Someday you may read some of this science, such as what I and Bells and James have linked for your convenience. After you do that, you will be able to remind other people of what the science actually says.
LOL...I am always amazed at the blatant lies you are willing to tell. You, James and Bells have not linked to the "science". What you have done is provided links and misrepresented those links, claiming they say things they clearly do not and then continuously referencing them. You have been repeatedly requested to provide specific text from your links which validates your assertions and you have repeatedly failed to do so. In no small part because that text doesn't exist. That is what you always do. You a long history of misrepresenting (i.e. lying) about your references.
Let's look at your assertions with respect to James R. James R has posted 5 times in this thread. He and I discussed conviction error rates. James R had originally asserted that 20% of US convictions were erroneous convictions. After James R did a little research he found the error rates were as high as 4% and not the 20% he had previously cited and most of the convictions studied occurred prior to the availability of DNA evidence. And some of that 4% were eventually overturned by appeals courts. The discussion with James R had nothing to do with the deterrent effect found in the studies I referenced and which are giving you so much gastrointestinal pain.
Bells has done what Bells always does, attempt to rescue you when you get in trouble. What you and Bells have done is to attempt to discredit the science of the last few decades by referencing criticism of the studies I referenced. Fegan, one of the critics referenced, claimed that because murders were ignorant of the number of executions, that proved the death penalty had no deterrent effect. And frankly, that is stupid. Whither a murder knows the exact number of executions is irrelevant to deterrence. As I pointed out, the only relevant factor is the murder's belief that the death penalty is credible.
You have never backed that claim up with evidence and argument. You have ignored - even denied the existence - of the evidence and arguments against that claim, such as have been linked and posted here on this thread.
Except, I have. Your refusal to acknowledge reality isn't my problem. I suggest you go back and read my posts. The only one ignoring evidence and reason here is you.
Repetition of unsupported claims does not make them more plausible.
Hmm, so you don't think credible academic studies are unsupported.
Ahh, you Iceaura is the only one making unsupported claims and lies and then repeating them ad nauseum.
Your touching and naive faith in the "certainty" of State prosecutions and convictions is noted, but in US real life Texas provides the type specimen of capital punishment in action.
Well in real life, when you cited a Texas case as an example of a wrongful conviction, you kinda left out a lot of material facts.
I suggest your review the error rate discussion in this thread between James R and myself. But you and I know that won't happen because you have no use for facts or reason when they do not support your beliefs.
meanwhile: Ted Bundy apparently committed several murders and heinous assaults in Florida because he was attracted by the death penalty there. You invoke him as an example: Is that your idea of deterrence?
Oh, and you have proof of this? If so now is the time to show it...talk about unsupported beliefs!
"There, on January 2 in a local tavern, he watched his alma mater UW defeat
Michigan in the
Rose Bowl.
[184] Five days later he stole a car and drove to
Atlanta, where he boarded a bus and arrived in
Tallahassee, Florida, on January 8. He rented a room under the alias Chris Hagen at a boarding house near the
Florida State University (FSU) campus.
Bundy later said that he initially resolved to find legitimate employment and refrain from further criminal activity, knowing he could probably remain free and undetected in Florida indefinitely as long as he did not attract the attention of police;
[185] but his lone job application, at a construction site, had to be abandoned when he was asked to produce identification.
[186] He reverted to his old habits of shoplifting and stealing credit cards from women's wallets left in shopping carts.
" Wikipedia
The Unabomber was caught because agents of the State promised the critical informants the death penalty would not be sought by the State. Are you including the deterrent effect on informants, and consequent extension of criminal careers, in your praise of "deterrence"?
Except as previously discussed that too is not true. I suggest you go back and reread the discussion on the Unabomber.
The Unabomber was given a life sentence in exchange for his guilty plea, after he had been investigated by the FBI and after he had been arrested by and charged by the FBI...oops. There was no information deal with the Unabomber as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the only one ignoring the evidence and ignoring reality is you my dear Iceaura and you have been and continue to be dishonest to boot.
"A federal grand jury indicted Kaczynski in April 1996 on 10 counts of illegally transporting, mailing, and using bombs. He was also charged with killing Scrutton, Mosser, and Murray.
[99] Initially, the government prosecution team indicated that it would seek the death penalty for Kaczynski after it was authorized by United States Attorney General
Janet Reno. David Kaczynski's attorney asked the former FBI agent who made the match between the Unabomber's manifesto and Kaczynski to ask for leniency—he was horrified to think that turning his brother in might result in his brother's death. Eventually, Kaczynski was able to avoid the death penalty by pleading guilty to all the government's charges, on January 22, 1998. Later, Kaczynski attempted to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing it was involuntary. Judge
Garland Ellis Burrell Jr. denied his request. The
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision.
[100]" Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski#Arrest
But if there had been an information for leniency deal, it would have proven something I have repeatedly said here. Law enforcement has used leniency as a bargaining tool in order to get more information and solve more crimes and provide victim families some comfort (e.g. returning the bodies of victims to their families and knowledge which victimized families often need). That is one of the other benefits afforded by the death penalty. You have NO evidence the death penalty suppresses information as you have alleged.
Notice that in the particular actual scientific papers your biased and slipshod media articles briefly referenced, such factors are ignored - never corrected for.
LOL...well just because you don't like the evidence, it doesn't mean it is slipshod or biased. Many credible scientists have conducted and reviewed these studies and found them sound including a Nobel Laureate. And unfortunately for you, just because credible journalists working for credible news sources publish their work in credible journals, it doesn't make them or their work slipshod or biased.
"But, Mr. Becker (Nobel Laureate) 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.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Sound familiar...? It should, it has been repeated several times for your edification.