On this point, what we used to have here was “hard labour for life” as the equivalent of the life sentence. All the convicts were put to work, but because of the “hard” part, few lasted 10 years, not even that. Also other prison sentences were with hard labour involved, so re-arrests were minimum.
I don’t suppose that you have a cite for this?
Did Thomas Sowell tell you when and where this happened and give a reliable reference to back it up? Or did Thomas Sowell simply make an assertion which you accepted because you wanted to believe it?
Let’s boot out the annecdotes and apply hard numbers. Here’s data on crimes rates by state. Here’s the lists of states that do and don’t use the death penalty. Compare. Note that states which don’t use the death penalty have much lower crime rates. That’s a cold, hard fact. Not something made up by an anonymous internet user. Not a story made up by Thomas Sowell. It’s a fact which proves that the death penalty does not deter crime. The death penalty causes crime.
To say that more death penalties will reduce crime is like eating donuts, watching your weight go up, and concluding that you need to eat more donuts in order to lose weight.
I have seen those of course, but they don’t say that the death penalty encourages or discourages crime.
Maybe states with high crime and murder rates are MORE likely to have a death penalty. Did you ever think of that? Two states in different parts of the country, ie Mass. and Louisiana are not proper controls for each other. They are too different.
What were the murder rates before the death penalty was re-imposed?
You can’t look at two statistics and infer causation.
No, it is absolutely not. Your post is a classic case of confusing correlation with causation and is completely unsound and ignorant both statistically and academically in any context whether the discussion is about the death penalty or any other subject. You should know better and we expect better.
Actually, it’s the conservatives who tend to let out such people. By passing mandatory sentencing laws out of terror of those “liberal judges”, who are then forced to let criminals out before they want to. Or by stuffing the jails so full of people for every minor excuse they can think of, forcing the actually dangerous people to be let go to make room.
Nonsese; it’ been applied with great enthusiasm in other places and times. And there’s no evidence it deters crime at all.
By, for example, being framed by the police and assigned a public defender who is drunk or sleeps through the trial.
Yes. The death penalty is for poor people. The state isn’t likely even to consider going for the death penalty against someone who can afford a decent lawyer.
It would also encourage even more arrests of people for trivial or false reasons, in order to acquire more slave labor. And drive down wages for the workers outside of prison who will be competing with them.
In 2006 the murder rate in New Jersey rate in New Jersey was going up. Then New Jersey abolished the death penalty. In 2007 the murder rate went down. In 2008 it went down further. In 2009 it has gone down further still. (Cite)
It’s a similar story in New York. Courts struck down the death penalty in 2004, and crime dropped during that year.
It’s a heck of a lot better than looking at zero facts and inferring that the death penalty reduces crime, which is basically all that you can do since the facts are always against you.
Consider: what is the murder rate in the United States, where we have the death penalty? How does that compare to the murder rate in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and all the 23 countries of the European Union, where there is no death penalty?
As I said, all of the facts are against you.
How about because a couple hundred people have been released from death row when DNA proved they were not guilty. How many innocent people have we put to death so far? Who knows but we are guilty of killing people for a crime they did not commit.
You are doing it again and you should know better. This comment is not related to the death penalty. Misapplied statistics are always worse than none at all. To get the real answer, the analysis has to be much more broad and in depth.
Actually, we do know. Travel back with me to Elizabethan England. They weren’t pussies, they used the death penalty for all sorts of things, including being Catholic. They also believed in deterrence. No hiding the execution inside a jail, it was done right in the square, with a big audience of the bloodthirsty. And, for added deterrence, they put the heads of the worst offenders on pikes.
Here’s a cite. I’m sure you can find me one about the almost total elimination of crime there, since your program was implemented.
Ok.
So a bunch of murderers said “wait no death penalty? OK, I’ll hold off on killing someone”. Or “Wait, the state abolished the death penalty? That’s beautiful…I guess life really does have worth. I better not kill my girlfriend”.
I understand what you’re saying, there isn’t empirical evidence to think the death penalty would be effective at reducing crime.
It would take time for the effects of a death penalty to work its way into society for one…but those countries have lower murder rates and crime rates for reasons other than the death penalty, I believe. Maybe they’re just more evolved. Maybe if we evolve to a level of non-crime, we can abolish the death penalty.
That’s an awesome cite and site.
We need a little bit of that here, I think. Pillory and the stock, public hangings. Maybe that’s why England is so civil today…they killed their more violent forebears…kind of a selecting for civility.
I don’t know about hanging for theft over 5 pence, that seems a little extreme.
For those who believe that life without parole entails more suffering than the DP, it seems to me that this necessarily means that condemning an innocent person to LWOP is a greater injustice than condemning that same person to death. Therefore -
[ol][li]We as a society have to choose the DP as the lesser of two evils. We can commit a wrong by executing an innocent person, or a greater wrong by sending him to prison for life. []Improvements in forensic techniques do not affect this moral equation. If we can reduce the number of innocents convicted, we are obligated to do so (of course), but we must also do our utmost to minimize suffering where we cannot eliminate it altogether.[]By definition, we cannot save money by outlawing the DP. [/li]
Much of the expense incurred in a capital case comes from appeals. But we must allow just as many appeals for LWOP convicts as for those condemned to death - otherwise we are permitting a greater wrong. We have to spend just as much on trials where the maximum penalty is LWOP as we do in DP trials. [/ol]
Regards,
Shodan
What does his being gay have to do with it? And not all gay people are “weak?”
That’s sick.
Nonsense; I’ve read about how those public punishments were rife with pickpockets looting the people gazing at the spectacle. It didn’t deter anything.
Let’s say for a moment that those who claim LWOP is worse are correct. We’ve got 3 cases.
-
The prisoner is guilty. As far as I’m concerned, the increased suffering is a good thing, so no problem there.
-
The prisoner is innocent, but is found so sometime later and is freed. Since this person doesn’t do life, is compensated in some way by the system, and has the rest of his life living in freedom, I think this person is clearly better off than if he had died. I have not heard of anyone being freed from life imprisonment wishing he had been killed instead - if you know of any, please let us know.
-
The prisoner is innocent, and is never freed. By innocent I mean innocent, not guilty yet unjustly c0nvicted. For the system to be negative, there would have to be a fairly large percentage of these people, and LWOP would have to be much worse than dying. I could write up an equation, but you get the picture. However, as LWOP gets worse the suffering of the guilty increases, which is a net positive. There would be a lot of parameters to assume to see where the incremental suffering rises above 0. You’d also have to factor in the length of the term, since it is clear that one week in prison is not as bad as dying. The suffering is incremental, if non-linear, so you’d have to factor in the number of years of prison equal to death. Obviously it has to be fairly long, otherwise you’d have to say death is better than a term for robbery. The hope factor comes in also - complicated!
As for expense, much of the expense in the current system comes from mandatory appeals. Since there is no reversing a decision not to appeal, it makes sense to force the convicted murderer into it. In the LWOP case, however, the person can appeal later if desired, so there is no need to require it, and a fair number of the convicted who know they are guilty might not bother. So I’m not at all convinced an LWOP system would be more expensive.
Heh. If the death penalty deterred anything, the getting thrown to the lions gig should have nipped Christianity in the bud, right. 
It’s only unavoidable if you use it indiscriminately. Even if smarter use of the death penalty results in it only being used once in a blue moon, so what? It’s not like you have a quota to fulfill.
Amen. Western civilization didn’t get to where it is today by being soft on crime; the rule of law has to be backed by force, and lethal force at that, in order to be adhered to by some segments of the population.
I personally think that the number of innocent people on death row is far fewer than they make it out to be; plus, the problem isn’t with the punishment, it’s with the legal system.
It could conceivably suck worse (to me) to be broken financially by some combination of jail term and fines, and then to have to live the remainder of your days with a constant reminder that the government fucked you. At least if you were executed, you’d be dead, and not worrying about it.
Well if you really want to affect society, you need to use it a lot. My contention was that if I were dictator, I’d take 50-100K of the most vicious killers, carjackers, child rapists, armed robbers, drug peddlers who are already in jail and kill them outright. And start a steady stream of putting bad people to death (after a proper trial of course).
Eventually this would effect society by having their thieving genes eliminated as well as encourage the general populace to obey the law.
In such a situation, unfortunately a few innocent people will undoubtedly be killed.