The Death Penalty

[High EGT]

This should raise some BP's

A series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html

 

[Lenny]

It's the same situation as the man-made global weather change debate. If you're a progressive you disagree with the findings and say "Bush stole the White House in 2000!" as your justification.

 

[Charles]

Why do people keep pushing the deterrent factor? If someone is convicted unquestionably of first degree murder, there is no circumstantial evidence involved, execute him/her. "Life" sentences are a sham and that person will never have the opportunity to murder again. Deterring other bad people has nothing to do with it, bad people don't pay attention.

 

[SamSpade]

Why do people keep pushing the deterrent factor? If someone is convicted unquestionably of first degree murder, there is no circumstantial evidence involved, execute him/her. "Life" sentences are a sham and that person will never have the opportunity to murder again. Deterring other bad people has nothing to do with it, bad people don't pay attention.

Of course it's a deterrent - executed people NEVER do it again.

I still like the quote from DJ - that you don't put down a rabid dog as a deterrent for other dogs.

 

[Larry Gude]

Because it...

Why do people keep pushing the deterrent factor? If someone is convicted unquestionably of first degree murder, there is no circumstantial evidence involved, execute him/her. "Life" sentences are a sham and that person will never have the opportunity to murder again. Deterring other bad people has nothing to do with it, bad people don't pay attention.

...is a valid part of a public policy debate. I don't think it is the main focus; fair punishment for and individuals actions, but it is a part of the equation. We fine people for speeding to get them to stop and to deter others from doing it. Some people still speed, but, if it was $5 for speeding it's reasonable to figure more people will speed.

I love this;

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?"

That is a fair, rational person right there. Anti death people need to start taking responsibility for the deaths they help facilitate, based on pure science and facts.

 

[Charles]

I still like the quote from DJ - that you don't put down a rabid dog as a deterrent for other dogs.

Good analogy.

 

[jetmonkey]

I did a study on this back in the late 80s that conlcuded that there is virtually no effect on homicide rates one way or the other, but crime in general did increase after a highly profile execution. At least I think. Got a good grade on it anyway.

 

[High EGT]

I've always been a proponent of the death penalty regardless of whether it was a deterrent but the argument from those that appose the practice have always pounded the point that its not or ever has been a deterrent. Regardless, I dont see opponents changing their opinions since the moral argument is still legitimate as long as its not hypocritical (i.e.) Oppose the death penalty but support abortion.

 

[High EGT]

I did a study on this back in the late 80s that conlcuded that there is virtually no effect on homicide rates one way or the other, but crime in general did increase after a highly profile execution. At least I think. Got a good grade on it anyway.

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

 

[edinsomd]

Why do people keep pushing the deterrent factor? If someone is convicted unquestionably of first degree murder, there is no circumstantial evidence involved, execute him/her. "Life" sentences are a sham and that person will never have the opportunity to murder again. Deterring other bad people has nothing to do with it, bad people don't pay attention.

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

 

[jetmonkey]

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]

That's a good point...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?"