

Originally Posted by jetmonkey

I believe the studies were based soley on data from the US. Also, the crime increase was a temporary phenomenon.

It seems it would appear the data US data was incorrect.

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"