If all you're worried about is cost then you should by all means advocate for doing away with the death penalty because it is far cheaper to keep someone in prison for the rest of their life than it is to execute them.

 

I thought Hitchens had a very amusing argument that they actually worship his father and in fact the area is an operating necrocracy.

 

That is only true if you consider that with the thousands on death row only a handful are ever executed. If they were promptly executed the price would drop like a rock.

 

Well lets see, how much does a bullet cost, why not keep it simple, then let their family take care of the funeral costs, if they have one, if not, creamation works too.

Just wondering, are you a liberal?

 

Yep...it'd be even cheaper if you dispensed with the trial. Right?

 

There you go Kimi. That would sure stop things like misidentifcation of perpetrators by eyewitnesses, prosecutor misconduct, and incompetent legal defense. So what if innocent people get executed. That's just one of those inconvienent facts that we could forget all about.

 

No, that wasn't part of the discussion, was it???


We're talking a couple of bucks worth of chemicals or electricity vs. fifty years of appeals.

 

Now thats a amusing thought, your such a kidder....

 

Here's a couple of interesting statistics concerning the death penalty.

The average length of time between sentencing and execution is six years.

But the average amount of time someone spent on death row before they were exonerated is 9.5 years.

That should tell us right there that innocent people get executed before they can prove their innocence.

 

We had a case here a week ago, where a man was at the bar in a restraunt and was giving the waitress a hard time, the manager came out and asked the man to leave, well he did, then later when the waitress's shift was over, she asked the manager to walk her to her car, because she was scared by the guy that had been bothering her earlier, when they walked out into the parking lot he was waiting and shot the manager and killed him. Now should he sit on death row or be housed for life at our expense?...I dont think so, he
should die in 7 days or less. This is the kind of case that Im talking about, cut and dry...no room for doubt.

 

Maybe you need to review your sources a little better.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-23-Death-row-time_N.htm

WAITING FOR EXECUTION

So Stumbles what did you just say??

 

I'm sorry for interrupting this debate, but I have found a site that does indeed show a credible study where the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. Of course, not having looked into the site too much, it could be no more than flim flam for those who don't agree. But it's certainly a starting point for a fresh debate point.

Death Penalty Information Centre

I actually found the comparison table between those states which uphold the death penalty and those that don't particularly interesting:

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates


Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2006
Murder Rate in Death PenaltyStates* 9.5
9.94
9.51
9.69
9.23
8.59
7.72
7.09
6.51
5.86
5.70
5.82
5.82
5.91
5.71
5.87
5.9
Murder Rate in
Non-death
Penalty States 9.16
9.27
8.63
8.81
7.88
6.78
5.37
5.00
4.61
4.59
4.25
4.25
4.27
4.10
4.02
4.03
4.22
Percent
Difference 4%
7%
10%
10%
17%
27%
44%
42%
41%
28%
35%
37%
36%
44%
42% 46% 40%
(click on year to see the murder rates and calculations involved in this analysis, provided by David Cooper)
* Includes Kansas and New York, which adopted the death penalty in 1994 and 1995 respectively.

Notes:

• Populations are from the U.S. Census estimates for each year.
• Murder rates are from the FBI's "Crime in the United States" and are per 100,000 population.
• The murder rate for the region (death penalty states or non-death penalty states) is the total number of murders in the region divided by the total population (and then multiplied by 100,000)
• In calculations that include Kansas and New York, Kansas is counted as a death penalty state from 1994 and New York from 1996, since New York's law did not become effective until September, 1995.

The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990.
​

​

STUDIES COMPARING STATES WITH THE DEATH PENALTY AND STATES WITHOUT

• Michigan Lawmakers Reaffirm State's Longstanding Ban on Capital Punishment - In a vote upholding the state's longstanding abolition of the death penalty, Michigan lawmakers refused to support a measure that would have put capital punishment before state voters in a referendum. The vote fell 18 short of the 2/3 required for passage. During a lengthy House debate regarding the bill, Representative Jack Minor (D-Flint) told his colleagues that studies show crime rates are lower in states without the death penalty. He noted, "The death penalty's not a deterrent. In fact, the figures would suggest it's just the opposite." Other opponents of the measure stated that "revenge" would not help victims' families. Michigan has not had the death penalty for 158 years, and voters have not addressed the issue since its abolition was included in the 1963 revision of the state constitution. Michigan is one of 12 states in the U.S. that does not have a death penalty. (Michigan Live, March 19, 2004) The state was the first English speaking government in the world to ban the practice.

• States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates - A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times, 9/22/00)

• States Without the Death Penalty Fared Better Over Past Decade - In the past ten years, the number of executions in the U.S. has increased while the murder rate has declined. Some commentators have maintained that the murder rate has dropped because of the increase in executions (see, e.g., W. Tucker, "Yes, the Death Penalty Deters," Wall St. Journal, June 21, 2002). However, during this decade the murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty.

• When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.

A look at neighboring death penalty and non-death penalty states show similar trends. Death penalty states usually have a higher murder rate than their neighboring non-death penalty states.
There is also a link to regional murder rates. The evidence would seem to support the fact that there is no deterrent in those states that sanction state-ordered killing. Quite the opposite in fact.

I apologise for the way the first table was pasted over from the site, but it can be found on the second link on the site in a more legible form.

 

No problem with jumping in here, please forgive me for not pulling a Stumbler and quoting each and every chart you posted.

However, there are many studies that have examined the death penalty and whether is a deterent to murder, this one tells a different tale.

The site is:

http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html

His first paragraph about sums it up.

This chart does look at the murder rate and execution rates with different results.



Another quote is similarly different from your posted site:

There is this quote from a researcher:

One of the most liberal democrats in history said this:
Edward Koch, former mayor of New York City, said:

 

It would appear then, that survey results could be skewed according to which side of the debate you favour. With that in mind, how would you suggest that we find which site and set of facts/charts are the correct ones?

Everybody knows that governing bodies have a way of fluffing data in their favour, and I would think that those opposing the death penalty would have their own set of fluff rules to support their own agenda.

 

We are in an internet forum, one on a porn site, why do you think that what is posted in here would effect anything in the "real" world?

Of course each side posts their own "fluffed" research, we do it blatently, while claiming not to.

The OPs post was about how many innocent or at least those who were not proven guilty, are having their cases reviewed and sent back to lower courts. Because these cases are being caught only proves that our justice system is working. The fact that the errors occur is indisputable, the reasons for the errors are disputable.

The death penalty question arose because of the number of overturned verdicts and sentences. To my way of thinking, if the errors are caught and if the prosecutors are held accountable for intentionally slanting evidence, then the death penalty can stay in place.

It is hard for me to see how, if the punishment fot first degree murder is death and if the sentence is carried out in a reasonably timely fashion, the effect would not be a deterent. It certainly is a deterent for the one who is executed.

Now please try to believe me when I say that I would prefer to see no one executed. But only after innocent people stop being murdered by those who hold no value on human life.

 

Damn FBI, fluffing their murder rates.

First you say there is no evidence that the death penalty is no deterrent, then a great deal of evidence is provided, and you dismiss it as fluff. So which is it? Is there no evidence or is there evidence, it's just that you feel you can dismiss with no real justification?

But tenguy, you still haven't told me why a man deserves to die. I'm not arguing that there does not need to be reform of our prison systems. It seems you're trying shift focus away from the topic at hand. But, since you keep bringing it up I'll ask it again: How exactly do you reform or rehabilitate a dead man?

And you still haven't answered why a person deserves to die, in your view. And you also haven't answered why it's worth the risk to kill innocent people on the off chance that he might really be guilty.

-S-

 

Thank you for joining this discussion and especially for putting up this information. I actually knew I was on safe ground saying there is no competent study that shows the death penalty is a deterrent. First because the studies that do show that have been debunked and secondly because there is a very serious problem with trying to show a statistical correlation between the death penalty and murder rates which is there is so small of a sample group, and too many variables to draw any solid conclusions. Most credible studies, however, do not show the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

As an example we can look at the study done by Economist and law professor John Donohue of Yale University, together with economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania. And here's a pretty good explanation of why the studies are flawed:

http://societyfallingapart.blogspot.com/2008/01/debunking-death-penalty-deterrence-myth.html

Here's a pretty good explanation of how these deterrence studies are debunked and why any statistical claim that the death acts as a deterrent in impossible to conclude.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/08/6250/

It also explains why the statistics some have put up claiming a deterrent are not factual.

Here's another pretty good editorial about why the death penalty can not be seen as any kind of real deterrent.

http://www.justicepolicycenter.org/... Deterrence_ DP_does_not_ reduce_homicide.pdf

 

I need to make a correction here. I took these figures at face value earlier today without cross referencing them and they appear to be incorrect. According to department of Justice figures the average length of time between sentencing and execution is 11.5 years. I have found, however, a credible source for the average 9.5 number of years innocent people sat on death row before they were exonerated. And that since 1973, 129 sentenced to death have been exonerated.

I have found sources however that say since

 

I'm asking you to clarify your position that there is no evidence that the death penalty is not effective. That is what you said, after all. Stumbler's post looks interesting, perhaps the answers to why your sources not accurate is in there. I'll have to read it later and see for sure.

Am I to understand that you see murder as rehabilitation, then? Because...damn.

Of course you fall back to 'the State says they can'. I knew you would say that as I was typing the question and even thought of saying that such an argument doesn't count because I was asking why you felt it was okay. If it wasn't the law in so many states, would you still be so gung-ho for it? But, that's secondary. Why do you personally agree with murder?

How is the state killing innocents preferable to miraculously paroled murderers killing again?

-S-