capital punishment?

[joepistole]

Here once again are a few of the links I have provided for you, correcting your various and sundry errors and misinformation postings, and providing you with dozens of links to actual studies for you to refer to when you refer to studies (including the one you did refer to via biased article reference, which you can find complete along with several others debunking it in the first link below):
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00168.x/abstract ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/those-executed-who-did-not-directly-kill-victim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

And once again, you were not asked for a URL dump. You were asked for the specific text from your URLs which you claim validate your assertions. It doesn't take any more effort to cut and paste text than to cut and past URLs. I think we both know you can't do it, because that text does not exit. All this is just obfuscation on your part. You are being dishonest again Iceaura. This isn't the first time you have played his stunt and undoubtedly it won't be the last.

You didn't reference studies, but a biased and poorly written CNN article about a few studies. I linked you to a source for the actual studies your CNN article referenced, and also the many more and better done studies and arguments that show their conclusions to be invalid. You have addressed none of that, but continued to refer to your article as if its assertions were "facts". Four or five times now, considered specifically and argued against. With illustrative examples.

LOL, just because you have an aversion to fact and reasons it doesn't make it poorly written or biased. And I didn't reference a CNN article. I referenced an article which was republished by CBS but was originally published by the Associated Press...oops. I see how little attention you paid. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/capital-punishment.152630/page-3#post-3328771

Once again for your edification:

"What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications. So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive." But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy away from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more." - CBS. AP

So now CBS and the Associated Press publish poorly written biased articles? Your accusations and refusal to accept fact speaks more to your biases and beliefs than it does of those you accuse of being biased. You are scapegoating.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, deterrence is just one benefit of capital punishment. There are more. But you keep acting like deterrence is the only benefit.

The only reason the guy whose lawyer fell asleep in court was not killed by the State twenty years ago is because his lawyer actually fell asleep in the courtroom, several times, in front of a conscientious judge. If all that lawyer had done was fail to prepare his case, fail to visit the crime scene, fail to attend to jury selection, and so forth, the guy would have been executed.

Well that isn't true either. Don't you recall? That merciful appeals judge ruled against McFarland finding that because McFarland had multiple lawyers and the sleeping lawyer was directly selected and hired by McFarland, McFarland had adequate representation.

Heaven forbid your pleasant dreams

of a world in which the DAs with political ambitions and the racially bigoted sheriffs and the officials under public pressure to do something and the taxpayers confronted with the actual price of competent public defenders and the government agencies cornered by embarrassing potential revelations and the secret agents fighting the dirty wars and so forth, all carefully discern and voluntarily follow the scrupulous intentions underlying your handwaving references to standards of proof and horrificness and whatever else your desire to have the State kill bad people has conjured into existence,

be interrupted,

but out here in a world that includes the CIA of Iran/Contra cocaine smuggling and Gitmo torture cells and KSM's confession to capital crimes, the Presidential candidates of John Bush and Hilary Clinton, the judicial systems of Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas, and so forth, you are going to need one of those magic wands with a real Phoenix feather in it to make these dreams come true.

Because right now you haven't got a single example of such a paragon of a judicial system to point at, anywhere on this planet.

And the costs of State killings are not going to wait for you, before accruing.

And that is just another paranoid rant, something you have in common with our right wing brethren. So are you saying if anything is less than perfect it shouldn't be done? Are you saying because judicial systems cannot be perfect, no one can or should be convicted? We should just let criminals run wild? Well, outside a few extremist circles I don't think you are going to get much support for that.

And what we are talking about here is a small handful of cases where guilt is certain and the crimes are particularly horrendous (e.g. Ted Bundy, the Carr brothers, et al). And here is the thing, you keep talking about costs, but you have yet to substantiate that assertion. What are these costs you are so fond of asserting. I'm looking for something specific, verifiable and quantifiable.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

So we can reduce our murder rate modestly by resuming capital punishment.

On the other hand, imagine how many deaths would not occur if we had stronger gun laws! 20,000 Americans are killed by gunshots every year, and only 4,000 of those killings are in self-defense. The others are due to anger, clumsiness, carelessness, confusion, mistaken identity, suicide, and children getting their hands on guns that are not stored safely.

 

[iceaura]

And once again, you were not asked for a URL dump. You were asked for the specific text from your URLs which you claim validate your assertions.

I don't have enough information to do that. With you, it is not possible to guess what my assertions are supposed to have been until you have been cornered into making specific claims - to which the most common response is that I made no such assertion.

Like this:

Well that isn't true either. Don't you recall? That merciful appeals judge ruled against McFarland finding that because McFarland had multiple lawyers and the sleeping lawyer was directly selected and hired by McFarland, McFarland had adequate representation

No, that's not what I posted. The conscientious judge who witnessed the sleeping lawyer was the person responsible for appointing, during the official proceedings, on an emergency basis, the other lawyer. The one available had almost no legal experience, but since there was no real case preparation or jury selection etc involved anyway (as per my link) that may not have mattered. The ridiculous appeals court finding of "adequate representation", and the failure to either retry the case or at least commute the death sentence, was one of my examples of how States allowed to kill their citizens on purpose behave in real life. Contrast that with your wishful thinking.

So are you saying if anything is less than perfect it shouldn't be done?

That's your claim: you are the one claiming to be able to perfectly restrict State killing of bad people to the certainly guilty of your idea of horrific crimes, and not otherwise. That alternates with your claims that cases like McFarland's are acceptable judicial proceedings.

And what we are talking about here is a small handful of cases where guilt is certain and the crimes are particularly horrendous

One of two things will be true: you will lose most of your supposed deterrent effect, your killings will not be that small a handful. My money's on door number two - but then, I and most careful researchers think door number one is a mirage anyway.

And here is the thing, you keep talking about costs, but you have yet to substantiate that assertion. What are these costs you are so fond of asserting. I'm looking for something specific, verifiable and quantifiable.

But you are apparently incapable of verifying an argument from evidence, or recognizing specifics when directly presented with them, or handling the basic statistics that would be the basis of any such "quantity". So you can't find what you are looking for in anything I post, or anything I link, or anything anybody else posts or links.

For example: The only quantification of one of the major costs already mentioned - that a given State like all other States will abuse its killing privileges to threaten political enemies and coerce false testimony and oppress despised groups within its borders - would be to count the States with capital punishment that have behaved so, which would be all the States with capital punishment that anyone has ever studied, and compare that number with the count of States privileged to kill their citizens that are known to have not abused the privilege, which would be zero.

For another example:

Once again for your edification:

You keep gullibly reposting the same biased, inept, borderline fraudulent cnn article. I already linked you to the real studies that article misrepresents, on a site that contains a bunch of other studies your article writer dismisses without reference. I can't make you read, or think, but I can point out that it's not me who needs "edification" here - you need to get a clue. Just because a couple of researchers declare there are no questions about their work or conclusions, does not mean there are no questions about their work and conclusions. This is especially true these days with economists and economic statisticians weighing in so frequently on matters outside their fields of experience - as with your cnn article's chosen "experts". (another example, from wiki: "- - - Toronto businessman Stephen McIntyre saw this as based on the hockey stick graph, and in 2003 he became interested in the IPCC process which had featured the graph prominently. With a background in mineral exploration, - - -
- - - made contact with University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute which opposed the Kyoto treaty - - - " )

But the larger point is that the entire line there is wasted on my posts - nothing I argue depends on a complete lack of this alleged deterrent effect anyway. My argument is that such benefits, if any, are not worth the very serious risks and costs. And I illustrated the point with examples of a few different aspects of these risks and costs, how things work in practice: The large gain from the quicker apprehension of the Unabomber, due to promises of human treatment and no death penalty; the large opportunity cost of killing McVeigh; the large gain from not killing the five innocents in the NYC case, and then not killing the murderous serial rapist who did assault the jogger.

Here's a bet for you to consider: I'll bet you that somewhere in the US right now there is a family member of a capital level killer or capital level rapist or capital level treason committer who pretty much knows what they are up to, at least strongly suspects, but will not go to the police out of fear this perp they love from childhood will be abused, mistreated, and killed, by the State. More than one.

And that is just another paranoid rant,

If completely accurate and calmly worded references to obvious and significant features of the present US situation sound like paranoid rants to you, maybe you should revisit your Pollyanna view of the way capital punishment is and will be actually employed by such governments as actually exist on the only planet we have handy.

 

[sculptor]

Capitol punishment is nothing more nor less than killing another human being.
If you're ok with that, then we are fundamentally different in that particular aspect of our personalities.
I prefer that it not be done in my name as it is not done with my consent.

 

[Capracus]

So we can reduce our murder rate modestly by resuming capital punishment.

On the other hand, imagine how many deaths would not occur if we had stronger gun laws! 20,000 Americans are killed by gunshots every year, and only 4,000 of those killings are in self-defense. The others are due to anger, clumsiness, carelessness, confusion, mistaken identity, suicide, and children getting their hands on guns that are not stored safely.

Actually over 30,000 Americans die by gunshot annually, over 10,000 are classified as intentional homicide, and of those less than 1000 are considered justifiable. Suicide accounts for over 20,000 gun deaths and accidents comprise less than 1000.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...icide_by_weapon_private_citizen_2008-2012.xls

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...icide_by_weapon_law_enforcement_2009-2013.xls

 

[Beer w/Straw]

And once again, you were not asked for a URL dump. You were asked for the specific text from your URLs which you claim validate your assertions. It doesn't take any more effort to cut and paste text than to cut and past URLs. I think we both know you can't do it, because that text does not exit. All this is just obfuscation on your part. You are being dishonest again Iceaura. This isn't the first time you have played his stunt and undoubtedly it won't be the last.



LOL, just because you have an aversion to fact and reasons it doesn't make it poorly written or biased. And I didn't reference a CNN article. I referenced an article which was republished by CBS but was originally published by the Associated Press...oops. I see how little attention you paid. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/capital-punishment.152630/page-3#post-3328771

Once again for your edification:

"What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications. So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive." But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy away from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more." - CBS. AP

So now CBS and the Associated Press publish poorly written biased articles? Your accusations and refusal to accept fact speaks more to your biases and beliefs than it does of those you accuse of being biased. You are scapegoating.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, deterrence is just one benefit of capital punishment. There are more. But you keep acting like deterrence is the only benefit.



Well that isn't true either. Don't you recall? That merciful appeals judge ruled against McFarland finding that because McFarland had multiple lawyers and the sleeping lawyer was directly selected and hired by McFarland, McFarland had adequate representation.



And that is just another paranoid rant, something you have in common with our right wing brethren. So are you saying if anything is less than perfect it shouldn't be done? Are you saying because judicial systems cannot be perfect, no one can or should be convicted? We should just let criminals run wild? Well, outside a few extremist circles I don't think you are going to get much support for that.

And what we are talking about here is a small handful of cases where guilt is certain and the crimes are particularly horrendous (e.g. Ted Bundy, the Carr brothers, et al). And here is the thing, you keep talking about costs, but you have yet to substantiate that assertion. What are these costs you are so fond of asserting. I'm looking for something specific, verifiable and quantifiable.

You are like, vehemently arguing for the death penalty, it's both weird and cool.

 

[joepistole]

I don't have enough information to do that.

Hmm, so basically that is an admission you lied. The material you claimed existed in your URL’s doesn’t exist. All that proof you claimed was in your URLs isn’t there.

With you, it is not possible to guess what my assertions are supposed to have been until you have been cornered into making specific claims - to which the most common response is that I made no such assertion.

And you think that makes sense? You should know what your assertions are, you made them. Your assertions have nothing to do with me. You repeatedly said your URLs validated your assertions. You were asked to prove it by showing the actual text in the articles you referenced. And you have repeatedly failed to do so. That has nothing to do with me. That has everything to do with your credibility or lack thereof. This is nothing new to you, you have done this before and it’s intellectually dishonest.

Like this: No, that's not what I posted. The conscientious judge who witnessed the sleeping lawyer was the person responsible for appointing, during the official proceedings, on an emergency basis, the other lawyer. The one available had almost no legal experience, but since there was no real case preparation or jury selection etc involved anyway (as per my link) that may not have mattered. The ridiculous appeals court finding of "adequate representation", and the failure to either retry the case or at least commute the death sentence, was one of my examples of how States allowed to kill their citizens on purpose behave in real life. Contrast that with your wishful thinking.

None of that is relevant, even if it is true. Nor does it change any material fact. The conscientious trial judge felt McFarland received a fair trial, and an appeals court felt McFarland received adequate representation. It has been 23 years since McFarland was tried and his case is still under review.

Additionally, this isn’t about how the law is currently being practiced in Texas. It is about a broader discussion of the death penalty and whither it should be used and if so how. As I have repeated stated, the death penalty should be reserved only for the most heinous murders and where evidence is overwhelming. Also as previously stated, McFarland’s case doesn’t meet either of those conditions. So your use of McFarland’s case as an example is dubious.

That's your claim: you are the one claiming to be able to perfectly restrict State killing of bad people to the certainly guilty of your idea of horrific crimes, and not otherwise. That alternates with your claims that cases like McFarland's are acceptable judicial proceedings.

Well, then perhaps you can show me where I wrote that? Then again, probably not, as I never made that representation. It’s a fallacious argument, a straw man. As I wrote before, what you are expecting is perfection. Using your logic nothing would ever get done, because nothing is perfect. In a perfect world there would be no bad guys, no murders, no rapists, no thieves, no disease, no poverty, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Nothing is perfect, but the lack of perfection isn’t sufficient justification to do nothing. If everything had to be perfect, nothing would ever get done.

That's One of two things will be true: you will lose most of your supposed deterrent effect, your killings will not be that small a handful. My money's on door number two - but then, I and most careful researchers think door number one is a mirage anyway.
But you are apparently incapable of verifying an argument from evidence, or recognizing specifics when directly presented with them, or handling the basic statistics that would be the basis of any such "quantity". So you can't find what you are looking for in anything I post, or anything I link, or anything anybody else posts or links.

LOL…what evidence, what statistics have you presented? None…and that has been repeatedly pointed out to you. You were asked, “What are these costs you are so fond of asserting. I'm looking for something specific, verifiable and quantifiable.” You repeatedly did you usual URL dump which you now admit you cannot cite any text which you claimed was there because it doesn’t exist.

An ad hominem attack isn’t a substitute for the facts you were asked to provide. I’m not the one fighting the science on this, you are. You have been repeatedly shown the evidence and you have repeatedly refused it. You called the material reported by CBS and the Associated Press as biased and poorly written. It isn’t. Unlike you, it is factual and well written. It’s just not consistent with your ideological beliefs. So you do exactly what are right nut brethren do when confronted with fact and reason, they deny it. Fact and reason are not ideological.

For example: The only quantification of one of the major costs already mentioned - that a given State like all other States will abuse its killing privileges to threaten political enemies and coerce false testimony and oppress despised groups within its borders - would be to count the States with capital punishment that have behaved so, which would be all the States with capital punishment that anyone has ever studied, and compare that number with the count of States privileged to kill their citizens that are known to have not abused the privilege, which would be zero.

Paranoia isn’t rational. This is another trait you share with our right wing nut case brethren. You believe that state will always abuse its power and the death penalty law in particular. As I have repeatedly stated and you have repeatedly ignored, Kansas has had the death penalty on is books since 1979 and has executed a grand total of ZERO prisoners. And it isn’t for a lack of murderers or serial killers.

One more point, your beliefs are not an example of your antigovernment machinations.

 

[joepistole]

For another example: You keep gullibly reposting the same biased, inept, borderline fraudulent cnn article. I already linked you to the real studies that article misrepresents, on a site that contains a bunch of other studies your article writer dismisses without reference. I can't make you read, or think, but I can point out that it's not me who needs "edification" here - you need to get a clue. Just because a couple of researchers declare there are no questions about their work or conclusions, does not mean there are no questions about their work and conclusions. This is especially true these days with economists and economic statisticians weighing in so frequently on matters outside their fields of experience - as with your cnn article's chosen "experts". (another example, from wiki: "- - - Toronto businessman Stephen McIntyre saw this as based on the hockey stick graph, and in 2003 he became interested in the IPCC process which had featured the graph prominently. With a background in mineral exploration, - - -

LOL, and what CNN article would that be exactly? You do realize CBS and the Associated Press are no CNN? You just don’t like the facts because they are not consistent with your beliefs. It really is that simple.

Further you have not provided any links to ANY study, much less an on biased and scientifically sound study. What you have done, as has been previously pointed out to you, posted links to special interest web sites which opposed capital punishment and misrepresented them as being nonbiased. You are being dishonest yet again Iceaura.

- - - made contact with University of Guelph economics professor Ross McKitrick, a senior fellow of the Fraser Institute which opposed the Kyoto treaty - - - " )
But the larger point is that the entire line there is wasted on my posts - nothing I argue depends on a complete lack of this alleged deterrent effect anyway. My argument is that such benefits, if any, are not worth the very serious risks and costs. And I illustrated the point with examples of a few different aspects of these risks and costs, how things work in practice: The large gain from the quicker apprehension of the Unabomber, due to promises of human treatment and no death penalty; the large opportunity cost of killing McVeigh; the large gain from not killing the five innocents in the NYC case, and then not killing the murderous serial rapist who did assault the jogger.
Here's a bet for you to consider: I'll bet you that somewhere in the US right now there is a family member of a capital level killer or capital level rapist or capital level treason committer who pretty much knows what they are up to, at least strongly suspects, but will not go to the police out of fear this perp they love from childhood will be abused, mistreated, and killed, by the State. More than one.

That’s more material from a special interest advocacy group. That isn’t nonbiased and it certainly isn’t rooted in science. If you were a serious searcher of truth you would remove your head from the derriere of special interest advocacy groups and find some real scientific research (e.g. the studies referenced in the Associated Press article I referenced).

As for your bet, it isn’t relevant. It isn’t related or relevant to the death penalty. Sure, there are a lot of paranoid folks out there who distrust government on the left and on the right (e.g. Cliven Bundy).

- If completely accurate and calmly worded references to obvious and significant features of the present US situation sound like paranoid rants to you, maybe you should revisit your Pollyanna view of the way capital punishment is and will be actually employed by such governments as actually exist on the only planet we have handy.

Except, it wasn’t calmly written nor was it rational. Early on in my working life, I worked with paranoid folks and I never found a paranoid individual who thought he was paranoid. You have antigovernment beliefs which just are not tied to reality. They are not rooted in fact or reason. You like our right wing conservative brethren believe “govment” is going to screw it up and can’t be trusted.

 

[Bells]

Part I

You do realize CBS and the Associated Press are no CNN? You just don’t like the facts because they are not consistent with your beliefs. It really is that simple.

Further you have not provided any links to ANY study, much less an on biased and scientifically sound study. What you have done, as has been previously pointed out to you, posted links to special interest web sites which opposed capital punishment and misrepresented them as being nonbiased. You are being dishonest yet again Iceaura.

Considering you have not provided any actual scientific studies, but a short piece from CBS news, you are not exactly in any position to talk or demand anything.

From Amnesty International (US branch):

In April 2012, The National Research Council concluded that studies claiming that the death penalty affects murder rates were "fundamentally flawed" because they did not consider the effects of noncapital punishments and used "incomplete or implausible models." A 2009 survey of criminologists revealed that over 88% believed the death penalty was NOT a deterrent to murder.

[...]

The murder rate in non-Death Penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in States with the Death Penalty.

The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.​

As for the study CBS News discussed, it is flawed. Quite a bit flawed. As Jeffrey A. Fagan from Columbia Law School notes:

The bar is very high when behavioral science makes such strong causal claims. The standards of causal inference in social science—which include the ability by an independent researcher to replicate the original work under diverse conditions; the use of measures and methods that avoid biases from inaccurate "yardsticks" and faulty "gauges"; and the ability to tell a simple and persuasive causal story —are neither technical nor mysterious. They are hallmarks of science that have been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of cases that demanded high yet common-sense standards.

When we apply contemporary social science standards, the new deterrence studies fall well short of this high scientific bar. Consider the following: Most of the studies fail to account for incarceration rates or life sentences, factors that may drive down crime rates via deterrence or incapacitation; one study that does so finds no effects of execution and a significant effect of prison conditions on crime rates. Another report shows incarceration effects that dwarf the deterrent effects of execution. Most fail to account for complex social factors such as drug epidemics that are reliable predictors of fluctuations in the murder rate over time. The studies don't look separately at the subset of murders that are eligible for the death penalty, instead lumping all homicides together.

But recent studies that separate capital-eligible homicides - the ones that should be most sensitive to the deterrent effects of execution—from other homicides show no significant changes over time in the rate of capital-eligible homicides in the face of variation in the execution rate. In fact, all but one of the new studies lump all forms of murder together, claiming that all are equally deterrable; the one study that looked at specific categories found that domestic homicides are more deterrable than others, a claim that flies in the face of six decades of theory and research in killings between intimate partners that shows their spontaneity and unpredictability.

The computations in the statistical models are often flawed. For example, simple corrections for large amounts of missing data produce estimates of the deterrent effect of execution that are no different from chance. Using alternate statistical models—models that account for the strong statistical correlation of murder rates from one year to the next—also produces results that show that changes in homicide rates are statistically unrelated to any measure of capital punishment.

Others find that any deterrent effects are specific to Texas, a state that is atypical by (until 2005) denying juries the choice between execution and life without parole. The studies also may unreasonably inflate the effects of execution by cutting the analyses in 1998, thereby excluding later years when homicides declined, as did executions. Still others find the evidence of deterrence very fragile and unstable, with estimates of deterrence changing wildly with even the slightest adjustments or modifications either in measurement or statistical methods. Such instability should signal caution in not only causal inference, but in using these data in policy decisions or law when life and death are at stake.

Finally, the moving parts in the deterrence story are unpersuasive. Execution would have to achieve a marginal cost beyond the threat of lifetime incarceration. There is no evidence that this is the case. Execution would have to occur with sufficient frequency and with widespread knowledge among would-be murderers to create a credible threat considering the types of murders that might be eligible for execution. There is no sign of that, nor does it seem likely. For example, there were 16,137 murders in 2004, according to the FBI, but only 125 death sentences were handed out, and 59 persons—most of whom were convicted a decade earlier—were executed. There are no direct tests of deterrence among murderers, nor are there studies showing their awareness of executions in their own state, much less in faraway states. There is no evidence that if aware of the possibility of execution, a potential murderer would rationally decide to forgo homicide and use less lethal forms of violence. Murder is a complex and multiply determined phenomenon, with cyclical patterns for distinct periods of more than 40 years of increase and decline that are not unlike epidemics of contagious diseases. There is nothing in the new deterrence studies that fits their story into this complex causal framework.​

 

[Bells]

Part II

They are more costly, take precious resources that could have been better spent on actual crime prevention by addressing community issues like education, policing, health, for example. Because they are so spaced out and because they require years and years on trials and appeals and constant appeals processes, the deterrence factor goes out the window. People who are being executed now, were convicted years ago, but because the system is so flawed, and because so many things are missed, because in many instances, police coercion and unethical interrogation techniques to force confessions from even innocent people (I had brought this up before, with links to several cases, which you deliberately ignored) and a prosecution that works like it is getting notches in its proverbial belt instead of striving for actual justice, so that evidence is withheld and misrepresented (also brought this up in an earlier post, which you also deliberately ignored), the risk of executing innocent people or people who are mentally ill becomes higher and the US has done both.

As a public policy choice, execution requires trade-offs of public resources and investments for state legislators and local prosecutors. The costs of administering capital punishment are prohibitive. Even in states where prosecutors infrequently seek the death penalty, the price of obtaining convictions and executions ranges from $2.5 million to $5 million per case (in current dollars), compared to less than $1 million for each killer sentenced to life without parole. These costs create clear public policy choices. If the state is going to spend $5 million on law enforcement over the next few decades, what is the best use of that money? Is it to buy two or three executions or, for example, to fund additional police detectives, prosecutors, and judges to arrest and incarcerate criminals who escape punishment because of insufficient law-enforcement resources?

Florida, for example, spent between $25 million and $50 million more per year on capital cases than it would have to if all murderers received life without parole. The Indiana Legislative Services Agency estimated that had the state sentenced its death row populations to life without parole, Indiana taxpayers would have been spared approximately $37.1 million.

The burden of these costs is borne by local governments, often diverting precious resources not only from police, but from health care, infrastructure, and education, or forcing counties to borrow money or raise taxes. In the New York paradigm, before the New York State Court of Appeals invalidated the state's death penalty in 2004 in People v. LaValle, death sentences were rare, and there were no executions. As usual, things cost more in New York: Between 1995 and 2004, taxpayers spent about $200 million on the death penalty with no executions. The threshold question for states goes to the heart of the role of deterrence in American capital punishment law, and then joins with the problem of cost.

Justice Byron White, writing in Furman v. Georgia (1972), when the Supreme Court outlawed capital punishment, noted that when only a tiny proportion of individuals who commit murder are executed, the penalty is unconstitutionally irrational. The lessons of Furman once again haunt the present-day reality of most states, when execution is used so rarely as to defy the logic of deterrence. As states across the country adopt reforms to reduce the pandemic of errors in capital punishment, we wonder whether such necessary and admirable efforts to avoid error and the horror of the execution of the innocent won't—after many hundreds of millions of dollars of trying—burden the country with a death penalty that will be ineffective, unreasonably expensive, and politically corrosive to the broader search for justice.​

 

[iceaura]

LOL, and what CNN article would that be exactly?

Oh man, you caught me in a memory slip - your one biased and poorly written mass media article there was indeed not from CNN, but CBS. I suppose that makes it much more credible as scientific information, regardless of what one actually reads in it, on Joe world.

Further you have not provided any links to ANY study, much less an on biased and scientifically sound study

So you haven't opened a single one of those URLs up there, and followed the extensive compilations of studies and research papers contained therein. Why not?

You have antigovernment beliefs which just are not tied to reality.

You are talking about a list of real life circumstances (not beliefs) that are part of every sensible American's common knowledge. Which of them do you deny are real?

Except, it wasn’t calmly written nor was it rational.

Yes, it was. It was a list of circumstances, without amplification, that obtain.

Early on in my working life, I worked with paranoid folks and I never found a paranoid individual who thought he was paranoid

Did you ever meet anyone who called people liars to cover up their own dishonesty?

That’s more material from a special interest advocacy group. That isn’t nonbiased and it certainly isn’t rooted in science

The site carries a thorough compilation of scientific papers, published in peer reviewed journals. It differs from your article in that it includes actual scientific papers, not interview quotes and references, and includes papers whose findings and conclusions do not support a deterrent effect, as well as those that do.

It contains all the original papers that your biased and poorly written media article referred to , and it also carries dozens more that your single biased and poorly written article does not consider or even name for reference.

Which continues the increasingly obvious real question that remains: why do people try so hard to find justification for capital punishment?

Considering the obvious downsides, and all the bad examples of other governments as well as internal US issues, what's the motive strong enough to overcome all that?

 

[iceaura]

This is worth commenting on:

You believe that state will always abuse its power and the death penalty law in particular.

First we have to correct Joe's inability to get anything right: I don't believe a State always abuses its powers. I believe - and stated - that a State allowed capital punishment will abuse that power - at least occasionally, often often. I derived that opinion both inductively, from noticing that every State with capital punishment that I ever looked into had abused the power, and deductively, by noting that any State faces enormous temptation to kill some of its citizens, and the common motives of State officials in the presence of horrible crimes or troublesome citizens bias them toward abusing whatever powers they have, and so powerful forces are always impelling the State toward abuse of the death penalty - making such abuse likely in the extreme.

As I have repeatedly stated and you have repeatedly ignored, Kansas has had the death penalty on is books since 1979 and has executed a grand total of ZERO prisoners.

So?

Not that it makes any difference, but Kansas reinstated its death penalty in 1994 (not 1979).

 

[joepistole]

This is worth commenting on: First we have to correct Joe's inability to get anything right: I don't believe a State always abuses its powers. I believe - and stated - that a State allowed capital punishment will abuse that power - at least occasionally, often often. I derived that opinion both inductively, from noticing that every State with capital punishment that I ever looked into had abused the power, and deductively, by noting that any State faces enormous temptation to kill some of its citizens, and the common motives of State officials in the presence of horrible crimes or troublesome citizens bias them toward abusing whatever powers they have, and so powerful forces are always impelling the State toward abuse of the death penalty - making such abuse likely in the extreme.

First, who is we kemosabee, you and your mother? Two, that's a might fine thread you are trying to weave. The argument you have been advancing is that if perfection cannot be achieved, it shouldn't be done. Well, nothing is perfect. The lack of perfection isn't justification for inaction. Three, ad hominem isn't does not a rational argument make.

You have very clearly stated, "I believe - and stated - that a State allowed capital punishment will abuse that power - at least occasionally, often often." You don't believe the state always abuses its powers unless it has a capital punishment on its books, then it always abuses its power. Then suddenly and magically, the state becomes corrupt and inept.

I derived that opinion both inductively, from noticing that every State with capital punishment that I ever looked into had abused the power, and deductively, by noting that any State faces enormous temptation to kill some of its citizens, and the common motives of State officials in the presence of horrible crimes or troublesome citizens bias them toward abusing whatever powers they have, and so powerful forces are always impelling the State toward abuse of the death penalty - making such abuse likely in the extreme."?

Well that is your belief. But that doesn't make it real. In the cases you cited, there was another side of the story you "forgot" to mention. I guess its either that memory glitch or your biases at work. As has been pointed out to repeatedly, the criminal justice system isn't perfect. But that doesn't mean the criminal justice system should be scrapped. The lack of perfection isn't sufficient justification to not do something. The best available information shows the criminal justice system works with an error rate ranging from .5% to 4%. And as previously pointed out, with the extensive additional reviews granted to death penalty cases, the error rates should be much less.

So? Not that it makes any difference, but Kansas reinstated its death penalty in 1994 (not 1979).

Yeah, so. Kansas is a big hole in your belief that a state with the death penalty on its books always abuses that power. That's a big oops! As repeatedly pointed out to you Kansas has had the death penalty on its books for 21 years and it has yet to execute a single person...oops. Kansas is proof, your machinations about the state aren't rooted in reality.

 

[joepistole]

Oh man, you caught me in a memory slip - your one biased and poorly written mass media article there was indeed not from CNN, but CBS. I suppose that makes it much more credible as scientific information, regardless of what one actually reads in it, on Joe world.

Well that’s some memory slip because it has been repeatedly pointed out to you in every post for several days now and this is the first time you have acknowledged at least a portion of your mistake. If you memory is that bad, you really should be seeing a physician, because that’s early stage dementia. But you are still leaving out the fact the article was initially written and published by the Associated Press.

So you think this is poorly written, "What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications. So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive." But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy away from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more." - CBS. AP
Perhaps you can point out its grammatical and factual errors or bias? Then again probably not…. because it isn’t poorly written and is factual and it is nonbiased, just because evidence isn’t consistent with your beliefs, it doesn’t invalidate evidence.

So you haven't opened a single one of those URLs up there, and followed the extensive compilations of studies and research papers contained therein. Why not?

LOL, except, I have read the materials you referenced. We have discussed them at length. I have repeatedly asked you to show the text from your URL references which you think validates your assertions. You have repeatedly refused to do it. At one point, you said you couldn’t do it.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, this is what you do. You have a habit of misrepresenting your URL, claiming they validate your assertions when they clearly do not. It’s dishonest. It’s intellectually dishonest. A URL dump and repeated URL dumps are not a substitute for evidence.

You are talking about a list of real life circumstances (not beliefs) that are part of every sensible American's common knowledge. Which of them do you deny are real?

Hmm, and your evidence is where? The fact is your beliefs are just not consistent with reality, just as with our right wing brethren. You share a “common knowledge”. The reality is your “common knowledge” just isn’t consistent with reality (e.g. Kansas). You believe that when the death penalty is available it always leads to abuse. Yet red state Kansas which has a death penalty law hasn’t executed a single person in 21 years in which it has been on the states books.

Yes, it was. It was a list of circumstances, without amplification, that obtain.

LOL, yeah.

The site carries a thorough compilation of scientific papers, published in peer reviewed journals. It differs from your article in that it includes actual scientific papers, not interview quotes and references, and includes papers whose findings and conclusions do not support a deterrent effect, as well as those that do.
It contains all the original papers that your biased and poorly written media article referred to , and it also carries dozens more that your single biased and poorly written article does not consider or even name for reference.
Which continues the increasingly obvious real question that remains: why do people try so hard to find justification for capital punishment?
Considering the obvious downsides, and all the bad examples of other governments as well as internal US issues, what's the motive strong enough to overcome all that?

The site is an antideath penalty advocacy site. That isn’t an unbiased site. You were asked to provide credible, quantifiable data from nonbiased sources. You have yet to do so. You were asked to build a case for your belief based on evidence and reason not on belief.

You don't see the hypocrisy and irony in the fact you summarily dismiss articles written and published by major credible news agencies as biased and poorly written and then point to very biased advocacy groups for your information?

 

[Bells]

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications. So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive." But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy away from murder).

And you fail to note one important factor in the study you keep referring to and exactly how it contradicts your own argument that the long appeals process, etc, acts against it being a deterrent.

This was something I brought up in my previous post, which you also ignored because it directly contradicts you. As the New York time also explains and points out the major flaw in the study itself:

The studies, performed by economists in the past decade, compare the number of executions in different jurisdictions with homicide rates over time — while trying to eliminate the effects of crime rates, conviction rates and other factors — and say that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise. One influential study looked at 3,054 counties over two decades.​

It only becomes a deterrent if the rate of executions rise.

This, of course, counters your position that the long decades long appeals processes to try to eliminate mistakes (and it is not always effective in doing that) counters any deterrence effect there might be.

So it comes down to whether you think trying to eliminate the many mistakes in the system and simply just execute and have a high rate of innocent people being executed to have a deterrence effect, or keep it as it currently is, which means it stops being a deterrence as you are claiming it is. And keep in mind, that economics does not look at other factors, and that is the flaw. For example:

To economists, it is obvious that if the cost of an activity rises, the amount of the activity will drop.​

This is standard and basic economic principles. But how does this compute to murders that are impulsive, for example?

The studies try to explain changes in the murder rate over time, asking whether the use of the death penalty made a difference. They look at the experiences of states or counties, gauging whether executions at a given time seemed to affect the murder rate that year, the year after or at some other later time. And they try to remove the influence of broader social trends like the crime rate generally, the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, economic conditions and demographic changes.

Critics say the larger factors are impossible to disentangle from whatever effects executions may have. They add that the new studies’ conclusions are skewed by data from a few anomalous jurisdictions, notably Texas, and by a failure to distinguish among various kinds of homicide.​

And this is a big concern in the study itself.

In short, it can only act as a deterrent if executions happen constantly and are numerous. But that cannot happen because the judicial process is often flawed for a variety of reasons which I had discussed in a previous post (which you also ignored and refused to address).

I'll put it this way, as even the supporters of this study note, the death penalty is exceptionally expensive. If States did not execute and instead spent the millions of dollars on better policing, better health and education and access to better health and education, then murder rates would go down. There are too few executions to make such a determination.

Most importantly:

In 2003, for instance, there were more than 16,000 homicides but only 153 death sentences and 65 executions.

“It seems unlikely,” Professor Donohue and Professor Wolfers concluded in their Stanford article, “that any study based only on recent U.S. data can find a reliable link between homicide and execution rates.”

The two professors offered one particularly compelling comparison. Canada has executed no one since 1962. Yet the murder rates in the United States and Canada have moved in close parallel since then, including before, during and after the four-year death penalty moratorium in the United States in the 1970s.

If criminals do not clearly respond to the slim possibility of an execution, another study suggested, they are affected by the kind of existence they will face in their state prison system.

A 2003 paper by Lawrence Katz, Steven D. Levitt and Ellen Shustorovich published in The American Law and Economics Review found a “a strong and robust negative relationship” between prison conditions, as measured by the number of deaths in prison from any cause, and the crime rate. The effect is, the authors say, “quite large: 30-100 violent crimes and a similar number or property crimes” were deterred per prison death.​

And even that study is flawed and cannot provide a stable correlation between the two. The study for the capital punishment is even more flawed.

You know, for someone who keeps spouting about the validity of science in determining such correlations, you have certainly gone out of your way to avoid the actual science behind it, which probably explains why you have avoided my previous responses, which deal directly with investigating the "science" behind said correlations.

 

[Schmelzer]

This is standard and basic economic principles. But how does this compute to murders that are impulsive, for example?

Because one uses in economics the assumption of rationality not because people behave in very rational ways, but for several other reasons.

First, because many irrationalities cancel each other in the average. Second, more accurate predictions are possible if we know more. I know some points where I tend to react in an irrational way. I can use this knowledge to make more accurate predictions about my own behaviour. Similarly for people I know very good. But what about people I don't know? In this case, I can use only the available information, and if there is none, I can use only the assumption of rationality. Third is predictive power. Rational behaviour is predictable: If I know the interests of somebody, and the situation, then I can compute the optimal strategy for him to act, and this would be the rational strategy. If I assume somebody is irrational, this does not give me any hints about his behaviour. Then, impulsive or emotional behaviour is not necessarily irrational. It has a genetical base, was successful in the evolution, and the theory of evolution tells us that this happens if the behaviour is a rational strategy for our genes to distribute. It may actually no longer have this property, because our actual modern world is quite different from the environment where our genes have been developed. But to incorporate this would require some additional theory about such systematic errors. Rational behaviour remains the first approximation.

 

[joepistole]

And you fail to note one important factor in the study you keep referring to and exactly how it contradicts your own argument that the long appeals process, etc, acts against it being a deterrent.

I failed to note…really? The only contradiction here Bells is the one between your ears. I never argued for or against how long legal reviews should take, only that the evidence of guilt should be overwhelming. Ideally executions should be quick. But, it’s even more important to make sure we execute the right people. I said the long appeals process was evidence death penalty cases are extensively reviewed. The article found faster punishment is more effective. There is no contradiction. The article didn't say we should execute people without ample evidence of guilt or due process of law.

This was something I brought up in my previous post, which you also ignored because it directly contradicts you.

LOL, you give yourself too much credit. And now you know my motivations do you? The truth is I don’t respond to your turd dumps because to do so would be to repeated what I have already written in response to Iceaura. Now, if you know my motivations, you should know I have a life outside Sciforums. I have other better things to do with my life than endlessly repeat myself in order to make you feel important.

As the New York time also explains and points out the major flaw in the study itself:
The studies, performed by economists in the past decade, compare the number of executions in different jurisdictions with homicide rates over time — while trying to eliminate the effects of crime rates, conviction rates and other factors — and say that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise. One influential study looked at 3,054 counties over two decades.
It only becomes a deterrent if the rate of executions rise.

Oh, where does it say that? It doesn’t. Never once was the word “only” used. That’s you adding your belief to the mix. You are imposing a condition which doesn’t exist in the text you referenced. That’s either intellectually dishonest or reflective of a cognitive deficit on your part. The issue is whether the death penalty has a deterrent effect. The following is an extract from the New York Times article you referenced.

“But, Mr. Becker (Nobel Prize winning economist) added, “the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” – New York Times

Clearly the death penalty does have a deterrent effect.

This, of course, counters your position that the long decades long appeals processes to try to eliminate mistakes (and it is not always effective in doing that) counters any deterrence effect there might be.

Except of course it doesn’t. There is no evidence to support your belief. The referenced study found deterrence would be more effective if executions were faster. But that isn’t the same as having no deterrent effect.

Additionally, you are ignoring the other benefits afforded by the death penalty which have been discussed in this thread and repeatedly ignored by you and Iceaura (e.g. an incentive to provide information which would not otherwise be available and has led to the retrieval bodies for victimized families and information about other crimes). Deterrence is just one benefit.

So it comes down to whether you think trying to eliminate the many mistakes in the system and simply just execute and have a high rate of innocent people being executed to have a deterrence effect, or keep it as it currently is, which means it stops being a deterrence as you are claiming it is. And keep in mind, that economics does not look at other factors, and that is the flaw. For example:

No it doesn’t. That’s nonsense. In part because you have ZERO knowledge of economics, economics wouldn’t be worth much if it ignored factors.

This is standard and basic economic principles. But how does this compute to murders that are impulsive, for example?

Well, this is another case of where words and definitions matter. Murder by definition is premeditated and therefore not impulsive…oops.

Murder:
"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

The studies try to explain changes in the murder rate over time, asking whether the use of the death penalty made a difference. They look at the experiences of states or counties, gauging whether executions at a given time seemed to affect the murder rate that year, the year after or at some other later time. And they try to remove the influence of broader social trends like the crime rate generally, the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, economic conditions and demographic changes.
Critics say the larger factors are impossible to disentangle from whatever effects executions may have. They add that the new studies’ conclusions are skewed by data from a few anomalous jurisdictions, notably Texas, and by a failure to distinguish among various kinds of homicide.
And this is a big concern in the study itself.
In short, it can only act as a deterrent if executions happen constantly and are numerous. But that cannot happen because the judicial process is often flawed for a variety of reasons which I had discussed in a previous post (which you also ignored and refused to address).
I'll put it this way, as even the supporters of this study note, the death penalty is exceptionally expensive. If States did not execute and instead spent the millions of dollars on better policing, better health and education and access to better health and education, then murder rates would go down. There are too few executions to make such a determination.

Well, no those were mostly statements of beliefs.

Most importantly:
In 2003, for instance, there were more than 16,000 homicides but only 153 death sentences and 65 executions.
“It seems unlikely,” Professor Donohue and Professor Wolfers concluded in their Stanford article, “that any study based only on recent U.S. data can find a reliable link between homicide and execution rates.”
The two professors offered one particularly compelling comparison. Canada has executed no one since 1962. Yet the murder rates in the United States and Canada have moved in close parallel since then, including before, during and after the four-year death penalty moratorium in the United States in the 1970s.

Even if there is some parallel movement in murder rates, they don’t have the same murder rates. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

If criminals do not clearly respond to the slim possibility of an execution, another study suggested, they are affected by the kind of existence they will face in their state prison system.
A 2003 paper by Lawrence Katz, Steven D. Levitt and Ellen Shustorovich published in The American Law and Economics Review found a “a strong and robust negative relationship” between prison conditions, as measured by the number of deaths in prison from any cause, and the crime rate. The effect is, the authors say, “quite large: 30-100 violent crimes and a similar number or property crimes” were deterred per prison death.
And even that study is flawed and cannot provide a stable correlation between the two. The study for the capital punishment is even more flawed.

Again, beliefs are not facts.

You know, for someone who keeps spouting about the validity of science in determining such correlations, you have certainly gone out of your way to avoid the actual science behind it, which probably explains why you have avoided my previous responses, which deal directly with investigating the "science" behind said correlations.

“But, Mr. Becker (Nobel Prize winning economist) added, “the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” – From the New York Times article you referenced for your post.

Yeah, unfortunately for you, evidence and reason do matter.

 

[Bells]

I failed to note…really? The only contradiction here Bells is the one between your ears. I never argued for or against how long legal reviews should take, only that the evidence of guilt should be overwhelming. Ideally executions should be quick. But, it’s even more important to make sure we execute the right people. I said the long appeals process was evidence death penalty cases are extensively reviewed. The article found faster punishment is more effective. There is no contradiction. The article didn't say we should execute people without ample evidence of guilt or due process of law.

Once more, you ability to read and comprehend fails you.

You have consistently argued that there are fewer mistakes because the judicial and appeals process involved in said judicial process is long, to attempt to eliminate those judicial mistakes and you argued that this was a good thing. But then you tout the study as reported in CBS, which clearly states that for the death penalty to act as a deterrent, the capital cases themselves need to get through the judicial process faster and people executed at a proper rate. In other words, more people need to be killed by the State for it to be a proper deterrent.

Which is in direct contradiction to your argument about it being a long process to weed out the judicial mistakes. Do you understand now?

LOL, you give yourself too much credit. And now you know my motivations do you?

Your motivations? No. But we do notice how you always ignore studies and comments and questions about what you present here. Just as you ignored James' comments and queries about what you were posting.

The truth is I don’t respond to your turd dumps because to do so would be to repeated what I have already written in response to Iceaura. Now, if you know my motivations, you should know I have a life outside Sciforums. I have other better things to do with my life than endlessly repeat myself in order to make you feel important.

I see. Which is interesting, because I was pointing out something quite different to what Iceaura was discussing with you.

I was querying why your arguments were so contradictory. Why post a study that clearly points out that it is a deterrent if there are more executions while simultaneously arguing in favour of a longer judicial process to weed out mistakes. The point of the study was to note that it can only be a deterrent if more people are executed by the State at a steady rate. I also pointed out the flaws in the one study you cited that was reported in CBS news, with actual studies.

Oh, where does it say that? It doesn’t. Never once was the word “only” used. That’s you adding your belief to the mix. You are imposing a condition which doesn’t exist in the text you referenced. That’s either intellectually dishonest or reflective of a cognitive deficit on your part. The issue is whether the death penalty has a deterrent effect. The following is an extract from the New York Times article you referenced.

“But, Mr. Becker (Nobel Prize winning economist) added, “the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” – New York Times

Clearly the death penalty does have a deterrent effect.

Was this a serious question? I have to ask, because really, that would have to be one of the stupidest things I've read here for a while. And it clearly shows you have not done your research or even read anything about it.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty.. Why don't you post that part in full and in context?

The death penalty “is applied so rarely that the number of homicides it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot reliably be disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors,” John J. Donohue III, a law professor at Yale with a doctorate in economics, and Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in the Stanford Law Review in 2005. “The existing evidence for deterrence,” they concluded, “is surprisingly fragile.”

Gary Becker, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1992 and has followed the debate, said the current empirical evidence was “certainly not decisive” because “we just don’t get enough variation to be confident we have isolated a deterrent effect.”

But, Mr. Becker added, “the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.”​

As Professor Jeffrey A. Fagan, who is the Professor of Law & Public Health; Co-Director, Center for Crime, Community, and Law at Columbia University notes, and which was posted earlier and which you deliberately ignored:

Finally, the moving parts in the deterrence story are unpersuasive. Execution would have to achieve a marginal cost beyond the threat of lifetime incarceration. There is no evidence that this is the case. Execution would have to occur with sufficient frequency and with widespread knowledge among would-be murderers to create a credible threat considering the types of murders that might be eligible for execution. There is no sign of that, nor does it seem likely. For example, there were 16,137 murders in 2004, according to the FBI, but only 125 death sentences were handed out, and 59 persons—most of whom were convicted a decade earlier—were executed. There are no direct tests of deterrence among murderers, nor are there studies showing their awareness of executions in their own state, much less in faraway states. There is no evidence that if aware of the possibility of execution, a potential murderer would rationally decide to forgo homicide and use less lethal forms of violence. Murder is a complex and multiply determined phenomenon, with cyclical patterns for distinct periods of more than 40 years of increase and decline that are not unlike epidemics of contagious diseases. There is nothing in the new deterrence studies that fits their story into this complex causal framework.

As a public policy choice, execution requires trade-offs of public resources and investments for state legislators and local prosecutors. The costs of administering capital punishment are prohibitive. Even in states where prosecutors infrequently seek the death penalty, the price of obtaining convictions and executions ranges from $2.5 million to $5 million per case (in current dollars), compared to less than $1 million for each killer sentenced to life without parole. These costs create clear public policy choices. If the state is going to spend $5 million on law enforcement over the next few decades, what is the best use of that money? Is it to buy two or three executions or, for example, to fund additional police detectives, prosecutors, and judges to arrest and incarcerate criminals who escape punishment because of insufficient law-enforcement resources?​

This is a major flaw in the one study you keep relying on, no matter how you try to flub your way through it.

 

[Bells]

Cont [this word count limit is annoying]:

And it is not the only flaw. The New York Times piece also notes this:

The studies try to explain changes in the murder rate over time, asking whether the use of the death penalty made a difference. They look at the experiences of states or counties, gauging whether executions at a given time seemed to affect the murder rate that year, the year after or at some other later time. And they try to remove the influence of broader social trends like the crime rate generally, the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, economic conditions and demographic changes.

Critics say the larger factors are impossible to disentangle from whatever effects executions may have. They add that the new studies’ conclusions are skewed by data from a few anomalous jurisdictions, notably Texas, and by a failure to distinguish among various kinds of homicide.

There is also a classic economics question lurking in the background, Professor Wolfers said. “Capital punishment is very expensive,” he said, “so if you choose to spend money on capital punishment you are choosing not to spend it somewhere else, like policing.”​

Do you understand now, why your study is flawed? Do you understand how you are contradicting yourself in what you are saying in this thread?

I will point out the cost factor to you, just so we are clear of the deterrent factor and what is being lost when someone is executed:

To give a sense of the burden of capital punishment, note that over the past 35 years the state of California spent roughly $4 billion to execute 13 individuals. The $4 billion would have been enough to hire roughly 80,000 police officers who, if appropriately assigned, would be expected to prevent 466 murders (and much other crime) in California – far more than any of the most optimistic (albeit discredited) views of the possible benefits of capital punishment.​

And how many deaths does the death penalty deter in the study you are relying on? 3 to 18 per execution? Not even close to what would have been deterred if those funds were used to increase the number of police officer, and even improved access to health and education..

Except of course it doesn’t. There is no evidence to support your belief. The referenced study found deterrence would be more effective if executions were faster. But that isn’t the same as having no deterrent effect.

Wow..

This made me facepalm.

The fact that the process is so slow, based on the study you are relying on so blindly, means that the deterrent factor goes out the window. Someone executed today has probably been through about 10 years + of appeals process. So someone executed for a vicious murder committed over a decade before their execution means that people who are about to commit murder today, or a similar murder, will not be thinking back to 10 years prior when someone who committed a similar crime had been convicted and then executed 10 or so years later. I have posted numerous studies and articles about this. Perhaps you should go back and read them.

Additionally, you are ignoring the other benefits afforded by the death penalty which have been discussed in this thread and repeatedly ignored by you and Iceaura (e.g. an incentive to provide information which would not otherwise be available and has led to the retrieval bodies for victimized families and information about other crimes). Deterrence is just one benefit.

Are you suggesting using the death penalty as a bargaining chip to try to get the accused to confess where bodies are buried, for example? What? Strap them down to the table and threaten them with it? Or are you suggesting that it is used as a tool by police and law enforcement to try to force a confession and information about a crime? Are you aware of the dangers of this and that there have been overturning of decisions and people have been exonerated because of such tactics since it is known to induce false confessions? I know that I touched on this earlier, I believe on page 2 of this thread, and that Iceaura has provided information about this as well. Are you now making claims that using the death penalty as a bargaining tool or as an "incentive to provide information" is beneficial? Are you seriously suggesting that police officers threatening suspects with death is a good practice to obtain confessions, despite the manner in which such confessions obtained this way is suspect to begin with (since more often then not, suspects will end up just saying what they think the people who are torturing them want to hear)? Really Joe? This is what you are relying on?

Or are you now banking on revenge and closure and most importantly, retribution, for the families? Do you think it is beneficial?

No it doesn’t. That’s nonsense. In part because you have ZERO knowledge of economics, economics wouldn’t be worth much if it ignored factors.

But please, do tell me more and tell me how much you understand the basic economic principles of inflation as applied to this study. Please do. I really need a laugh.

Well, this is another case of where words and definitions matter. Murder by definition is premeditated and therefore not impulsive…oops.

Murder:
"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

Which is exactly the problem with the study.

You should read Professor Fagan's article about the study you are relying on and it might make more sense or make it easier to understand.

Well, no those were mostly statements of beliefs.

No, they are not.

Even if there is some parallel movement in murder rates, they don’t have the same murder rates. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

Wow dude. Did you even understand what those comparisons mean and how they apply?

Again, beliefs are not facts.

Only if you are incapable of reading and comprehending or if you are dishonest. Which one are you?

You do understand that was a study, yes?

“But, Mr. Becker (Nobel Prize winning economist) added, “the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” – From the New York Times article you referenced for your post.

Yeah, unfortunately for you, evidence and reason do matter.

I see it is dishonesty. You took it out of context and there is a tonne of literature to show just how wrong you are. The best bit is that you are contradicting yourself and your own argument with the study you keep referencing.

 

[iceaura]

LOL, except, I have read the materials you referenced. We have discussed them at length. I have repeatedly asked you to show the text from your URL references which you think validates your assertions. You have repeatedly refused to do it. At one point, you said you couldn’t do it.

I can't do it. The problem is that I have no idea what you think my assertions are. If you ever get around to letting me know, I can narrow the references down for you.

The reality is your “common knowledge” just isn’t consistent with reality (e.g. Kansas).

It's completely consistent with Kansas.

You believe that when the death penalty is available it always leads to abuse. Yet red state Kansas which has a death penalty law hasn’t executed a single person in 21 years in which it has been on the states books.

And you apparently think that means Kansas has not abused the death penalty for those 21 years, and in turn you think that means it won't. Why do you make such basic errors of reason in these topics? Just a few posts ago you were the guy so keen on emphasizing the side benefits of giving the State power to kill people - wide use of death threats for coercing confessions and other information, for example, you presented as an unquestioned benefit of the death penalty: remember? - and now you overlook all those matters you found so important?

The site is an antideath penalty advocacy site. That isn’t an unbiased site. You were asked to provide credible, quantifiable data from nonbiased sources

The site contains a thorough compilation of the scientific research in the field - pro and con.

It provides you with the actual research papers your biased and incompetent article referred to, for example, so you can post more credible sources in the future.

It's just an easily found site that did that. I welcome your provision of another site, meeting with your political approval, that is as thorough and complete. (If you surprise me by trying to find one, I predict you will have far more difficulty than I did - death penalty advocates are not much into research and facts and stuff like that).

Like this:

And as previously pointed out, with the extensive additional reviews granted to death penalty cases, the error rates should be much less.

But they aren't. The evidence is that the false trial conviction percentage in capital level crimes is higher, not lower, than the norm for lesser crimes. It was at least 12%, in Illinois - measured. So what you think it "should" be is based on flaws in your thinking - you aren't paying attention to significant factors in these matters (such as racism, political ambition among DAs, political pressure on everyone involved, greater motivation for corruption and influence, etc).

“But, Mr. Becker (Nobel Prize winning economist) added, “the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” – New York Times

Clearly the death penalty does have a deterrent effect.

Not exactly. Clearly a famous Nobel economist thinks it does. Others have reason to disagree. But let's say the majority of the more experienced and careful researchers in the field are wrong, and this economist is right - that only brings you to the beginning of addressing the issue here:

Is it worth it? Is it worth, for example, executing a few innocent people now and then for this deterrence effect this economist claims? Is it worth the risks (historically, the inevitables) inherent in giving the State the power to deter in this way?

Because one uses in economics the assumption of rationality not because people behave in very rational ways, but for several other reasons.

And that is a famous source of error, in economics, even in their specialty fields of concentration.

It is even more liable to be leading economists astray in fields in which they have no training or experience - such as climate change, or the the sociological influences of capital punishment.[/quote]