Meh. I believe the justice system is about safety - protecting citizens. Killing him didn't protect us. It's about "punishing people" and "getting revenge" - two things that I believe can only be done with arrogance. So while I'm not particularly upset to see him die, I'm still pretty disgusted that he was killed just to make other people feel better. I'm glad I live in a no death penalty state.
Anyone bring up 1972-1976, when there no executions in the US? The Graph says it all. Can anyone say "huge spike in the murder rate"?
I , on the other hand, am so glad that I live in a state WITH capital punishment. I believe that it is so much more than "revenge" or "making people feel better." I believe that the "deterrence factor" is much more important than both. Over a dozen major law schools, as well as the Justice Dept. have conducted reputable and documented studies on capital punishment as a crime deterrent and ALL have reached srikingly similar conclusions (all you Wiki-hounds can google it for yourselves). Statistically speaking, on average, every US execution results in 10-18 fewer murders. This then, IMO, is a no-brainer. Trading 10-18 innocent lives for ONE convict? :shrug:
There are a lot of studies that say the exact opposite, so it's not so much of a no brainer.
My point exactly. Trade the innocent lives of those wrongly convicted for one heinous criminal. Not a good idea.
Nice spin. Shame on you. Fortunately, the educated know better. Most of these states have inherently higher crime rates to begin with due to the facts that they have higher poverty levels, lower education levels, more/larger urban areas, higher unemployment, or are border/coastal states which constantly deal with illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
Exactly. This is the old cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy that if two events happen simultaneously one must cause the other. Thanks for that.
So then I guess we can apply the same logic to any study that says the death penalty results in less murders as well.
No, not exactly. You see, the key word here is "STUDY" which implies objective research. Liblady's link was simply throwing two remotely related statistics together. There is a difference.
Nice spin. Shame on you. Fortunately, the educated know better. Most of these states have inherently higher crime rates to begin with due to the facts that they have higher poverty levels, lower education levels, more/larger urban areas, higher unemployment, or are border/coastal states which constantly deal with illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
Nice try though, really.
Hashem Dezhbakhsh (Emory University Law Professor) and Joan M Shepard Shepherd (Assistant Professor at Emory School of Law). "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a 'Judicial Experiment'". January 11th, 2006 - We use panel data for 50 states during the 1960-2000 period to examine the deterrent effect of capital punishment, using the moratorium as a 'judicial experiment.' We compare murder rates immediately before and after changes in states' death penalty laws, drawing on cross-state variations in the timing and duration of the moratorium. The regression analysis supplementing the before-and-after comparisons disentangles the effect of lifting the moratorium on murder from the effect of actual executions on murder. Results suggest that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, and that executions have a distinct effect which compounds the deterrent effect of merely (re)instating the death penalty. The finding is robust across 96 regression models.
Nice spin. Shame on you. Fortunately, the educated know better. Most of these states have inherently higher crime rates to begin with due to the facts that they have higher poverty levels, lower education levels, more/larger urban areas, higher unemployment, or are border/coastal states which constantly deal with illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
Nice try though, really.
Meh, there a plenty of studies that disagree with your conclusions, so whatever on that "objective" research.
You have a strange notion of justice. Allowing the guilty to just walk is not justice. And I'm the one who stated that punishment for the sake of punishment is a viable consideration so I am not making the "public safety" argument (the one you believe to be rooted in fear).
Don't even really know how to respond to being compared to Holocaust deniers except that I believe the comparison to be, well, bullsh(i)t and likely geared just to put me on the defensive. Total cheap shot, Redress.
I live next door to Louisiana, and yes, it is considered a border state and has a large number of Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) since Hurricane Katrina, high poverty levels , even higher school dropout rates, so.....yes, it "fits the bill". As far as Oklahoma, it has one of the largest populations of Native Americans (which experience extremely high poverty and unemployment rates - as an ethnic group) and has one of the higher rates for alcoholism (ranks #11 in alcohol related deaths - see link below) in the US. So, again, it too "fits the bill." Sorry. :shrug: