You Kill, You Die.

[BobT]

Can’t we all at least agree that the word is spelled “deterrent”. It doesn’t have an “a” in it.

[pepperlandgirl]

On the issues of deterence, the following studies have been made:
(I didn’t want to quote all of this, but hey, a girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do)

Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas.
Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart examined executions in
Texas between 1984 and 1997. They speculated that if a deterrent effect were to exist, it would be found
in Texas because of the high number of death sentences and executions within the state. Using patterns in
executions across the study period and the relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found
no evidence of a deterrent effect. The study concluded that the number of executions was unrelated to
murder rates in general, and that the number of executions was unrelated to felony rates. (45 Crime and
Delinquency 481-93 (1999)).

Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty: Another Examination of OklahomaÕs Return to
Capital Punishment. In this study, author William Bailey speculated that if executions had a deterrent
effect in Oklahoma, it would be observable by comparing murder rates and rates of sub-types of murder,
such as felony-murder, stranger robbery-related killings, stranger non-felony murder, and
argument-related killings, before and after the resumption of executions. Bailey examined the period
between 1989 and 1991 for total killings and sub-types of killing. After controlling for a number of
variables, Bailey found that there was no evidence for a deterrent effect. He did, however, find that there
was a significant increase in stranger killings and non-felony stranger killings after Oklahoma resumed
executions after a 25-year moratorium. (36 Criminology 711-33 (1998)).

Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California. Author Ernie Thompson examined criminal
homicides in Los Angeles before and after CaliforniaÕs execution of Robert Harris in 1992, the stateÕs
first execution after a 25-year moratorium. Thompson found slight increases in homicides during the eight
months following the execution. (3 Homicide Studies 129-150 (1999)).

The Geography of Execution: The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America. Keith Harries and
Derral Cheatwood studied differences in homicides and violent crime in 293 pairs of counties. Counties
were matched in pairs based on geographic location, regional context, historical development,
demographic and economic variables. The pairs shared a contiguous border, but differed on use of capital
punishment. The authors found no support for a deterrent effect of capital punishment at the county level
comparing matched counties inside and outside states with capital punishment, with and without a death
row population, and with and without executions. The authors did find higher violent crime rates in death
penalty counties. (Rowman and Littlefiled Publishers, Lanham, MD (1997))

Center FBI Uniform Crime Reports:
Murder Rates per 100,000 population
State
1998
1997
1996
1995
Louisiana
12.8
15.7
17.5
17
Mississippi
11.4
13.1
11.1
12.9
New Mexico
10.9
7.7
11.5
8.8
Maryland
10
9.9
11.6
11.8
Nevada
9.7
11.2
13.7
10.7
Tennessee
8.5
9.5
9.5
10.6
Illinois
8.4
9.2
10
10.3
Alabama
8.1
9.9
10.4
11.2
Arizona
8.1
8.2
8.5
10.4
Georgia
8.4
7.5
9.5
10
North Carolina
8.1
8.3
8.5
9.4
Arkansas
8.9
9
8.7
10.4
South Carolina
8
8.4
9
7.9
Indiana
7.7
7.3
7.2
8
*Michigan
7.3
7.8
7.5
8.5
Missouri
7.3
7.9
8.1
8.8
Texas
6.8
6.8
7.7
9
*Alaska
6.7
8.9
7.4
9.1
California
6.6
8
9.1
11.2
Florida
6.5
6.9
7.5
7.3
Virgina
6.2
7.2
7.5
7.6
Oklahoma
6.1
6.9
6.8
12.2
Kansas
5.9
6
6.6
6.2
Pennsylvania
5.3
5.9
5.7
6.3
New York
5.1
6
7.4
8.5
Wyoming
4.8
3.5
3.3
2.1
Colorado
4.6
4
4.7
5.8
Kentucky
4.6
5.8
5.9
7.2
*West Virginia
4.3
4.1
3.8
4.9
Connecticut
4.1
3.8
4.8
4.6
Montana
4.1
4.8
3.9
3
New Jersey
4
4.2
4.2
5.1
Ohio
4
4.7
4.8
5.4
Washington
3.9
4.3
4.6
5.1
Oregon
3.8
2.9
4
4.1
*Wisconsin
3.6
4
4.2
5.1
Nebraska
3.1
3
2.9
2.9
Utah
3.1
2.4
3.2
3.9
Idaho
2.9
3.2
3.6
4.1
Delaware
2.8
2.5
4.3
3.5
*Minnesota
2.6
2.8
3.6
3.9
*Vermont
2.6
1.5
1.9
2.2
*Rhode Island
2.4
2.5
2.5
3.3
*Hawaii
2
4
3.4
4.7
*Maine
2
2
2
2
*Massachusetts
2
1.9
2.6
3.6
*Iowa
1.9
.8
1.9
1.8
New Hampshire
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.8
South Dakota
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.8
*North Dakota
1.1
0.9
2.2
0.9
NATIONAL
6.3
6.8
7.4

*indicates state w/o death penalty

So, the states that do not have the death penalty actually has LESS murders then the states that do. So tell me, how does the death penalty act as a deterent factor?

Yes. They would be less likely to convict. This is my point. Both the jury and the DA would need a
more rigid proof of guilt, before they were willing to implement the Death Penalty.

                 There probably would be fewer convictions. There would also likely be less false convictions, since the
                 stakes are so high. 

So, let me see if I understand this. You believe that all people who murder should die. So, in order to achieve this, you want to implement a program that would actually REDUCE the numbers of convictions. So, 1st Degree killers can walk if there is not enough evidence to convict them. Instead of having them sit in jail, you want them to either die, or walk?

Yes I did, but castrating a rapist would not necessarily prevent him from perpetrating sexual violence
against women in the future.

How many castrated men do you know that can still have sex?
How many castrated animals period do you know that can still have sex?

Yes, you posted evidence. I replied with why that evidence wasn’t valid. You didn’t respond. To recap,
the death penalty is not implemented enough, or consistently for it’s detterance factor to be
measurable. (See my first link.)
About 1 in 2,000 murders actually results in an execution. You stand a better chance of dying in a car
crash than you do of being executed if you commit murder. How do you expect that to create a
detterant?

You FINALLY posted some kind of evidence, 2 pages into the debate. And you never replied with why the evidence wasn’t valid, at least, not with evidence of your own.
I think that everybody knows the death penalty is being implemented now, even potential murderers. I think the people who cared whether they lived or died would not want to play with those odds.

You also need to remember that there are more types of evidence than cites from people who happen
to agree with you, statistics of questionable value. An argument founded on logic can be evidence in
support of an assertion until it’s refuted.

Uh, the evidence you found are from sites with people who agree with you. So, because I don’t agree with you, my statistics are of questionable value. However, your cites and statistics are 100% accurate? I doubt it.

Obviously there are degrees of mercy, just as there are degrees of cruelty. THe world is not lack and
white.

To me it is. Believe it or not, I do not believe in mercy. In my mind the most cruel thing you can do to someone is not only take their life by locking them up in jail, but also letting them live long enough to miss the life they lost. I think killing them would be too merciful.

THen leave it to God, if that’s what you want to do. Or, forgive them. WHile you are at it why don’t you
invite some of these convicted murderers to live with you in your home?

Why don’t you get off your self-righteous high horse? Why do you get to decide who deserves to be forgiven or not?

You took that out of context. My quote was in referance to the fact that when the wrong man is
convicted, the victims families have received no justice. Nowhere does that say that families of victims
recquire death.

Your desired program not only doesn’t stop innocent men from being convicted, it also encourages the courts to convict FEWER men…so where is the justice there?

You cry for evidence, but don’t respond to it when it’s not in the
form you prefer.

You posted exactly 2 web sites, other then you have provided no evidence. On top of that the 2 web sites you posted came very late, after I accused you of not posting evidence. And THEN you accused me of have questionable statistics when you not provided anything better.

If you don’t like the way I argue, than don’t argue with me. I’m not going to change to suit your
personal preferance, and especially when your complaint is an invalid one

That’s your problem, all you do is ARGUE. You don’t DEBATE. Whether you believe it or not, there is a difference. Obviously, you don’t know what that difference is.

[David_B]

I tried to post part of this early this morning, but had server problems (on my end). So, here we go again:

Scylla said:

Upon reconsideration, equating one of your earlier posts to the vile likes of CB and Pahley is probably a low blow. I would like to retract that with sincere apologies.

Apology accepted.

Being an advocate of the death penalty does not mean that I don’t mind or care about innocent people being to death for crimes they didn’t commit.

I’m sure you care. However, your messages have indicated that you don’t care enough to stop all executions and end that risk. Instead, you seem to have this bizarre belief that faster executions will do more to exonerate the innocent. I honestly cannot fathom how you got to this idea, and the explanations you have posted have been less than enlightening to me in this regard. So, like I said, I’m sure you believe it, but I find it rather backwards, and therefore cannot support it.

In glancing through some of those articles quickly, I guess Illinois might not be ready for my plan. You actually need to find the guilty party if you want to execute him. You just can’t grab any old person off the street as a substitute, as these articles might suggest seems to be the common practice there.

Indeed. But I don’t think Illinois is alone in this. I think we may be almost alone in having recognized it as a problem. Do you really think Texas, which has the highest rate of executions, is that much better? I admit that I have no evidence that it is as bad (mostly because I don’t live there and have never checked), but like I’ve said, these are imperfect human beings making these decisions.

For my plan to make sense you actually do need a legal system that has a high degree of accuracy and competence in determining guilt.

More than just a high degree of accuracy and competence. It must be 100% or it is an inherently immoral system.

Later, Scylla said:

The bias of the articles notwithstanding, they point to a very real and significant problem in Illinois.

Bias? Why? Because they point to a problem? The Tribune is generally considered to be a conservative newspaper (except for their stance on gun control).

It appears that a combination of three factors have coalesced to produce this disgusting phenomenom.

Frankly, I think there is one main factor – as I’ve mentioned more than a few times here already: Human fallibility.

Defendants must not realize that the public defenders offices typically contain excellent lawyers out to make a name for themselves. A position within the office is highly sought after and often will provide a first rate defense.

FYI, there was just a story on the news the other day about how many Illinois public defenders offices are at least half-empty. We’re in a time with very little unemployment, and lawyers are being sought after with big bucks that cities and counties have not been able to match. A tangent, but an interesting one.

3. Prosecutorial Misconduct. This seems particulary heinous. Perhaps if the Prosecutor knew that a death sentence awaited him if it was uncovered that his misconduct resulted in death, he would be less likely to engage in the practice.

Give me a break. They were the ones prosecuting and asking for the death penalty! Then, after they got it, they still didn’t come forward and admit to having made errors (accidental or on purpose). They knew damned well the person would be headed towards the death penalty, and they either convinced themselves that the person was guilty so it didn’t matter, or they just didn’t care. In all likelihood, it was the former, but that doesn’t make it a whole lot better.

The Illinois situation is a travesty. In searching the net I’ve seen it elsewhere. The consensus seems to be that it is an example of a worst case scenario, and not typical of the justice system throughout the country.

Maybe, maybe not. If you had asked about it a few years ago, before all of this information came to light, some would have said it couldn’t possibly be that bad anywhere. So do we really know it’s not that bad elsewhere? I don’t.

And even if it’s only, say, half as bad elsewhere. Is that ok? Not by my count. One quarter as bad? One tenth as bad? Again, we’re back to the immorality of the government taking even one innocent human life.

Daniel said:

you both make the point that “life imprisonment without parole” prevent recidivisms in killers. your wrong. Killers have been paroled by “accident” or deliberately by dumb Govenors, and have killed again.

Oh, please. Why not just say that there might be a meteor strike that knocks the lock off their cell and they run away? Let’s try to stick to realistic scenarios here.

They have escaped, and then often kill again. They have killed Guards. They have killed other prisoners (and some schnook in the Pen for boosting cars does NOT deserve to be killed.)

So stick 'em in solitary confinement and beef up security. Executing people just because they might escape is ridiculous reasoning.

we have a duty to see that no innocent is executed, but we have a higher duty to prevent a murderer from killing another innocent.

I disagree. Certainly we have a duty to protect the public, but I would argue (and, indeed, have been arguing) that we have a higher duty to make sure we, the people, don’t murder an innocent ourselves, through our government. It’s heinous when a criminal commits murder. It’s worse when a government does it.

The especial use for this would be the “lifer” who escapes & kills again, or kills a guard or another prisoner. After all, what can you DO to a guy who is in for life w/o parole?

Solitary confinement, for one thing.

Can you 2 (DSYesq & David B)STILL disagree with the Death Penalty for THESE Offenders?

As I’ve repeatedly said, if the system were perfect, I’d agree. But it isn’t. Even in a prison case, you have the same problems of human fallibility.

Killers who are sentenced to life- “wopop”, still kill, and they kill innocents.

Please back up this statement with factual information. Thanks. And not just “well, it happened once in this bizarre instance,” please.

[Scylla]

Pepper:

Apparently you didn’t bother to check my first link which shows why those results may be questionable. Specifically, bias and a 1 in 2000 execution rate per murder. That is not enough to create a deterrent. If you think it is, please explain why.

Instead of complaining about my debating technique, why not address the issues at hand?

Simply providing a bibliography of studies proves nothing.

Nor does listing deaths per 1000 by state. Do you believe that it is a pure relationship between death penalties and murders, or do you think there might possibly be other factors involved that might muddle such a naive assertion? I don’t know, little things like per capita gun ownership, poverty levels, crime levels, percentage of population living in an urban era, do you think things like this might skew the numbers a little bit? If you would like your statistics to mean something, you have to be careful in how you implement them.

You said:

“So, let me see if I understand this. You believe that all people who murder should die. So, in order to
achieve this, you want to implement a program that would actually REDUCE the numbers of
convictions. So, 1st Degree killers can walk if there is not enough evidence to convict them. Instead of
having them sit in jail, you want them to either die, or walk?”

Pretty close. If the DA knows that the alternative to getting a death penalty conviction is the plaintiff walking, he will probably only implement this course of action in only the most airtight of cases. The rest of the cases will be tried with a lesser charge. The number of death penalty convictions would almost certainly be reduced. The percentage of those sentences that were actually carried out would be much higher. If I remember correctly without checking, there are currently about 3,000 people now on death row. Since the reimplementation of the death penalty, I think less than 700 have actually been executed.

So, before a DA goes for the death penalty, he had better be damn sure he can get it, or the plaintiff will walk. Ideally this may mean that fewer innocents are executed.

Next:

“How many castrated men do you know that can still have sex?
How many castrated animals period do you know that can still have sex?”

Again, the idea that rape is about inserting a penis into a vagina is naive. It’s about violence, power and the degradation of women. It’s not about sex and orgasm as any psychiatrist or policemen familiar with the MO of rapists will tell you.

FYI, some castrated men and animals can still engage in sex. Other organs may compensate to create enough testosterone to allow for erection, orgasm, and even ejaculation. My dog has been castrated, but that doesn’t stop him. But that’s besides the point.

Hypothetically, I know that if I was castrated, I would be pretty upset about it. If I had a violent predisposition against women, it might be exacerbated by my maiming. My capacity for violence would be undiminished. Men who are castrated due to accident, testicular cancer, or various wounds still exhibit a strong desire for sexual contact with women. Why should a rapist be different. If you were attac ked and your attacker used a foreign object to savagely molest you instead of his orga, do you think that would somehow make it better?

“Why don’t you get off your self-righteous high horse? Why do you get to decide who deserves to be
forgiven or not?”

Hey, you are the one that brought forgiveness into this debate. First remove the high horse from thine own eye, before strinking the mote from another’s (or something like that.)

“That’s your problem, all you do is ARGUE. You don’t DEBATE. Whether you believe it or not, there is
a difference. Obviously, you don’t know what that difference is.”

Sorry you feel that way. I’ve tried to address your issues. If you don’t like my style, feel free to go “debate” somebody else rather than “argue” with me. That’s what I’d do.

DavidB:

You said:

“I’m sure you care. However, your messages have indicated that you don’t care enough to stop all
executions and end that risk.”

No more than my reluctance to end innoculation programs means that I am not concerned about the children who die as a result of them.

What I am arguing for is a faster, more accurate, and more difficult criteria for the implementation of the death penalty, one that may in fact provide a deterrent. Very few death sentences actually get carried out. Less than 1 in 2000 murders result in an execution. There can be no hope of a deterrent in these circumstances. If we wish to use the death penalty we need to actually carry it out. It needs to be done quickly, for justice, for mercy (to the convicted criminal to minimize suffering (I say this with a straight face after reading a first hand account of life on death row today,) and to create an effective deterrent.

We need to have a high degree of certainty that we are actually executing the right person, for moral reasons (I think I’ve explained why even though 100% is not achievable, it doesn’t mean we should abandon the practice. We engage in lots of activities willingly and unwillingly which may result in our untimely death. They are unavoidable.) The process I’ve described would result in only the very strongest of cases being tried for death.

"Indeed. But I don’t think Illinois is alone in this. I think we may be almost alone in having recognized it
as a problem. Do you really think Texas, which has the highest rate of executions, is that much
better? I admit that I have no evidence that it is as bad (mostly because I don’t live there and have
never checked), but like I’ve said, these are imperfect human beings making these decisions. "

Granted, Hopefully we will find out. One of the articles you cited said that the quality of your defense attorney is the most determinant factor as to whether you will get the death penalty or not. I would be a strong advocate of the mininmum standards for attorneys defending capitol cases that some states have implemented.

"More than just a high degree of accuracy and competence. It must be 100% or it is an inherently
immoral system. "

Again, no more than innoculations are immoral.

"Bias? Why? Because they point to a problem? The Tribune is generally considered to be a
conservative newspaper (except for their stance on gun control). "

I didn’t see much of an attempt at a two-sided argument. Granted, the misdeeds presented were pretty heinous. The pervading bias against capitol punishment that I detected is of course my opinion. I think it’s real nonetheless. As a skeptic, I know you don’t take everything you read in the Tribune at face value. I saw the articles as the attempt to present a conclusion, rather than as a description of a set of circumstances from which a reader might draw his own conclusions.

"FYI, there was just a story on the news the other day about how many Illinois public defenders offices
are at least half-empty. We’re in a time with very little unemployment, and lawyers are being sought
after with big bucks that cities and counties have not been able to match. A tangent, but an
interesting one. "

I was not aware of that. I had friends that lamented how difficult it was to get a job in the Public Defender’s office but that was ten years ago. Times change.

"Frankly, I think there is one main factor – as I’ve mentioned more than a few times here already:
Human fallibility. "

I guess my subset of three could be covered by that blanket statement. I would like to be a little more specific though.

"Give me a break. They were the ones prosecuting and asking for the death penalty! Then, after they
got it, they still didn’t come forward and admit to having made errors (accidental or on purpose). They
knew damned well the person would be headed towards the death penalty, and they either convinced
themselves that the person was guilty so it didn’t matter, or they just didn’t care. In all likelihood, it
was the former, but that doesn’t make it a whole lot better. "

Yes, but this misconduct resulted in no real penalties against the prosecuters, even when it was uncovered. What did they have to lose by cheating? Not much. If they faced criminal charges, like murder, or attempted murder, than THAT would send a message, don’t you think? And, surely they deserved such a charge against them for the suffering they created.

[2sense]

Your point is taken.

Allow me to reword my statement.
Fine. It is unproven. Let’s not draw conclusions from it then.

I am not just trying to why you to death. I have discussed the other arguments against the death penalty. This 1 always seemed very nebulous. I would like to see where it goes. If you do not wish to explore this, that is OK. Simply do not respond to this post. I will not be offended. If you do then please respond to my questions. Also, feel free to ask your own.

[Satan]

I still would like a death penalty supporter to answer to my questions:

Are you prepared to be that innocent victim who was framed or mistakenly convicted of a crime? Are you prepared to be one of those innocent folks who have to die because that is inherent with the death penalty?

Are you prepared to have this innocent person be your father? Your spouse? Your child?

---

Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
One month, two weeks, 14 hours, 42 minutes and 22 seconds.
1784 cigarettes not smoked, saving $223.06.
Life saved: 6 days, 4 hours, 40 minutes.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Scylla:

No more than my reluctance to end innoculation programs means that I am not concerned about the children who die as a result of them.

There is a very real difference between the two cases: we have no means other than innoculation of protecting our children from some diseases. That is not the case with murderers. We have other means to keep them from killing again.

I think I’ve explained why even though 100% is not achievable, it doesn’t mean we should abandon the practice. We engage in lots of activities willingly and unwillingly which may result in our untimely death. They are unavoidable.

The death penalty, however, is very avoidable. There is no need for the state to take this risk. It is unwarranted and unjust for the state to risk my life to implement a solution that is no more effective than less risky alternatives.

Very few death sentences actually get carried out. Less than 1 in 2000 murders result in an execution.

There are some obvious rpoblems with using this number in reference to deterrence.

1. The number was derived from murders in all states, yet the death penalty is not practiced in all states. This skews the number to make it appear that executions are more rare in jurisdictions where it is an option.
2. The large number does not represent only those crimes for which the DP would apply. It includes either all crimes classified as "murder (1st, 2nd or 3rd degree) or all deaths resulting from violent criminal activity (which would include manslaughter as well). The language of the site was inconsistent in addressing this, so I do not know which number it was actually using. regardless, both cases again skew the number to make the DP appear more rarely applied.
3. The number does not count the appropriate number of death sentences. Since the large number refers to crimes commited in a year, the appropriate measure would be how many of those crimes resulted in a capital conviction not how many people were executed for crimes which may or may not have taken place during the period measured. It is not possible to determine how this skews the number without fuller access to the raw data.

Of course, the real question is whether this type of simple ration is actually meaningful at all to the issue, but even if it were the specific number cited is without merit.

[Scylla]

2sense:

We are forced to draw conclusions from suppositions all the time. I think that both logic and evidence strongly suggest that a properly implemented death penalty could serve as a very strong deterrent.

Satan:

I thought I answered your question. Did you miss my post?

The answer is NO. I am neither prepared, nor willing to be an innocent sacrifice. I am also neither prepared nor willing to be hit by a meteorite when I walk outside, nor ride an airplane that explodes in midair, or be mangled in a car crash. I still walk outside, ride planes, and drive cars though.

Currently my odds of being executed for murder are running about 1 in 2.5 million (I’m being generous here.) My odds of dying in a car or plane crash are many many times that.
The possibility is there. You have to live (or die) with it.

Just because there is the possibility for error and misadventure doesn’t mean you should do nothing.

Cars kill many more people every year than a death penalty ever will, yet I don’t here anybody arguing that we should all walk.

[Scylla]

Spiritus:

You bring up some interesting points.

You said:

“There is a very real difference between the two cases: we have no means other than innoculation of
protecting our children from some diseases. That is not the case with murderers. We have other
means to keep them from killing again.”

You are correct insofar as the death penalty stands today. It is not used as an effective deterrent. Based on the miniscule follow through on capital convictions it would be very surprising if there were any measurable detterent effect.

I think it very likely that my suggestion would in fact provide an effective deterrent to murder. This would save lives, just like the innoculations, and be just as necessary. Besides, we engage in lots of “unnecessary activities” that can result in death, like driving cars, drinking alcohol, walking across the street, smoking, etc. Smoking is still legal in my opinion because quite a few people make money off of it. That’s a lot worse reason to allow something than the potential for creating an effective deterrent for murder, don’t you think?

FYI, the medical establishment was quite resistant to changing from “live virus” injections though safer and more effective innoculations have been available for some time. (Not that that’s germaine to this discussion.)

“There are some obvious rpoblems with using this number in reference to deterrence.
1) The number was derived from murders in all states, yet the death penalty is not practiced in all
states. This skews the number to make it appear that executions are more rare in jurisdictions where
it is an option.”

Good point. Let’s be arbitrary for a sec and cut the # to 1 in 1000. Still very low.

"2) The large number does not represent only those crimes for which the DP would apply. It includes
either all crimes classified as "murder (1st, 2nd or 3rd degree) or all deaths resulting from violent
criminal activity (which would include manslaughter as well). The language of the site was
inconsistent in addressing this, so I do not know which number it was actually using. regardless, both
cases again skew the number to make the DP appear more rarely applied. "

I was under the impression that it only applied to capital murderers (It seems to have been written by a student, and there are some inconsistencies. I’ll doublecheck.

“3) The number does not count the appropriate number of death sentences. Since the large number
refers to crimes commited in a year, the appropriate measure would be how many of those crimes
resulted in a capital conviction not how many people were executed for crimes which may or may not
have taken place during the period measured. It is not possible to determine how this skews the
number without fuller access to the raw data.”

I disagree. The percentage of capital convictions that are actually carried out is quite low. To measure the deterrent you would need to examine only those sentences that were actually carried out. For example, there are more than 3000 people on death row right now. Last year we had 60 execut ions (if my memory serves.) We’ve had less than 700 since the reinstitution of the death penalty. The average stay on death row is somewhere around 10 years (being conservative, got figures from a death row statistics webpage, but I’m going by memory since I can’t find the damn thing.)

Doing some thumbnail math, and assuming that the death sentence conviction rate is constant, that means that we should expect an estimated 300 executions a year if 100% of the sentences were carried out. Instead we have about 20% follow through. (Obviously these numbers are VERY rough)

The point is you can see how if we only used convictions we would get invalid results.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Satan: to all those questions: I would be willing to take the risk, if the death penalty was applied only to the worst cases, and then, ALWAYS & fast. I am willing to take the infintesimal chance of being TWICE convicted wrongly for 2 unrelated murders. I am not willing to give a second time killer a chance at a third, or 4th, or 5th…

I have conceded the most persuasive arguement against the Death Penalty is the chance of executing an innocent. Do you not concede the most persuasive arguement FOR the Death Penalty is the chance he will kill again, and thus executions protect the innocent?

I am working on stats, but if you will not concede that at least ONE guard has been killed by a prisoner who is a murderer, or that at least ONE innocent has been killed by an escaped killer, there is no use talking. And even if that # is only 2, it is 2 more than the # of persons wrongfully convicted of 2 unrelated murders. Repeat killers/psycopaths should die.

[Scylla]

Daniel:

I appreciate the help, but do you see that if for example 10 prison guards have been killed and 20 people have been killed by escape repeat murders since the reimplementation of the death penalty (pretty generous guesses I think,) than this does not help as an argument for the death penalty.

The counterargument could be that we had to kill almost 700 people to save 30! How can that be justified.

You would also have to prove that fewer than 30 of the 700 were wrongfully executed. That means that a 95% accuracy rate would have been needed just to make it a break even proposition, and we ARE talking about lives here.

In order to make capital punishment effective and worthwhile, it is my opinion that we need to provide an extremely effective deterrent, and an accuracy better than 99%.

I would like to see a system where it could be demonstrated that the deterrent was saving hundreds of lives for each innocent executed. Only then does such a heinous mistake as executing an innocent become a livable proposition.

For the reasons I’ve outlined, I believe my system properly implemented could provide such a detterent and success rate.

Everybody else:

Yeah, I know I just blew some holes and left some openings in my previous arguments here. But it is the truth that I’m after. I’d like to determine the merits and drawbacks to my ideas, and what better forum for having flaws pointed out?

[David_B]

Scylla said:

What I am arguing for is a faster, more accurate

I think this is the crux of the issue, which is why I’m only replying to this (that and the fact that we’ve already gone around a few times on the other stuff ).

You say it’s faster and more accurate and a deterrent. I say that faster and more accurate are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and I’ve already explained why.

Thus, we seem to be at an impasse.

[Scylla]

DavidB:

Fair enough. I’ll share an anecdote. My daughter was delivered by Caesarian. From the time the Dr. made the incision until the time she was completely sewn up and out of the operating room was about 10 minutes.

Most Drs. take 3 or 4 times that amount of time to do this, but our was very good. He explained that speed does not mean sloppy or rushed. He had been trained to be extremely efficient in his movements, and make no missteps.

The net result was that my wife was out of the operating room before her body even knew had it been cut and could go into shock. She had very little scarring, less chance of infection, and a quick recovery.

Perhaps it’s naive, but I’d like to think efficiency is both desirable and achievable within a justice system. Certainly the highly cumbersome system we now have hasn’t added any accuracy, at least as far as in Illinois is concerned.

[David_B]

Your example is all well and good for that situation, but I don’t think it applies at all to this discussion.

As I’ve said before, making the trials quicker will mean that evidence exonerating the accused which comes up years later will be, well, too late. You seem to think that it will come up earlier if we just do things differently. I don’t see how that’s even remotely possible.

Thus the cause of our impasse.

[AHunter3]

The OP:

If you deliberately kill another human being, the death sentence should be
mandatory.

Adolf Hitler. If you had been at the right place at the right time and had deliberately killed him–even if you were NOT a member of the armed forces of any nation that was at that time at war with Germany–I would not advocate the death sentence for you, I would at a minimum offer to treat you to lunch.

I am not against the death penalty on general principles, but your opening statement is too much of a blanket.

If we are to have a death penalty, I think the jury should be present and the judge should pull the switch in person. All involved should see the body as it is removed from the death chamber. Having said that, I could probably make a list several pages deep of deplorable people for whom I would personally pull the switch and stare at their dead body. But actions should have real consequences and those who engage in them (via official assignment or otherwise) should confront them head-on. Killing someone is a serious measure and it SHOULD disturb us to do it. But sometimes you gotta do it anyhow.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Scylla:
I believe you misunderstood point 3) of my critique of the 1 in 2000 number – whether you choose to select convictions or executions the number you should track is the number for crimes committed during the period of the study. Counting executions which result from crimes which predate the study, or failing to count executions which occur after the period of teh study but result from crimes included in the “bug number” both skew the result. As to point 2), the page does not restrict itself to capital murders in generating its statistics (or at least it does not claim to).

You point about other risky behavior that individuals choose to engage in seems not at all germane to this discussion. If the government required all citizens to smoke or jump from airplanes, then you would have a point. The fact that individuals choose to accept personal risk, however, in no way justifies the government placing it’s citizens at risk unnecessarily.

We do not need the death penalty. Many people feel that it will be a deterent, but it has never been demonstrated that it is one. Many people feel that our society is capable of administering a death penalty fairly, but we have never demonstrated that to be the case. You believe that the same people who have proven incapable of administering justice fairly and honestly given our present system of checks and balances would somehow improve their record if those checks and balances were removed. You also believe, apparently, that no exculpatory evidence would stay hidden for longer than the one month execution deadline you propose. I believe neither of those things, and I do not see how you can look at the evidence dispassionately and come to those conclusions.

That is not a condemnation, simply a statement of my perspective. Conservatives often disparage liberals by claiming they rely on feelings rather than evidence. In this case, I find it is the pro DP camp who argue most from feeling. It feels right to say that murderers should be executed. That does not make it right. I am unwilling to cheapen the value of an innocent life by spending it on an illusion of extra security. Nor am I willing to gamble that innocent life on a hunch that a new implementation of the death penalty will be radically different in accuracy and effectiveness that the present implementation.

Danielintheetc.

any Govenor can commute any sentence, any time. despite what the Court decided was the sentence. Remember “willie Horton” in that Presidential Campaign?

I do. Apparently you do not. William Horton (only George Bush called him Willie) did not have his sentence commuted by a Governor. He was a convicted murderer who was eligible for Massechusetts’ very liberal prison furlough system. His case is an excellent example of the dangers inherent in such a furlough system. It is not an example of a Governor commuting the sentance of a murderer who is not eligible for parole.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Scylla: we are agueing somewhat at cross purposes here, I agree. There are 2 kings of people that commit Murder (in this arguement I am calling 1st degree Murder, just “Murder”): criminals & Psychopaths. It used to be just Psychopaths, and they called it “premeditated” murder. Even if execution was 100% certain upon conviction, it would not stop this sort of cold-blooded killer. They come in 2 groups: those who are CERTAIN they will never be caught, and those who WANT to be caught…The 1st group is not worried about execution, “he won’t be caught”, the second sometimes begs to be executed. No deterance for either one of these. And these cold-blooded killers, these psychopaths, WILL kill again, ther is no reforming them, there is no stopping them --short of killing them. And, there is another reason I have no problem with killing them: they are not Human. Oh sure, their genes LOOK human, but they are not.

Now the 2nd group of murderers, the “Criminals”, are nowadays “murderers” as the Law has decieded if you go out to commit a crime (say a robbery), and kill someone, you have “premeditated” the Crime, and thus are responsible for the murder. Even tho the “Criminals” do NOT WANT to kill anyone, they just want to get the $$. A system of certain execution MIGHT deter them, they might decide to not load the guns, or use non-lethal weapons. But these are the kind of HUMANS we should NOT execute, as they MIGHT reform.

But I ask those opponents of the Death penalty: the first group (pyschopaths) we are usually more certain of. If we could be ABSOLUTELY certain, would you still argue against their execution? Say they admitted it, and bragged of it, and had killed & tortured 20 children and ate parts of them after having sex with their bodies, and even took videos, and showed the police where the bodies were, and said they enjoyed it AND would do it again, THEN would you still argue against “pulling the switch”?

[DoctorJ]

Daniel–a better statement about sociopaths (at least as I understand it) might be they simply have no regard for the consequences of their actions–it’s like they don’t exist. One shrink told me that truly sociopathic patients will stop at the desk and make a follow-up appointment, but it doesn’t even occur to them that they should show up for it. You are correct in that they are unlikely to reform.

You make the point I usually make–murders are generally committed either 1.)by people who are, to use the technical term, batshit, or 2.)in the heat of passion or confusion. Neither of these situations really lends itself to deterrence, even if the punishment is execution by battery cables to the testicles shown in prime time on all three networks.

As for your hypothetical, it brings to mind my proposed solution for all this–ending the death-qualification of juries. This is the practice of automatically dismissing potential jurors from a capital murder trial if they have any opposition whatsoever to the death penalty, or if they don’t believe they could return a death sentence themselves. This creates a natural and demonstrable bias, since a pro-DP stance is not held in a vacuum. Ending this practice (and letting the jury decide the sentence) would not only eliminate this bias, but it would reserve the death penalty for those who commit the sort of crimes you describe. Approximately 1/3 to 1/4 of Americans oppose the DP, so a murder would have to be heinous enough to convince those 3 or 4 DP-opposing jurors that the defendant should be executed.

Dr. J

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Doc: maybe you’re right about the jury idea. But what if they said “no” even to executing the killer I made up? (altho, these kinds of killers DO exist) THEN should they be excluded? And do you think sociopath or psychopath is a better term to decribe these sorts?

I want to hear what satan & gaudere have to say about my hypothetical killer. Are they against the Death Penalty NO matter what?

[gEEk]

**
I want to hear what satan & gaudere have to say about my hypothetical killer. Are they against the Death Penalty NO matter what?
**

I don’t know what Satan and Gaudere think about this, but I will offer my 2 cents.

I am in favor of the death penaly in principle. I think that, as in your hypothetical, there are some people who are simply to evil to be allowed to live in society. If we could be sure of their guilt, then I would support their execution. The problem comes in being absolutely sure.

As a result of that, I oppose the death penalty in practice. As David B has ably pointed out, our criminal justice system very often convicts the wrong individual. Plus, once convicted, the condemned faces long odds in trying to prove his innocence. In too many cases, the juduciary has winked at the convictions of people who were defended by incompetent lawyers, who either failed to provide any defense at all or, even worse, slept through the trial. Lastly, the Supreme Court has come to the bizarre conclusion that the mere presence of exculpatory evidence does not, by itself, entitle the condemned to a new trial.

How can I support the death penalty for anyone when such abuses are so evident? Much as I would like to see people like your hypothetical killer executed, I cannot countenance the idea that we would ever put an innocent man to death. In light of the fact that we humans are fallible, it seems that any application of the death penalty will inevitably result in innocent victims being executed. I cannot support a system like that and so, regretfully, I must oppose the death penalty.

Life imprisonment for people like Charles Manson may be distasteful, but it is infinitely better than killing an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

[aside]
You say that you would support the death penalty for 2nd offenders, on the theory that no one would be wrongfully convicted twice. Fine, but what if he were wrongfully convicted once? Aren’t we back to the same question? If a person should only be executed if convicted of 2 murders, and he is actually innocent of one of them, does he deserve to die? Or are you merely using the second conviction to confirm the first?
[/aside]

gEEk