Studies say death penalty deters crime

[Maddy McCall]

Source: AP

snip/

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

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

snip/

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

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



Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEATH_PENALTY_DETERRENCE?SITE=MSJAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

---

There is info on other studies in the article.

Hmmmmm....

[Avalux]

1. I call bullshit on this pseudoscientific study.

It's based on statistics and there are so many unknown variables that foolproof conclusions cannot be drawn. Naci Mocan can call it science but it isn't. Ugh.

[seriousstan]

2. Waiting for those that must "kill the messenger".

:popcorn:

Let's keep a list....

1. pseudoscientific study

2. reputable University who is SPONSORED by neutral / government funds

3. All one has to do is compare Texas to Europe

4. Now an authority chimes in....."I guarantee"

There, that didn't take long. :rofl: :rofl:

[Maddy McCall]

4. I often post LBN articles that I don't agree with.

I don't know if you're considering me the messenger, or the studies' authors.

I'm not concerned that people will somehow blame me, though. :shrug:

[seriousstan]

5. Not you, the aurthors.

[hlthe2b]

19. Seems logical to read the study before passing judgement...

either way, as there is no way to judge its validity from a news account... Is THAT killing the messenger, seriousstan?

[ProudDad]

30. OK, some word from folks who HAVE read the "study"

"Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."

"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said.

This is an ECONOMIST for f*ck's sake -- a practitioner of the "dismal science" that conveniently ignores anything but statistics.

As one great "scientist" said, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

This is doubtless a self-serving example of the last type of lie.

It doesn't take into account any moral, spiritual or other practical considerations around this issue.

[Psephos]

55. Who cares about results, we're interested in looking "tres progressiste"

Because declaring correct views in a pissed-off voice is the most important consideration. It's a group-identity bonding experience. Maybe not universally true here, but true enough to be a general observation.

Seriously, this should be mooted, not hooted. You've identified the usual ways we dismiss reports of things we don't like. I find particularly ironic the dismissals of such studies "because they're bullshit" or "because they're biased" by those who wouldn't know a validity test if it bit them on the left butt cheek.

BTW, I am a no-holds-barred opponent of the death penalty.

[depakid]

115. That's right- don't even bother with critical thinking

because that would interfere with emotions and Americans' need for their pound of flesh.

[leftist.]

135. "Killing the messenger" is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because the idea of deterrence via state-sponsored murder is irrelevant. The "State", any "State", in a free society, should and hopefully never will be in the business of killing it's citizens, no matter what the crime.

[ShortnFiery]

3. "A study" and a smattering of other ... that's all I need to know to say "Bullshit!"

Now if you take a reputable University who is SPONSORED by neutral / government funds to do an "in-depth review of journalistic literature" on the recidivism rate of murder after the implementation of The Death Penalty, then JUST PERHAPS one could tout such results, with NUMEROUS qualifications.

The Media Whores of AP need to read the specifics of their OWN article before assigning B.S. generalizated and asinine heading to this publication.

"Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven't gotten that kind of scrutiny."

TRANSLATION: Poor reviews with insufficient controls = no valid conclusions either way can be made with scientific veracity.


No, it's a cumulation of scientific discovery that leads to conclusion. However, often such generalized conclusions are cautioned even if such studies are conducted and should ALWAYS be qualified by race, samples and area. :thumbsdown:

[sandnsea]

6. What a bunch of bullshit

I don't even care what load of bullshit they used to come up with this. All one has to do is compare Texas to Europe to know this is crap.

[Gregorian]

7. Oh, another study that justifies killing. What a load of crap.

I guarantee people who are thinking of murder are not deterred by rational thoughts.

[Warpy]

10. Exactly, most murders occur because of

rage and/or substance abuse. Neither condition is conducive to reflection on what will happen when the murderer gets caught. This is the case when it's a family member or a stranger. It applies to crimes of passion, to bar fights, and to road rage murders.

In my own family's case, the murderer was a drunk who freaked out when somebody wouldn't give him money for alcohol. He was suspected of two murders before my family member's murder. My family member's murder was the only one that could be proven. There was no way this pathetic excuse for a human would have thought about consequences. He was only thinking about his addiction, then the rage crashed in and he killed.

I never wanted him executed. It would have made the whole thing worse, having someone else murdered by the state in my name. I just wanted him locked up so he could never do it again. I got my wish and he eventually died in prison.

I sincerely doubt any penalty would be a deterrence. I am against the death penalty because it is final, because it is applied so capriciously, because by the time it is applied the murderer has likely grown and changed, and because it's been found to have too many innocents facing it.

One study like this out of dozens that have said the opposite doesn't mean a thing to me.

[Gregorian]

15. You speak from experience. How devasting.

That's truly horrible.

There is also the other side of the story. Their side. People can only take so much abuse. I think many who have murdered have endured lives of neglect and denial. Instead of jail, we need health care and a social security net. Realistic ways of minimizing suffering.

But there is little common sense in this country. Lots of studies, but very little real observation.

[BestCenter]

41. Your case is a sad one.

However, the murderer seemed to have done it almost in an act of manslaughter. Isn't that different from premeditated murderers?

[Warpy]

53. One case might have been

But three means a bad habit had been established. There has to be a point at which serial manslaughter becomes murder. Besides, the scenario progressed to his luring my relative to a secondary location for the murder.

In any case, he needed to be off the street and away from alcohol.

[silverojo]

44. Did you actually read what you posted?

I never wanted him executed. It would have made the whole thing worse, having someone else murdered by the state in my name. I just wanted him locked up so he could never do it again. I got my wish and he eventually died in prison.

Let me get your "wish" straight...you didn't want him killed. You just wanted him to die in prison. That's practically the same thing! He died, either way! :banghead:

And has it ever occurred to you that a quick death by injection doesn't cause as much suffering as dying from other, slower causes (health problems, etc.)?

Good Lord....

[Warpy]

52. Death is preferable to life?

Good lord, did you read what you wrote?

[SOS]

138. In 86% of murders, the killer was drunk

according to Dr. Nancy Snyderman of ABC News.

As you point out, if someone has just downed a bottle of whiskey, he's not going to be thinking about the death penalty.

The perpetrator was also drunk in 70% of child abuse cases, 52% of rapes, 75% of domestic assaults and 40% of traffic deaths. (Same source)

As a country we need to address this reality.
But we are not allowed to even speak of it, due to the money and power of the liquor industry.

[patrice]

8. There's no way to discuss this without . . .

The exact details of the studies in question pro:con must be compared straight across, for essential characteristics, 1:1. At minimum this would be the Populations in question and how the Samples were selected.

There are also questions about how you establish causation, rather than corelation: if the Independent Variable is Capital Punishment and you want to say that it reduces the Dependent Variable, Capital Crime, how do you make that connection, when the only crime that has been reduced for certain sure is that amongst those who are now dead as a result of having received Capital Punishment? How all of the other variables that could affect your Dependent Variable are controlled or at least accounted in your statistical filters is a vital question. Studies pro and con should be as similar as possible in all regards.

[Mendocino]

9. If the death penalty were effective,

wouldn't we be executing fewer people instead of more?

[jmm]

11. I would love to hear the authors of these studies explain

why not only do death penalty states have higher murder rates but as the number of executions rise so does the gap between murder rates with non death penalty states.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168

[Alexander]

12. Every other study out there shows the exact opposite.

Also, take a look at the violent crime stats of states WITH the death penalty versus states WITHOUT it.

I guarantee violence is down in the states without the barbarism of state-sanctioned murder.

[Lorien]

35. Exactly. My father was a psychologist for a state prison

an he often noted that once a state imposed a death penalty violent crime rates went up, while states that abolished a death penalty saw violent crime rates decline. There has long been a debate in mental health circles as to why that is. Many professionals think that some criminals commit murder in order to commit suicide, but the real reasons are still unknown.

[Gormy Cuss]

13. The article makes it hard to understand how the study was done, but

it appears that this and other studies finding deterrence are not considered as robust by those whose studies do not. Naci Mocan is currently focusing identifying a deterrent effect while Justin Wolfers of Wharton is one of the leading voices in the other camp. The devil is in the details. When enough economists line up and review the input values and modeling behavior they will reach consensus on which studies are flawed and which have robust data. For that reason it will be interesting to see how it sorts out when American Law and Economics Review takes on the challenge.

What is clear from the article is that the AP writer bought the line that those mean liberals are just shouting down something contrary to their world view.

[PSPS]

14. The highest murder rates are in those states with the most executions.

I don't know where this study got its "facts," but it would seem to me that murder rates should be declining in states that execute the most murderers. But it's the opposite.

Maybe this "study" was funded by the Acme Electric Chair Company, or the Kevorkian Inject-o-Mat Company.

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. No. It's quite logical in a way, as they only act sensibly when it suits them,

and to the extent that it does.

They don't want a just society, as the tiny minds and hearts of far right-wingers believe that their being denied by the tax system of a fraction of what they spend on alcohol each week, to be redistributed to the less well off, would seriously reduce their happiness. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing. At, best serious sociopaths. Their greed is so fathomless that their State's executions could never keep pace with the increase in murderous violence their chosen policies engender, due to the hideous levels of stress placed by them upon the poorest folk.

On the other hand, so successful was the death penalty in Britain, as a deterrent, that, as a barrister pointed out, convicted killers would prefer to spend the rest of their lives in a secure mental institution, rather than face execution. Unlike many liberals, the crazies of the far-right actually know that there is good and evil, that humans can indeed be culpable and should be answerable for their actions when they cause great harm.... but they just choose evil, while they can get away with it.

The problem with the death penalty of course is that too many of the people responsible for administering the death penalty in the US, right down the line, themselves deserve to be executed, either already having knowingly colluded in the execution of innocents prisoners, or having such bad characters themselves, that they wouldn't baulk at such collusion, should the occasion arise.

You'd need a half-decent society, before unambiguous murderers could safely be executed without fear of miscarriages of justice. Even then, of course, the worst criminals, the respectabe "snakes-in-suits" psychopaths in government, business, the law, medicine, etc., who knowingly and deliberately compass the deaths of immeasurably more innocent human beings, would virtually always escape justice until they met their Maker.

[silverojo]

46. More twisted logic

too many of the people responsible for administering the death penalty in the US, right down the line, themselves deserve to be executed

If you're against the death penalty, you believe NOBODY deserves to be executed. If you're against the death penalty while wishing death upon others, you're not a liberal--you're a hypocrite.

[Joe Chi Minh]

136. I never said I was a liberal, you mutt. I'm a progressive! For your

information - and you can rage and whine as much as you like - there is one FACT that you'll never be able to get round, no matter how you hard you try to make Christianity a soft option. Guess what? We are all under a sentence of physical death - assuming it is not predated by the Parousia. Natch, you'll hate the idea of a sentence...! Like death itself, culpability wil be your big no-no; - particularly a culpability you can't begin to understand. No, to you, it's just the fickle way the Universe operates. Good luck, mutley.

Oh. and yes, I am a hypocrite. The only person who was a perfect personification of truth was Christ.

[silverojo]

45. Nobody ever looks at this possible reason:

States with crime rates that are high already are more likely to impose a death penalty than states with low crime rates. So of course those states with a death penalty have higher crime rates--that's why the death penalty was imposed in the first place.

And the reason the crime keeps increasing is that our government keeps cutting funding that would help add more police personnel in these high-crime cities.

[Joe Chi Minh]

137. It's because your're kind of stating the obvious. Your second point

is only part of the answer. Government funding has been cut over a number of areas vital to the health and survival of most folk, but particularly the poorest folk - leading to ever more intense and widespread stresses, and consequent rising levels of anomie and violence, often fuelled by drug addiction.

[pschoeb]

16. I don't consider economic models as very scientific

The research is done by economists, in the case of Naci Mocan, using various economic incentive models. I find economic models very poor in predictive power.

[depakid]

117. To say the least

Few disciplines have tendency to show more absurd results than economics.

Sometimes, they're downright laughable- particularly in the health care field.

We might also note:

The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.

Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the
U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.)

Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven't gotten that kind of scrutiny.

[johnaries]

17. I have to agree with those quoted in the article as saying

there just isn't enough data for a conclusive, meaningful answer.
When the studies start sayign things like "for every execution it stops 18 murders" I KNOW the study is making conclusions that simply cannot be supported by the data. They are definitely making unjustified and unqualified extrapolations.
Besides, deterrence is not my only reason for being against the Death Penalty. If it could be proven that it has a pwerful deterrent effect and save innocent lives I might reconsider my position, but it would have to be conclusive proof and the deterrence would have to be powerful.
Furthermore, the deterrent effect would only logical wrong in the cases of "cold-blooded" homicide. In a crime of passion, the last thing on the criminals mind is what will happen if they get caught. Even in the case of cold-blooded murders, they likely would not risk it if they didn't think they could avoid capture - regardless of the punishment.

[NYC Liberal]

18. The problem is is that people who commit crimes

DON'T THINK THEY WILL GET CAUGHT!

So the whole idea that the punishment will deter them is ridiculous.

[treestar]

20. Bingo

People who end up killing someone never think - geez, I'll get caught and get the death penalty and so maybe I shouldn't do this.

Start with contract killers, and it's obvious.

Or subconsciously they could have a death wish and just plain don't care.

[Maddy McCall]

22. Look at that guy who was just charged with the murder of the girl in Kansas.

So bold as to take her from a Target parking lot in broad daylight, with other people in the parking lot, knowing that big box stores all have surveillance cameras.

I agree with you. Murderers always think that they'll be the one to plan it just right and get away with it.

[0007]

21. If true Texas would be way down in that department......nt

[formercia]

23. Abortion prevents Murder too.

It only deters the first one.

[anotherdrew]

25. ehh, could be true, but other things would increase the 'cost' of crime as well n/t

[ShortnFiery]

26. Plus, it is a review of the studies that is done in an controlled manner that makes SCIENCE.

You can't pull "this and that study" to combine AND THEN pro-claim that it sets a viable trend. :crazy:

A reputable University MUST do a un-biased review of the Social Science Literature (studies) over a specific period of time, controlling for such glaring factors as relationship to the victim, socioeconomic status, race, sex, etc.

The above Headline is NOT appropriate for a proclaimed valid media source such as Associated Press to lead with. :thumbsdown:

[anotherdrew]

28. the methodology is not so convincing, but maybe I'm just too skeptical of these kinda social models

but really, so they've found a way to model a crap-load of numbers such that when they jack one number up, another one goes down... It's not like they can go back in time and re-do events.

an excerpt...


MURDERit = Dit-1 β + Xit Ω +μi +ηt +Ρit+ε it,
where MURDERit is the homicide rate in state i and year t. The vector X contains state
characteristics that may be correlated with criminal activity, including the unemployment
rate, real per capita income, the proportion of the state population in the following age
groups: 20-34, 35-44, 45-54 and 55 and over, the proportion of the state population in
urban areas, the proportion which is black, the infant mortality rate, the party affiliation
of the governor, and the legal drinking age in the state. Theoretical and empirical
justification for the inclusion of these variables can be found in Levitt
(1998a), and Lott and Mustard (1997). The variable μi represents unobserved statespecific
characteristics that impact the murder rate, and ηt represents year effects.

[ShortnFiery]

29. I'll take your word for it.

;) :wow: :hi:

[Gman]

27. No it doesn't

is this guy getting paid by the Bushies too

[SheilaT]

31. Wow! How impressive.

I guess all those silly countries without the death penalty must have obscenely high murder rates, right?

So I need the sarcasm thing?

[silverojo]

47. Stop and think

Countries with low crime rates don't NEED the death penalty...that's why they don't impose it.

[SheilaT]

51. But other countries used to have the death penalty.

France had its last execution in 1977. I believe the last person executed in Great Britain was in 1954. These are from a brief Google search.

But I stand by my (somewhat sarcastic) statement that if the death penalty was truly a deterrent, we'd have the lowest murder rate in the world. But we don't.

By the same reasoning, some studies claim that crime is lower where there's more gun ownership. Again, if that were true we'd have the lowest crime rate in the world. But we don't I wonder why.

[Solon]

54. One interesting correlation is the fact that...

the nations with the greatest social safety nets also have the lowest crime statistics. Europe, taken together, is an example of this, maybe one of the ways we can fight crime is to reduce the desperation of folks by creating a more robust safety net for people.

[brentspeak]

32. It's been shown that public executions curtail crime

Studies done in countries where public executions take place document low crime rates. That's because the public can see with its own eyes the direct result of being caught and convicted.

[ShortnFiery]

33. Yes, let's fully morph into The Roman Empire immediately prior to it's fall?!?

Beyond that, why not? After all our best buddies in Saudi Arabia just love to have their weekly PUBLIC BE-HEADINGS.

Since we love to keep nuclear options on the table, the USA can't be THAT FAR from just kicking up our heels and going FULL TILT: Public Executions in every major city! And no shots - the choice is either "hanging or beheading."

The Shah loved to ENFORCE his RULE by cutting off ears and fingers of those who conspired against him. Maybe we can get some of that action going also?

The New USA = No Scruples, No Morals and Public Executions FOR ALL! :wow: :patriot:

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[brentspeak]

43. Was there any sentence in my post which advocated public executions?

[ProudDad]

121. Where's your proof

You throw around this "fact" without substantiation.

If those countries are so crime free why is the State Department always warning U.S. citizens about traveling to them?

[Alexander]

133. Total crock of shit.

Quit wasting everyone's time with your false info, and provide a link or an article if you want to be taken seriously. :eyes:

[earthlover]

34. Was Jesus' capital punishment a deterrant?

If capital punishment is a deterrant, how can you explain how Jesus' execution made millions want to follow his path?

[undeterred]

36. So like, after you're dead, you commit fewer crimes. Was the study done in Texas?

Sounds like the Bush school of criminology.

[struggle4progress]

37. This should be testable. Ryan as Illinois governor in 2003 commuted about 156 death sentences.

According to the "scientific" conclusions of Professor "I'm content to do a regression analysis" Mocan, this should have produced an additional 156 x 5 = 780 homicides.

What do the data say? Illinois saw 961 murders in 2002, 895 in 2003, 780 in 2004, and 766 in 2005.

Hmmm ....could there be more to criminology than running a silly economist's regression model?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/11/illinois.death.row/index.html
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm

[Eugene]

38. That is very interesting...

since the Mocan study blames the moratorium for 150 homicides
that could have been "deterred." (The correct English word
Mocan's usage is "prevented").

Thank you for posting this.

[ooglymoogly]

40. there are so many variables

such as the huge increase in desperate people since bush started robbing the economy. Desperate people do desperate things. Another study would have to be done along with this study about the rise and fall of poverty levels under different Governors, different DA's and different administrations and different congresses that make the laws, such as the bogus drug laws mostly coming to pass since Reagun. It is already a known quantity that when the poverty rate goes up so goes the crime and murder rate and ditto when draconian drug laws are passed and whether and where those laws are enforced...for instance in some cities and states particularly in the NE where drug laws are not pursued as aggressively as say Florida or Georgia or the whole of the Midwest and the South. There are just soooo many variables to such a study.

[Tempest]

143. Ryan commuted 167 death sentences

So your numbers will change accordingly, and against the study's authors.

[ooglymoogly]

39. Hmmm, some say the artical itself is flawed,

citing articles of the past several years....as if there were not just as many or more coming to the oposite conclusion...some say that studies by certain types come up with whatever is the preconceived notion of the investigator and his string puller. Some say that such a conclusion is impossible based on impossible to collect proof to verify such a conclusion. Some say............yada yada yada just for the sake of propaganda, a lot of bullshit and try to prove it's perfume by bogus think tanks and bogus researchers, in this case so they can kill more people, some if not many of whom after the fact are determined to be admittedly innocent.

[jollyreaper2112]

42. silly reasoning

The one pro-death penalty argument I can agree with is that it will deter the executed party from ever committing another murder. But you know what? Life imprisonment does the same thing. What's more, you can release a guy if you find out there's been a mistake, you can't resurrect him from the dead.

I'm of the opinion that first degree murderers should be sentenced to life, to hell with ever getting out. The cases that get mentioned on DU where people say "I could go for capital punishment right here," I say make it life, no parole. While I support the sentiment that some people deserve death, I don't trust our government enough to give it the right to kill people. I also don't trust the people enough to let them decide who lives and who dies either. Plenty of people are "black enough" to hang for a crime, regardless of whether or not they did it. You know it, I know it, that's how our mentality operates. Innocents will die if we preserve the death penalty.

At the same time, I think it is the height of foolishness to release killers who WILL kill again. The case that sticks out in my mind occurred I believe in California. The killer in question hacked the arms off a woman with an axe. Unfortunately for her, she survived. She testified against him in court. I remember the pictures of her in her prosthetic arms, little hooks for hands. The killer was one of the schizo nutball types, sane sometimes, crazy other times. He asked to be kept in prison because he knew he'd do something like this again. Well, they paroled him and another woman lost her arms. I don't know if she survived the attack.

I couldn't find the axe guy but Albert Fish showed up. When you read about this guy it's hard to not throw principles aside and simply demand he be shot on the spot. He sent this letter to the family of the young girl he murdered.

"On Sunday June the 3, 1928 I called on you at 406 W 15 St. Brought you pot cheese—strawberries. We had lunch. Grace sat on my lap and kissed me. I took her to an empty house in Westchester I had already picked out. When we got there, I told her to remain outside. She picked wildflowers. I went upstairs and stripped all my clothes off. I knew if I did not, I would get her blood on them. When all was ready I went to the window and called her. Then I hid in the closet until she was in the room. When she saw me all naked she began to cry and tried to run down the stairs. I grabbed her, and she said she would tell her mama. First I striped her naked. How she did kick, bite and scratch. I choked her to death, then cut her into small pieces so I could take my meat to my rooms, cook and eat it. How sweet and tender her little ass was roasted in the oven. It took me nine days to eat her entire body. I did not fuck her, though I could have, had I wished. She died a virgin."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish

It's amazing that there are enough of us left to survive with all the monsters out there.

[silverojo]

48. There are two problems with life sentences

1) The old get-off-with-parole-for-good-behavior trick, which puts the killer right back on the streets

2) Prisoners convicted for murder DO manage to escape sometimes, you know...at which time they invariably murder someone (or a few someones) before the police recapture them

Either way, it's a huge risk for the public. :(

[harpboy_ak]

50. not interested in the truth, just revenge, aren't you?

I'm plonking you because of your lies and strawman arguments..

1) The old get-off-with-parole-for-good-behavior trick, which puts the killer right back on the streets

2) Prisoners convicted for murder DO manage to escape sometimes, you know...at which time they invariably murder someone (or a few someones) before the police recapture them

States that are sensible enough to not have a death penalty DO have sentences of life without parole for those that should never be released. Very few prisoners in that classification ever escape from my state's max security prisons, one of which is in a town not connected to any other town by a road system, and the nearest town is over 100 miles away by water if they can get past the double fences topped with razor wire.

Attempting to debate with you is futile because you aren't interested in the truth, only revenge.

PLONK.

[ProudDad]

123. Your post is an example of the worst

of the bogus arguments about crime and punishment.

You postulate the worst of the worst as some kind of example of the people who "get off" by getting Life With Possibility of parole. Yes, there are a very few individuals who are stone sociopath and some of them kill - like your example of Albert Fish. There are also a few individuals (more actually) who are struck and killed by lightning every year. BFD...

As for all "killers" getting life without. You don't take into account any mitigating circumstances before or during the commission of the "crime". You don't take into account the capacity for redemption in nearly every human being if they are placed in an environment where redemption is possible. You don't take into account that the group of "criminals" who, upon release, have the LOWEST recidivism rate are "murderers".

I do welcome you as an ally against the egregious, unnecessary, counter-productive death penalty. :hi:

[Xenotime]

49. yea...by killing people...

What a horrible pratice.

[ckramer]

56. Studies say death penalty deters crime

Source: AP

Among the conclusions:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.




Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

---

Democrats should change the attitude towards death penalty - killing bad guys is not a bad thing.

[mediaman007]

57. The death penalty hasn't deterred the NeoCons!

or perhaps they could have murdered more!

[MidwestTransplant]

58. States killing anybody is a bad thing

Also I have studied the DP extensively and I have yet to see any credible evidence that it detours murder.

If we had the DP for stealing, I would imagine a deterrent effect but not for murder.

[ckramer]

100. No it's not a bad thing

That's the responsibility of a state.

[Swede]

110. You mean states like China,Iran and the USA.

The rest of the world are just a bunch of losers.

[LostinVA]

59. Killing is not a bad thing?

I was raised to believe that murder is murder, whether done by an individual or the State. The Catholic Church still teaches this, actually. I believe in life in prison without a chance of parole.

I would also like to know who's behind this study, as it goes against every other study ever done.

[baldguy]

60. It's worked wonders in Iraq!

[LostinVA]

61. You conveniently left out this paragraph:

"Critics of the findings have been vociferous.

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment. "


Naci Mocan also had an "academic study" that found that ugly people commit crimes more often than pretty people. Oh boy.

[Midlodemocrat]

62. Oh, FFS. The Death Penalty is a terrible thing.

Applied disproportionately to minorities and the poor.

And, I would like to see the methodology used in that study because it contradicts every other piece of evidence about the DP that is in existence.

[Gormy Cuss]

63. Not breaking and dupe

Posted as breaking yesterday here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2875967&mesg_id=2875967

and a third thread is around here somewhere, probably in GD.

[Orrex]

64. Capital punishment is morally indistinguishable from murder

The so-called "deterrent" argument is a red herring. Why not execute the family, friends, and pets of the murderer? The moral justification would be the same, and I'm sure that the so-called deterrent would be even stronger.

Once the person has been rendered harmless (eg., in prison), there is no justification for killing him or her.

[wtmusic]

69. If deterrent was the only argument

Why should the family of the murderer suffer for the murderer's actions? What's moral about that?

Your red herring is a straw man.

[Orrex]

72. Uh, that's kind of the point

Why should the family of the murderer suffer for the murderer's actions? What's moral about that?

It was clearly (and deliberately) an absurd suggestion. But no more absurd than the notion that killing someone will cause someone else not to kill someone. I agree that capital punishment probably discourages recidivism by that particular killer, but beyond that all bets are off.

Until a solid justification is put forth for executing the murderer (and Deuteronomy is not a solid justification), then capital punishment remains indistinguishable from murder.

[wtmusic]

76. Capital punishment does more than discourage recidivism

it prevents it. :crazy:

"Capital punishment being indistinguishable from murder" is certainly a valid viewpoint, but that's all it is: your opinion. Slightly more than half of the world (52%) disagrees with you.

[Orrex]

77. Show me the causative link, then

Not mountains of data. Show me the actual, causative link between use of the death penalty and the reduction in murder rates. I would be interested to know how you exclude all of the other factors, while you're at it.

At best, you're maintaining an indefensible position, and you're advocating for state-sanctioned murder based on nothing more than the dubious opinions of 52% of the population.

A lot more than 52% of Americans don't accept that evolution is a fact, by the way. Which is why it's not a good idea to base policy on the ill-informed notions of the masses.

[wtmusic]

80. Careful now

Why is your opinion less dubious than anyone else's? Who made you the ultimate arbiter of what's fair and just? :shrug:

[Orrex]

82. Not claiming that my opinion has more validity

But your invocation of the 52% majority suggests that you think that there's empirical safety in numbers. By that logic, we can execute anyone at all, provided that we can get 52% of the people on board.

Show me the causative link, and we'll discuss it. Until you do that, then capital punishment is morally indistinguishable from murder. Perhaps it's worse, while we're at it, because it necessarily entails a component of vengeance that strikes me as primitive and regressive.

[wtmusic]

86. Exactly - it strikes you

I'm just saying it doesn't "strike" about half of the world's population that way.

IMO whether it's preventative is secondary to most people who support the death penalty. They just feel that if someone commits murder (especially in certain circumstances) they deserve to die.

[Orrex]

87. You're missing the point

I wrote

it necessarily entails a component of vengeance that strikes me as primitive and regressive.

That's clearly a statement of opinion, but I'm not basing my argument upon it. Compare that with your 52% of people who "feel" that someone deserves to die.

The only argument in favor of capital punishment that would carry any moral weight would be its efficacy as a deterrent. But if the 52% care less about that than about satisfying their blood-fury, then we need to address the savagery of the majority and ask what it says about our culture in general.

[wtmusic]

90. Again

what you regard as savage or blood-fury, many see as justice.

BTW I don't necessarily disagree with you. If I were King, I'd like to try not only abandoning the death penalty but putting severe restrictions on personal ownership of firearms. Like most nations where the murder rate is a fraction of ours.

IMO the most moral solution is that which saves the most lives, however that might happen.

[Orrex]

91. I'm all for saving lives

But I want the reasoning to be sound. My view (that capital punishment is murder) errs on the side of caution, which is to say that lifelong incarceration of the murderer prevents that person from murdering again and doesn't empower the state to take a life (and, incidentally, it's cheaper than executing him or her).

The position that capital punishment deters murder or is somehow "deserved" requires a greater degree of justification than does my view. To date no such justification has been put forth.

If I were King, I'd like to try not only abandoning the death penalty but putting severe restrictions on personal ownership of firearms. Like most nations where the murder rate is a fraction of ours.

In that case, sign me up for a front-row seat at your coronation!

[ckramer]

65. I don't buy the "life in prison" argument - I think that's stupid

Who is going to pay for the cost of housing these criminals for life?

I certainly don't want to. Taxpayers shouldn't either.

[Tempest]

71. It costs more to execute someone than to house them for life

http://www.progress.org/death05.htm

Still think it's stupid?

[ckramer]

75. That's precisely why America is the most violent country in the world

Murderers can use the cuurent law structure to stay alive forever.

It's hopeless for justice.

But let's change the attitude for a fresh start because law is merely a reflection of public opinions.

[Orrex]

93. Justice? Or vengeance?

They're hardly the same, though in arguments on this topic they are often used interchangeably.

You're talking about limiting the appeals process. To what extent? Should we abolish habeas corpus while we're at it?

[Tempest]

95. Considering the number of exonerated on death row

It's a damned good thing the process is dragged out.

See "Deadline" if you want to know why Illinois suspended the death penalty.

[Solon]

96. Don't bother trying to explain that to DP supporters, they are true believers...

Actual Guilt or Innocence of the DP victim matters little to them, its the killing that gets them excited.

[ckramer]

98. Killing convicted murderer is just a right thing to do

As long as they are proven guilty.

Some people's obsessive with convicted murderers are beyond reasonable.

[Solon]

102. Well, thanks for proving my point for me...

As I said, its the killing that gets your blood up, not the fact that innocent people can be executed if the system stays in place.

[ckramer]

104. I don't want innocent to be killed.

But if the guy is guilty, he should die.

Why do you love criminals?

[Orrex]

106. "Why do you love criminals?"

Because once you declare a portion of society off-limits to sympathy, compassion, or legal recourse, you open the door for all manner of legally-protected abuses of the individual.

I may hate a convicted murderer, but hatred doesn't give the state the right to kill that person.

[Solon]

107. What type of bullshit response is that?

Look, you bitch about the system being too expensive, well, its that expensive because of the appeals process. Being the big DP supporter that you are, you probably want that system "streamlined" so that the inmates can be executed in a more timely and inexpensive manner. Well, to put it simply that means that innocent people, like Anthony Porter and Steven Smith would have been executed rather than exonerated. And you claim to care about innocent people, I call bullshit on that.

[ckramer]

112. My point is we should not have mercy on murderers

proven guilty murderers, that is.

Loving murderers = hating innocent people who are getting killed.



I guess that democrats better escape from that moral weakpoint.

[Solon]

113. Where the fuck did I mention mercy?

Fuck mercy, I don't give a flying fuck about actual murderers, what I DO care about is this simple fact, human beings and their institutions are imperfect, this includes the justice system. Because of this, innocent people will be executed, and since, unlike every other sentence we met out, the DP is irreversible, it should be abolished, because killing ONE innocent person is ONE too many.

[mediaman007]

114. Hope that you get a chance to read this...

Anyone who has watched "Law and Order" knows that it is not about guilty or not guilty. Trials are about winning and losing. Defense attorney's want to create doubt, while the prosecution aims to win...sometimes getting a guilty verdict against an innocent person. This seems to be kind of thin to be executing someone.

[devilgrrl]

139. "...escape from that moral weakpoint."

Wow, just go right ahead and make shit up!

You're as loathsome as convicted murders.

[Tempest]

142. Proven guilty murderers?

You just don't get it, do you?

In Illinois alone there were twenty-five PROVEN MURDERERS who were set free by DNA evidence and from others confessing to the crime they were convicted of.

[MidwestTransplant]

111. So when so many people have been exonerated, some just hours before their execution

you use that as evidence of the system working? Please tell me you don't.

Also George Will and William F Buckley are very much opposed to the death penalty. Know why? Because they view the justice system as the largest bureaucracy that we have in society and thus the most unreliable.

[ProudDad]

127. "why do you love criminals?"

Why do you hate humanity?

"On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/teresa94.html



Humanity will be judged on how it acts towards the least worthy of its members...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

144. All those other countries with no DP and low murder rates don't really exist to you, do they?

Not to mention the 13 or so DP-free States of the USA when taken in comparison to the other ones.

[Orrex]

73. So we should kill people if it's cheaper than maintaining them?

Gee, what an long list of executions that would make...

[NMMNG]

79. Perfect argument for abandoning Social Security

And implementing euthanasia for the elderly and disabled. Why allow them to become a burden? :sarcasm:

[Orrex]

83. Damn straight!

And the guy in the cube opposite me isn't carrying his weight. Let's execute him!

[ckramer]

97. You are talking nonesense here

What's wrong with executing a convicted murderer?

[Orrex]

101. What's right about it?

Ignoring, for the moment, the very real and widespread problem of erroneous conviction...

I'm not aware of any objective standard by which we can say that his execution is morally superior to the murder(s) of which he's been committed. If the murderer is imprisoned and thereby rendered harmless, there is simply no reason to kill him. The argument that it satisfies the family's grief is simply an appeal to vengeance, and the claim that his execution will deter future murders is poorly supported, at best.

So, on what basis are we correct in executing a convicted murderer?

[ProudDad]

129. Gee, just off the top of my head

1) She/He may be innocent (1 in 10 chance they are!)
"convicted" doesn't mean actually guilty, especially
the way the current criminally-unjust system is stacked
against the defendant.

2) He/She may be redeemable and may become a productive
member of society either in custody or out of custody.

3) It condones, justifies murder -- State murder is still murder

(I have personally heard people in prison justifying their actions
by comparing them to the actions of the state!)

4) It corrupts us all. State Murder is still murder.

5) It's too damn expensive unless you abandon all pretense
of ensuring guilt.

6) It's racist and biased toward killing the poor and black/brown.

7) It CANNOT be redeemed:

Justice Harry Blackman, a Conservative Justice of the Supreme Court: "On February 22, 1994, he announced that he now saw the death penalty as always unconstitutional by issuing a dissent from the Court's refusal to consider the relatively routine death penalty case of Callins v. Collins, declaring that "rom this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death."


want some more? Lots here.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

http://www.deathpenalty.org/

[ckramer]

99. Govenment kills people to maintain justice

And you think locking up someone in a prison cell for life is humane?

[Orrex]

105. Yes, it's more humane

If only because a fair number of those who are sent to death row are actually innocent. Is it more human to execute the innocent through some accident (or abuse) of the legal system?

Your use of the phrase "maintain justice" in this context is basically indistinguishable from "satisfy vengeance." How is it "just" for the state to kill someone who has been rendered harmless?

[ckramer]

108. I am also appalled by the number of innocent in death row

that's also not acceptable.

We have a unaccountable justice system for puting innocent into the death row.

Whoever responsible for these deadly mistake should also be put in jail. I don't care if they are detectives or prosecutors.

[Orrex]

109. That's a step in the right direction!

In the meantime, bearing in mind the number of innocents on death row, we should have a moratorium on capital punishment until all of the innocent have been freed.

[ProudDad]

130. No, I don't

I don't believe in life without parole either.

I also don't believe in subjecting the convicted person to one of those torture chambers called a prison.

What passes for "punishment" in the U.S. is so totally inhumane and counterproductive that it would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

Where do you think those few "irredeemable, awful criminal types" are nurtured and trained? Right, jails and prisons!

Humans keep trying the same shit over and over again and expect a different result. Stupid humans.

[LostinVA]

84. Oh brother

[ProudDad]

120. Check out "Birdman of Alcatraz"

and other true stories of people who were convicted of capital crimes and turn their lives around.

Almost NO ONE is irredeemable, damn it. Almost NO ONE is 100% evil and unworthy of begin allowed to lead some form of productive life. Some shouldn't be allowed to "run around free" (this group is a SMALL minority of folks who are incarcerated) but everyone should be allowed the chance to live a life of dignity and worth.

The only difference between these "criminals" you so readily demonize is that they've been caught and "convicted" and you haven't. There are so many fucking felony laws on the books that nearly everyone has broken one of those laws by the time they get to be about 35 years old. All that's needed then is a bit of bad luck, an overzealous DA and a "hanging" judge and there you go. You're all one auto accident under the influence away from LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE...

The bottom line is what kind of society would you rather live in, the one we're stuck with now based on vengeance, prejudice, torture and stereotyping or one based on the premise that we're all brothers and sisters and are in this together and responsible for one another -- our sister's/brother's keepers so to speak.

I choose the latter.

[Exultant Democracy]

66. Sure, that is why the developed nations with no death penalty have the highest murder rates

:sarcasm:

I think this guy needs to take a better look at his data. If we look at the data from all of the developed nations and then the US you can see that each death sentence on average encourages a few thousand more murders.

[Jesterstear]

67. Bull

The only deterrant the death penalty serves is making sure that a person never kills again.

Who commits a crime believing that they will be caught? Not many, if any at all. Most people believe that they will get away with it, thus the "penalty" has no meaning.

I don't know about the rest of you, but the reason I don't go around committing crimes is not because I'm afraid of the penalty, but because I was raised to know right from wrong.

Use the death penalty to take the killers out of society, but don't try to tell me that it's stopping others.

[ckramer]

68. Most of the murders are un-calculated

they were carried out like the release of body functions - instinct induced.

Those type of human doesn't deserve to live in a civilized society anyway.

They are cancers of a society.

[ProudDad]

125. Most "murders"

are committed within a family unit or between criminal rivals (primarily soldiers in the bogus 'war on drugs').

Most "murders" are crimes of "passion" and are by definition examples of 'temporary insanity'.

Most "murders" ARE NOT stranger abductions, random acts nor the calculated horror committed by a sociopath.

You have allowed the MSM to corrupt your reasoning processes to the point where you've bought into their big lies on this subject.

But, it does sell crap and, after all, that's what the U.S. of A. is all about, right?

[Jesterstear]

140. Insults are always the way to go...

When you want someone to come around to your way of thinking, don't use facts... be an insulting prick! They're sure to believe you then!

[ProudDad]

141. If there was any insult

it was in your perception not in my meaning.

Thou doest protest overmuch.

I don't blame ckramer for falling for MSM lies...

I would question ckramer's reasoning powers if she/he continued to believe those lies in the face of the facts on this subject. But I don't expect him/her to do that.


You are entirely correct in questioning the basic premise of this silly "study". It's true that most of the people who 'murder' would not be "deterred" by the state murder of other "murderers".

Why the swipe at me though? :shrug:

I was responding to ckramer's bloodthirsty, knee-jerk myths concerning those who do "murder"...

[Tempest]

70. Did the study calculate in the increase in violent crimes nationally?

"The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following"

This is meaningless unless the national increase has been accounted for. How did they correlate the data?

And what about other states where the death penalty was abolished? Did they also see an increase after national averages were accounted for?

I'd like to see the data and scientific methods used.

[Zandor]

74. Those commiting premeditated murder don't plan on getting caught

And I seriously doubt a potential death penalty (particularly when they are relatively rare) would deter them much.

It does give DA's a bargaining chip when plea baragining with a suspect, I suppose.

[ProudDad]

126. One of the MAIN PROBLEMS

is that the DA's have the hammer.

With mandatory minimums and most of the money, those fucks have ALL the bargaining power!

That's why there are so many miscarriages of justice.

But, with the MSM filling people's minds with fear and total bullshit, folks are happy to give over their power to the da's and cops.

[Solon]

94. The study is bullshit...

After 2000, there was a brief spike in 2001, still less than 1998, and then homicides went down ever since, and, by 2005, they were the lowest per capita, since 1965. Here's a couple of links from the TWO previous threads on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2875967&mesg_id=2876176

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1086265&mesg_id=1086467

[NMMNG]

78. The studies are crap

It even says so right in the article:

Critics of the findings have been vociferous.

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."

[jilln]

81. How can they tell it's a deterrent?

Are they interviewing people who were GOING to murder someone and decided not to after an execution?

[Orrex]

85. They interviewed people who weren't murdered as a result

Q: Do you feel that the execution of prisoner X had a direct impact on your failure to be murdered?

A: Absolutely. Let's kill all the murderers! Go team!

[jilln]

119. Makes sense.

The failed murderees are probably more willing to talk than the failed murderers.

[flvegan]

88. A series of studies over 6 years

This is a joke, right? Christ, that's not even a housing trend. It took longer to put Viagra out there, I believe.

"Killing bad guys" is revenge. The penal system has a job: punishment/correction. There's a big difference.

[Orrex]

92. Heh heh. You wrote "Viagra" and "penal."

A stiff sentence, indeed.

haw haw haw!

[Sapphocrat]

89. ...

[ulysses]

103. I'd like to see the methods of their studies n/t

[ProudDad]

124. Let's see

one flawed study should cause us all to abandon the moral position in favor of revenge.

right..... :sarcasm:

[treestar]

128. It is not "killing bad guys." It is "killing those convicted of murder"

under a system that can by no means be entirely certain of its conclusions.

[devilgrrl]

116. Other studies suggest that this study is a pile of crap.

Violent crime is going as stong as ever in California - even with a death penalty.

[ProudDad]

131. And, as a former Oakland resident

Most of the murder rate is a DIRECT result of the phony, bogus "war on drugs".

Decriminalize and the murder rate in Oakland would decrease by 80%!!!

[AlienGirl]

118. An unethical act is not made right by being effective.

[JerseygirlCT]

146. Well said. nt

[catgirl]

122. Right. That's why there are so many cold case style shows

America's Most Wanted, Cold Case Files...sure, murderers are scared
to kill because they may be punished. What a bunch of BS. What a waste
of time and money (this study). So many university studies are funded by
the government and/or interest groups with a certain result in mind. Many
professors don't mind the money pouring in and will give out incomplete info.,
or even false results in order to secure more grants.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

132. But is it worth the sacrifice of innocent people?

When the guiltless are condemned to death, does that not make US the murderers?

[leftist.]

134. The state NEVER has the right to execute it's citizens.

State-sponsored murder of a "criminal" can deter crime all day long, but no state (read for the US, the Feds) should have the right to execute a citizen, be it hitler, bush, bin laden, or my own mother's rapist.

Now, would I go after the offender personally (in the case of "my mother's rapist) - of course! Though I'm willing to accept that penalty. I'd rather it be on me (emotion) than the state (law).

[JerseygirlCT]

145. Doesn't change the underlying fact that there is no logic

in killing someone because he/she killed someone.

There is nothing moral or right about the DP.

Civilized people do not do this.

I've read about studies for years showing just the opposite -- so I wonder what's new or different here.

But for me, bottom line is that it's wrong and we shouldn't be doing it.

[bemildred]

147. So, killing a few innocent people is OK?

Who in their right mind would think that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent to murder? Is that really the correct question? How many homicides are committed to remove potential witnesses? Is that not an incentive to murder? Isn't the real question whether the death penalty is a cost effective way to deal with crime? What the Hell is the criminal justice system FOR anyway? Does killing a few criminals forward any useful purpose for the criminal justice system? If so, how, and at what cost?

On another point, I have a feeling that Naci Mogan has a big career ahead of her, plenty of grant money for further studies will be forthcoming.

[Nikia]

148. I would think that the deterent of a penalty starts to decline

Somewhere after 15-20 years of prision.
There may be some crimes which might pay for a criminal to committ (some literally). The criminal might consider his chances that he would get caught and the penalty. If the rewards are great, he might be less likely to committ the crime if the penalty is increased (like from 1 year to 10 years). At some point though, I would think that the deterent would decline. For most people, facing spending most of the rest of their life in prision is a major deterent. Those who would accept spending 20 years of their life behind bars aren't really going to be that much less likely to committ a crime which requires even more time. Likewise, if one would accept facing the rest of their life in prision, would one be deterred that much more by the possibility of executed? Are there many people who really enjoy killing other people that much that they rationally weighed the rewards vs. the punishment. What kind of people feel the benefit of killing someone is worth spending the rest of their life in prision anyway? Would those people really care if they faced death since they did not care if they only faced life imprisionment?

[ckramer]

149. So why having a justice department? why having a police department?

Are you sure we need these law enforcements at all?

The impression I got from reading all of your responses are "we can't never know who the real killer is, so why bother?"

Innocents are murdered, yet we (democrats) don't really care about them. "Too bad they were in the wrong place wrong time with the wrong person. We might kill the wrong person" despite overwhelming evidence. Democrats don't have the desire to find the real killer for justice. That's outer impression.

It's kind of like - "are you sure the woman gave birth to you your mother? - you know there are so many women in this world look alike. Are you really sure? Since you are not sure, that woman is not your mother."

For example, the most recent VT campus killer. What do you say?

Let me guess what you would say - "oh the guy is mental, we don't kill mentals. Plus we don't know if he really the killer. He was abused when he's young...we rather put him in jail for life..." blah, blah...

That's an unhealthy political attitude as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately this attitude prevails in the rank and file of democrats. Sigh!

[mahina]

150. I am 100% in favor of the death penalty.

With DNA proof of course.

Live long enough and you'll find a reason to agree, sadly.

[galileo3000]

151. If memory serves

Stephen J. Levitt (and I forget the other co-author) in Freakonomics showed data that also supports this. While I can understand why this may be a serious deterent, here is what Gandhi had to say on the subject of capital punishment: “I cannot in all conscience agree to anyone being sent to the gallows. God alone can take life because He alone gives it.”
- Peace
Your humble happy warrior
Galileo3000

[Xenotime]

152. Death just encourages more death...

It's that simple.