capital punishment?

[joepistole]

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

LOL, ad hominem isn’t a substitute for reason.

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?

Except as previously pointed out, the only contradiction is between your ears.
I have argued that murder cases should be more accurate because they receive much more scrutiny. That isn’t an argument or longer judicial reviews. It’s a statement of fact. You are making shit up again.

The article I cited said deterrence is greater if execution is closer to the event. It didn’t say, as you are attempting to represent, that a later execution would have no deterrent effect. You misrepresentation is dishonest or reflects a cognitive impairment on your part.

I suggest you go back and reread what the CBS article said. It said as executions go up, murder rates go down. That really disproves your belief to the contrary. You claimed we had to have more executions in order to have a deterrent effect and that simply is not what the CBS article stated. Before you go casting aspersions at others especially with respect to reading comprehension, you should take a long serious look at yourself.

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.

“We”, who’s we Kemosabee, you and Iceaura? Hmm…so you think I ignored JamesR? I suggest you go back and look at the discussion with JamesR. That’s more intellectual dishonesty on your part.

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

No you weren’t. You were making the very same errors of logic and fact Icearua made. My response would have been the same.

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.

Except, my arguments are not contradictory as has been repeatedly explained…oops, I never argued for a longer judicial process. I challenge you to back up that claim. Where did I argue for a longer judicial review process? I haven’t. As repeated several times now in multiple posts, I argued extensive judicial reviews as evidenced by the long appeals process conviction error rates should be lower than it is for other crimes.

I do believe murder cases should receive high levels of scrutiny and evidence of guilt should be beyond a doubt. We should not be executing innocent individuals. But that isn’t and an argument for longer judicial reviews. You for some reason appear to be totally unable or unwilling to understand your error. You are misrepresenting me, and that is more intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Show me where the CBS report said the death penalty can ONLY be a deterrent if more people are executed. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. You are making shit up again. That’s intellectually dishonest as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

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

You are reposting old material to which I have already responded. I suggest you go back and read, maybe take a little extra time this time.

 

[joepistole]

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..

This was addressed the first time you posted it, nothing has changed. I suggest you go back and review my response.

Wow..
This made me facepalm.

LOL…YEAH WOW!

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.

Except, you are again misrepresenting the study, the study never said the lengthy review process negates deterrent effect. Where do you think the study material came from? It came from real cases, real data. The bottom line here is you are not being honest or are cognitively impaired…take your pick. The only one dependent on blindness is you.

The 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?

LOL…you are going off the deep end again.

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

Ok, more ad hominem. I don’t believe in retribution. But I do believe in self-defense.

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.
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.
No, they are not.
Wow dude. Did you even understand what those comparisons mean and how they apply?
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?
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.

And you think any of that makes sense…seriously? You are cherry picking your way through the New York Times article you referenced and it doesn't get better with repetition. As previously pointed out, below is a portion of what you are leaving out. Gee, I wonder why.

Dr. Becker, a Nobel Prize winning economist said:
“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.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Becker

I agree with Dr. Becker. Dr. Becker sums up my position rather nicely. Prior to your reference of the New York Times article I was unaware of Dr. Becker’s position on capital punishment. So thanks for the article.

 

[Bells]

LOL, ad hominem isn’t a substitute for reason.

Joe, you are the worst in that regard. You demand links and evidence, it is provided for you and then you refuse to read it. You have done this numerous times. You have made offensive comments to numerous people in the most condescending manner possible. In short, you are in no position to complain.

Frankly, at this point, I can only assume that your behaviour stems from lack of understanding what it is you are reading.

Except as previously pointed out, the only contradiction is between your ears.
I have argued that murder cases should be more accurate because they receive much more scrutiny. That isn’t an argument or longer judicial reviews. It’s a statement of fact. You are making shit up again.

Which I showed earlier in the thread, that you are wrong. The judicial process is inherently flawed. The reason capital cases take up to a decade before someone is executed is because it is inherently flawed. The result has been that innocent people have been executed, not to mention that innocent people have ended up incarcerated for a decade or more on death row because of the flaws in the system itself.

Your argument amounted to saying that there should be less mistakes because it takes so long and you have argued for it taking so long to supposedly remove the mistakes, which directly contradicts the study you keep relying on, which clearly shows that the death penalty can only act as a deterrent if people are executed often enough and quickly enough to deter people.

Do you understand now? Do you now see how the system you are praising for removing mistakes because it takes so long acts against the death penalty acting as a deterrent?

The article I cited said deterrence is greater if execution is closer to the event. It didn’t say, as you are attempting to represent, that a later execution would have no deterrent effect. You misrepresentation is dishonest or reflects a cognitive impairment on your part.

The study notes that it can only be a deterrent if it happens faster and more often.

Did you even read the studies themselves? Or are you solely relying on the CBS News piece about it? Did you do any research about the studies you keep citing? Because it is clear you have not actually read them, nor have you read anything about it aside from one news story about it.

Did you read the caution by Mocan and Gittings in the 2003 study? Did you read how they note that even though there is an appearance of a deterrence, extreme caution needs to apply because of these issues, primarily that of discrimination that exists within the Justice system itself? Did you note how they fail to distinguish between different types of homicides? At all? Let me guess, you didn't read it, did you?

How about the 2006 study by Mocan and Gittings, which re-examined the data? No?

Do you even know what the studies are called?

Are you aware of how they computed the deterrent effect in their 2003 study? Are you aware, for example that the figures Mocan and Gittings relied on were skewed to begin with?

At least two prominent criminologists have found serious flaws in the Mocan-Gittings work. Richard Berk noted that the execution figures by state by year for the 1977 to 1997 period were highly skewed.3° Berk specifically noted that most states-accounting for 859 of the 1,000 observations3 '-had zero executions in a given year, and only a few states had more than a handful in a few years (n= 1), with most of these being from Texas.32 He used a straightforward procedure to assess the implications of this skewed measure: using Mocan and Gittings's original data set, he removed the Texas data and ran the model exactly as the original authors did, albeit only for the other forty-nine states. 33 The deterrent effect of executions disappeared.34
​

In the period between 1977 and 1997, the executions in Texas accounted for 37% of the executions. That skewed the results.

Are you also aware that in the 2003 study, Mocan and Gittings lagged the results? And that this also gave a skewed result?

The reason I question your reading and comprehension skills, Joe, is because if you had read the original 2003 study, this would have been clear to you. Even a first year economics student would have picked this up. It's on page 10 of the actual study, page 11 if you include the title page in the total of pages. Did you not read it? Did you not see how they applied it?

A second reexamination of the Mocan-Gittings study was conducted by Jeffrey Fagan.36 Fagan's work is the most comprehensive review of the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of deterrence studies published after 2000. He first improved Mocan's measure of deterrence, which is the number of executions in a given state divided by the number of death sentences imposed six years earlier.37 Because of the impossibility of computing this measure if the denominator is zero, Mocan and Gittings coded years with no death sentences as .99.38 Fagan reanalyzed the data using .01 (which is closer to zero) in the denominator rather than .99. That simple improvement made all the deterrent effects found by Mocan and Gittings disappear.39

Furthermore, Fagan noted that potential offenders are unlikely to remember the number of death sentences imposed in their states six or seven years prior to their crime.40 Instead, he computed a variable measuring deterrence by calculating the number of executions in the previous year divided by the number of death sentences handed down two years earlier (rather than six). Again, this minor adjustment makes the deterrent effect observed by Mocan and Gittings disappear.

Fagan also showed that alternative statistical models that consider the strong correlation of homicide rates from year to year within a given state also produce results that eliminate any deterrent effects.4' In addition, because the data set used by Mocan and Gittings to count homicides has wide gaps with missing data, Fagan used Morbidity and Mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics to improve the measure of homicides. 42 Again, these minor adjustments and corrections eliminated the relationship between executions and homicide rates.

Rather than prove that Mocan and Gittings erred in their assumptions, Fagan showed that small changes in their assumptions could produce wild fluctuations in their deterrence estimates. For instance, a small change could cause a positive deterrence effect, no deterrence effect, or even the brutalization effect, in which each execution increases the homicide rate. 3 Unfortunately, Mocan and Gittings have not responded to Berk's and Fagan's critiques.​

This is the study you are relying on. And it is why the majority of the world's criminologists have spoken out against it and dismissed it.

I suggest you go back and reread what the CBS article said. It said as executions go up, murder rates go down. That really disproves your belief to the contrary. You claimed we had to have more executions in order to have a deterrent effect and that simply is not what the CBS article stated. Before you go casting aspersions at others especially with respect to reading comprehension, you should take a long serious look at yourself.

I actually read the study itself. Which you clearly did not do.

You probably don't even know what the 2003 study discussed in the CBS News piece is even called.

 

[Bells]

“We”, who’s we Kemosabee, you and Iceaura? Hmm…so you think I ignored JamesR? I suggest you go back and look at the discussion with JamesR. That’s more intellectual dishonesty on your part.

*Sigh* You can't even spell your insults correctly. Although I suppose it is better than you not knowing what words even mean, like when you tried to laugh at the word "lather" being misspelled because you thought it meant laughter.

And "we" pretty much amounts to anyone who has had to discuss anything with you or attempted to in an intelligent manner.

No you weren’t. You were making the very same errors of logic and fact Icearua made. My response would have been the same.

Pretty sure I am not.

I am pointing out the contradiction of your stance to that one CBS article you have linked, and the fact that you don't even know what the study looked at and how because you have not even read the study you are trying to discuss. I am pointing out that the study you are using is flawed to a ridiculous degree and is unreliable. Ergo, relying on that to give a positive result in the "deterrent" effect is itself flawed and downright silly. It's akin to reheating chicken 3 times. It's not something that should be done. Sure, some might get away with it sometimes without being sick, but it doesn't always work, which is the inherent problem with the study you are relying on.

Except, my arguments are not contradictory as has been repeatedly explained…oops, I never argued for a longer judicial process. I challenge you to back up that claim. Where did I argue for a longer judicial review process? I haven’t. As repeated several times now in multiple posts, I argued extensive judicial reviews as evidenced by the long appeals process conviction error rates should be lower than it is for other crimes.

I do believe murder cases should receive high levels of scrutiny and evidence of guilt should be beyond a doubt. We should not be executing innocent individuals. But that isn’t and an argument for longer judicial reviews. You for some reason appear to be totally unable or unwilling to understand your error. You are misrepresenting me, and that is more intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Oops indeed. I clearly said that you are relying on that argument to try to explain away Judicial mistakes and errors, and your relying on it directly contradicts the study you keep referring to without having even read it, because that clearly points to the fact that there can only be a deterrence effect if executions occur more frequently and quickly. Which is clearly not the case in reality.

Show me where the CBS report said the death penalty can ONLY be a deterrent if more people are executed. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. You are making shit up again. That’s intellectually dishonest as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

My god, you really did not read the study, did you? If you had looked at their calculations, you would see why.

I would suggest you read the actual study and then get back to me.

You are reposting old material to which I have already responded. I suggest you go back and read, maybe take a little extra time this time.

Then I would suggest you cease and desist in a) posting things out of context and b) not posting about studies you have not even read.

Except, you are again misrepresenting the study, the study never said the lengthy review process negates deterrent effect. Where do you think the study material came from? It came from real cases, real data. The bottom line here is you are not being honest or are cognitively impaired…take your pick. The only one dependent on blindness is you.

*Sigh*

The study notes that every commutation or removal from the death penalty as a sentence increases the homicide. The appellant process in capital cases is lengthy. It can, more often then not, take over a decade between sentencing and execution. In that time, there is a greater chance of the sentence being reduced or removed entirely and a greater chance of the prisoner being exonerated or given a pardon. According to Mocan and Gittings, each one of these impact on the homicide rate. So the more exoneration's, commutations or pardons there are, the more it will impact on the homicide rate for that State. As you have noted, the appellant process is long and it has to be to remove the mistakes in the judicial process. The result is that people's sentences are either reduced or removed entirely because of these mistakes. The longer it takes, the more it impacts on the homicide rate, especially if the sentence is reduced or removed entirely. Mocan and Gittings note in their study that the more people are removed from the death penalty sentence, the higher the homicide rate. Now, put two and two together. You are coming out with five. Everyone else is coming out with four and you think everyone else is wrong.

The deterrent effect becomes more effective if people are sentenced and executed quickly and not made to sit in the appellant process for a decade or more, which increases their chance of having the sentence overturned. Do you understand now?

LOL…you are going off the deep end again.

Weren't you the one complaining about "ad hominems" earlier?

If you think Fagan is wrong, then please, cite studies to actually counter it. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't exist. There is a reason why Mocan and Gittings have refused to address Fagan's points about their data and how it is skewed and unreliable. And there is a reason why the media have sensationalised the study itself.

Ok, more ad hominem. I don’t believe in retribution. But I do believe in self-defense.

Twelve years down the track?

You didn't read that article either, did you?

And you think any of that makes sense…seriously? You are cherry picking your way through the New York Times article you referenced and it doesn't get better with repetition. As previously pointed out, below is a portion of what you are leaving out. Gee, I wonder why.

Dr. Becker, a Nobel Prize winning economist said:
“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.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Becker

I agree with Dr. Becker. Prior to your reference of the New York Times article I was unaware of Dr. Becker’s position on capital punishment. So thanks for the article.

You are posting things out of context. You haven't even read the study they are discussing. Hell, even Mocan and Gittings cite extreme caution about their study.

It's in their concluding remarks of their 2003 study. To prove you have read it, why don't you quote it. Go on.. I'll give you a hint, they use the words "it should be noted that there remains a number of significant issues surrounding the imposition of the death penalty".. That should make your search easier.

 

[tali89]

“We”, who’s we Kemosabee, you and Iceaura?

The left-winger hive-mind, silly! Don't worry, anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can see you are being misrepresented by Bells and co.

 

[joepistole]

Joe, you are the worst in that regard.

LOL, oh, yet you have no evidence of that. And the irony of you accusing someone else of ad hominem is rich indeed. Truth may be unpleasant for you, but it certainly isn’t ad hominem. In reading your recent posts, I see you have moved on from ad hominem to outright bullying, which is what you always resort to when evidence and reason run against you , which is often.

You demand links and evidence, it is provided for you and then you refuse to read it. You have done this numerous times. You have made offensive comments to numerous people in the most condescending manner possible. In short, you are in no position to complain.

Oh, so this along with all your other extra sensory abilities, you know I don’t read your links…seriously? You make these silly and untruthful claims to things you cannot possibly know. The unpleasant fact is I do read your bullshit and as previously pointed out you cherry pick you way through your material, ignoring what you don’t like and misrepresenting or ignoring the rest. That isn’t intellectually honest Bells.

Frankly, at this point, I can only assume that your behaviour stems from lack of understanding what it is you are reading.

LOL, yeah, you wish.

So if you are to be believed, it's not only me who doesn't understand what it is I am reading, but all the other distinguished economic professors, including Nobel Prize winning Dr. Becker who are in agreement with my postiton. LOL, yeah, good luck with that. I think if far more likely the problem is on your end Bells.

Which I showed earlier in the thread, that you are wrong. The judicial process is inherently flawed. The reason capital cases take up to a decade before someone is executed is because it is inherently flawed. The result has been that innocent people have been executed, not to mention that innocent people have ended up incarcerated for a decade or more on death row because of the flaws in the system itself.

Except, you haven’t, we have discussed error rates and the best available evidence ranges from .5% to 4%. And you seem to be going back to Iceaura’s argument, if a system isn’t perfect, then it can’t be used. As previously pointed out, if that were true we would still be living in the Stone Age and nothing would be perfect even then.

What’s being argued here is for the death penalty where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. If there are problems with the judiciary system, which you haven’t identified, they should be fixed. Are you telling me Ted Bundy is innocent?

Your argument amounted to saying that there should be less mistakes because it takes so long and you have argued for it taking so long to supposedly remove the mistakes, which directly contradicts the study you keep relying on, which clearly shows that the death penalty can only act as a deterrent if people are executed often enough and quickly enough to deter people.

Yes, I said in capital cases error rates should be less given the additional level of judicial scrutiny they receive. But no, I have very explicitly not argued, “you have argued for it taking so long to supposedly remove the mistakes” many times now. I have repeatedly pointed this out to you. Further, it’s irrelevant which has also been endlessly pointed out to you, the studies found the deterrent effect was best when executions were faster. You wrongly interpret that as invaliding the deterrent effect. And that very clearly isn’t the case.

Do you understand now? Do you now see how the system you are praising for removing mistakes because it takes so long acts against the death penalty acting as a deterrent?

Haven’t I repeatedly in many posts now explicitly stated that the long period between the offensive act and execution reduce the effectiveness of deterrence? Do you not understand the studies found that a prolonged period between the act and the execution didn’t nullify the deterrent effect?

The study notes that it can only be a deterrent if it happens faster and more often.

Except as has been repeatedly pointed out to you; you introduced the “only” condition, because it wasn’t in the studies. You are not being honest Bells.

“SYNOPSES OF PAPERS/STUDIES:
(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and
Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state, that "our results suggest that
capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities
~ arrest,- sentencing or execution — tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each
execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders - with a margin of error of plus
or minus ten."1 Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from
1977-1996. “ http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/POLI195_Sp13/StamSummaryofDeathPenaltyStudies.pdf

Did you even read the studies themselves? Or are you solely relying on the CBS News piece about it? Did you do any research about the studies you keep citing? Because it is clear you have not actually read them, nor have you read anything about it aside from one news story about it.
Are you also aware that in the 2003 study, Mocan and Gittings lagged the results? And that this also gave a skewed result?
The reason I question your reading and comprehension skills, Joe, is because if you had read the original 2003 study, this would have been clear to you. Even a first year economics student would have picked this up. It's on page 10 of the actual study, page 11 if you include the title page in the total of pages. Did you not read it? Did you not see how they applied it?

So you think Dr. Gary Becker a Nobel Prize winning economist, an economics professor at the prestigious University of Chicago, a man who taught economics doesn’t know what a first year economics student should know. Well that is rich coming from you Bells who has absolutely no knowledge of economics.

The unpleasant fact for you is a number of very credible economists do not share your beliefs about the studies. The most credible argument against the studies is that the data is thin, meaning there aren’t enough executions. But that doesn’t negate their findings.

Yeah, and it doesn’t say what you need it to say.

"(2003) University of Colorado (Denver) Economics Department Chairman Naci Mocan
and Graduate Assistant R. Kaj Gottings found "a significant relationship among the
execution, removal, and commutation rates and the rate of homicide. Each additional
execution decreases homicides by about five, and each additional commutation
increases homicides by the same amount, while one additional removal from death row
generates one additional homicide." Their data set contains detailed information on the
entire history of 6,143 death sentences between 1977 and 1997 in the United States.2?"

http://www.unc.edu/~fbaum/teaching/POLI195_Sp13/StamSummaryofDeathPenaltyStudies.pdf

 

[joepistole]

Furthermore, Fagan noted that potential offenders are unlikely to remember the number of death sentences imposed in their states six or seven years prior to their crime.40 Instead, he computed a variable measuring deterrence by calculating the number of executions in the previous year divided by the number of death sentences handed down two years earlier (rather than six). Again, this minor adjustment makes the deterrent effect observed by Mocan and Gittings disappear.

Except, that isn’t relevant, whither an offender remembers the number of death sentences in the 6 or 7 years prior to his offense isn’t relevant…oops. The only relevant factor is knowledge the death penalty is a real possibility for the offense.

Fagan also showed that alternative statistical models that consider the strong correlation of homicide rates from year to year within a given state also produce results that eliminate any deterrent effects.4' In addition, because the data set used by Mocan and Gittings to count homicides has wide gaps with missing data, Fagan used Morbidity and Mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics to improve the measure of homicides. 42 Again, these minor adjustments and corrections eliminated the relationship between executions and homicide rates.
This is the study you are relying on. And it is why the majority of the world's criminologists have spoken out against it and dismissed it.
I actually read the study itself. Which you clearly did not do.
You probably don't even know what the 2003 study discussed in the CBS News piece is even called.

If you had been paying attention and read them as you claim you would know there are many studies, not just one. That’s another oops. So you know I didn’t read the studies, I guess that goes with the rest of your extra sensory powers. You have a very strong penchant for claiming to know things you clearly cannot know. That's dishonest Bells.

What you have done is a another turd drop. What you have done, is read material from an antideath penalty advocacy site and mindlessly repeat what you found and cherry picking all the way. You have no knowledge of economics and even less knowledge of statistics. I don’t think you would know a statistical model if you ran into it. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, what you have repeatedly done is cherry pick your way to antideath penalty nirvana. What you have done is repeatedly ignore data and conclusions from a number of very credible people and sources and tried to hide in irrelevant data. You seem to have great difficulty with understanding relevance, in determining what is and isn’t relevant. For example, whither I know or don’t know the title of a study is totally irrelevant. It doesn’t change the finding or anything in the AP article I cited.

 

[iceaura]

I suggest you go back and reread what the CBS article said. It said as executions go up, murder rates go down.

And since it was written by an infallible journalist assessing incontrovertible research findings, you plan to keep taking that assertion as a fact of the universe.

You have no knowledge of economics and even less knowledge of statistics. I don’t think you would know a statistical model if you ran into it.

As opposed to yourself, whose swallowing whole

an obviously biased journalist's presentation

of an economist's assertions about the statistical implications of some data in a non-ec0nomic field

is exactly what people who understand economics and the complexities of statistical modeling would do, faced with a question about the deterrence effects of capital punishment.

Because you were so impressed by that kind of contribution from some economists in the climate change discussion?

Meanwhile, this question is still in the front:

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?

 

[joepistole]

*Sigh* You can't even spell your insults correctly.

LOL, and just what word did I misspell Bells? And Kemosabe, isn’t an insult nor is it misspelled. That's yet another oops on your part.
Kemosabee
However, the spelling kemo sabe (or kemosabe) is by far the most common in popular culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke-mo_sah-bee

Pretty sure I am not.

Well I have proven you are.

I am pointing out the contradiction of your stance to that one CBS article you have linked, and the fact that you don't even know what the study looked at and how because you have not even read the study you are trying to discuss. I am pointing out that the study you are using is flawed to a ridiculous degree and is unreliable. Ergo, relying on that to give a positive result in the "deterrent" effect is itself flawed and downright silly. It's akin to reheating chicken 3 times. It's not something that should be done. Sure, some might get away with it sometimes without being sick, but it doesn't always work, which is the inherent problem with the study you are relying on.
Oops indeed. I clearly said that you are relying on that argument to try to explain away Judicial mistakes and errors, and your relying on it directly contradicts the study you keep referring to without having even read it, because that clearly points to the fact that there can only be a deterrence effect if executions occur more frequently and quickly. Which is clearly not the case in reality.

What you are doing, what you have done is create a fiction in order to justify your belief. You have been repeatedly challenged to prove your claim of a contradiction and you haven’t done so. What you have done is endlessly repeat the same old fallacious bullshit over and over again. It doesn’t get better with age. As has been repeated over and over, the only contradiction is the one between your ears. You are being intellectually dishonest yet again.

My god, you really did not read the study, did you? If you had looked at their calculations, you would see why.
I would suggest you read the actual study and then get back to me.
Then I would suggest you cease and desist in a) posting things out of context and b) not posting about studies you have not even read.

Hmm…..what does one say to unmitigated bullshit? You are not being honest Bells.

*Sigh*
The study notes that every commutation or removal from the death penalty as a sentence increases the homicide. The appellant process in capital cases is lengthy. It can, more often then not, take over a decade between sentencing and execution. In that time, there is a greater chance of the sentence being reduced or removed entirely and a greater chance of the prisoner being exonerated or given a pardon. According to Mocan and Gittings, each one of these impact on the homicide rate. So the more exoneration's, commutations or pardons there are, the more it will impact on the homicide rate for that State. As you have noted, the appellant process is long and it has to be to remove the mistakes in the judicial process. The result is that people's sentences are either reduced or removed entirely because of these mistakes. The longer it takes, the more it impacts on the homicide rate, especially if the sentence is reduced or removed entirely. Mocan and Gittings note in their study that the more people are removed from the death penalty sentence, the higher the homicide rate. Now, put two and two together. You are coming out with five. Everyone else is coming out with four and you think everyone else is wrong.
The deterrent effect becomes more effective if people are sentenced and executed quickly and not made to sit in the appellant process for a decade or more, which increases their chance of having the sentence overturned. Do you understand now?

And the point is? Have I ever argued, quicker executions would not reduce murder rates? No, this is just continuation of your straw man. And that relationship proves, contrary to your beliefs and arguments, that executions do have a deterrent effect. The unpleasant fact for you is NOWHERE in any of the studies do they conclude deterrence is eliminated by if execution isn’t swift. Your assertion to the contrary is simply not true. But hey, you are not one to let fact and reason get in the way of your beliefs.

Weren't you the one complaining about "ad hominems" earlier?
If you think Fagan is wrong, then please, cite studies to actually counter it. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't exist. There is a reason why Mocan and Gittings have refused to address Fagan's points about their data and how it is skewed and unreliable. And there is a reason why the media have sensationalised the study itself.

Truth isn’t ad hominem. I have already poked holes in Fagan. I suggest you go back and read previous posts. The evidence is sound, it just doesn’t comport with your beliefs. Why don’t you cite just one credible study which supports your death penalty beliefs?

Twelve years down the track?
You didn't read that article either, did you?

Except, that is bullshit, and what does my belief in self-defense have to do with 12 years down the track? Nothing, absolutely nothing, apparently you don’t understand what is being discussed here. Apparently, you don’t understand the concept of deterrence.

You are posting things out of context. You haven't even read the study they are discussing. Hell, even Mocan and Gittings cite extreme caution about their study.
It's in their concluding remarks of their 2003 study. To prove you have read it, why don't you quote it. Go on.. I'll give you a hint, they use the words "it should be noted that there remains a number of significant issues surrounding the imposition of the death penalty".. That should make your search easier.

Nonsense, if you have something of merit to post, post it. But you don’t. So you don’t. Instead, you play these silly irrelevant games. You have cherry picked, materially misrepresented fact, lied, and attempted to, as you always do, obfuscate. If you have something material to post, please do so. But this obfuscation nonsense is getting really boring.

 

[joepistole]

And since it was written by an infallible journalist assessing incontrovertible research findings, you plan to keep taking that assertion as a fact of the universe.

LOL, ok so now you are invoking the "infallible journalist" defense. Well here is the thing, no one has said journalists are not infallible and you haven't been able to prove the journalists or the authors of the studies referenced are wrong. Just because your beliefs are not consistent with reality, it doesn't make everyone else wrong.

As opposed to yourself, whose swallowing whole

an obviously biased journalist's presentation

of an economist's assertions about the statistical implications of some data in a non-ec0nomic field

is exactly what people who understand economics and the complexities of statistical modeling would do, faced with a question about the deterrence effects of capital punishment.

Because you were so impressed by that kind of contribution from some economists in the climate change discussion?

Meanwhile, this question is still in the front:

Well facts are not biased, they are just facts and it's more than just one economist, it's many economists including a Nobel Prize winning economist. And I see you have managed to throw climate change into the mix, now how climate change is somehow relevant to a discussion of the death penalty is a bit perplexing.

 

[iceaura]

LOL, ok so now you are invoking the "infallible journalist" defense

You're the guy quoting an obviously biased and under-researched media article as "fact". I'm the guy who provided you with a link to all the actual studies your article mentioned but did not consider, plus the many studies done by experienced and competent researchers who specialize in the field which your article dismissed without even paraphrasing, considering, mentioning, or referencing.

And I see you have managed to throw climate change into the mix, now how climate change is somehow relevant to a discussion of the death penalty is a bit perplexing.

It's a recent example of economists drawing conclusions from statistical analysis of data in a field they don't know much about, employing assumptions they haven't checked - haven't the ability to check. It's a warning to the naive - even the naive who, unlike you, don't rely for their "facts" on mass media articles by journalists who clearly haven't done their homework.

And you still haven't taken that final step into relevance - because the interest here is not in whether the death penalty as it has been employed in the US has

- against all reason and the implications of the examples I posted -

been a net deterrent despite everything.

The interest is in whether or not one should allow the State to attempt to deter in this way. The historical record is discouraging in this matter, and it's going to take a pretty good argument to overcome the more obvious implications of what has happened to everybody else who did this.

Such as us - illustrated for example among hundreds: https://www.aclu.org/blog/former-de...eath-row-prisoner-speaks-out-against-solitary

 

[joepistole]

You're the guy quoting an obviously biased and under-researched media article as "fact". I'm the guy who provided you with a link to all the actual studies your article mentioned but did not consider, plus the many studies done by experienced and competent researchers who specialize in the field which your article dismissed without even paraphrasing, considering, mentioning, or referencing.

Oh, and what is obviously biased about it exactly, the part where it discusses arguments for and against? The unfortunate fact for you is this has been discussed for several days and you haven't been able to prove anything including the bias claim. The fact is the only ones who are clearly biased here are you and Bells. Not surprisingly, you are lying or are severely cognitively impaired by your bias.

It's a recent example of economists drawing conclusions from statistical analysis of data in a field they don't know much about, employing assumptions they haven't checked - haven't the ability to check. It's a warning to the naive - even the naive who, unlike you, don't rely for their "facts" on mass media articles by journalists who clearly haven't done their homework.

Example...? Obviously, you don't know what economics is or what economists do and you are calling people naïve....seriously? Unfortunately, seriously. Economics is a social science and economists are social scientists. If you would have read and understood the article I referenced you would know why economists are concerned with and have investigated this issue. But you were do busy with that denial thingy. And if you had read and understand the posts you would know multiple articles and documents have been referred to and discussed which have reached similar conclusions...not that there is anything wrong with a single document or a single credible article. Articles are frequently used, even by you. You just don't like evidence which disproves your deeply held beliefs just as our right wing brethren don't like evidence and reason when it isn't supportive of their beliefs.

If you have evidence the journalist who wrote and the credible news sources which published the article are wrong, it's long past time to show it. But you can't, so you do the only thing you can do, spew unsupported bullshit.

And you still haven't taken that final step into relevance - because the interest here is not in whether the death penalty as it has been employed in the US has

- against all reason and the implications of the examples I posted -

been a net deterrent despite everything.

The interest is in whether or not one should allow the State to attempt to deter in this way. The historical record is discouraging in this matter, and it's going to take a pretty good argument to overcome the more obvious implications of what has happened to everybody else who did this.

Such as us - illustrated for example among hundreds: https://www.aclu.org/blog/former-death-row-prisoner-speaks-out-against-solitary-capital-punishment?redirect=blog/prisoners-rights-capital-punishment/former-death-row-prisoner-speaks-out-against-solitary

And you think any of that makes sense?

 

[iceaura]

Oh, and what is obviously biased about it exactly, the part where it discusses arguments for and against?

The part where it omits the "against". Where I had to go searching the net to find the names and papers that argued against the economists' methods and conclusions - because they were not named even, let alone quoted etc, in the article.

Economics is a social science and economists are social scientists.

They don't know anything about the death penalty or the factors influencing its effects. They made standard economic assumptions they lacked the ability to check, and mined the data they assumed were critical for patterns. That is a famous way that economists go wrong, even within their field of expertise.

If you have evidence the journalist who wrote and the credible news sources which published the article are wrong, it's long past time to show it.

Once again: I linked you to a compilation of the science in the field - the actual research, the stuff published by the experts in the field. And so did James, and so did Bells. You have stuck with this one article, which you have somewhat comically taken as "fact".

And that's just on the deterrence angle. There remains the matter at issue: is it a good idea to allow the State to kill its citizens on purpose?

And you think any of that makes sense?

Yep.

 

[joepistole]

The part where it omits the "against". Where I had to go searching the net to find the names and papers that argued against the economists' methods and conclusions - because they were not named even, let alone quoted etc, in the article.

I suggest you go back and read the article.

They don't know anything about the death penalty or the factors influencing its effects. They made standard economic assumptions they lacked the ability to check, and mined the data they assumed were critical for patterns. That is a famous way that economists go wrong, even within their field of expertise.

And you know this how? Apparently you didn't read the article you have been denouncing, because if you had, you should know that is bullshit.

Once again: I linked you to a compilation of the science in the field - the actual research, the stuff published by the experts in the field. And so did James, and so did Bells. You have stuck with this one article, which you have somewhat comically taken as "fact".

No you didn't. You did a URL dump and misrepresented your URLs and you cited advocacy sites, which is kind of ironic given you see a nonbiased article published by very credible news services as biased, and then reference very biased advocacy material to support your beliefs. You don't see the hypocrisy and irony?

And that's just on the deterrence angle. There remains the matter at issue: is it a good idea to allow the State to kill its citizens on purpose?

Well that's just it, isn't it? You don't really care about evidence and reason.

 

[iceaura]

Once again: I linked you to a compilation of the science in the field - the actual research, the stuff published by the experts in the field. And so did James, and so did Bells. You have stuck with this one article, which you have somewhat comically taken as "fact".
No you didn't.

Yes, I did. In post #6, the first link, followed by a link to a specific research paper from people better at the relevant stats than your economists - a 2nd link for you to not read. You dismissed the entire body of research papers provided, on the grounds that the compilation was on an "advocacy site". Apparently you think research becomes contaminated if it's linked by people who disagree with your opinions on the death penalty - which means of course nothing I link can be acceptable to you either, because I advocate not allowing any government in the US to kill any of its prisoners on purpose. So I contaminate all my links, just as the "advocacy site" contaminates all the research and studies it compiles, and so forth.

So I put it to you to find and link to a site you approved of, with a similar convenient, thorough compilation of all that research in this matter. Then I could refer to these very same studies, but this time via some Joe-approved link. You can't, I know, because death penalty advocates don't go in much for thorough or complete - but you haven't tried, have you.

Meanwhile, the question is still hanging - if it turns out that the experts are wrong, and these economists are correct despite the obvious problems with their assumptions, unfamiliarity, etc, and there is a net deterrence to be obtained by having the State kill certain criminals as it has been - so what?

Is that enough to overcome all the bad aspects of this kind of State power, as argued and illustrated above?

Here's yet another bad aspect, to put on the list above: some mentally disturbed people want to be executed by the State, for the glory of it or to escape their demons etc. It's perhaps related to the well-known "suicide by cop" phenomenon. Ted Bundy, for one, apparently traveled many hundreds of miles by bus after escaping from jail to get to Florida for his final spree - where he could find attractive women to butcher, and where the State would kill him for doing so. He then went on an uncharacteristic rampage, not the well-planned disappearance of one by one where he could enjoy the experience, but a spree of bashings of several women where some were even left alive and could identify him.

So Florida's death penalty apparently attracted, not discouraged, at least one serial killer of the worst kind. Just another factor to consider.

 

[Bells]

LOL, oh, yet you have no evidence of that. And the irony of you accusing someone else of ad hominem is rich indeed. Truth may be unpleasant for you, but it certainly isn’t ad hominem. In reading your recent posts, I see you have moved on from ad hominem to outright bullying, which is what you always resort to when evidence and reason run against you , which is often.

I take it you still haven't read the actual study you are touting in this thread then?

Oh, so this along with all your other extra sensory abilities, you know I don’t read your links…seriously? You make these silly and untruthful claims to things you cannot possibly know. The unpleasant fact is I do read your bullshit and as previously pointed out you cherry pick you way through your material, ignoring what you don’t like and misrepresenting or ignoring the rest. That isn’t intellectually honest Bells.

No, you haven't read what I linked. Had you done so, then you would realise that the study you are relying on cannot be supported. Which is why criminologists and lawyers have dismissed it entirely. Cherry picking? I am addressing the actual study. Why? Because I read it. You are yet to do so and instead, you are relying on a media take on the study.

LOL, yeah, you wish.

So if you are to be believed, it's not only me who doesn't understand what it is I am reading, but all the other distinguished economic professors, including Nobel Prize winning Dr. Becker who are in agreement with my postiton. LOL, yeah, good luck with that. I think if far more likely the problem is on your end Bells.

Yes, an economics professor advised that if the conditions as found in the study exist, then it can act as a deterrent. But as everyone has noted upon reading the study, it can only be a deterrent if there are enough executions without removal from death row. Do you understand what that means? Had you read the study, you would have seen that any process that works to prove someone innocent, if the sentence was found to have been unconstitutional in any way and if the sentence is commuted to life in prison or any removal from death row which results in a person not being executed works against being a deterrent. Do you understand the implications of this at all? Do you understand what that means for the judicial process that is so flawed that it is mistake ridden and as the authors of the study note, is rife with racial discrimination?

Except, you haven’t, we have discussed error rates and the best available evidence ranges from .5% to 4%. And you seem to be going back to Iceaura’s argument, if a system isn’t perfect, then it can’t be used. As previously pointed out, if that were true we would still be living in the Stone Age and nothing would be perfect even then.

What’s being argued here is for the death penalty where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. If there are problems with the judiciary system, which you haven’t identified, they should be fixed. Are you telling me Ted Bundy is innocent?

The study is based on there being at least one execution per year in the States where the death penalty is available to the State. Which is why in the years where there were no executions, they rounded the figure closest to one instead of being closest to zero to achieve the deterrent results. That is how it is skewed and flawed. It can only be a deterrent if there is at least one execution a year in each State.

Are you actually suggesting that the error rate in the judicial process and the racial discrimination that exists in the system itself, which Mocan and Gittings caution about in advocating for or even against the death penalty, is not evidence of problems within the judiciary? Seriously? This is what you are now saying? This is what an actual study of the error rates in capital cases for over a 23 year period:

Nationally, during the 23-year study period, the overall rate of prejudicial error in the American capital punishment system was 68%. In other words, courts found serious, reversible error in nearly 7 of every 10 of the thousands of capital sentences that were fully reviewed during the period.

Capital trials produce so many mistakes that it takes three judicial inspections to catch them — leaving grave doubt whether we do catch them all. After state courts threw out 47% of death sentences due to serious flaws, a later federal review found “serious error”—error undermining the reliability of the outcome—in 40% of the remaining sentences.

[...]

High error rates put many individuals at risk of wrongful execution: 82% of the people whose capital judgments were overturned by state post-conviction courts due to serious error were found to deserve a sentence less than death when the errors were cured on retrial; 7% were found to be innocent of the capital crime.

High error rates persist over time. More than 50% of all cases reviewed were found seriously flawed in 20 of the 23 study years, including 17 of the last 19. In half the years, including the most recent one, the error rate was over 60%.​

You don't thing this is evidence of "problems with the judiciary system"? That is a 175 page report on just how wrong you are.

Now, if we apply this to Mocan and Gittings findings, it means that identifying and acting on these errors, which the courts found errors in 7 out of 10 capital sentences, works against the deterrent effect. In other words, in Mocan and Gittings' ideal world based on their study, those judicial errors and reversing these sentences would be a bad thing, because it counters any deterrent effect that exists with capital cases. Do you actually understand the implications of this? I know, I know, you read a CBS news story which says that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, but had you read the study itself, you would have found that identifying and reversing or commuting death penalty sentences acts against the deterrent effect. So which do you think should happen? If it is to be a deterrent, then the judicial process which helps identify these mistakes and wrongful convictions and executions should not be happening and if someone was wrongfully convicted, then to remove the death penalty from the table and not execute them means it is no longer a deterrent effect.

So what do you think should happen? Should we factor the deterrent effect and execute people even though there is a high chance they were wrongfully convicted? Because that is what the actual study is saying should be happening if it is to be a deterrent.

Yes, I said in capital cases error rates should be less given the additional level of judicial scrutiny they receive. But no, I have very explicitly not argued, “you have argued for it taking so long to supposedly remove the mistakes” many times now. I have repeatedly pointed this out to you. Further, it’s irrelevant which has also been endlessly pointed out to you, the studies found the deterrent effect was best when executions were faster. You wrongly interpret that as invaliding the deterrent effect. And that very clearly isn’t the case.

Which works against the study you are relying on from your having read the CBS News.

Identifying these mistakes and removing people from death row removes the deterrent effect. So what do you think should happen? Judicial scrutiny which identifies these mistakes and results in wrongful convictions being identified means there can not be a deterrent effect. In other words, if people are getting off death row for whatever reason, then there can be no deterrent effect.

Had you read the actual study, you would have understood this. And you would understand why they feel removing someone from death row for whatever reason impacts the deterrent effect. It is on page 19 of the actual study.

 

[Bells]

Haven’t I repeatedly in many posts now explicitly stated that the long period between the offensive act and execution reduce the effectiveness of deterrence? Do you not understand the studies found that a prolonged period between the act and the execution didn’t nullify the deterrent effect?

Did you not understand that the prolonged period that exist between sentencing and execution is usually to try to appeal the sentence and identify judicial errors that exist? Did you read in the study where they discuss how long each execution lasts as a deterrent effect and how much each one each year in any given period affects the deterrent effect? With a long appeal process, it works against it. Especially if judicial errors are identified and the sentence is overturned or commuted or the person is exonerated.

Except as has been repeatedly pointed out to you; you introduced the “only” condition, because it wasn’t in the studies. You are not being honest Bells.

It wasn't a condition. It is a fact. Read the actual study and see for yourself.

And the abstract? Hah! You actually haven't read the study, have you?

So you think Dr. Gary Becker a Nobel Prize winning economist, an economics professor at the prestigious University of Chicago, a man who taught economics doesn’t know what a first year economics student should know. Well that is rich coming from you Bells who has absolutely no knowledge of economics.

The unpleasant fact for you is a number of very credible economists do not share your beliefs about the studies. The most credible argument against the studies is that the data is thin, meaning there aren’t enough executions. But that doesn’t negate their findings.

As people have tried to explain to you, the deterrent effect is only viable in the exact conditions that exist in the parameters they used in the study. It is not a stable result. Which is why they skewed the numbers and lagged the execution effects to get the result they did. So yes, the study does say there is a deterrent effect, but the study itself is flawed because of how they conducted it. Any variable, such as no execution in a year, changes the results entirely. Which is why they skewed their figures to make sure there was at least one execution a year by lagging the executions from previous years to have them carry over into the next year or the year after that, and why they calculated zero execution periods during a year to being closer to 1 execution instead of being closer to zero. Once it is brought back to zero or closest to zero to factor in for the actual year where there were no executions, Mocan and Gittings' result fly out the window.

And again, abstract? God, you really didn't read his study, did you?

Except, that isn’t relevant, whither an offender remembers the number of death sentences in the 6 or 7 years prior to his offense isn’t relevant…oops. The only relevant factor is knowledge the death penalty is a real possibility for the offense.

And how do they remember that? For them to be able to remember it to act as a deterrent, there needs to be one or more executions for the type of crime said offender is about to commit. The other issue with the study is that it did not factor in the variables that exist in homicides themselves. It looked at homicides in general. And everyone knows that each case is different. So a person who is about to rob and murder someone is not going to think about the death penalty that applied to someone who raped and murdered his girlfriend or boyfriend, for example. Understand now?

I'll put it this way.. Someone who goes out and kills a police officer, for example, is not going to consider themselves as being the same as someone who rapes and murders a child. So if in the 12 month period prior to that person murdering a police officer, a person is executed for having raped and murdered a child, the person who is about to kill a police officer in a premeditated attack is not going to consider themselves as being the same as the child rapist and murderer. They will not think their crime is the same, and they will not believe the sentence will be the same. To use another example, if a person was executed for murdering a police officer, that is not going to be a deterrent for someone who robs and murders someone because to that offender, killing a cop is much worse than robbing and killing someone in the middle of said robbery gone wrong. Understand now?

 

[Bells]

If you had been paying attention and read them as you claim you would know there are many studies, not just one. That’s another oops. So you know I didn’t read the studies, I guess that goes with the rest of your extra sensory powers. You have a very strong penchant for claiming to know things you clearly cannot know. That's dishonest Bells.

Unlike you, Joe, I know there are many studies. And I have read them. Have you? Or are you relying on CBS News to tell you what they say? Or the abstracts?

If you need, I have the Mocan and Gittings study that the CBS News story was referring to. But I would say you don't need it, because only someone dim would be arguing a position in a study they have not actually read. Which is why I am waiting for you to prove me wrong by quoting the last paragraph of the 2003 study that was discussed in the CBS News as I requested in a previous post...

LOL, and just what word did I misspell Bells? And Kemosabe, isn’t an insult nor is it misspelled. That's yet another oops on your part.
Kemosabee
However, the spelling kemo sabe (or kemosabe) is by far the most common in popular culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ke-mo_sah-bee

I stand corrected. I spell it Kemosabe. With one "e".

Well I have proven you are.

Ermm no, you have not. You haven't even read the actual study you are relying on.

What you are doing, what you have done is create a fiction in order to justify your belief. You have been repeatedly challenged to prove your claim of a contradiction and you haven’t done so. What you have done is endlessly repeat the same old fallacious bullshit over and over again. It doesn’t get better with age. As has been repeated over and over, the only contradiction is the one between your ears. You are being intellectually dishonest yet again.

Yes Joe, criminologists and lawyers are all conspiring against the 2 economists who wrote a study on the death penalty without even factoring in any variables that exist in homicides or types of homicides, and who had to skew the numbers to get a deterrent effect if certain conditions are met...

Had you read the study and the links I had provided of other studies, you would have seen that you are once again lying. But you have not.

Hmm…..what does one say to unmitigated bullshit? You are not being honest Bells.

Then quote the last paragraph of Mocan and Gittings 2003 study.. It's in the conclusion. Go on. Prove me wrong.

And the point is? Have I ever argued, quicker executions would not reduce murder rates? No, this is just continuation of your straw man. And that relationship proves, contrary to your beliefs and arguments, that executions do have a deterrent effect. The unpleasant fact for you is NOWHERE in any of the studies do they conclude deterrence is eliminated by if execution isn’t swift. Your assertion to the contrary is simply not true. But hey, you are not one to let fact and reason get in the way of your beliefs.

There's that reading and comprehension again. You have touted that the lengthy judicial process to remove errors as a defense of capital punishment. The removal of said errors and the lengthy process and the result is that there are less executions works against the deterrent effect of the 2003 study the CBS News article you keep relying on. Understand now? Or do you require pictures? Because I cannot guarantee that said picture will not say "you're a stupid head" at this point.

Truth isn’t ad hominem. I have already poked holes in Fagan. I suggest you go back and read previous posts. The evidence is sound, it just doesn’t comport with your beliefs. Why don’t you cite just one credible study which supports your death penalty beliefs?

You haven't poked holes in Fagan. If you had, you would have proven him wrong about the calculations in the actual study. Considering you have not and you cannot prove him wrong because what he says is reality (had you read the study, this would have been clear), I don't know how you think you have poked holes in anything.

Except, that is bullshit, and what does my belief in self-defense have to do with 12 years down the track? Nothing, absolutely nothing, apparently you don’t understand what is being discussed here. Apparently, you don’t understand the concept of deterrence.

I wasn't talking about self defense. So why are you now trying to change the subject?

Nonsense, if you have something of merit to post, post it. But you don’t. So you don’t. Instead, you play these silly irrelevant games. You have cherry picked, materially misrepresented fact, lied, and attempted to, as you always do, obfuscate. If you have something material to post, please do so. But this obfuscation nonsense is getting really boring.

Aww.. I see you didn't quote the last paragraph of the conclusion of the study. Unless of course you are saying what I quoted from that conclusion is lacking in merit?

What's the matter Joe? Still not read it? Or are you still stuck on the abstract?

As I said, post the last paragraph of the conclusion. Should be easy for you, since you know, you are relying on this study as it forms the whole basis of your argument in this thread. I again await your posting that final paragraph of the conclusion with great anticipation. Here, I will give you a huge hint. It is by Mocan and Gittings and is, as the CBS News you keep referring to notes, the 2003 study.. Their original study, if you will.

 

[joepistole]

Unlike you, Joe, I know there are many studies. And I have read them. Have you? Or are you relying on CBS News to tell you what they say? Or the abstracts?

What you have or have not read is irrelevant. What I have read or not read is irrelevant. This is just more obfuscation on your part. Can you prove what was published by CBS, The Associated Press, and The New York Times was wrong? No you can’t. That’s the reason for all this obfuscation bullshit. And if you had read the studies you claim to have read, you clearly didn’t understand them.

If you need, I have the Mocan and Gittings study that the CBS News story was referring to. But I would say you don't need it, because only someone dim would be arguing a position in a study they have not actually read. Which is why I am waiting for you to prove me wrong by quoting the last paragraph of the 2003 study that was discussed in the CBS News as I requested in a previous post...

LOL…oh, so now credible news sources are not reliable? You sound exactly like our right wingnut brethren. They don't like credible journalists or unbiased news either. That's why they have Fox News so they won't have to hear information which might offend their biases.

I stand corrected. I spell it Kemosabe. With one "e".

As I said before, this is what you have been reduced to, quibbling over the spelling of words. It’s just more obfuscation on your part.

Ermm no, you have not. You haven't even read the actual study you are relying on.

So now, credible sources cannot be relied upon when they report facts which are contrary to your ideological beliefs. Yeah, that’s exactly what our right wingnut brethren do. That’s why they watch Fox News.

If you have evidence that CBS, The Associated Press, and The New York Times were wrong, now is the time to show it. But you can’t and that is the genesis for this line of attack. It’s more of your obfuscation.

And you cannot know what I have read or not read. You don’t have powers of ESP do you? You are making stuff up.

Yes Joe, criminologists and lawyers are all conspiring against the 2 economists who wrote a study on the death penalty without even factoring in any variables that exist in homicides or types of homicides, and who had to skew the numbers to get a deterrent effect if certain conditions are met...
Had you read the study and the links I had provided of other studies, you would have seen that you are once again lying. But you have not.
Then quote the last paragraph of Mocan and Gittings 2003 study.. It's in the conclusion. Go on. Prove me wrong.

I have actually quoted more than the last paragraph. I have cited a number of independent studies and a host of economists including a Nobel Prize winning economist. What you have done is obfuscate, cherry pick, and deny facts.

As I told you before, if you can prove your case, do it. But you can’t hence all this obfuscation bullshit. Can you prove any of the half dozen studies were wrong? No you can’t. You claim to have read the studies…remember? :

There's that reading and comprehension again. You have touted that the lengthy judicial process to remove errors as a defense of capital punishment. The removal of said errors and the lengthy process and the result is that there are less executions works against the deterrent effect of the 2003 study the CBS News article you keep relying on. Understand now? Or do you require pictures? Because I cannot guarantee that said picture will not say "you're a stupid head" at this point.

Ah, here it is the ad hominem and fiction you need so desperately need. As has been endlessly pointed out to you, you have fictionalized what has transpired. That is how low you have sunk. What you have done and continue to do is intellectually dishonest to the core. It’s blatantly intellectually dishonest. Do you understand now?

There's You haven't poked holes in Fagan. If you had, you would have proven him wrong about the calculations in the actual study. Considering you have not and you cannot prove him wrong because what he says is reality (had you read the study, this would have been clear), I don't know how you think you have poked holes in anything.

Oh, but I have. You just don’t like it. Fagan was wrong to claim that because criminals didn’t know how many people each state executed in prior years, the death penalty didn’t deter murders. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote and try to see past your biases. But somehow I down you will or are capable of doing that.
As I explained before, knowledge of the actual number of people killed in each state was irrelevant whither a potential murder will murder. What is relevant is the belief that if a murder is committed the murder will be or could be executed for said murder.

I wasn't talking about self defense. So why are you now trying to change the subject?

You brought it up. I suggest you go back and read your posts.

Aww.. I see you didn't quote the last paragraph of the conclusion of the study. Unless of course you are saying what I quoted from that conclusion is lacking in merit?
What's the matter Joe? Still not read it? Or are you still stuck on the abstract?
As I said, post the last paragraph of the conclusion. Should be easy for you, since you know, you are relying on this study as it forms the whole basis of your argument in this thread. I again await your posting that final paragraph of the conclusion with great anticipation. Here, I will give you a huge hint. It is by Mocan and Gittings and is, as the CBS News you keep referring to notes, the 2003 study.. Their original study, if you will.

You are being more than a little redundant. I suggest you go back and read my previous posts on this.

The bottom line is your beliefs are just not consistent with known fact. There have been several studies which have proven you wrong. These studies are very credible and backed and supported by a number of credible and well respected economists, including a Nobel Prize winning economists.

You have attempted all kinds of evasion and obfuscation. You have denied facts and continue to do so. You have tried repeatedly to mislead (e.g. equating murder with lesser crimes), made fallacious comparisons, and you have fictionalize data.

 

[iceaura]

Can you prove what was published by CBS, The Associated Press, and The New York Times was wrong?

You have been linked to actual studies, peer review and all that good stuff, that conflict with that biased and incompetent media journalism you have for some reason decided to accept as infallible science.

You have also been confronted with the question of what you think you can conclude even from the unlikely event that these journalists and economists of yours by luck are right, and the majority of the experienced researchers and people who can reason via logic are wrong. Let's say there is, against all evidence and reason, a significant net deterrent effect from the current death penalty operations - so what?

You still have all the dangers and downsides of such irresponsible granting of power to a State, after all. At what level of this alleged deterrence would capital punishment begin to be a good idea?