[SIZE=2]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence_8

Even anti-capital punishment academics say that the death penalty deters. [/SIZE]

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

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.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

The simple 'fact' that it deters does not make it an acceptable solution. Having some sense of morality deters far more killing than the threat of reciprocal killing [I]if caught[/I] (because honestly, who ever plans to get caught?) I have to side with those who label that body of statistical evidence as inconclusive for a number of reasons:

First and foremost, the studies are presumably designed and conducted for the sole purpose of reaching and publishing that very conclusion. As such, I would expect there to be a significant confirmation bias.

Second, the article doesn't really describe the methodology through which such conclusions are reached. 18 murders deterred eh? Sounds like a big number, must be good! 150 more murders in Illinois?! How could they allow that to happen...oh wait, the murder rates in Chicago alone could easily fluctuate by that number over a 4 year period due to numerous factors besides the moratorium. Less time on death row means less murdering in the outside world? Like I said, nobody plans to get caught, and those who consider it probably do not consider the duration of time they'll be on death row before their sentence is carried out to be a significant factor.

Third, the old argument that you simply can't encourage people not to kill by killing those that do, is absolutely correct IMO. Legal killing, illegal killing, at the day's end, what's the difference? The commandments don't make such trivial distinctions (I'm not a Catholic btw), they just say 'thou shall not kill' Those that really strive to bring about positive change lead by example.

It's a sad topic and I'm not saying there's one right answer, but I think there's something deeply hypocritical about self-righteous killing, under [I]any [/I]circumstances.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

^+1 well said

I wonder if the study takes into consideration economic cycles which tend to have an inverse relationship on murders...as well as other factors which probably have a more direct impact on the numbers.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

[quote=rubyraks;498561] I wonder if the study takes into consideration economic cycles which tend to have an inverse relationship on murders...as well as other factors which probably have a more direct impact on the numbers.[/quote]

Of particular interest to me is the hypothesis that after most economic cycles the distribution of wealth is more imbalanced and the political power is more concentrated than before, resulting in increasingly desperate circumstances for the majority.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

[QUOTE=WaveSculptor;498779]Of particular interest to me is the hypothesis that [B]after most economic cycles[/B] the distribution of wealth is more imbalanced and the political power is more concentrated than before, resulting in increasingly desperate circumstances for the majority.[/QUOTE] I'm presuming the end of the economic cycle is the boom and not the recession?

...would certainly explain where we stand today. The distribution of income has not been as bad as it is now in a damn long time.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

I would have difficulty pointing out the divisions between cycles (anyone know where I might research this?). I suppose it's more of a continuous process, or an accelerating feedback loop if you will.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

Good points there Wave,it's surely one of the trickiest debates to get caught up in. Part of me agrees with capital punishment, another part doesn't.

One part of me thinks 'Ok here is a person who has killed umpteen people, has shown no remorse, is no benefit at all to society, let's get shot of him' (that is a very rudientary statement by the way!) and another part of me thinks 'Wouldn't it be better if we could rehabilitate this person and make sure it doesn't happen again, anywhere'.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

[quote=WaveSculptor;498524]

First and foremost, the studies are presumably designed and conducted for the sole purpose of reaching and publishing that very conclusion. As such, I would expect there to be a significant confirmation bias. [/quote]

That is just patently absurd. The ones conducting these studies were [I]anti-capital punishment.[/I]

So one would have to conclude that these studies' statistics were not intentionally driven per an institutional bias or agenda.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

[quote=WaveSculptor;498524]The simple 'fact' that it deters does not make it an acceptable solution. Having some sense of morality deters far more killing than the threat of reciprocal killing [I]if caught[/I] (because honestly, who ever plans to get caught?) I have to side with those who label that body of statistical evidence as inconclusive for a number of reasons:

First and foremost, the studies are presumably designed and conducted for the sole purpose of reaching and publishing that very conclusion. As such, I would expect there to be a significant confirmation bias.

Second, the article doesn't really describe the methodology through which such conclusions are reached. 18 murders deterred eh? Sounds like a big number, must be good! 150 more murders in Illinois?! How could they allow that to happen...oh wait, the murder rates in Chicago alone could easily fluctuate by that number over a 4 year period due to numerous factors besides the moratorium. Less time on death row means less murdering in the outside world? Like I said, nobody plans to get caught, and those who consider it probably do not consider the duration of time they'll be on death row before their sentence is carried out to be a significant factor.

Third, the old argument that you simply can't encourage people not to kill by killing those that do, is absolutely correct IMO. Legal killing, illegal killing, at the day's end, what's the difference? The commandments don't make such trivial distinctions (I'm not a Catholic btw), they just say 'thou shall not kill' Those that really strive to bring about positive change lead by example.

It's a sad topic and I'm not saying there's one right answer, but I think there's something deeply hypocritical about self-righteous killing, under [I]any [/I]circumstances.[/quote]

And let's use a hypothetical test here. If there were a law stating that all murderers who were caught killing on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays are to be given the death sentence. And the murderers who were caught killing on Tuesdays and Thursdays were to be given life without parole.

What days do you think would count for the most deaths? The latter of course.

It is just common sense. Capital punishment deters.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

[QUOTE=GregWhelan;499741]Good points there Wave,it's surely one of the trickiest debates to get caught up in. Part of me agrees with capital punishment, another part doesn't.

One part of me thinks 'Ok here is a person who has killed umpteen people, has shown no remorse, is no benefit at all to society, let's get shot of him' (that is a very rudientary statement by the way!) and another part of me thinks 'Wouldn't it be better if we could rehabilitate this person and make sure it doesn't happen again, anywhere'.[/QUOTE]

I'm in largely the same boat. There are definitely people that I believe have committed serious enough acts against humanity that they deserve to die, and that there are probably people that I think society would be better off without. I also think that for most people that have committed acts worthy of the death penalty, rehabilitation is probably a lost cause. Problem, though, is that I know I would have a tough time personally sitting upon some moral high ground and putting someone to death, so I think it's inconsistent of me to be totally OK with someone else doing it as long as I don't have to be involved.

Like most things, it's a tricky, nuanced question. Lots of shades of gray.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

[QUOTE=cosmo;500139]And let's use a hypothetical test here. If there were a law stating that all murderers who were caught killing on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays are to be given the death sentence. And the murderers who were caught killing on Tuesdays and Thursdays were to be given life without parole.

What days do you think would count for the most deaths? The latter of course.

It is just common sense. Capital punishment deters.[/QUOTE]

I think you are giving killers waaaaay too much credit -- and this is an incredible oversimplification.

From the outset, you're talking about people that are willing to take someone else's life, for whatever reason. You really think those people go through that sort of calculus before they [B]kill another person[/B]? People don't schedule that sort of thing, nor is there a cost-benefit analysis performed. It's laughable.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

Might I finally add, I view whether or not the death penalty ultimately deters crime as being less important than the bigger question of whether or not it is appropriate punishment for the crime, period. We could institute the death penalty for jaywalking and it would almost certainly have a deterrent effect, but it doesn't follow from that that we ought to do so.

Do I think that the death penalty is appropriate under certain circumstances? Yep, I do, so you'll never see me clamoring to have the death penalty abolished. It does bug me a bit, though, when I see people trumpeting about the death penalty as if its the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's a necessary element of our society, but it is ultimately barbaric. It just is.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

[quote=cosmo;500139]It is just common sense. Capital punishment deters.[/quote]

Why then, would states with capital punishment have [I]higher[/I] murder rates than those without? There is a lot more going on than "what might my punishment be" when a life gets taken. Economic and Social tensions weave the web that urban citizens traverse in their daily lives, and those are the contexts in which a crime is likely to be considered beforehand (if at all). The legal reality check only occurs after the fact, and a few public executions don't seem to change a thing about it.

Meanwhile, war is the biggest and most profitable enterprise on the planet, and bloodthirsty lemmings line up for miles for a chance to give the "terrorists" what's coming to them. The murders we see are manifestations of a deeply rooted ideology, an institutionalized 'culture of killing' that foams at the mouth whenever it hears the ideologically packaged propaganda that passes for news in this country.

Putting murderers to death is no different than decapitating a hydra. That head may do no more harm, but the problem remains unaddressed and two new ones grow up to take its place. Someone comes up with the brilliant idea to kill more killers, and somehow the idea that killing is acceptable becomes more firmly embedded than ever, despite the lovely powerpoint slides and graphs which illustrate the contrary.

I have to concede that many are too far gone at this point, and I've met warped enough individuals to say the world could do better without them. The remedy, however lies in prevention as opposed to castigation, which involves genuine, sustained efforts towards racial and economic integration, to relieve social tensions and indoctrinate the youth with a more constructive mentality.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

[quote=cosmo;498069]Among the conclusions:

? 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.

.[/quote]

can anyone seriously believe that 150 people said to themselves - oh right, now theres a moratorium on the death penalty, then I now think its time for me to go and murder someone! That grudge Ive been holding for the past 5 years I can now exact revenge! ha!

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

on a slightly more serious note - a brief review reveals a continous drop in murder rates in Illinois since 1990 - from 1300 to 766 per year in 2005 - so clearly the moratorium cannot be the only variable in play

[URL]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm[/URL]

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

[quote=toasty;500142]Problem, though, is that I know I would have a tough time personally sitting upon some moral high ground and putting someone to death, so I think it's inconsistent of me to be totally OK with someone else doing it as long as I don't have to be involved.[/quote]

This represents the crux of the argument to me: Can we democratically pool together and decide that certain people are a detriment to the wellbeing of society in general and should be ahem removed?...[I]Absolutely.[/I] Does any person have the authority or ability to remove them without soiling his own hands? [I]Absolutely not. [/I]

In the past when offenders were shipped off into exile, removal by banishment was an alternative. Although today society and life are inextricably linked, I would still argue that society makes a mockery of itself by declaring authority over biological processes.

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

And if we're going to take statistics seriously, here are a few that reinforce my position:

[FONT=Trebuchet MS]A 1998 research study conducted for the United Nations concluded: "[I]This research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis.[/I]" [/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS]In 1996, those states which had the death penalty had an average murder rate of 7.1 per 100,000 population; those states which do not execute people had a homicide rate of 3.6.[/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS]The [I]FBI Uniform Crime Reports Division[/I] publication [I]Crime in the US for 1995 [/I]reports thatthere were 4.9 murders per 100,000 people in states that have abolished the death penalty, compared with 9.2 murders in those states which still have the death penalty. "[I]In no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty.[/I]" [/FONT]

[QUOTE]on a slightly more serious note - a brief review reveals a continous drop in murder rates in Illinois since 1990 - from 1300 to 766 per year in 2005 - so clearly the moratorium cannot be the only variable in play

[URL]http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]

Nice! now if I can just determine the 44 variables in order of importance we'll have the empirical formula for homicide prediction/prevention..;)

Re: Capital Punishment, Revisited

Still, there's no reason why I should be so confrontational on the issue; both sides are looking for ways to improve our quality of life and that should be commended. I often forget that while I'm philosophizing and speechwriting, pragmatic decisions have to be made in the real world. The pluralistic nature of the social sciences makes them among the most fascinating to discuss, as we will always have new perspectives emerging from old arguments, incorporating fresh information and insights. Thanks for the topic, hope to spar with you more in the future.