Death penalty

[The_Bucket]

Democrats today, support Abortion as a whole, as their party platform says, in the past, segregation and slavery were supported. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Yes, they supported evil yesterday and tomorrow.

Oh for goodness sake. Yes, Democrats support abortion today. Yes, that’s terribly wrong. And yes, it’s a major reason I will never, ever vote for a Democrat.

But you know, or at least should know, that Nixon’s Southern Strategy moved white conservative Democrats into the Republican column in the late 1960s. That continued over the next 40 years and today you can’t find a conservative Democrat outside of West Virginia. They’re all Republicans. And even conservative Democrats in WV vote for the GOP presidential candidate.

The Republican party has a fine history of supporting abolition and the Democrats have a terrible history of supporting slavery. But the party platforms today are radically, RADICALLY different than where they were 160 years ago. The only thing that’s the same is the name. Heck, Republicans for the bulk of the 20th century supported a more energetic national government over the rights of the states. I don’t think that message would fly at all today.

 

[The_Bucket]

And I personally find it hilarious that I’m getting lambasted as some kind of apologist for Democrats when I’ve never once pulled the trigger for a Democrat and was overjoyed at the prospect for voting for Marco Rubio in the senate primary in 2010. That was awesome. But hey, keep assuming things.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that discussions of political figures or parties are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[dudleysharp]

Final thought on deterrence

According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies, 88% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Lacock, 2009)

Actually, it doesn’t do that at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Please review:

“Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

A report by the National Research Council, titled Deterrence and the Death Penalty, stated that studies claiming that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates are fundamentally flawed” and should not be used when making policy decisions (2012).

There are so many problems with this review. However, I will start with these three:

2012 NRC Review: DETERRENCE AND THE DEATH PENALTY(1)

This review suffers from a lack of credibility.

The Chair of this study is Daniel Nagin, the Teresa and H. John Heinz III University Professor of Public Policy and Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University, since January, 2006 (2)
’
Nagin’s income is financed by a liberal anti death penalty foundation (3).

The conflict of interest could not be more obvious or severe.

Two of the three funding groups for this study are:

Tides Foundation and the Proteus Action League, with Tides getting major funding from Heinz (4).

Both are huge grant providers for the anti death penalty movement (4).

The conflict of interest could not be more obvious or severe.

It think it impossible for those financing groups to have been involved if they thought there was any chance of the study concurring with a deterrent effect.

1. nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13363&page=R1
2. www.heinz.cmu.edu/bio/faculty/dn03.html
3. discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5309
4. a) atlanticphilanthropies.org/grantee/proteus-action-league
   b) tides.org/utility/search/?cx=003949354664956518032%3A9pat6u0jfgw&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=death+penalty&sa=

Consistent with previous years, the 2011 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South had the highest murder rate. The South accounts for over 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, had lowest murder rate.

Many, understandably, make your same mistake.

Murder rates cannot be the barometer for deterrence.

Please review:

– “DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/1…clarified.html

– DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/1…der-rates.html

– “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/0…der-rates.html

– Of course the Death Penalty Deters
See sections C and D within
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/0…-innocent.html

– Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/0…out-death.html

– LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION:
99.7% of murderers tells us “Give me life, not execution”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/1…execution.html

 

[Ender]

Two things regarding deterrence: first, it seems unlikely in the extreme that capital punishment would have no deterrent effect. It is unarguable that punishment deters so the claim that the harshest punishment of all is alone in lacking any deterrence is not a rational claim. Its deterrent effect has been noted for centuries.Homicide is rare among slaves because of their dread and fear of capital punishment, whereas among the rich it is constantly committed because of their confident hope of immunity (Salvian c 400)
Second and more significantly, however, even if there were in fact no deterrence from capital punishment that would not argue against its use since deterrence is only a secondary objective of punishment and it is the primary objective - retributive justice - that determines what punishment is appropriate.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Two things regarding deterrence: first, it seems unlikely in the extreme that capital punishment would have no deterrent effect. SNIP

[/INDENT]Second and more significantly, however, even if there were in fact no deterrence from capital punishment that would not argue against its use since deterrence is only a secondary objective of punishment and it is the primary objective - retributive justice - that determines what punishment is appropriate.

Ender

It is ONLY of importance in the Catholic discussion, now, because PJPII wrongly headed down the path of “defense of society”, which he either did not evaluate properly or did not evaluate, at all, as the death penalty protects more innocents that alife sentence. Then it was, wrongly, in my opinion, transferred/amended into the CCC

It is not only irrational to say the death penalty deters none, it is also unprovable.

It is odd that anyone would think the death penalty was not a deterrent.

1. All prospects of a negative consequence deter some. It is a truism.
2. 99.7% of those murderers, subject to the death penalty, do everything in their power to stay alive.

What about those more reasoned folks, those potential murderers who chose not to murder?

Do they not also, greatly prefer life over death and fear death more than life? Of course, just like all of us, save the determined suicidal.

1. All criminal sanctions, regardless of crime rates, deter some. Just because crime/murder rates are low in one jurisdiction and high in another, doesn’t mean that no one is deterred in the jurisdiction with higher rates. We all know that within different states or countries, there are towns, cities and neighborhoods which have varying crime/murder rates. All sanctions deter in all of those jurisdictions, but they have different rates because of different circumstances.
2. Even some anti death penalty scholars find that the death penalty is a deterrent. They just don’t think it deters more than a life sentence, even though the anecdotal evidence says otherwise.
3. No death penalty deterrence study says the death penalty deters none. They cannot. No one would be so foolish.
4. The burden of proof is on those who say the death penalty deters none. We all know they cannot prove such.
5. The question is not “Does the death penalty deter?”. Of course it does, just as all negative consequences do.
6. The valid questions is, “How much does the death penalty deter?”. There will never be a consensus answer to that question.

Even the 28 studies that have found for deterrence since 2000, have widely different findings, that from 1-28 murderers are deterred per execution.

 

[The_Bucket]

1. The burden of proof is on those who say the death penalty deters none. We all know they cannot prove such.

I don’t have time to get into every issue, but I have to take great umbrage with this. I would say the reverse is true. If you’re saying that the state must kill someone to save other lives, then you are the one that needs to prove the efficacy of the deterrent.

1. The question is not “Does the death penalty deter?”. Of course it does, just as all negative consequences do.

You’re assuming rational behavior. Have you ever watched Lockup? Or Jail? Or even COPS? Most of these people are not behaving rationally.

 

[dudleysharp]

If you’re saying that the state must kill someone to save other lives, then you are the one that needs to prove the efficacy of the deterrent. .

That is incorrect.

First, it is a truism that all prospects of a negative outcome deter some.

Secondly, I am not saying that the state must execute based upon deterrence, just that the death penalty, as all sanctions, deter some.

You’re assuming rational behavior. Have you ever watched Lockup? Or Jail? Or even COPS? Most of these people are not behaving rationally.

I am assuming rational behavior of some. Some are deterred, some not. That was very clear. How you overllooked that, may explain why you seemed to have misread all of my post.

 

[BroomWagon]

The Death Penalty could be used as a deterrent but if you look at the offenses of which people are usually executed for, notoriously, they seem basically, crimes of a depraved mind and/or often, for multiple murders. You can almost pick any case.

I found this for the year 2013, 3 executions so far, really not that high of an amount though that may depend on your outlook:

deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2013

Robert Gleason, was serving punishment for murder, strangled two inmates behind bars. So, he committed at least 3 murders. This case is interesting, he chose “Electrocution” when he could have chosen “Lethal Injection” in Virginia.

Carl Blue, killed girlfriend by setting her ablaze. cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57570662/texas-executes-carl-blue-who-set-killed-ex-girlfriend-by-setting-her-ablaze/ Attempted this on another person as well who survived.

Andrew Cook, killed a young couple parked at a campsight, sounds similar to that scenario in the DeadMan Walking movie.: forsythmonroe.13wmaz.com/news/crime/82643-andrew-cook-executed-thursday-night

---

Usually, when we see someone who is executed, it really does seem like the crime is so heinous, that is why they carried out the death penalty, it’s why a common reaction is probably "they deserve it. I’ve lived in cities and one crime you hear about may stand out on it’s own being so terrible.

I wonder what the stats are, you have gang shootings fairly often but I doubt if this kind of justice is routinely meted out.

 

[triumphguy]

Actually, it doesn’t do that at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published today in Northwestern University School of Law’s Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology authored by Professor Michael Radelet, chair of the sociology department at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Traci Lacock, an attorney and CU-Boulder graduate student in sociology.

The study titled “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists” undermines deterrence as a rationale for maintaining the punishment, said Radelet, one of the nation’s leading experts on the death penalty.

“These data show that deterrence, which in many circles is the strongest justification for the death penalty, falls on its face when closely examined by those who are best qualified to study and evaluate it,” Radelet said. “Any justifications for the death penalty that might remain pale in comparison to drawbacks such as high costs, arbitrariness, executing the innocent and diverting resources from more effective ways to reduce crime and assist victims.”

• See more at: colorado.edu/news/releases/2009/06/16/death-penalty-does-not-deter-murder-according-new-cu-boulder-study#sthash.x5xU5RtF.dpuf

***Deterrence & Murder of Police Officers ***- According to statistics from the latest FBI Uniform Crime Report, regions of the country that use the death penalty the least are the safest for police officers. Police are most in danger in the south, which accounts for 80% of all executions (90% in 2000). From 1989-1998, 292 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the south, 125 in the west, 121 in the midwest, and 80 in the northeast, the region with the fewest execution - less than 1%. The three leading states where law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in 1998 were California, the state with the highest death row population (7); Texas, the state with the most executions since 1976 (5); and Florida, the state that is third highest in executions and in death row population (5). (FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 1998) deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82

 

[BroomWagon]

Not so much as a deterrent just in my view but used as punishment for the worst of crimes as I see it. Seeing that executions story in Japan seemed to follow that logic as well.

That case in Connecticut was so horrible and I mean the break in, not the Sandy Hook shooting from last year foxnews.com/us/2011/10/13/man-found-guilty-murder-in-connecticut-home-invasion-case/ it is with these kinds of outrages where you see many demanding the death penalty.

registercitizen.com/articles/2010/11/28/news/doc4cf270e730c09539596665.txt One of the perpetrators is on Death Row in CT. but may well never be executed unless as the story says, the issue is forced.

 

[Ender]

If you’re saying that the state must kill someone to save other lives, then you are the one that needs to prove the efficacy of the deterrent.

If you replace deterrence with protection then this would be the justification the catechism gives for executing someone. That’s how 2267 starts off: the state may execute someone if it is necessary to protect lives. Inasmuch as a life saved by deterrence is equal to one saved by physical defense, if it was shown that the deterrent effect of capital punishent saved numerous lives then doesn’t the catechism demand that its use be expanded to generate the greatest deterrent effect? It strikes me that this is one of the most significant reasons people totally reject the idea that executions deter others. The cost of acknowledging the benefit would be to lose the argument.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

If you replace deterrence with protection then this would be the justification the catechism gives for executing someone. That’s how 2267 starts off: the state may execute someone if it is necessary to protect lives. Inasmuch as a life saved by deterrence is equal to one saved by physical defense, if it was shown that the deterrent effect of capital punishent saved numerous lives then doesn’t the catechism demand that its use be expanded to generate the greatest deterrent effect? It strikes me that this is one of the most significant reasons people totally reject the idea that executions deter others. The cost of acknowledging the benefit would be to lose the argument.

Ender

Apparently more executions means less safe working conditions for police officers.

 

[Ender]

Usually, when we see someone who is executed, it really does seem like the crime is so heinous, that is why they carried out the death penalty, it’s why a common reaction is probably "they deserve it.

I think this is exactly the case and the reason appears to be that we don’t consider a “normal” murder to be all that heinous a crime. We don’t see it as that big a deal so we don’t think the killer “deserves” to die for his crime. Our reluctance to use capital punishment goes hand in hand with our diminished horror of the crime of murder.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

I think this is exactly the case and the reason appears to be that we don’t consider a “normal” murder to be all that heinous a crime. We don’t see it as that big a deal so we don’t think the killer “deserves” to die for his crime. Our reluctance to use capital punishment goes hand in hand with our diminished horror of the crime of murder.

Ender

Or not.

You can understand the full horror of the crime without resorting to killing in return.

There are many many examples of parents whose children have been murdered who do not wish their child’s killers to be executed, but instead seek Christian reconciliation.

Are yous saying they don’t understand the full horror of the crime?

 

[BroomWagon]

I think this is exactly the case and the reason appears to be that we don’t consider a “normal” murder to be all that heinous a crime. We don’t see it as that big a deal so we don’t think the killer “deserves” to die for his crime. Our reluctance to use capital punishment goes hand in hand with our diminished horror of the crime of murder.

Ender

This is very true, it’s hard to talk about the deterrence factor. In most big cities every night, there will be a murder but the death penalty is not automatic by any means, it is just for the worst of crimes in States that have it.

So, as it is, the DP as a deterrent can not be feasibly discussed unless it was enforced on all murders or something like this.

 

[BroomWagon]

Or not.

You can understand the full horror of the crime without resorting to killing in return.

There are many many examples of parents whose children have been murdered who do not wish their child’s killers to be executed, but instead seek Christian reconciliation.

Are yous saying they don’t understand the full horror of the crime?

So abbreviating my answer anymore, it seems hard to talk about the Death Penalty as a deterrent when it really is not enforced for murder but reserved for the worse crimes out there. And let me add in, when I say worse crimes, that is a value judgment as we should see each murder as a horrible thing.

Of course, executing an innocent person errantly is one reason why the death penalty is not handed out in all cases but I was seeing the US may have had 16,000 murders one year, let’s say 8,000 of them are solved. We have nothing like 8,000 executions a year, in fact, I saw that in 2012, we had around 40 executions.

 

[dudleysharp]

Apparently more executions means less safe working conditions for police officers.

triumphguy:

No, that is not what it means.

I provided several links which explained this to you but apparently you didn’t read them.

The jurisdictons which show the most murders of police officers would very likely be the same with or without the death penalty.

Most likely there is a net saving of police officers lives within death penalty jurisdictions, meaning more officers would have been murdered had the death penalty not been present.

You, irrationally, presume that more crimes means zero deterrence. It doesn’t work that way.

All jurisdicitions have a deterrent effect with all of their criminal sanctions no matter if their crime/murder rates are high or low, rising or falling or staying the same.

To accept your poor reasoning would be to accept that because LA has a higher rate of giving speeding tickets than does Houston, that speeding tickets deters some in Houston but none in LA.

No. Some are deterrrd in both. We all know that to be true. There are simply different factors.

Again, as above, but read this time, please:

– “DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/1…clarified.html

– DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/1…der-rates.html

– “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/0…der-rates.html

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP I was seeing the US may have had 16,000 murders one year, let’s say 8,000 of them are solved. We have nothing like 8,000 executions a year, in fact, I saw that in 2012, we had around 40 executions.

Possibly, 10% of all murders may be death penalty eligible. Which would be approximately 70,000 capital murders from 1973-2011. Based upon one review, we have prosecuted about 25,000 cases as death penalty elgible during that period, of which about 8300 received that sentence. Over 1300 of those have been executed.

 

[dudleysharp]

So, as it is, the DP as a deterrent can not be feasibly discussed unless it was enforced on all murders or something like this.

Yes it can and has been since we have historic records.

Life is preferred over death, death is feared more than life.

Most of the recent (post 1999) 28 studies finding for death penalty deterrence in the US, found that the deterrent effect is measured based upon actual executions - that is the primary deterrent, although some studies also found that just the presence of a death penalty statute did deter some.

Based upon those studies, the deaterrent effect is relatively small, having from about a 0.2% to 5% effect on the murder rate, per year.

Although it has little effect on the murder rate, it does represent a significant savings in innocent lives.