I wonder if there is a way to re-create this state in prisoners who are not on death row?
I don’t know, and again, it doesn’t matter because you’re NOT comparing France with the death penalty to France without the death penalty. You’re comparing France, with it’s laws and it’s gun control and it’s criminals with the death penalty to France, with it’s laws and it’s gun control and it’s criminals without the death penalty. And then trying to extrapolate that to the US.
Switzerland began requiring men aged 21 to 32 to have an assault rifle and ammunition in their homes. They enjoy a vanishingly small murder and robbery rate, many say (and data suggests) as a result of this gun ownership.
Should we require men aged 21 to 32 in New York City to have a gun in their home? I mean, it worked in Switzerland, so obviously it would work in the South Bronx. We should stop trying to get guns off the streets and institute a guns for toys program!
Or are there confounding variables that make this extrapolation impossible? Is it possible that the history of the Swiss with guns is different than the history of New Yorkers? That the gun culture of the Swiss is such that the crime rate would decrease as a result of compulsory gun ownership, while in Brooklyn, the murder rate would go through the roof? That the population density, wealth of the citizens and personal history of the inhabitants are so different that such comparisons are silly.
That what works for the Swiss is completely irrelevant to New York.
My ONLY point is that the data currently is suggestive that there is a deterrent effect of the death penalty. It is no longer acceptable, to me, to simply state as fact that there is no deterrent effect.
So you’re saying that deterrence works differently in USA than it does in every single other country?
Many other countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, and this wasn’t followed by a rise in crime, but America is different from all of them. Is that what you are saying?
Okay, how about individual states in America that have abolished. Can you show in America examples of abolition leading to higher crimes a few months later?
Some have abolished and reinstated it. Can you show that crime dropped upon reinstatement anywhere in America?
Not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying every country is unique.
Please provide a cite that every country that abolished the death penalty had no change in the murder rate. I’m sure that the murder rate dropped in a number of countries after Sharia law, and death penalties skyrocked, was adopted. I’m also sure that the confounding variables to this make it meaningless to extrapolate to the US.
In other words there are probably examples of countries that would work in my favor in this argument, but they are just as meaningless as the examples that work against my argument.
There are quite a few studies showing exactly this (bolding always mine).
From the June 2004 Journal of Legal Studies:
“I examine two important questions in the capital punishment literature: what kinds of murders are deterred and what effect does the length of the death row wait have on deterrence? **I use monthly murder and execution data that measure deterrence more precisely than the annual data of most capital punishment ** studies. Results from least squares and negative binomial estimations indicate that capital punishment does deter: each execution results in, on average, three fewer murders. In addition, capital punishment deters murders previously believed to be undeterrable: crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Moreover, murders of both African-American and white victims decrease after executions, which suggests that capital punishment benefits people of all races. However, longer waits on death row before execution lessen the deterrence. Specifically, one less murder is committed for every 2.75-year reduction in death row waits. Thus, recent legislation to shorten the wait should strengthen capital punishment’s deterrent effect.”
Here is an interesting study publication with the following conclusion:
“Third, we supplement the before-and-after comparisons with regression analysis
that disentangles the impact of the moratorium itself on murder from the effect on murder of
actual executions. By using two different approaches, we avoid many of the modeling criticisms
of earlier studies. Fourth, in addition to estimating 84 distinct regression models—with
variations in regressors, estimation method, and functional form—our robustness checks examine
the moratorium’s impact on crimes that are not punishable by death. Our results indicate that
capital punishment has a deterrent effect, and the moratorium and executions deter murders in
distinct ways. **This evidence is corroborated by both the before-and-after comparisons and
regression analysis. ** We also confirm that the moratorium and executions do not cause similar
changes in non-capital crimes. The results are highly robust.”
This paper that I already cited has this data in figure 1 showing an interesting inverse relationship between execution number and murder rate.
There are quite a few other studies as well.
Again, I’m still anti-death penalty, but it’s harder now that there seems to be a rising tide of data showing deterrence.
You have to at least acknowledge that the data seems to be compelling; it is hardly the case that “there is no deterrence” is a fact. The data might be wrong, but it might also be right. The reason I’m still anti-death penalty is that if this data is wrong, I don’t want to execute people as a result. But, I’m open minded to the possibility that the data is right.
I’m just sayin’ that you have to at least acknowledge that the data seems to be compelling; it is hardly the case that “there is no deterrence” is a fact.
It’s up to the person making the claim to provide evidence backing it. You are claiming that execution deters murder. Its up to you to provide evidence backing it.
Are there? name them.
[quote]
There are quite a few studies showing exactly this (bolding always mine).
you can find studies showing ANYTHING if you look for it. Plenty of studies show the opposite.
See, the trouble with these studies is that they speculate about what would have happened if one thing had been changed. They might point to a year when crime rates fell, and say, ah yes, if there had been more executions then the rates would have fallen even more.
All such studies require making several assumptions, each one of which is dubious. Under one set of assumptions you can analyze the data and come to one conclusion. Under a different set of assumptions you can analyze the same data and come to a different conclusion.
so, you’ve found a study claiming deterrence, it doesn’t mean the study is right, or that thestudy is widely accepted.
First of all, I’ve found about 12 studies claiming deterrence. I’ve posted (I believe) five, but if you would really like me to, I’ll post more. The ones I’ve posted have been from very credible sources in peer reviewed literature. Like it or not, there is the *possibility *that the death penalty functions as a deterrent. Not because I say so, but because the data says so.
Note the word “possibility” in that sentence. I’m open to the possibility that the data is wrong. I’m also open to the possibility that the data is right. I adjust my opinion accordingly. Why is that so awful?
You’re also right that some data suggests the opposite; that there is no deterrent effect. Why do you believe this data, but not the data that you don’t like? I’m open to both. I’m just not open to either side claiming that there is a fact about this issue. There isn’t. It’s very much in dispute.
I’m not even sure if I would be in favor of the death penalty if I knew for sure that there was a deterrent effect, but it would be another data point in forming my decision.
And I could easily find just as many claiming the opposite.
Are they?
I glanced through them. At least some of them cite heavily Ehrlich’s work. Now, Ehrlich has been widely discredited.
Anyway,being published in a peer-reviewed journal does not prove they are right. It just gives others a chance to rebut the study. And there are always rebuttals.
You want me to be impressed, show me a deterrence study that has been accepted as valid by the consensus of qualified commentators.
no, the data does not say so. It is subject to interpretation. And the interpretation you cite is not universally accepted.
Don’t you go putting words in my mouth. How dare you say that I “believe” one and not the other. I thought I made it plain that both are dubious interpretations.
But that’s what you just did when you asserted that “the data says so”
I don’t believe in the death penalty for crimes of passion. Anyone who commit one murder doesn’t deserve to die.
I do believe in the death penalty for serial killers. These people only stop killing when they are dead. They are beyond reform. They don’t give a rat’s ass about who they killed, the families left behind. Their whole attitude is “So Fucking What?” They will not stop until they are DEAD. If they escape prison (like Ted Bundy) they will kill again (three women, including a fourteen year old child!). Bundy was also caught trying to escape again. People like him do not deserve to live.
>I think you’ve got that wrong. I think you’ve misplaced a decimal point there.
Yes, I think you’re right and I’m wrong, as I said 3 posts above yours:
>Well, this is embarrassing, but I can’t find any now. I thought I read this in two almanacs but now I can find one that says 6.6% and can’t find the other. I think I’m just wildly off base. I did find several references to an overall recidivism rate of around 60% for ALL crime, hardly the same thing.
>So, sorry for stupidly started a misleading thread with bad information!
My mistake. Sorry again!
I wonder what the US’s maintaining death penalties in some states does to our standing abroad? So many things have so badly hurt that standing in the last 6 years that we may need all the help we can get.
Life in prison. No repeat offenses.
Except for offenses committed against the staff and other inmates of the prison.
Obviously false. The Birdman of Alcatraz - sent to prison after killing a person, stabbed another inmate who refused his sexual advances. Willie Horton - sentenced to life in prison with no parole, raped and tortured a young couple with a knife. Ed Wein - sentenced to death, sentence changed to life without parole, sentence changed again to life, paroled, kidnapped, raped, and murdered a young woman. Tookie Williams (sic?) - sentenced to life, arranged two murders from prison. Arthur Shawcross - raped and strangled two children, paroled, killed several prostitutes. Henry Lee Lucas - murdered, then raped, his own mother, sent to prison for “life”, released, convicted of ten more murders. There are others, of course.
FWIW, the statistic I found in other discussions of this sort is that 1.4% of murderers commit another murder within three years of release. I can dig up a cite if necessary.
Regards,
Shodan
Life in prison. No more murders to the people not in jail. If properly run ,no murders there either.
What if lifer without parole escapes? Ted Bundy killed three people and almost killed two more while a prison escapee.
Please do so.
Then we should kill every one arrested for murder to prevent such savagery.
How do you defend society against accidents or stupid mistakes.? Get real.
Not everyone. But serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers should definitely be eligible for it.
My bad - it was 1.2%.
Regards,
Shodan
In the first part of the post, when you were explaining your position as aligned with the Catholic position, I thought to myself, “wow, I’m an atheist, and I have the exact same position. See morality doesn’t have to come from religion.”
Then when you started comparing it to the “atheist” view (characterized as the position taken by the Church of Satan or whatever) you lost me.
Correction - 1.2% were ARRESTED. Not 1.2% re-offended. There is a pretty big difference.
I’ve actually read some stuff about this, by this guy Mike D. Maltz formerly of the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. I’ve even exchanged a few emails with him. He goes into detail about this. Individual rearrest figures are meaningless on their own. You need many such figures, over a long period, and construct a complex 3D graph from them. You can get information about trends in recidivism based upon the shape of the whole graph. but individual data points are meaningless.