Author Topic: Death penalty deterance studies (Read 866 times)

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #15 on:** June 11, 2007, 02:59:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Then .001% of the guilty are absolutely guaranteed to never, ever murder anyone else.

It's not about deterrence.

It's not about revenge.

It's about making sure they never, ever kill again.

I'm not arguing that point. I agree with you. I'm saying that the death penalty is used so sparingly, that it isn't a deterrent.

Toad · « **Reply #16 on:** June 11, 2007, 03:12:17 PM »

Well, as DNA evidence becomes ever more reliable perhaps that will change.

Halo · « **Reply #17 on:** June 11, 2007, 03:32:18 PM »

Exterminate vermin. Do not feed them for life. Do not allow them to spread and harm others even in their own nest.

Maverick · « **Reply #18 on:** June 11, 2007, 03:39:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'm not arguing that point. I agree with you. I'm saying that the death penalty is used so sparingly, that it isn't a deterrent.

I would say that the studies that the article used for sources do not agree with you. On one hand if there was one homicide that was prevented and it was yours, perhaps you might think it's worthwhile.

How many prevented incidents would be worthwhile for you?

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #19 on:** June 11, 2007, 03:42:31 PM »

some other nations have the DP too, looks like it works for them.

x0847Marine · « **Reply #20 on:** June 11, 2007, 05:48:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
We had this argument before. I did a little research because of it.

Out of all the murders / killings, less then 0.001% of those guilty are executed.

It can't possibly be a deterrent if it's a 1/100,000 chance of being executed if found guilty.

After trolling the streets and dealing with the actual scum of the Earth, going to court and all that, I can opine without a doubt, the death penalty is no deterrent... but it is an effective tool prosecutors / detectives use to "trade up".

The death penalty is usually taken off the table in exchange for info re: other crimes. The gangsters themselves have coined the phrase 'there's no future in it', many have accepted that their life as a gang member either ends in death, or life in prison... one reason they often act with reckless abandon.

Plus they knew all too well that avoiding the death penalty is as easy as giving up info on rival gangs of a different race, everyone (but the victim) wins; the cops prosecutors get to make a few more cases and the criminal gets to have a life behind bars.

The war on drugs isn't a deterrent to using / selling illegal drugs, laws to deter illegal aliens fail... if anything, IMO, tax & traffic laws are the only ones that work somewhat.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #21 on:** June 11, 2007, 08:05:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Then .001% of the guilty are absolutely guaranteed to never, ever murder anyone else.

It's not about deterrence.

It's not about revenge.

It's about making sure they never, ever kill again.

There ya go.

Im for the Death penalty in cases where guilt is irrefutable. Witnesses. caught on tape etc.

In cases where there is the possibility where somewhere down the road the person might be exonerated.
Life in prison hard labor without parole.

On the other hand I think executions should be done publicly.
I dont buy into those studies that it isnt a deterrent because as someone pointed out thee is only an outside chance that the execution will ever be carried out.
NJ has brought back the death penalty some 20 odd years ago and to date. Not one single prisoner has been executed since it was brought back.

A better indication as to if its a deterrence or not is the reasoning some of the "nay sayers" say about execution yet use the reasoning in Iraq how there were much less problems when Saddam was there.
Now there was a man who wasnt afraid to execute.

And from what people are saying it sure must have been a deterrent there

Thrawn · « **Reply #22 on:** June 11, 2007, 11:32:46 PM »

Not even getting into how the heck they provecausation and not just correlation, the argument being presented seems to be "Kill them, because it is for the greater to do so...regardless if we kill some innocents as well.". Which in my books the most pure essence of commie thought I have ever come across. They don't discuss the legitimacy of killing citizens, nor the guilt/non-guilt of them. Just the expediency of killing them.

Un-freaking-believable, oh wait...I forgot where I was, totally believable.

Toad · « **Reply #23 on:** June 12, 2007, 07:29:46 AM »

Oh, I think if a murdered woman has a suspect's DNA under her fingernails, perhaps in the form of skin scrapes, and the suspect has matching scrapes on his face.... I think the case can be proven.

And then there's no need to keep him alive, after his fair trial of course.

lazs2 · « **Reply #24 on:** June 12, 2007, 08:05:04 AM »

six.. I don't think it is useful at all to compare non death penalty states with death penalty states since there are few states that actually use the death penalty... and...

when there are only a few states that don't have the death penalty and they are like.. south dakota.. or rhode island..

It is more useful to look at states that do have the death penalty and then look at homicide rates when executions are down compared to when they are up.

It is pretty much proven that with less than about 9 executions a year there is no deterence... most states with death penalties have them in name only.

but.. no matter what... if you execute the poor unfortunate sicko... he will no longer be suffering or cause any suffering in this world... it is a mercy.

lazs

Thrawn · « **Reply #25 on:** June 12, 2007, 11:37:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Oh, I think if a murdered woman has a suspect's DNA under her fingernails, perhaps in the form of skin scrapes, and the suspect has matching scrapes on his face.... I think the case can be proven.

I wasn't clear. The study apparently shows that when you execute X amount of people the homicide rate went down. It also apparently shows that when you commune the death penalty for X amount of people the homicide rate goes down. Great that shows a correlation, it does not show causation.

It's quite possible that the homicide rate is changing for a completely different reasons.

Thrawn · « **Reply #26 on:** June 12, 2007, 11:45:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Oh, I think if a murdered woman has a suspect's DNA under her fingernails, perhaps in the form of skin scrapes, and the suspect has matching scrapes on his face.... I think the case can be proven.

And then there's no need to keep him alive, after his fair trial of course.

The science may be neigh infallible, but people aren't.

"FBI Lab Work Under Serious Scrutiny

WASHINGTON, April 16, 2003
(CBS/AP)

"The scientists of the FBI crime lab hold people's lives, and justice for crime victims, in their hands. The FBI crime lab must be beyond reproach and abide by the highest standards."

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa

(AP) Weeks after testifying at a court hearing in a Kentucky murder, FBI scientist Kathleen Lundy told her superiors a secret. She knowingly gave false testimony about her specialty of lead bullet analysis.

"I had to admit that it was worse than being evasive or not correcting the record. It was simply not telling the truth," Lundy wrote her superior in an e-mail likely to be used against her now that she has been charged by Kentucky authorities on a charge of misdemeanor false swearing.

Internal FBI documents obtained by The Associated Press show the FBI lab, which reformed itself after a mid-1990s scandal over bad science, is grappling with new problems that have opened its work on lead bullets and DNA analysis to challenges by defense lawyers.

In addition to Lundy's indictment:

* A FBI lab technician has resigned while under investigation for alleged improper testing of more than 100 DNA samples, and the lab is now reviewing samples she placed into the FBI national database of DNA evidence;

* The Houston police crime lab has been banned from placing new samples into the FBI's DNA registry because of allegations of shoddy science in local cases;

* One of the lab's retired metallurgists is challenging the bureau's science on bullet analysis, prompting the FBI to ask the National Academy of Sciences to review its methodology."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/national/main544209.shtml

Toad · « **Reply #27 on:** June 12, 2007, 01:09:49 PM »

If your premise is that no murder can be unmistakeably traced to a particular individual, I disagree.

However, if Canada wants to house all of our convicted murderers for life at no charge to the US, I have no opposition to that.

straffo · « **Reply #28 on:** June 12, 2007, 01:29:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
some other nations have the DP too, looks like it works for them.

like china ?

Thrawn · « **Reply #29 on:** June 12, 2007, 03:21:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
If your premise is that no murder can be unmistakeably traced to a particular individual, I disagree.

Glad you found a perfect system.