The Death Penalty is a Good Thing

[Pappa]

Harsher sentencing - of which the death pentalty is included - decrease incidents of crime itself. More lenient sentencing has the adverse effect.

I presume you mean because the convicted criminals are in prison and not able to reoffend? As opposed to harsh sentencing being a deterrent, which it is not.

[Trolldor]

Harsher sentencing - of which the death pentalty is included - decrease incidents of crime itself. More lenient sentencing has the adverse effect.

I presume you mean because the convicted criminals are in prison and not able to reoffend? As opposed to harsh sentencing being a deterrent, which it is not.

But it is, up to a point. Draconian is unlikely to be effective, but harsh sentencing does act as a deterent.

[JimC]

Harsher sentencing - of which the death pentalty is included - decrease incidents of crime itself. More lenient sentencing has the adverse effect.

I presume you mean because the convicted criminals are in prison and not able to reoffend? As opposed to harsh sentencing being a deterrent, which it is not.

But it is, up to a point. Draconian is unlikely to be effective, but harsh sentencing does act as a deterent.

Both effects could come into play...

There are cases of violence and thuggish behaviour that I personally would want to see much longer sentences for, and appalling murders need life without the chance of parole. Whether it is deterrence, or keeping the arseholes away from society for as long as possible, I don't really care; and I would not object to a small tax hike to cope with extra prisoners, either...

None of this is a good argument for capital punishment, though...

[Pappa]

Harsher sentencing - of which the death pentalty is included - decrease incidents of crime itself. More lenient sentencing has the adverse effect.

I presume you mean because the convicted criminals are in prison and not able to reoffend? As opposed to harsh sentencing being a deterrent, which it is not.

But it is, up to a point. Draconian is unlikely to be effective, but harsh sentencing does act as a deterent.

Only in the extreme. Death, removal of hands, life imprisonment, etc, they are effective deterrents for minor crimes. Just harsh sentences are not.

[my_wan]

colubridae notified me of some errors in my math I need to correct. Though I can't abide the full criticism, I must publicly notify the error I did make.

At a murder rate of 5.4 per 100,000 and a false conviction rate of 0.5%, I compared the odds of a judge sentencing an innocent man to death to the average Joe odds of getting murdered and posted it at 10,000 to 1. I was off by a factor of 100. A judge is 100 (not 10,000) times more likely to sentence an innocent man to death, than the average Joe has of getting murdered.

How I messed up:
When I calced the percentage of 100,000 that 5.4 represented, I got a multiplier of 0.000054 and erroneously used the multiplier as a percentage. A 0.000054 multiplier is actually only 0.0054% (not 0.000054). I simply failed to convert my multiplier to a percentage when I used it as a percentage.

That still gives a judge 100 times better odds of killing an innocent man, when sentencing someone convicted of murder to death, than the average Joe has of being murdered. If the false conviction rate is actually closer to 3%, which I provided a link to empirical data to support, that 100 times goes to 600 times. 5% drives it to 1000 times more likely.

[Trolldor]

Harsher sentencing - of which the death pentalty is included - decrease incidents of crime itself. More lenient sentencing has the adverse effect.

I presume you mean because the convicted criminals are in prison and not able to reoffend? As opposed to harsh sentencing being a deterrent, which it is not.

But it is, up to a point. Draconian is unlikely to be effective, but harsh sentencing does act as a deterent.

Only in the extreme. Death, removal of hands, life imprisonment, etc, they are effective deterrents for minor crimes. Just harsh sentences are not.

Simple 'harsher sentences' are, in fact, a deterrent - if not for new offenders, then certainly for repeat offenders, as incidents of crime fall.
Combination with increased police presence, victim impact statements, reform programs...

The death penalty is, in principle, reserved for those to whom reform is simply not a possibility.

[my_wan]

Harsher sentencing - of which the death pentalty is included - decrease incidents of crime itself. More lenient sentencing has the adverse effect.

I presume you mean because the convicted criminals are in prison and not able to reoffend? As opposed to harsh sentencing being a deterrent, which it is not.

But it is, up to a point. Draconian is unlikely to be effective, but harsh sentencing does act as a deterent.

Both effects could come into play...

There are cases of violence and thuggish behaviour that I personally would want to see much longer sentences for, and appalling murders need life without the chance of parole. Whether it is deterrence, or keeping the arseholes away from society for as long as possible, I don't really care; and I would not object to a small tax hike to cope with extra prisoners, either...

None of this is a good argument for capital punishment, though...

We have way too many people in jail that really has no business in jail. Such as marijuana smokers, especially those smokers doing hard time. The get tough sentencing laws should have a "violence" clause on them. The law doing this to people who are otherwise generally a social asset breeds contempt for the law, which only makes even the harder crimes people commit worse. Get tough on violence, and even personal property theft, but not equally as tough on BS laws. That's why so many are so quick to resort to violence, because there's not really a legal differential in cost.

[Gawd]

1. A person that commits a crime is likely to have committed or will committ more than one crime.

True, but if they spend the rest of their life in jail it's a moot point.

2. You don't consider homicide, assault with bodily harm, grand theft, or any other serious crimes that a person can committ.

A: Are you suggesting that all these crimes should also get the death penalty?
B: Your still implicitly operating under the assumption these people will get out of jail to commit these crimes. Not so, unless the innocence project, or something similar, demonstrates their innocence.

3. You should multiply the false conviction rate by the murder rate in your flawed logic (which will still be flawed).

I took similar shortcuts with my numbers
I would ONLY multiply such odds (times about 200) if I was judging "beyond a reasonable doubt", such as a jury considering guilt. But again, we are only discussing "sentencing", not guilt, as the conviction has already occurred. Thus sentencing has the choice between death or life in prison, not going free to risk any form of recidivism. Hence there is no murder or recidivism rate to multiply by, as they are in jail the rest of their life. You can NOT base your "risk" assessment on the recidivism of someone who is never getting out of jail again.

So since they are already convicted and never getting out of jail again (without demonstrable innocence), the only thing left for me to consider when choosing sentencing is, what are the odds I'm putting an innocent man to death if I choose the death penalty over life imprisonment, and how much higher is that risk than the average Joe's risk of being murdered? The answer: Something in the neighborhood of 10,000 times more likely I'm killing an innocent man than the average Joe has of being murdered, even if I prorate over a lifetime.

Now, can you offer a better explanation of what is "flawed", that doesn't implicitly depend on the presumption the criminal is going to walk free to do it again? Because that implicit assumption of recidivism is a massive flaw in your argument above.

1. You ignore that criminals often get parole or get out early even with "life in jail". It costs less just to off someone with a simple needle. It's only the ludicrous decades long "appeals" that wreck the whole system.

2. You only used "murder rate statistics" in your calculations, when you should be using the sum of all serious crimes per 100,000 people. And yes, if its a serious crime, it deserves the death penalty. The fact that you choose to ignore all the other statistics shows your bias in distorting your numbers.

3. Your entire argument is flawed because you compare apples to oranges. You compare the "murder rate per 100,000 people" to a percentage of false convictions when you should actually be comparing it to:

(# of murder cases per 100,000 people) * (false conviction rate for murders)

The fact that you can make such an elementary mistake shows that you shouldn't be dealing in statistics. (Not to mention the simple arithmetic mistake you mentioned in the above post.)

[Hermit]

Harsher sentencing - of which the death pentalty is included - decrease incidents of crime itself. More lenient sentencing has the adverse effect.

Thanks for the ex recto claim with bonus distortion. We are talking about capital punishment here, not crime in general, and the claim itself flies in the face of actual fact.

blue = composite murder rates of US states which practiced "capital punishment", since 1976
turquoise = states with the death penalty, but no executions since 1976
green = states without the death penalty
red = annual number of US executions, x 10/98

The graph above indicates that, while the murder rates of both the blue (states with executions) and green (states without the death penalty) declined markedly during this period, the rates of the abolitionist states dropped notably more than those of the "executioner" states.

The numbers of population, murders, and murder rates in the linked charts are from the annual editions of Crime in the United States (formerly Uniform Crime Reports).

http://davecoop.net/rate.htm

[Trolldor]

You're welcome. I do try.

[my_wan]

1. You ignore that criminals often get parole or get out early even with "life in jail". It costs less just to off someone with a simple needle. It's only the ludicrous decades long "appeals" that wreck the whole system.

That's why judges attach two words to the end of their life sentences: "without parole". The US is about the only nation this is possible for, and in the last 30 years parole rules have changed so that rarely does even the lifers eligible for parole ever actually get it. Even in cases where prison wardens offered a job, a place to live, as well as the sentencing judge, prosecuting attorney, and even the family of the victim fought the parole board to get lifers released, parole is still denied. The sentencing Judge even tried to sue the parole board for release, and was found by the court to no longer have standing in the case. Who is this? Jackie Lee Thompson, sentenced at age 15 in 1969.

Your "often get parole" actually means "almost never" even when it available, and NEVER when the judge says "no parole" at sentencing. Your claim here is just silly.

2. You only used "murder rate statistics" in your calculations, when you should be using the sum of all serious crimes per 100,000 people. And yes, if its a serious crime, it deserves the death penalty. The fact that you choose to ignore all the other statistics shows your bias in distorting your numbers.

Define "serious crime". I can name a lifer that was sent up for stealing a $60 bicycle, and it looks like, due to changes in parole board policies in the last 30 years, he'll have to do the full life sentence. Does Jerald Sanders getting a life sentence for taking a $60 bicycle count? Do we start executing prostitutes? Do I get a death penalty for 'habitually' getting a blowjob in the state of Georgia? Should I point out the people doing state time here for getting a blowjob? And no, the privacy ruling didn't overturn the blowjob law in Georgia, it only trumped it with privacy so long as it's in your home and not in the car.

What about marijuana possession, is that a serious crime. It can come with more jail time that some murders, and certainly is classified federally as a class 1 drug, more serious than cocaine, amphetamines, etc.

So were do I draw the line with "serious crime" punishable by death? To seriously suggest the death penalty for non-violent malfeasant is simply ridiculous.

3. Your entire argument is flawed because you compare apples to oranges. You compare the "murder rate per 100,000 people" to a percentage of false convictions when you should actually be comparing it to:

(# of murder cases per 100,000 people) * (false conviction rate for murders)

This is ridiculous. How many times did you repeat yourself saying that's "contrived", with me asking for an explanation, before you finally answered. Now that I responded to that rebuttal, you simply ignore it again and repeat yourself.

I already explained, you HAVE to assume that person is going to be set free in order for multiplying the murder cases per 100,000 people with anything to represent any sort of meaningful risk, and that is not possible with two words added to their life sentence: "without parole". Unless you just want them dead before they get a chance to 'prove' their innocence'.

So tell me what "risk" (# of murder cases per 100,000 people) * (false conviction rate for murders) represents to you when they'll never get out of jail again?

The fact that you can make such an elementary mistake shows that you shouldn't be dealing in statistics. (Not to mention the simple arithmetic mistake you mentioned in the above post.)

What mistake, you merely repeated yourself, while ignoring my response. You also pretend that the judge doesn't have the option of denying any possibility of parole.

So, when I copied and pasted the wrong number, that looked the same except for two extra zeros, it means I was ignorant of the math? As a matter of fact, it was I who caught the mistake when my numbers were challenged, not the challenger. That particular mistake was not pointed out to me. I can't help if if my eyes started sucking in the last few years, and I accidentally copied 0.000054 instead of 0.0054. 0.000054 was still a valid multiplier, just not a percentage. If you know so much better, why didn't you catch it and tell me about it?

To suggest that, based on a clerical error, I'm too stupid to know what the numbers mean is just bullshit, and you know it. Are you smart enough to actually answer my response, rather than repeat yourself without even acknowledging my response, while suggesting I'm too stupid to know the difference between a percentage and a multiplier? I think your your probably somewhat smarter than that, and just throwing bullshit to hide the fact that you don't have a valid rebuttal.

[Hermit]

That's why judges attach two words to the end of their life sentences: "without parole".The US is about the only nation this is possible for

In Australia Martin Bryant's "prison papers indicate that he is never to be released. He continues to serve his term without possibility of parole." He is not the only prisoner in Australia to have that condition imposed on.

[Hermit]

I do try.

I'd very much welcome if you tried to back the relevant part of your assertion up with facts, the relevant portion being that the death penalty works better at reducing the incidence of murder than life imprisonment.

[JimC]

I do try.

I'd very much welcome if you tried to back the relevant part of your assertion up with facts, the relevant portion being that the death penalty works better at reducing the incidence of murder than life imprisonment.

Yes, that's the nub...

I suspect that for many offenders who commit murder, the existence of either has the same deterrence effect - zero.

There are some offenders whose level of impulse control makes the concept of any form of deterrence rather meaningless...

[Meekychuppet]

I do try.

I'd very much welcome if you tried to back the relevant part of your assertion up with facts, the relevant portion being that the death penalty works better at reducing the incidence of murder than life imprisonment.

Yes, that's the nub...

I suspect that for many offenders who commit murder, the existence of either has the same deterrence effect - zero.

There are some offenders whose level of impulse control makes the concept of any form of deterrence rather meaningless...

I can't see it being a deterrent for crimes of passion either. If someone is provoked and simply goes apeshit then I doubt the CP is going to stop them.