Murder!

[phtlc]

You should only get the death penalty if you are found guilty of murder.

Or for driving real slow while hogging the passing lane

[sheriff andy]

You can't use murder as a comparison in saying that the death penalty would have no deterring effect.  This may be true of murder, generally done with no thought ahead of time.

Drug smuggling is a different game altogether.  The smuggler has ample time to consider his crime and possible consequences. 

[MissBarbara]

I hear this as an argument against capital punishment quite a bit.

however, to be fair, we have absolutely no statistics as to just what the murder rate would be if we did not have capital punishment.

BUT, we do have statistics comparing states with comparable demographics, one with capital punishment and one without, and those statistics bear out my assertion.

I'm not disagreeing, but I would be curious to see the study just to ensure that there isn't any secondary reason why they have a lower crime rate, or that they didn't already have a low crime rate before abolishing capital punishment. Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to capital punishment but not because of it's effect (or lack thereof) on crime rates. I just worked to long in a statistical research capacity to trust most studies I see (even if they support policies I agree with) because I saw first hand again and again that studies always conclusively prove what the researcher was setting out to prove...regardless of how many times we had to re-run the numbers.

I read it over a decade ago, and I googled around a bit but couldn't find it.

But your points are well taken, both in particular and in general.

The directors of that study stove to make the comparison as exact as possible, taking into account several of the factors you mention here. And they did not, according to my skeptical mind, seem to be following a bias or proving what they wanted to prove.

I openly admit that I am wholeheartedly against capital punishment, for any crime, even the most heinous ones. I do not, for example, that Timothy McVeigh should have been executed. So I do approach this issue with a particular point of view. But it seems very clear to me that most of the reasons given for the continuance of capital punishment, most notably, its acting as a deterrent, are not demonstrated by data. There's a long pro/con capital punishment thread here, and reading through the posts there, it's clear that the primary reason people have for supporting capital punishment is vengeance, or payback. That, to my mind, is the worst reason of all.

[Elizabeth]

I hear this as an argument against capital punishment quite a bit.

however, to be fair, we have absolutely no statistics as to just what the murder rate would be if we did not have capital punishment.

BUT, we do have statistics comparing states with comparable demographics, one with capital punishment and one without, and those statistics bear out my assertion.

I'm not disagreeing, but I would be curious to see the study just to ensure that there isn't any secondary reason why they have a lower crime rate, or that they didn't already have a low crime rate before abolishing capital punishment. Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to capital punishment but not because of it's effect (or lack thereof) on crime rates. I just worked to long in a statistical research capacity to trust most studies I see (even if they support policies I agree with) because I saw first hand again and again that studies always conclusively prove what the researcher was setting out to prove...regardless of how many times we had to re-run the numbers.

I read it over a decade ago, and I googled around a bit but couldn't find it.

But your points are well taken, both in particular and in general.

The directors of that study stove to make the comparison as exact as possible, taking into account several of the factors you mention here. And they did not, according to my skeptical mind, seem to be following a bias or proving what they wanted to prove.

I openly admit that I am wholeheartedly against capital punishment, for any crime, even the most heinous ones. I do not, for example, that Timothy McVeigh should have been executed. So I do approach this issue with a particular point of view. But it seems very clear to me that most of the reasons given for the continuance of capital punishment, most notably, its acting as a deterrent, are not demonstrated by data. There's a long pro/con capital punishment thread here, and reading through the posts there, it's clear that the primary reason people have for supporting capital punishment is vengeance, or payback. That, to my mind, is the worst reason of all.

If capital punishment is done away with, what would you have the public do with those that commit capital crimes?....Understanding the cost of housing one prisoner for a life time is extremely expensive. I'm not really looking at the finical burden, but the fact that could at some time become free (escape) and again be lose on the public to commit another capital crime.
How and where do we draw the line?

Love,
Liz

[anvil]

my argument is not revenge, its deterrence.

we live in a time where the majority give way for the protection of the few.

from spanking a child to not being able to refuse doing business with someone reasons long discussed.

if Capital punishment stops one person from committing a "crime", isn't that appropriate within the scope of our thoughts of the day?

the obvious problem is defining the crime, and what of the rights of the perp.

[MissBarbara]

If capital punishment is done away with, what would you have the public do with those that commit capital crimes?....Understanding the cost of housing one prisoner for a life time is extremely expensive. I'm not really looking at the finical burden, but the fact that could at some time become free (escape) and again be lose on the public to commit another capital crime.

How and where do we draw the line?

Love,
Liz

Life in prison without the possibility of parole.

That's how and where we draw the line.

[MissBarbara]

if Capital punishment stops one person from committing a "crime", isn't that appropriate within the scope of our thoughts of the day?

No.

Slavery was once "within the scope of our thoughts of the day."

To take just one example...

[phtlc]

I hear this as an argument against capital punishment quite a bit.

however, to be fair, we have absolutely no statistics as to just what the murder rate would be if we did not have capital punishment.

BUT, we do have statistics comparing states with comparable demographics, one with capital punishment and one without, and those statistics bear out my assertion.

I'm not disagreeing, but I would be curious to see the study just to ensure that there isn't any secondary reason why they have a lower crime rate, or that they didn't already have a low crime rate before abolishing capital punishment. Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to capital punishment but not because of it's effect (or lack thereof) on crime rates. I just worked to long in a statistical research capacity to trust most studies I see (even if they support policies I agree with) because I saw first hand again and again that studies always conclusively prove what the researcher was setting out to prove...regardless of how many times we had to re-run the numbers.

I read it over a decade ago, and I googled around a bit but couldn't find it.

But your points are well taken, both in particular and in general.

The directors of that study stove to make the comparison as exact as possible, taking into account several of the factors you mention here. And they did not, according to my skeptical mind, seem to be following a bias or proving what they wanted to prove.

I openly admit that I am wholeheartedly against capital punishment, for any crime, even the most heinous ones. I do not, for example, that Timothy McVeigh should have been executed. So I do approach this issue with a particular point of view. But it seems very clear to me that most of the reasons given for the continuance of capital punishment, most notably, its acting as a deterrent, are not demonstrated by data. There's a long pro/con capital punishment thread here, and reading through the posts there, it's clear that the primary reason people have for supporting capital punishment is vengeance, or payback. That, to my mind, is the worst reason of all.

If capital punishment is done away with, what would you have the public do with those that commit capital crimes?....Understanding the cost of housing one prisoner for a life time is extremely expensive. I'm not really looking at the finical burden, but the fact that could at some time become free (escape) and again be lose on the public to commit another capital crime.
How and where do we draw the line?

Love,
Liz

After up to ten years of appeals and such, it sounds like the cost of executing a person isn't exactly cheap. Besides, if we are to debate the matter of taking incarcerated people who are no longer a threat, strapping them down helpless and then killing them, the real issue to me is not economics.

[sheriff andy]

No longer a threat is not actually true.  For one, there is no such thing as life with no chance of release.  Any governor  can release anyone in his state (I'll admit this is unlikely).
A person given life is still a threat to those around him in the prison.  He's no longer a threat to general society, true, but what restraint does he have in prison when he already has the maximum penalty?

There is a LOT of violence in the prisons, to other prisoners and personnel alike.  To me it still comes down to the final argument of some crimes deserve the loss of life.

[phtlc]

No longer a threat is not actually true.  For one, there is no such thing as life with no chance of release.  Any governor  can release anyone in his state (I'll admit this is unlikely).
A person given life is still a threat to those around him in the prison.  He's no longer a threat to general society, true, but what restraint does he have in prison when he already has the maximum penalty?

There is a LOT of violence in the prisons, to other prisoners and personnel alike.  To me it still comes down to the final argument of some crimes deserve the loss of life.

Then instead of using the death penalty we should try to ensure that crimes that previously would have been capital crimes end up meriting life without parole.

[anvil]

if Capital punishment stops one person from committing a "crime", isn't that appropriate within the scope of our thoughts of the day?

No.

Slavery was once "within the scope of our thoughts of the day."

To take just one example...

as are same sex marriage, women's rights,

for a few more examples.

so are you saying " some yes, some not"?

and in the case of preventing the loss of one human life due to Capital punishment being on the books, that life is not worth it, and capital punishment should be abolished?

I don't believe that of you. Thus I find your last statement hard to believe.

[Katiebee]

Sometimes, they simply need not to be anymore.

[MissBarbara]

if Capital punishment stops one person from committing a "crime", isn't that appropriate within the scope of our thoughts of the day?

No.

Slavery was once "within the scope of our thoughts of the day."

To take just one example...

as are same sex marriage, women's rights,

for a few more examples.

so are you saying " some yes, some not"?

and in the case of preventing the loss of one human life due to Capital punishment being on the books, that life is not worth it, and capital punishment should be abolished?

I don't believe that of you. Thus I find your last statement hard to believe.

You completely missed my point. Your assertion was based on moral relativism, that is, if the tenor of the times deems it acceptable, then it should be considered acceptable.

I believe that capital punishment, per se, should be abolished in the U.S. Your example -- a convicted murderer sentenced to life without parole escapes from prison and murders again -- is both hypothetical and highly improbable. Nor is it even a remotely viable reason for the continuance of capital punishment in the U.S.

I could go on a great length outlining the reasons why I believe capital punishment should be abolished in the U.S, permanently, and everywhere. One of the main, albeit more philosophical, reasons is that it contributes to the "Culture of Death" that imbues our society. We proclaim boldly that violence is never the appropriate response or solution. And then we turn around and insist on resorting to the most violent response imaginable -- killing a human being -- as a perfectly acceptable solution. It's a contradiction, an hypocrisy, if you will, that belies every assertion of respect for human life, and of seeking non-violent means for solving problems. 

Virtually every democracy on the planet -- along with 18 of the 50 U.S. states -- have abolished capital punishment. It's time to abolish it completely, once and for all.

[MissBarbara]

After up to ten years of appeals and such, it sounds like the cost of executing a person isn't exactly cheap. Besides, if we are to debate the matter of taking incarcerated people who are no longer a threat, strapping them down helpless and then killing them, the real issue to me is not economics.

I agree.

On the one hand, right now, given the lengthy appeals process, it costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcerate him for life. There goes that argument.

On the other hand, judging human lives in purely economic terms is extremely disturbing, and for a host of reasons.

[anvil]

MissBarbara,

you mixed me up with someone else, I gave no example of an escaped prisoner.

my point is simply if having capital punishment on the books prevents one terrible crime and perhaps in one way or another saves one innocent, its worth it.

[phtlc]

I agree.

I get that.......uhm..........well, you know  

[MissBarbara]

MissBarbara,

you mixed me up with someone else, I gave no example of an escaped prisoner.

my point is simply if having capital punishment on the books prevents one terrible crime and perhaps in one way or another saves one innocent, its worth it.

Sorry about that.

Meanwhile, in response to your point, there have been many instances over the past decade or so, where prisoners serving long sentences for murder have seen their convictions overturned via DNA testing not available at the time of their conviction.

Had the death penalty been in effect in those states, those wrongly convicted men would have been executed. Would you also agree that having capital punishment off the books prevented the death of these innocent people?

[anvil]

I have to say that there have been people on death row saved by DNA testing as well. Its a good thing that the process works there as well. Perhaps more processes will come in the future that will protect those wrongly convicted no matter the crime.

However that doesn't address my question.

I'm surprised you don't see the dichotomy.

I cannot accept that having  capital punishment on the books has a zero success rate in preventing crime and the possible loss of life of an innocent person. statistics cannot deal with this.

can you?

is that one saved life not worth having Capital Punishment on the books?

see

[sheriff andy]

The whole argument of innocent people being mistakenly given the death penalty in the past simply does not go to the point of the present for me.

That's like saying we can't build something because we couldn't 10, 20 or 100 years ago.
In almost all cases now the death penalty is not given unless there is overwhelming evidence to the point that there is no doubt as to the perpetrators guilt.  This generally does include DNA.  Add this with the fact that by US law there is an automatic appeal on the sentence when passed.

No one will ever convince me.  There are simply some cases in which it is correct to say
"you are unfit to be considered worthy of life, and what you have done forfeits your right to breath."

[MissBarbara]

I have to say that there have been people on death row saved by DNA testing as well. Its a good thing that the process works there as well. Perhaps more processes will come in the future that will protect those wrongly convicted no matter the crime.

However that doesn't address my question.

I'm surprised you don't see the dichotomy.

I cannot accept that having  capital punishment on the books has a zero success rate in preventing crime and the possible loss of life of an innocent person. statistics cannot deal with this.

can you?

is that one saved life not worth having Capital Punishment on the books?

see

Anvil, I've understood your point from the beginning. It's not that I don't understand it, it's that I don't agree with it.

I never said that "having capital punishment on the books" has a zero success rate in protecting the life a a potential innocent victim, given your list of conditionals.

The system, by your own admission, is far from perfect. For all the death row or life-sentence convicts subsequently freed by DNA testing, there are very likely just as many, and probably more, whose cases were not re-examined using more modern science, including people who were executed for crimes they did not commit.

So, I'll ask you the same question you asked me. Given the imperfect system, and the likelihood that an innocent person might be executed, "is that one saved life not worth having Capital Punishment off the books?"