Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Maverick on June 10, 2007, 10:54:00 PM
-
Here it is confirmed by several studies taken over a period of years. Interesting that the conclusions are criticised not because the dat is wrong but the conclusion is not the one that the critics want to hear. Their minds are made up, don't bother them with facts.
"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence_4&printer=1;_ylt=AhDbh2ygngCskRLSHe2PUoVH2ocA
-
I worked on death row for three years and I can tell you that most inmates are on it for political reasons and not for the crimes they committed. I have seen many inmates on the yard who have committed much worse crimes. Most inmates in S.C. are Black, but when I was working death row most inmates on it were White...Go figure.
P.S. I believe in the death penalty, but it should be handed out because of the crime you committed and no other reason.
-
There is an inmate in my brother's prison unit, which is located beside our juvenile unit, who has 85 charges againt him for committing violent attacks against other inmates since he has be incarcerated.
It's only a matter of time before he kills someone. He has a life-sentence for murder and he just doesn't care about the consequences of his actions.
This type of thug preys on the younger, less-powerful inmates; raping, beating, and the like.
The only way society will ever be safe from him is for him to be executed. He has a following....and the only thing that will deter them from following his example, is for him to be executed.
With the prevalence of DNA evidence in most capital cases these days, it is far more unlikely than ever before that an innocent man will be wrongly put to death. If DNA evidence tying a suspect to a murder is not available, and eye-witnesses are not available, then a suspect should not be given the death penalty.
Believe me, execution is the one thing that actually impresses the hardened cons that are in our prisons.
-
Instead of studies, wouldn't it be easier to look at the states that have the death penalty and those that don't and look at the murder rate of those states?
-
I think it was reported this week that Texas is cruising thru executions this year. There are other states that have the death penalty but for a variety of political reasons, dont carry out the sentence.
I'd rather see justice served. Because when I hear news stories like the "BTK" killer getting privleges (cable TV, painting supplies, etc) for "good behavior"....I just groan.
-
I've NEVER thought of the death penalty as a deterent for those that are violent, they are going commit violence anyway. I've always looked at it as fit punishment for a violent crime i.e. murder in the first, etc.
BUT I only support it when evidence is solid, thorough, and convincing and not hearsay, witness testimony only, coincidence, or mere circumstance. There must be overwhelming evidence to get the death penalty.
"The death penalty, that's no penalty. If you get it you're out of the game!"
(Name the movie)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
There is an inmate in my brother's prison unit, which is located beside our juvenile unit, who has 85 charges againt him for committing violent attacks against other inmates since he has be incarcerated.
It's only a matter of time before he kills someone. He has a life-sentence for murder and he just doesn't care about the consequences of his actions.
This type of thug preys on the younger, less-powerful inmates; raping, beating, and the like.
The only way society will ever be safe from him is for him to be executed. He has a following....and the only thing that will deter them from following his example, is for him to be executed.
With the prevalence of DNA evidence in most capital cases these days, it is far more unlikely than ever before that an innocent man will be wrongly put to death. If DNA evidence tying a suspect to a murder is not available, and eye-witnesses are not available, then a suspect should not be given the death penalty.
Believe me, execution is the one thing that actually impresses the hardened cons that are in our prisons.
Sounds good.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Instead of studies, wouldn't it be easier to look at the states that have the death penalty and those that don't and look at the murder rate of those states?
Good point...
Hmm...
This indicates that, over this period, the percentage difference that the murder rates of the death penalty states, were higher than the murder rates of the abolitionist states, grew at at least the rate at which the numbers of US "executions" grew.
http://davecoop.net/rate.htm
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/DeterMRates3.GIF)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=168&scid=12
-
One study showed incontrovertibly that recidivism is 0% in every case where a murderer is executed.
-
Originally posted by Toad
One study showed incontrovertibly that recidivism is 0% in every case where a murderer is executed.
Dangit... you beat me to it!
-
I preferred the bumper sticker:
The death penalty isn't for making an example. It's for making bad people dead!
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/global.gif)
-
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.
-
Id rather the violent criminal be put to death than hang around costing us money to keep him alive taking up space. Whether or not it makes crimes rates drop, one thing for sure is it thins out the criminals. And Im ok with that.
-
Last I heard it cost three times more to execute an inmate then to house one for life because of all the extra court cost. But I think it's worth it.
If anything the fact that a State has the Death Penalty gives the prosecutor more weapons to get confessions or turn criminals on each other.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Out of all the murders / killings, less then 0.001% of those guilty are executed.
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.
-
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.
-
Well, as DNA evidence becomes ever more reliable perhaps that will change.
-
Exterminate vermin. Do not feed them for life. Do not allow them to spread and harm others even in their own nest.
-
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?
-
some other nations have the DP too, looks like it works for them.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
some other nations have the DP too, looks like it works for them.
like china ?
-
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.
-
LOL.
Your type could watch a murder from 2 feet away and then be unable to decide who did it for certain.
-
I'm a firm believer in the death penalty, but I am also against federally mandated sentence guidelines (why a low level drug dealer, or even drug user spends far more time behind bars than convicted killers is beyond me).
It is always funny when people drag out the USA still having the death penalty, when many western countries don't any more, but what I've never been able to find is what is the attrition rate behind bars of those other western prison systems.
I mean, if you are in squalid conditions where inmate violence is very common, or poor health care, or poor nutrition.... well, you don't really need a death penalty.
But, in the USA, people behind bars live in better conditions as to health, education availability, unlimited appeals, and general living conditions than what many servicemen and women of the USA live in on a regular basis. (If prisoners had to put up with Tricare or the VA system, there'd be lawsuits coast to coast).
There are private prisons standing empty or underused in this country struggling to meet high standards of prisoner care, while government run prisons are so overcrowded that prisoners get early release if a bed cannot be found for everyone.
Sometimes it seems the whole system is falling apart. Prison system. Legal system. Political system. Infrastructure. Powergrid. Border security. Military Readiness. Medical care. Corruption. Government waste.
Where is the leadership?
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL.
Your type could watch a murder from 2 feet away and then be unable to decide who did it for certain.
Way to set the bar. :aok
-
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/SE0407-01.jpg)
There is no significant difference in the variation of the three lines on this graph.
So other than retribution, the DP is not a viable deterrrent.
(Sorry, those are homicide rates per 10,000)
-
Again, MT, it's not about deterrence.
It's about 0% recidivism, and there's only one absolutely sure way to achieve that.
Thrawn, you're opposed to the DP in any and all cases. The evidence or guilt is not a factor for you. Why not just say that? It would be more honest.
-
comparing state to state does not work... each state is different.
What you need to do is to compare in the state... compare in the states that have death penalties and then compare what the homicide rate is when you do executions and when you don't..
You will find out that in the state... as the number of executions goes up.. the number of capital crimes goes down. It is smoke and mirrors to compare states with or without the penalty.
Like comparing the murder rate of japan compared to the US and saying it is because they eat more rice or have gun control... or.. comparing the suicide rate of both countries and saying it is because one has more gun control and eats more rice.
No... you take japan or the US and you compare it to itself. You compare it with more or less gun control or more or less rice consumption.
In states with the death penalty... after about 9 executions a year.. the more you execute the less capital crimes you have.
Thrawn is all upset that there may be one innocent man killed by the death penalty... none are known of course but... it could happen.
He is not at all upset about the hundreds... maybe thousands who will be killed either in prison or outside when the murderers get out. Those lives he convieniently glosses over.
sickening.
lazs
-
If a mistake or an error made on purpose and a person is executed for a crime they didn't commit...is it murder?
-
it is a mistake. unless it was done knowing the man was innocent then it is murder... if it was done with negligence it could be a form of manslaugter.
So far as anyone knows.. there are no know cases tho. I imagine it will be even harder with dna and such.
If you let a murderer live and he kills while in prison.. are you a murderer too? what about if you let him out and he kills?
Or do those even count? is that just fate or bad luck or something like that?
nobodies fault really.. what could have been done? nothing really....
Yeah.. something could have been done... you coulda put the poor sick psycho MFer out of his missery and saved everyone a lot of grief.
lazs