:dubious:
Just posting pertinent information as time permits. Sorry if it isn’t what you want to hear.
:smack: Hit Enter too soon. Meant to say also that some posts take longer to refute ( 
) than others and mhendo’s latest posts haven’t required that much time. I’m avoiding nothing, and in fact have even worked some answers to his previous queries into my more recent posts.
Rehash it? You’ve barely attempted to address that issue even once. I can see why you’d be reluctant to get into it, because you’d come out with egg on your face.
You have yet to demonstrate that any murderer makes a rational decision about his or her crime based on an anaylsis of the potential penalties. And, of course, you keep ignoring the fact that, in the one state where the death penalty is imposed quite frequently, the murder rate is still above the national average.
Well, there’s telling the truth, and then there’s giving the whole picture. Perhaps, if America prisons are such a luxury, you’d care to spend some time there? Thought not.
Complete non-sequitur, totally irrelevant. No-one is arguing that murderers should not be punished, or that they should have an easy life. Simply stating that being in prison is better than being dead does nothing at all to support your point.
Yes, but you still brought it up, so don’t whine when someone calls you on it.
Are you stupid, or do you just choose what to read and what not to read in other people’s posts? I’ve already given you statistics, from the US Department of Justice no less, that show that the murder rate was higher in the 1920s and 1930s (when, according to you, the death penalty was applied “consistently”), than it is now.
Also, you draw a link between how safe society is and how consistently the death penalty is applied, and yet you demonstrate exactly no link between the two things. Firstly, as i’ve said, there was, in the 1920s and 1930s, no correlation between the death penalty and low homicide rates. In fact, the mid to late 1930s, which showed a national murder rate of around 8 per 100,000 (higher than today), was also the period in US history with the highest number of annual executions, with 150-200 executions per year (Graph here). Kind of craps on your theory that consistent enforcement of the death penalty correlates with lower murder rates, doesn’t it?
Second, even in time periods where there was some correlation (late 1940s-mid-1960s), you have not demonstrated that correlation equals causation. That is, you offer no evidence whatsoever that the lower murder rates of that period were in any way due to the manner in which the death penalty was enforced. You’re the one trying to make the case that applying the death penalty consistently leads to a safer society, so you need to offer some rational explanation as to why this might be true, or to show that your assertion has some support from the historical evidence. Ridiculous appeals to your own “personal experience” don’t cut the mustard, i’m afraid.
Yeah, good way to raise your credibility. Offer cheap, emotional anecdotes instead of reasoned argument and evidence.
Firstly, might i suggest that you look up “refute” in your dictionary, just so you don’t confuse it with what you’ve been doing in this thread. Secondly, your “answers” have involved nothing but cheap emotionalism, obfuscation, and avoidance.
Forgot to add:
The graph i linked to in my previous post shows that the number of executions in the United States began to decline precipitously in about 1940, and kept up a very, very sharp downward trend through the 1950s and 1960s. And this was the time that Starving Artist said that he felt the safest. So, SA, would you then accept that declining use of the death penalty means greater safety? I’m betting not,
My, my, my…did we get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Sheesh…I come into a thread wanting nothing more than to kill low-life assholes who take the joys and experiences of life away from others and subject their families and loved ones to lifetimes of pain, grief and sorrow…and you accuse me of cheap emotionalism. Well, guess what, Skippy? Everything about life on this planet is determined by emotionalism. The high-horse you’re on right now is based on emotionalism.
All right. The death penalty obviously prevents reoffense better than life imprisonment (as long as the inmate doesn’t escape while he’s on death row).
However, it fails my other criterion: it is not reversible. A wrongly executed man can’t be brought back. So the DP has one slight advantage (slight because most prisoners don’t escape) and one huge disadvantage compared to imprisonment.
Not at all. I’m not angered by your obtuse unwillingness to consider my evidence, or to present any evidence of your own. You’re simply following your usual pattern of argumentation.
As i’ve already conceded, there is a considerable amount of emotionalism and moral posturing involved with an issue like the death penalty. As i also said before, i’m not criticizing your moral position regarding death-penalty-as-retribution. I don’t agree with it, but i realize that we simply hold different moral views on the matter.
What i’m addressing is your attempt to pretend that emotionalism and moral outrage are the same as evidence. You march in and make sweeping statements about the practical impact of the death penalty on the levels of safety and civilization in society. Then, not only do you fail to present any evidence at all in suport of your assertion, but you choose simply to ignore any evidence that suggests your assertions are misguided.
And then, to cap it all off, you present the details of a single, depressing case as if it somehow supports the case your are rather pathetically trying to make. That’s what i meant about cheap emotionalism.
I guess i’m going to have to give up on this thread, as you’re obviously too cowardly to debate the issues, too stupid to understand them, or too embarrassed to admit that you’re wrong.
Ever been in jail? Or been close with someone who has? It’s not the Hilton, buddy. Most people come out worse than they were when they went it, since America’s prison system is punitive, not rehabilitative. I’ve heard this argument countless times: why should they be allowed to get high school and college degrees? Why should they be allowed to exercise? Watch TV? As if those things make prison fun and wonderful. Nope. They might keep a convict human, though it hardly makes up for the misery of prison life. If such things could be quantified, I’d say life in prison is a far worse punishment than death. JMO.
Because you are clinging to the idea that it’s just that easy: you kill someone, you die, period. But the death penalty is a very involved process that is neither bias nor error free, costs a fortune, and isn’t a deterrent. I feel fairly certain that there’s no proof of any kind that supports your thesis that the DP in any way makes a society more safe or civilized; if you can cite any statistics to back up your claim, I’d like to see them.
This isn’t about whether people who commit murder deserve to die. That really is beside the point. Even though you and I on a gut level might want revenge, and the murderer might deserve it, our emotional responses should not dictate public policy. The death penalty is so fraught with complications and costs, both economic and moral, that its few merits do not make it an effective way to deal with crime. That is the bottom line, for me.
Agreed. And to my mind, the ONLY valid argument against the DP.
This is the place where I ask anyone to cite an innocent person executed since the re-instatement of the DP.
An innocent man/woman being executed is a repugnant thought. And we should take great pains to see that it doesn’t happen. Ever. We do that. But we should do an even better job. I do *not * think the apeals process is too long. We should be in no rush.
And there are changes that I think need to be made in the trial process. Namely, a DP case should never be handed to a novice public defender. If the lawyer is appointed by the state, the lawyer should be experienced. Also, I would like to see a prohibition, nationwide, on ‘jailhouse informant’ testimony. Because we all know they are lying. Nobody, but nobody, confesses anything to an inmate in the jail. Such jailhose informants should be assumed to be lying as a matter of course.
A question. Do we have to show the same mercy after the next victim? Is there a point to which we have to consider that mercy is *not such a good idea * in terms of body count?
Well, in the first place you should probably realize that not everything I’ve said in this thread is aimed at you. Some of it is general opinion based the question raised in the OP, and some of it speaks to other typical objections I’ve heard from the anti-DP crowd over the years.
And where, pray tell, have I done that?
See? This is what I’m talking about. I “march in here” and make “sweeping” statements? Perhaps you’d like to tell me how to enter a thread in such a way as to avoid “marching” into it. And then perhaps you’d like to offer a course on how I should present my point of view so that it fits with your plans regarding its refutation, rather than an explanation of what I happen to be thinking in regard to a particular issue and why I think that way.
The reason I try to avoid statistical pissing contests is just that. All they are are pissing contests to see who can come up with the most statistics to support their side. Statistics can be found to support virtually any point of view.
Simply another example of what’s gone wrong in a society so concerned with being “civilized” that its criminals no longer fear the consequences of their actions like they once did.
Ah, but doesn’t this presume it is you who is in the right in this discussion? What arrogance! I suppose you should give up on this thread; you’ve lost all perspective.
So, because they’re not aimed at me, i should ignore them? I don’t care if it’s “general opinion” or whatever else you want to call it, when you make a statement that purports to have some factual basis, you should be prepared to support it with evidence.
I know this is difficult for you, so i’ll go slowly and take just a single example. You said:
and
and
These statements, taken together, constitute a fairly clear position on the correlation between the safety of a given society and the extent to which the death penalty is applied in that society. Hell, they constitute a clear argument that, when the death penalty is applied fully and consistently in the United States, the country is a safer place.
Where’s your evidence for this? And how to do explain the fact that the government’s own data contradict your position? You claim that “Statistics can be found to support virtually any point of view.” Well, find some that support yours, and make a rational argument based on your examination of those statistics. At least you might have some credibility then.
I’m not asking that you avoid sweeping statements, or that you tailor your presentation to my plans. All i’m asking is that you show enough credibilty not to make sweeping statements without providing some evidence, and that when someone provides evidence that contradicts your assertions, you at least make a good-faith effort to debate the issue rather than pretend you were saying something else.
So i guess that, in your opinion, no debate based on the marshalling of evidence is ever warranted?
No, because you have steadfastly refused to address the substance of my criticisms. We can’t tell who’s right or wrong when one party refuses even to address the issues.
Except, for just one example, that the death penalty is equitably applied and unbiased according to the victim. No matter how many appeals you make to the general distrust of “statistics”, at some point one needs to confront fact. The fact is that a black person killing a white one is far more likely to be sentenced to death than any other murderer (cite, pdf). Do you have any evidence to refute this, or is it your contention that it is simply a “statistic”, and thus safely ignored? Are you happy with this state of affairs? Do you believe it is indicative of justice being served? What, if not statistics, constitutes evidence to which you might be persuaded to pay attention?
I’ve cited an example where a completely innocent man came within 2 days of death, only to be spared by the actions of people operating outside the process of appeal. No lawyer saved his life, no judge saw the mistake, no policeman volunteered the information about the coerced witness statement. Of course there exist no proven cases of innocents being executed, because there exists no appeals process for dead men. Unsurprisingly, exoneration efforts are invariably concentrated on the still-living; proving the innocence of the dead is a rather pyrrhic victory. Your challenge is indeed unanswerable, within the USA’s modern period of capital punishment*. But if you are honest, you must surely admit that this is far from persuasive that the DP is infallible, or can ever be.
115 people have been exonerated since DP reinstatement. Do you think we got them all out in time? When the burden of proof in appeals shifts to the defendant, how can it be possible that the appeals catch all those innocents that were initially convicted “beyond a reasonable doubt”? Do you truly believe that any human system can be infallible? Doesn’t this go against all the experience we have gained, in any field of human endeavour, ever?
[* Timothy Evans was the innocent man whose death arguably brought about the end of the death penalty in the UK; hanged for a crime to which he initially confessed, only to later recant. His “crime” was subsequently found to have been the work of another man. While I happily acknowledge that advancements in law-enforcement process and technology have increased the confidence we can place in our system, I believe it would be arrogant in the extreme to claim that we can possibly have reached perfection. Even if we had, it is hard to envisage a system that can fully protect us from simple things such as coerced confessions, or plea-bargained witness statements, or any number of perversions of justice caused by untrustworthy men. Perfection is unattainable, and to set any lesser standard when dealing with such an irrevocable sentence would be criminal itself.]
Some of this line of reasoning is a bit simple from both sides. Declining executions is obviously going to go hand in hand with fewer murders. Fewer crimes commited equals fewer punishments. In fact, if the DP was 100% successful as a deterent then you would expect to see NO executions and NO murders of a type to merit the DP. Because there are some executions and there continue to be murders we know that the DP is not FULLY effective as a deterent, however, without being able to interview people who may have murdered someone but decided not to because of the DP, we can’t know if it acts as a partial deterent or not.
It is not really possible to use the historical correlation between crime and executions as an argument in favour or against the DP.
Rather unfair. Investigations have a habit of stopping or being much more difficult once the body is in the ground. People who can afford such investigations tend not to be convicted of capital offenses. The investigation is therefore left to private organizations, who face total absence of cooperation from the state, are not entitled to access of much of the necessary information, and in any case have more pressing matters to spend time and money on, such as the appeals of those still alive who can still be saved.
Given the large number of people exonerated while on death row, and given the utter inadequacies of indigent representation, I think it overwhelmingly likely innocents have been executed.
Nick
What about when I make a statement of opinion or an observation borne of life experience? You say I’m arguing in my usual way, but what I’m really doing is explaining what I believe and why. I grew up in a household where everyone was encouraged to speak their mind and everyone else was encouraged to accept it and allow that person to believe what he or she did without scorn, ridicule or hostility. Live-and-let-live where opinions and beliefs were concerned, so to speak. No one was sitting there yelling “cite” every time they heard something they didn’t like. I get sick and tired of people asking (or more likely, demanding) cites of things that are actually my opinions or observations. I’ve been known to tell such people that if they can point me to the place on the Internet where my opinions and beliefs are catalogued, I would be happy to do so.
I came into this thread to state my position on the death penalty and offer explanations as to why I feel the way I do. It is my belief that expressing one’s opinion is part of the reason this message board exists.
If you’ll notice, I very rarely ask for cites. The reason is primarily threefold:
First, like I said, I believe statistics can be found to support or negate virtually any point of view.
Second, many of the things that come up for debate around here are not the type of thing that factual statistics can answer. Take the death penalty discussion we are having now as an example. There simply is no ultimate fact that will prove or disprove whether or not the death penalty is better or worse for society. We are not arguing over the gross national product of Romania here. Such a thing can pretty much be determined through cites and statistics. Whether the death penalty is something the U.S. should or should not have cannot be.
And third, it derails honest and passionate discussion of the issue at hand. When people are arguing the pros and cons of a particular thorny issue, and no concrete fact can show what is best, it is through the exchange of ideas and points of view that people can come to understand the different ramifications involved and determine for themselves which way they feel is best. Constantly hollering for cites to an opinion accomplishes nothing but to grind the discussion to a halt.
This is an example of what I’m talking about. I know as a result of having been there that people felt safer when the death penalty was applied fully and consistently. How am I to provide a cite for the fact that when I was a child, people felt free (or at least much more so than they do now) to leave their doors unlocked, to let their children go out and play and ride their bicycles all over town and be gone all day without fear of something happening to them? How am I to provide a cite that middle-aged and elderly women were able to go shopping and run errands by themselves with virtually no fear that they might be robbed or something might happen to them?
And how do I show that people who used to rein in their murderous impulses did so because they thought it was a given they would be executed if they didn’t?
These kinds of things are common sense. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that people are going to be much less likely to commit murder if they are convinced they will die as a result. And it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if people go through their entire lives with the knowledge in the back of their minds that if they kill someone society will kill them, they will have pretty much an automatic reticence to give in and take someone’s life away.
Of course, some people will kill anyway, but no one is claiming that the death penalty will do away with murder altogether. But to claim the death penalty isn’t a deterrent because murders still happen is like claiming speeding tickets do no good because people still speed. It doesn’t prevent it but it does a damn good job of keeping it minimized. Ever hear of “adverse reaction?” When people fear a result, they are less likely to engage in behavior that will cause it. People aren’t afraid of jail. They know they wouldn’t like it; they know it isn’t fun; they know many of their freedoms will be taken away…but they aren’t afraid of it. People fear death. If they know that killing someone will likely result in their own death, they will be far less likely to take the gamble than if they think they will just go to prison.
Nope. Not so. But I also think people can engage in an exchange of ideas and opinions about things where no concrete answer exists to cast further light on the subject without having it be demanded that the discussion be turned into a sophistic argument over so-called facts, cites or “evidence.” In other words, I feel people here should be free to express opinions or points of view without getting bogged down in fallacious cites that prove nothing conclusively…and I intend to continue to do that when I want to. I’m not going to allow myself to be precluded from expressing a point of view I’ve come to hold based on my observations and life-experience because some “cite” doesn’t exist somewhere to prove it. Some things are uncitable, but they are just as worthy of discussion. In fact, many of the most difficult questions we all face daily are things that cannot be answered factually.
Dead Badger, sorry but time again is a problem. I will say though that the point you raise is a very good instance in which data and statistics can be used toward a positive result.
However, much of the debate over the death penalty is a matter of philosophical belief and most of those who oppose it would still oppose it even if a 100% accurate method could be arrived at to determine guilt before execution.
An excellent point. I wish I had thought of it. 
Don’t be deliberately obtuse. When we fine a jaywalker, we’re not attempting to undo the damage he’s done – we’re applying a punishment as a deterrent. You can disagree with the “deterrent” argument all you want, but pretending you’re unaware of it is dumb.
I’m 100% against the death penalty for the simple reason that I don’t believe the judicial system is accurate enough to determine guilt with absolute precision.