Does Shodan rock because he has come up with a justification for the death penalty? Because he sure hasn’t demonstrated that the death penalty saves lives in a cost effective manner.
Two concepts of punishment are deterence and incapacitation. Shodan (for the purposes of the argument perhaps) has conceded that the death penalty doesn’t deter. It does however, incapacitate, insofar as dead men don’t murder others. If I understand him properly (and I may not) he gets excited at the prospect of killing 100 men so that 1.2 innocent lives would be saved. That’s not my favored cost/benefit, but whatever.
Obviously though, there’s the option of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Since jail keepers are generally cheaper than lawyers, that would save funds. And it wouldn’t involve killing 100 to save 1.2. As for the 2 men who have escaped - let’s see those stats. What is the escape rate for convicted murders? We know some people get off in killing 100 to save 1. But what’s the ratio here? 1000:1? 100,000:1?
Anecdote still isn’t data, even if you like the reporter of the anecdote.
Oh, and the next time you hear somebody talk of the death penalty for only heinous crimes, remember the sort of industrial killing that Shodan appears to be advocating.
That’s kind of the point - the cost/benefit ratio if we execute is better than that if we don’t. So if you favor a cost/benefit of not executing over one of executing, then you are choosing an option where more innocent lives are lost.
I dealt with that. Both Tison and Greenawalt were already serving life when they committed seven further murders. So that option cost seven innocent lives.
And as I mentioned indirectly, if anti-DP proponents are serious about justice, we will not save money by sentencing people to life instead of executing them. Most of the cost of the death penalty is incurred with the endless appeals. Anti-DP folks usually mention that part of their motivation is to see justice done to the innocent. (Not always - sometimes they just argue that who was involved in the murder didn’t get the DP, so neither should anyone.) If anti-DP folks are serious about this, they will file just as many appeals for murderers in jail for life as they do for those on death row. In which case life for murderers will be nearly as costly as the DP, or moreso, because there will be no endpoint to the appeals.
That’s not really the statistic you want. What you want is the statistic of convicted murderers who escape and kill, or who are released and kill, or who kill in prison.
And if you think about it, you don’t really need statistics. The examples already given of Tison and Greenawalt (as well as Ed Wein and Robert Stroud and Ed Kemp and others) establish pretty clearly that it does happen sometimes that murderers escape/get released/kill in prison. So the statistic of “percent of murderers who are sentenced to life and still kill innocent people” > 0. Now let’s compare that to “percent of murderers who are executed and still kill innocent people”.
That is just idiotic. Yes, I get what your point is, but the fact that I get it does not make it less idiotic.
[/QUOTE]
Then if it is idiotic to think that anti-DP people file any fewer appeals for those in prison for life than they do for those sentenced to the DP, then (as mentioned above) we will not save any money by eliminating the DP.
We can only sentence people to death after they do something worthy of the death penalty. Stealing a car isn’t one of those things. We cannot, IOW, give a disproportionate punishment to someone for something he might do in the future. We can, however, give a proportionate punishment to someone for something he did in the past, and thereby reap the benefit of preventing him from doing anything in the future. That’s just, in the same way that we can send car thieves to prison and (while they are imprisoned) reap the benefit of preventing them (mostly) of committing all kinds of crimes for the duration of their stay. This includes preventing them from committing murders (for those who don’t kill anyone in prison) as well as lesser crimes. It is not unjust to do this, because the punishment of prison for property crimes is not unjust. Death for property crimes would be unjust, even though it would prevent future murders.
Prevention of future murders, IOW, is not the only consideration. It’s an advantage that we can take into consideration when the penalty imposed is otherwise just.
I am curious as to the extent of your sense of proportion. Consider Don Blankenship, who killed 29 innocent people: by what standard should he be allowed to escape execution? His actions we vile and detestable, yet he does not even go to prison. Is this proportional?
Yet, the net benefit negligible, as the statistics show. I get the impression that support for capital punishment mostly boils down to some kind of atavistic hunger to exact revenge. The data does not unambiguously demonstrate that it is useful for anything else.
Woah, upthread you were talking about 1.2% murder rates among those released from prison for murder. I haven’t checked your stats, but you seemed to be advocating killing 83 to save 1 innocent life. Now you might be talking about saving net innocent lives… but you should really say that if you mean that.
Morally, you are taking a step equating 1 actual life to 1 statistical life - in other contexts that would be unacceptable. As it happens, I’m willing to degrade a convicted murderer to that of a theoretic person saved. Shodan appears to accept something like a 1:100 ratio or even higher. Regardless, obfuscation is unhelpful.
I’m not sure what you’re advocating now. Why do you believe that those sentenced to death can’t escape prison? After all, they are generally on death row for over a decade.
The other weird thing about this 1978 prison break is how lax the security was. Basically it involved hiding shotguns in a picnic basket. My take is that regardless of your position on the death penalty, Arizona needed to beef up its security: I assume they did.
You complained about the “Endless appeals”, yet the American system of capital punishment still manages to convict the innocent. You seem to be implying that an accelerated system of industrial level killing (one that involves killing murderers who now are given less than a life sentence) would have a lower error rate than the escape rate from prison (adjusted by the expected numbers killed during escapes). I’m guessing they would differ by an order of magnitude, though many of the innocents killed by the state would remain unidentified, unless perhaps junk science were involved.
It’s true that the deterrence argument is much more favorable to DP advocates. The 1975 study was shite and acknowledged to be without policy implications by the author. But more recent work is of higher quality. I haven’t read the papers, but IIRC the Economist magazine noted that the results weren’t particularly robust. Specifically if you drop Texas from the sample, the effect goes away. And Texas is a bit of an oddity. (I have read studies indicating no significant effect (and it wasn’t borderline IIRC), but while their methodology was superior to the 1975 study, I’m not sure how it compares with the more recent pro DP work.)
But we’ve have further DP moratoriums over the past decade or so, which gives us a larger dataset. As I implied in the previous post, if I was convinced that the DP saved a statistically significant number of lives and the relationship was robust, then I would be for it. But a 10,000:1, 100:1 or even 10:1 gas chamber/statistical life relationship? No, not for me. YMMV, etc.
Ok, I checked Table 10 of the report, page 9. It doesn’t quite say that. What it says is that 1.2% of those released for homicide are arrested for another homicide within 3 years.
It’s not surprising that when a homicide occurs that the usual suspects are rounded up. But arrests are not convictions.
Nor are all homicides murders. The footnote in the table states, “c Homicide includes murder, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, negligent manslaughter, nonnegligent manslaughter, unspecified manslaughter, and unspecified homicide.” It would have been better to have reported that.
It’s not clear to me whether Shodan wants to apply the death penalty to negligent or nonnegligent manslaughter. I assume he doesn’t consider arrests to be convictions. Shodan may have been referencing another part of the 16 page report on 1994 releases. It’s unclear to me why more recent data wasn’t used: is that year representative?
Yeah, yeah, America is bad, we’re the cause of all the evil in the world. I swear I can’t understand how the left can hate their country so much.
But on the death penalty, do those of you opposed think that the punishment shouldn’t equal the crime? What would be an appropriate sentence for a person who a ten year old, raped, tortured and dismembered them? Should we ask them to promise to never ever pinky swear to do it again?
And what if that was your ten year old? You going to walk up to the monster that destroyed your family and give him a hug and wish him the best?
Let Europe do it’s thing, well do ours. I don’t like killing any more than the next person, but some actions deserve the ultimate price. They sure as hell didn’t show any mercy to their victim, did they? They radio what they sow.
I haven’t seen anybody argue for this in the thread.
Get real. The only people who have discussed secession within the past 20 years are conservative wackos in Texas and other places.
I advocate cost effective methods of increasing public safety in this great country, rather than expensive ones for stoking recreational outrage.
Lock them up and throw away the key. As for promises, that’s another straw man argument you’ve presented. This is tiresome.
Lock em up and throw away the key.
Incidentally, if somebody murders me, I hope my successors don’t call for revenge on my account.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. For a guy who doesn’t like killing, you sure show a lot of enthusiasm for the idea without presenting anything in the way of evidence.
In terms of outcome, what makes life imprisonment with no possibility of parole different than a death sentence? The prisoner will die, in prison, guaranteed. The only difference is that the government wouldn’t be actively causing the death (i.e., injection, gunshot, etc.).
Basically, if you plan to kill someone, and then kill him this is 1st degree murder.
I shows that you have to complex capacity of planning a horrifying thing.
If you kill someone intentionally but spontaneously without having any feelings against him in the past this is second degree murder, it shows you are capable of murdering.
If you kill someone by accident it you aren’t necessarily bad.
Now for the first one. If you plan something, which you know it’s not right to do and you still plan and execute it that means you are pure evil, and therefore you must be executed because how are we going to make sure you won’t do the same thing in prison again.
For the second one, we need to find the motive behind your killing, was it a burst of anger, was it a hate crime? It it is a hate crime, you must be tortured before killed If it’s not you must be sent to prison or necessary health institution if you have a problem controlling yourself.
Although this doesn’t mean you should be executed. If your mental damage is irreversible, you have no benefit to our community and you are doing psycho shit out there stabbing someone, being crazy isn’t an excuse. I think it would be better for everyone it these kind of “problem’d individuals” were put down.
Adding to my previous post, I need to say that if I killed someone I would rather be killed than being confined in the same place with the rest of my life, knowing that my chance of parole is zero.
I get a headache everytime my super religious Republican relatives go all pro-death penalty. Yes, because that’s how that scripture with Jesus and the line with “eye for an eye” went. :smack:
No, I find it hypocritical that they quote scripture when it comes to marriage and babies, but when it comes to what Jesus said about capital punishment they either misread that part or have selective memory.
I think that much of it is that the US doesn’t want to be ruled by other countries, and wants to do what the electorate chooses, rather than trying to spite the other nations for being so progressive.
If it’s not you must be sent to prison or necessary health institution if you have a problem controlling yourself.