Jump to content

Please Lock.


Noxx

Recommended Posts

If it affects crime, there would be an obvious drop in crime or slow down in the rate it goes up that could be directly attributed to the death penalty.

 

Not necessarily. Perhaps you should do a bit of research on the faults of statistics. Look up correlation =/= causation. That would be a good start.

 

I'm aware there are many, many other factors, as are the people who do the studies and they account for them.

 

So essentially you just place a hefty amount of faith in experts? It's literally impossible to take into account all of the contributing factors, ESPECIALLY FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE. Don't know where you heard otherwise.

 

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

 

Ok, I guess we'll end where we ended the last thread

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

With you realizing you have nothing of value to rebut with other than "lol ur just stupid and ur holding ur ears shut //FACEPALM"? Yeah, you're quite the quality debater.

 

Fact is, statistics are not infallible. Of course you say you agree on this point, but you don't show it. You take those statistics as proof that there has never been at least one potential criminal that didn't go through with a murder for the sake of self-preservation. I've shown you several reasons why that's a ridiculous line of reasoning, yet you still insist that the statistics are perfect photographic evidence that you are right. Hell, you even went as far to say jail didn't deter crime one day. I've done my best with you. You are your only hope. There is a wonderful world of truth out there, and it is yours to discover if you could just learn from your mistakes every now and then instead of fabricating your own little world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I guess we'll end where we ended the last thread

 

 

Yeah, its pretty amusing that a debate on the Death Penalty always goes to a Lrn2Resrch debate.

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said in the last thread, there is something big you are missing, Zierro. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, that's true, but causation always implies correlation. Right now, it seems you are just using the phrase "correlation != causation" as a way to avoid the fact that statistics might be disproving your claims.

 

If it was true that Death Penalty was a deterrent then you would necessarily have to see an inverse correlation between executions and crimes/violent crimes. If there is no such correlation, or if it happens just in few isolated cases, then you can safely say that the causation (death penalty causes less crime) is invalid.

And that seems to be the case.

This signature is intentionally left blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now, it seems you are just using the phrase "correlation != causation" as a way to avoid the fact that statistics might be disproving your claims.

 

(I could return the favor and say that everyone dismissing my criticisms against statistics is just avoiding the fact that I disproved their claims. It would be a more accurate accusation too. But I'm not interested in a battle of credibility.)

 

The fact of the matter is the statistics do not prove that there has never been a prevented murder because of capital punishment. My belief is that the death penalty deters crime. (Note that I did not specify how much crime it deters, as that was never my argument. Only that at least some lives have been spared because of it.) I base this off of human nature - behavior patterns we see in everyday life. People tend to want to avoid negative consequences. Sometimes the pros are not worth the cons. Furthermore, death is commonly deemed a negative (perhaps one of the most negative) outcome in both an emotional and instinctual sense. We simply function based off self-interest and self-preservation. The fact that people think it's even possible to "prove" that not one single murder has been prevented by capital punishment already raises a skeptical eyebrow. But I still decided to be fair and ventured to take a gander. What logical fallacy do I find? You guys are comparing countries as if the only difference between them is whether they have the death penalty or not. That's far from the truth, not to mention ethnocentric.

 

Essentially, it is not conclusive enough evidence to posit a 100% universal fact about sociology and any rational skeptic would agree. Sorry, but as far as I can see, evidence seems to be pointing in the direction of some people being too concerned with self-interest to go through with murdering someone they wish were dead. Are there some who are not affected by consequence? Sure. But you honestly can't be telling me this is true for every single human being in existence. That would be an extraordinary claim, which would require an extraordinary amount of evidence, which I have yet to see. A more reasonable claim would be that the death penalty is not a good enough deterrent, which is an opinion I find no problem with.

 

While we're at it, I'm not some twisted sadist intent on seeing people die. It is an uncomfortable thought, but it beats the alternative of allowing innocent lives to be taken by these people. My belief is founded on logic and humankind. I am not avoiding the truth. If I come across a strong convincing argument that my belief is wrong, I will naturally adapt to the better supported belief as I do quite regularly actually. In fact, my beliefs seem to be some of the most fluid on this board. Pretentious, but true. I enjoy finding better ways to do things, and I enjoy the quest for knowledge. I am always open to new ideas but I will always be critical of their flaws, as that's a big part of the quest.

 

If it was true that Death Penalty was a deterrent then you would necessarily have to see an inverse correlation between executions and crimes/violent crimes.

 

No, not necessarily. We do not have time machines. Suggesting that we have solid proof that no murders have been prevented is quite simply a bold assumption:

 

Country A has the death penalty in the year 2000. Country B does not. Country A has 100 homicides. Country B has 50. For all we know, country A could have had 150 homicides in the year 2000 if the death penalty wasn't in effect, which would mean it has saved 50 lives. There is no way to truly know what would have happened. It is assuming the results for that country would not look any different if the death penalty were banned/implemented that specific year - and this is just the first assumption being made about the statistics.

 

As for the second assumption, it is assuming the results are that way because of one specific factor instead of a combination of them all. We can start by thinking of why different countries have different crime rates. Different lands, different people, different governments, different medias, different morals, different hobbies, different jobs, different events, different economies, different cultures. Country A has 100 murders in the year 2000, no death penalty. The very next year, they implement the death penalty, but a large political event takes place as well and raises tensions within the country. In 2001, Country A has 100 murders again. Now we could jump the gun and assume that the death penalty has done absolutely nothing for the country. Or we could look at the other possibilities. For all we know, if the death penalty was not implemented but the political event still happened, there could have been 120 murders. For all we know, if the death penalty was implemented but the political event did not happen, there could have been 80 murders. Forgive the lame example, but I wanted to get the point across that the death penalty is not the only factor to take into account when trying to find out how it works. And the same argument could be used against the statistics I have posted, as Ring World has pointed out. There are more things that happened in America during those years than the government banning/implementing the death penalty that could be attributed to the outcome of the results.

 

If there is no such correlation, or if it happens just in few isolated cases, then you can safely say that the causation (death penalty causes less crime) is invalid.

And that seems to be the case.

 

I did give statistics that supported my claims, while simultaneously saying how it should not come down to a battle of statistics and credibility. There are more interesting and constructive arguments to be brought up. I do think statistics can be helpful, but not when they are thrown around like this without acknowledging any of the discrepancies that follow. As far as I can tell, statistics are treated as photographic evidence here, and questioning their validity is like questioning whether the sky is blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.