I have to say I find it amusing that thus far there have been no straight answer by the pro crowd on what I thought was a fairly simple question:
Do you think there is a significant correlation between crime rate and the manner in which society chooses to punish its citizens?
that deterrence have long been recognized by the courts as one of the main purposes of criminal punishment, this is a fairly important question. The
fact that they continue to evade giving a straight answer makes it appear as if they actually have little faith in the argument of capital punishment
being effective as a deterrent.
Originally posted by FredT
Capital punishment is a states rights issue and is also an avalible option on Federal crimes. So it is a reccomended punishment if it meets certain
criteria as set forth in law. States can opt in or opt out depending on the lean of thier various populations.
The issue was whether there was any word about the use of capital punishment in the guidelines originally presented by the Commission
correct answer to this question has always been and will continue to be: No. However, the interpretation
of these guidelines varies.
I hardly find an anti-death penalty site a credible source of statistical interpretation.
Well this comment is just pathetic. I actually expected more.
Number of murders in the state of New York:
Well lookie here the number of murders go down.
You're really giving the reinstatement of capital punishment way too much credit. Is it your opinion that capital punishment is effective as a
deterrent for theft, burglary, robbery etc. as well? Because actually all
crime in New York have significantly dropped since 1993. Some
additional figures on this (1).
To elaborate a little further on the possible reasons for this dramatic drop in New York's crime rate. As most of you know, in 1993, Rudolph Giuliani
was elected as mayor of New York. He soon introduced a brand new crime fighting policy known as 'zero tolerance', (which incidentally has cost New
York about $50 million in civil rights lawsuits). IMO it's more plausible that the overall raise in arrests, increased presence of police officers
etc., which was introduced as means of making zero tolerance a reality, are the actual reasons for the significant drop in overall crime rate. Another
problem with your view of the statistics you presented is that for a certain punishment to even be considered effective as a deterrent, it has to be
promptly and consistently employed. The fact that the state of New York hasn't executed a single individual since 1976 subsequently contradicts your
analysis. And to use your own words:
Could they be looking at selective data to prove thier case. YES!
Selective indeed. And since it bothered you so much that New York and Kansas weren't included in the statistics presented by jezebel
though she also did say the results would be even more dramatic with those states included), here is even more recent information on murder rates in
the U.S. (including New York and Kansas): Average of murder rates among death penalty states per 100,000 population in 2002: 5.2
. Average of
murder rates among non-death penalty states in 2002: 2.8
Actually, the vast preponderance of available evidence does in fact, not
support capital punishment to be more effective than imprisonment in
deterring murder. In some cases, the death penalty may even be an incitement
to criminal violence. There is also evidence pointing to
death-penalty states having an increased rate of homicide when executions are carried through. In New York, between 1907 and 1964, 692 individuals
were executed. In this 57-year period, one or more executions on a given month resulted in an increase of two homicides being commited the following
Another example; according to data released by the British Home Office, US murder rate greatly exceeds European non-death penalty nations; being three
times as high (4).
And since you seem to like sharing research articles. Here are some for you to look into.
"New Claims about Executions and General Deterrence: Deja Vu All Over Again?"
Professor Richard Berk of the UCLA Department of Statistics.
(Published on UCLA's Web site, July 19, 2004)
"The Case of the Unsolved Crime Decline"
Criminologist Richard Rosenfeld
(Scientific American, February 2004)
"Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas"
John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart
(45 Crime and Delinquency 481-93 (1999)
So just so we can be clear. What exactly is your objection to the Death Penalty?
Actually, I'm a bit surprised you ask this question as I have presented you with my opinion on the matter a few pages ago. But here it is again.
Essentially, this is a question about the moral ethics of a society and its government as well as the negative implications of using a punishment
that's (quoting Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida) inconsistent with the fundamental values of the democratic system
something that greatly lessens the value of human life in a society and legitimizes the act of murder. And while we absolutly shall make sure we do
all that can possibly be done to properly help and take care of the victims of heinous crimes as well as properly punish the perpetuators, this
shouldn't include repeating the very offence committed in the first place.
As one of history's famous victims of a horrible crime, Coretta Scott King, widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., stated, “As one whose husband
and mother-in-law have died victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of
capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is
never upheld by a legalized murder.”
To those arguing that the death penalty is acceptable, but the suffering caused by waiting on death row isn't (or the costs caused by it, for that
matter). Well, there's just no way there could be one without the other. Unless you're going to abandon the crucial safeguards and constituional
rights of suspects in favor of a speedier conviction/execution with the obvious risk of executing an even larger number of innocents.
IMO the death penalty violates human rights and is in fact, cruel and unusual.
Originally posted by mako0956
As fredT asked, What exactly is your objection to the Death Penalty?
Fresh out of our own questions are we? Why don't you just put some effort in answering the question I gave you a while back?
2. FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 2002 (Published October, 2003)
3. "Deterrence of Brutalizaition," by Bowers and Pierce in Crime & Delinquency
4. New York Times, May 11, 2002
5. Quote from Coretta Scott King