US carries out 1,000th execution

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Your statistics indicate nothing and are in fact totally meaningless in light of the fact that death penalty is only rarely ever actually carried out.
and everyone knows this. So how is that supposed to act or be seen as as a deterrent?

If it were frequently carried out on a consistant,steady and regular basis in the death penalty states over a period of time THEN your statisics  of states that have the penalty Vrs states that dont would mean something.

So... you have no facts to support your opinion that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

[lasersailor184]

Ok.  Just from my brief search, I found the following.

Murder and victim characteristics, 2002

In 2002, the year in which the most recent comprehensive data are
available, the FBI reported a total of 16,200 murders or nonnegligent
manslaughters. The total represents a 1% increase from the 16,040
murders recorded in 2001. The FBI defines murder in its annual Crime
in the United States as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human
being by another. Not included are deaths caused by negligence, suicide,
or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to
murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults. The FBI's UCR
program gathers statistics on murder from over 17,000 city, county, and
State law enforcement agencies.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cv03.txt

71 People Executed in 2002.
The following stats are for all time since 1976:
99% of people executed are Male.
51% of the victims were Male.
57% of the people executed were White.  34% were black.  6% were latino.
80% of the victims were White.  13% were black.  4% latino.

There are 3459 people on death row (at the time of printing this article)
42% black, 46% white, and 10 % latino.

http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/pubs/drusa/DRUSA_Spring_2005.pdf



So time for a little number crunching.  In 2002, there were 71 people executed.  There were also 16,200 murders.

This gives us an astounding 0.00438% percantage of executed to murderers in 2002.


Going over this again, I'm seeing some flawed conclusions.  Not because the data is bad, but because it is confusing as to select what years to do it.  

I.E.  There were 71 people executed in 2002, however they were most likely convicted and sentenced a few years earlier.  

The first report did say that the murder rate stayed around 16,000 without rising or falling too much.

[Sandman]

Well... the first step is determining if the death penalty does indeed deter murders. If we can get there, then we can try to determine if there's a corrolation between the number of death penalties and the number of murders.


Just for the record... I'm not necessarily against the death penalty. Some people really should be put to death, IMHO. I simply doubt the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. That said, the death penalty is 100% effective in preventing recidivism.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Sandman
So... you have no facts to support your opinion that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.

Just as your have no facts to back up your claim it isnt as your claim is based on data that is flawed at best.
thus invalid and meaningless

Because the Death penalty is so rarely ever actually carried out it is impossable to determine conclusively. that it doesnt work or for that matter work as a deterrant.

[vorticon]

Originally posted by ASTAC
Or made public...maybe if some people saw what an Electric chair execution looked like (oops forgot the bleeding hearts have forced most states to abandon ole sparky) They might think twice about what they are doing.

good lord, i pretty much agree with you, hell, the damn thing is sinister enough by itself to act as a deterrant...on the average joe that is, nothing buy old sparky is gonna stop the psychos...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Just as your have no facts to back up your claim it isnt as your claim is based on data that is flawed at best.
thus invalid and meaningless

Because the Death penalty is so rarely ever actually carried out it is impossable to determine conclusively. that it doesnt work or for that matter work as a deterrant.

        * Researchers did a comparison of murder rates and rates of sub-types of murder in Oklahoma between 1989 and 1991, and found a significant increase in murders (both felony and non-felony) after Oklahoma resumed executions after a 25-year moratorium.

        * Researchers Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood studied differences in homicides in 293-paired counties. Pairings were based on: geographic location and demographic and economic variables; a shared contiguous border; differing use of capital punishment. The authors found higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties.

        * The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate. In 1999, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The South accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which accounts for less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate.

source

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Sandman
Well... the first step is determining if the death penalty does indeed deter murders. If we can get there, then we can try to determine if there's a corrolation between the number of death penalties and the number of murders.


Just for the record... I'm not necessarily against the death penalty. Some people really should be put to death, IMHO. I simply doubt the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. That said, the death penalty is 100% effective in preventing recidivism.

See thats my point

While I understand the flawed data LS sites I would guess the actual numbers when compaired to the
"This gives us an astounding 0.00438% percantage of executed to murderers in 2002."
That LS mentions wouldnt be terribly different percentage wise.

Untill you can at the very least get into whole numbers it is impossable to determine how effective the death penalty is.

LOL Looking at those percentages you probably have a better chance at winning the mega millions lottery then in actually getting the death penalty

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Sandman
* Researchers did a comparison of murder rates and rates of sub-types of murder in Oklahoma between 1989 and 1991, and found a significant increase in murders (both felony and non-felony) after Oklahoma resumed executions after a 25-year moratorium.

        * Researchers Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood studied differences in homicides in 293-paired counties. Pairings were based on: geographic location and demographic and economic variables; a shared contiguous border; differing use of capital punishment. The authors found higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties.

        * The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate. In 1999, it was the only region with a murder rate above the national rate. The South accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which accounts for less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate.

source

Ok but how many of the executions have actually been carried out?

Like I said. we hav the death penalty here in NJ too. and a whole bunch of people on death row. but we have yet to execute anyone since the death penalty was brought back.
Its reached the point here where nobody takes the death sentance seriously. Even the convicted.

Having it and actually using it is two different things and only after it has been consistantly used can anyone make any kind of meaningful determinations.

[lasersailor184]

Well, before we go back and forth many many times, I'll write a conclusion.



As it stands right now, only a small fraction of those that have murdered, are executed.  The problem is whether or not this small number is a deterrant against further murders.  

Some people believe it is not, because some statistics show that murder rates actually rise in counties that support the Death Penalty.

Some people believe that the death penalty is a deterrant, it just isn't used enough to actually deter people.  As it stands right now, only a small fraction of a percentage of murderers get executed.

However, it is not debatable whether or not the death penalty actually is a deterrant unless we start executing a very large percentage of Murderers.

[DREDIOCK]

Oh and also just for the record I am only in favor of the death penalty where there can be absolutely no question of guilt.

OJ for example if he were convicted would not get the death penalty.
Scott Peterson would be a close call but probably also wouldnt.

My feeling is if you intentionally murder in the first degree.
You took a life in that manner and there is no question of your guilt.
then you forfeit your own life.

People like Peterson or OJ while not getting the death penaly would be sentanced to life of  hard labor with no chance of parole.
And I mean making little rocks out of big rocks kind of hard labor.

If your sentanced to life without parole there is no rehabilitation attempt.
Save that for only those who will ever be let out
Your sentaced to a life of misery for the rest of your days.
Prison should be punishment not a barred &  walled retirement home.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by lasersailor184

However, it is not debatable whether or not the death penalty actually is a deterrant unless we start executing a very large percentage of Murderers.

that is my point.

Outside of that kind of hard data entering into the mix for a period of time no conclusive claims can be made.

Other then that all we can say is what we beleive to be true.
I pesonally beleive that an active and frequently used death penalty would act as a deterrent.

but since its not  all we are really doing is saying "boy, You gonna die"but we dont really mean it "

[lazs2]

http://teacher.deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/argument1a.htm

this seems reasonable.

http://mc4se.org/deteff.htm

or these seven studies.

[Skilless]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
People like Peterson or OJ while not getting the death penaly would be sentanced to life of  hard labor with no chance of parole.
And I mean making little rocks out of big rocks kind of hard labor.

If you put OJ in prison, how will he ever find the real murderers?

[Skilless]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
that is my point.

Outside of that kind of hard data entering into the mix for a period of time no conclusive claims can be made.

Other then that all we can say is what we beleive to be true.
I pesonally beleive that an active and frequently used death penalty would act as a deterrent.

but since its not  all we are really doing is saying "boy, You gonna die"but we dont really mean it "

I personally don't believe criminals think they will be caught while they are committing crimes and if that is the case, then no punishment would be a deterrent.  Better to think of capital punishment as a societal "cleansing", ridding us of the animalistic fringe that cannot grasp basic concepts such as right and wrong.  Perhaps it could be considered a deterrent if looked at generationally, as in if we get rid of the murderers of today they won't be able to breed the murderers of tomorrow.

[HugeHead]

The only true deterent is the absolute certainty of aphrehension.


Regards,
hh