It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Studies say death penalty deters crime

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Studies say death penalty deters crime


www.rawstory.com

A series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument - whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I am not sure what of make of this. I am personally opposed to taking life, however if we can save 3 to 18 innocent murder victims by executing 1 condemned murderer, I am for capital punishment. The ends would seem to justify the means in this case.

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Well the death penalty is wrong under any and all circumstances. My thing is how do figure out how many lives are going to be saved. Do you go around asking people 'Ok if it wasnt for the death penalty would you have killed that person?' I find it odd that despite numerous studies saying that that is doesn't. Murders have gone up in places that have the death penalty..Either way I would like to see how they came up with there evidence.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Duh!!! I am all for giving murderers life in prison as long as those who oppose the death penalty pay for it. I believe once a person is convicted they should be able to mount one appeal. If they loose their appeal, they should be hanged. Simple, quick & guaranteed to deter major crime.


apc

posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
The number of convicts that attempt to or succeed in negotiating the death penalty off the table during trial would seem to agree with this study.

Personally I think if all executions took place using nitrogen asphyxiation, many of the issues we have today with the death penalty would be solved. It's humane retribution... not revenge.

There's some that deserve life in prison and all the suffering that comes with it. But for others, life in prison means a life of luxury. For those the death penalty is justified.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mizzu
Duh!!! I am all for giving murderers life in prison as long as those who oppose the death penalty pay for it. I believe once a person is convicted they should be able to mount one appeal. If they loose their appeal, they should be hanged. Simple, quick & guaranteed to deter major crime.


That's how they do it in Iran.



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Here is the source article; if you want to read more than the abstract, you have to pay for it...


www.journals.uchicago.edu...://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE/journal/issues/v46n2/460202/460 202.web.pdf?erFrom=7647434504464525409Guest¤t_page=content

[edit on 10-6-2007 by j_kalin]



posted on Jun, 10 2007 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Critics of the findings have been vociferous.

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers,
ref above

I would like to know the sample size, the respresentation rate and actual responsive rate. I really would like to read the sampling profile and just how they have compliled a factor analysis. This info does not provide the info needed to discern anything. I could conduct my own research and target a 100 individuals within certain group and then based on that 100 sample size apply it broadly as per population ratio.

It is too easy to misrepresent data especially when we are not provided with the research methods and statistics.


So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive."


We need to be mindful of the limitations to the criminal justice data and research.

Although the methodology is considered relatively stable, definitions and collecting methods are not always uniform across jurisdictions and recording quality may be an issue. An example:


Although, ‘consistent data collection methodology was used across all jurisdictions’, in the 2004 Australian International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS), limitations still exist with the sample size of the survey and estimates, ‘the 2004 Australian ICVS is based on a sample size of 7000 respondents aged 16 and over’. The ‘victimisation rates are calculated per 100 persons and per 100 households, and estimate the percentage of people’ victimised. The comprehensive picture of crime in Australia is estimated.


Author = Me
Commonwealth, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, Ethnicity and Crime (1999) at 21 August 2006.

Commonwealth, Australian Institute of Criminology Australian Crime: Facts & Figures 2005 (2006) Canberra





posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 09:03 AM
link   
My calculator just provided me with this answer:

The death penalty deters crime...one person at a time.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
My calculator just provided me with this answer:

The death penalty deters crime...one person at a time.


Was that sarcasm? Because the death penalty doesnt deter someone untill after they've been convicted.

IMO, capital punishment is "absolute poltical control in its sickest extreme" If you grant the state the right to execute people, where does it stop?



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos


Hey Imp, where was this study during our debate?



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
IMO, capital punishment is "absolute poltical control in its sickest extreme" If you grant the state the right to execute people, where does it stop?


I'm in absolute agreement with you on this one - there are countless studies that have more independent credentials that have shown evidence to the contrary. If life in prison meant life in prison - same result and no state sanctioned murder.

I am concerned about the motivations of Harvard Faculty of Law and Economics and why they are so keen, as they state, to publicise these findings extensively.

Their results then we can presume are based possibly on economic factors. But then it costs more to execute someone than it does to incarcarate them in the US, so that doesn't figure, unless of course they plan to reduce the legal redress those convicted of a capital offence will receive. There are many people who have been found innocent while waiting for the death penalty to be enacted up on them. If the process were to be expediated there is always the possibility that an innocent could be executed.

It would seem to me that unless Harvard are not very good at economics
then they would conclude that it would be better to abolish the Death Penalty and redirect the funds used to support the legal cost involved in capital case to improve the prison system and judiciary. AND in this way work to reduce recidivism and the release of violent criminals without proper risk assessments.

Based on these beliefs, it is my opinion that something is a tad fishy in the funding and execution of this study. Ulteria motives anyone?



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Originally posted by newtron25
My calculator just provided me with this answer:

The death penalty deters crime...one person at a time.


Was that sarcasm? Because the death penalty doesnt deter someone untill after they've been convicted.

IMO, capital punishment is "absolute poltical control in its sickest extreme" If you grant the state the right to execute people, where does it stop?


Yes it was sarcasm, please get a grip. If you live in a free society, there must be boundaries. I detest the death penalty, but because of the freedom which we enjoy currently exists within a primarily uncontrolled medium (please don't refer to the state controlling our movements, our lives and our thoughts, stay on this one thing for now...) of public freedoms, then we will need a death penalty.

Let me be blunt, and this may anger some on this forum, but the trumpeting of and the gross misuse of the 2nd amendment has led to the eventuation, in part, of the use of a death penalty.

Let me be blunt again, a society that can not teach its children civility without having to enforce it, and by this I mean a people who can not actively parent their children, will allow those kids to grow up with fewer and fewer definitions of what is wrong. In fact, those definitions will become softer.

Please don't misinterpret me. I want everyone to have the freedom to raise their children the way they please, and they should have the right to bear arms if they are legally entitled to. However, when either of those two conditions fails either by neglecting our children in how they are raised or in an ever spiraling effect of fear for each other by way of increased hand gun sales, then are you really surprised that a death penalty is needed?

You have either the philosophical argument of not using the death penalty, or you face the practical necessity of curbing the society phenomenon of people killing people.

It is a supremely sad state for a country that calls itself "free", but nothing is free. And the death penalty is an unfortunate casualty of the system. It is like lighting backfires to stop a forest fire burning out of control. And unfortunately, it is all too often similar in that it sometimes doesn't work...

[edit on 11-6-2007 by newtron25]



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by newtron25
Yes it was sarcasm, please get a grip.

There's no need to be aggressive, sarcasm doesnt come off the same on an interent forum. I assumed you were being sarcastic, but in the event you werent, i felt like id post my opinion.


If you live in a free society, there must be boundaries.

I guess i just dont see the death penalty as a boundary, but rather a stopgap solution.


(please don't refer to the state controlling our movements, our lives and our thoughts, stay on this one thing for now...)


Havent done it yet, didnt plan on doing it. Who's misinterpreting who?



Let me be blunt, and this may anger some on this forum, but the trumpeting of and the gross misuse of the 2nd amendment has led to the eventuation, in part, of the use of a death penalty.

Interesting and vaild point.


Let me be blunt again, a society that can not teach its children civility without having to enforce it, and by this I mean a people who can not actively parent their children, will allow those kids to grow up with fewer and fewer definitions of what is wrong. In fact, those definitions will become softer.

At least we are in agreence here. There is a definate lack of parenting resulting in a lack of boundaries.



You have either the philosophical argument of not using the death penalty, or you face the practical necessity of curbing the society phenomenon of people killing people.

So you curb the problem by killing those that have killed? Doesnt that just seem a tad bit hypocritical? "Dont kill, or we'll kill you"



It is a supremely sad state for a country that calls itself "free", but nothing is free. And the death penalty is an unfortunate casualty of the system. It is like lighting backfires to stop a forest fire burning out of control. And unfortunately, it is all too often similar in that it sometimes doesn't work...



It is indeed a sad state of affairs. But if the system sometimes doesnt work, should we not try and fix the system? If the death penalty worked as a deterance (and IMO it does not) then there simply would be no murder (or at the very least, on the scale we see now) But IMO, murder is on the rise, and the death penalty is doing little to curb the issue, except add to the count. Regardless of what you believe, the state is killing people, and i still to my previous statement, "Capital punishment is absolute political control in its sickest extreme."



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

So you curb the problem by killing those that have killed? Doesnt that just seem a tad bit hypocritical? "Dont kill, or we'll kill you"


But the death penalty is killing a guilty person, the killer killed an innocent person. I think there is a difference.



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   


It is indeed a sad state of affairs. But if the system sometimes doesnt work, should we not try and fix the system? If the death penalty worked as a deterance (and IMO it does not) then there simply would be no murder (or at the very least, on the scale we see now) But IMO, murder is on the rise, and the death penalty is doing little to curb the issue, except add to the count. Regardless of what you believe, the state is killing people, and i still to my previous statement, "Capital punishment is absolute political control in its sickest extreme."


The government is doing just was it was employed by us to do: protect our freedoms in the way it sees best within the confines of the law, and....this is the kicker...within the confines of our limitations as a society.

If an attacker were coming at you and you defended yourself, with the result being the death of the attacker, you'd be justified. In the case of the death penalty, the entity is not as clear cut as you'd like it to be...in your words...as the "absolute politcal control in its sickest extreme." The entity is a class of offenders who are threatening the fabric of the remainder of society. It is not as clearly stated as an individual against another individual or even a government against an individual here. The dynamic is enormously complex and difficult to remedy.

The answer to your retort is "yes" it is extreme. Death to another person is extreme. If we could avoid the hypocrisy, we would, however, our government has chosen to deal with this (on a state by state basis, mind you, not all states do this sort of thing), because we have allowed them too through the democratic process. Just as soon as you collect enough people to defy the law and overturn it, things will be run as you would have them.

In the meantime, I see the death penalty as a last resort for government...a response to an attack on its citizenry in a very extreme and sick situation. I would hope you never find yourself in that situation and have to hesitate to think what would be the least hypocritical for yourself. I like you and your posts and would miss you.

One more time, I oppose the death penalty. I would not vote for it myself. Am I glad that it is present now under current societal conditions? I'll let you answer that one. Because I don't see a better solution being offered in the meantime.



[edit on 11-6-2007 by newtron25]



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by enjoies05

So you curb the problem by killing those that have killed? Doesnt that just seem a tad bit hypocritical? "Dont kill, or we'll kill you"


But the death penalty is killing a guilty person, the killer killed an innocent person. I think there is a difference.


"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." If its vengance or justice, it is still snuffing out the life of another



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
While I personally am not an advocate of the death penalty because I personally do not think it deters anything, I will say that I can't support giving everyone life sentences either. I mean, common sense will tell you that a person who takes the life of another probably cares little for their own.

Why? Simple. Let me ask those of you that seem to be so dead set against the death penalty a question. Who do you propose pay the bill to allow such murderous individuals to live?

[edit on 11-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Yeah, yeah...eye for an eye...I've heard that before.


So why are killers better than the people they kill? Better than innocent people? Why do they deserve to live?



posted on Jun, 11 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Why? Simple. Let me ask those of you that seem to be so dead set against the death penalty a question. Who do you propose pay the bill to allow such murderous individuals to live?


For my answer, you would have a massive overhaul of the prison system and legal system. Small drug charges (possession of MJ for instance) would be community service instead of jail time. Taking a huge bugetary burdern off the jails. Secondly, id start cutting the DoD budget, especially in the RnD sector and divert whatever necessary funds to social programs and jails if necessary.

In short, the tax payers pay for the life sentences. THey do it now, just as they pay for executions.




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join