Please Lock.

[KittyKat]

My friends' aunt's family was murdered (including two small children) and the killer ended up getting life in jail rather than he death penalty. The surviving members of the family still aren't able to feel closure.

[Dax]

I'm against it, I don't feel as though it's worth it, really.

 

Mind you, I've lived in a good household all my life. Nothing particularly bad happening at all.

[Zierro]

The death penalty has been proven to be completely ineffective as a deterrent time after time after time.

 

Abolishing it is an important step in reforming our archaic justice system into something that actually functions.

 

Firstly, it should not be a mere matter of statistical patterns, as statistics have been inaccurate or misleading time after time.

 

Secondly, I have statistics suggesting the exact opposite of what you just claimed. The only difference is I don't use it solely as the backbone of my argument, and have provided most of you people several rhetorical arguments such as Operant Conditioning - proof that cognitive beings tend to want to preserve themselves and avoid negative consequence. But I guess since statistics are all that matter, this should suffice in convincing you unbiased rational posters:

 

http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter

 

During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University said:

 

"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."

 

Notes Dudley Sharp of the criminal-justice reform group Justice For All:

 

"From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "

 

 

The most striking protection of innocent life has been seen in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 -- a 72 percent decrease

 

Anyway... this is why I don't like arguments of credibility and statistics. We all know how easily it can become a stalemate. I'd prefer if it came down to a battle of witty remarks:

 

 

This guy, killed your entire family, burned down your house, blew up your car, and killed all your pets. Could you honestly say you're ok with just letting him live? If you say yes, that's means you're a bold faced liar.

 

Or it could mean you think you're supporting a logical or moral argument, when you're actually doing the inverse.

 

I'm arguing that there's more to homicide than whether or not a country runs the death penalty, and that judging all countries the same way (Read: against our own) is ethnocentric.

 

Yes, hence why I believe people need to deal with statistics delicately when attempting to exhibit a causation. There are more factors than what meets the eye, especially when comparing completely different cultures to one another.

 

There have been but there aren't enough and they don't happen often enough to bring back a form of capital punishment. It's a pretty stupid example anyway

 

You just said they never happened, and when corrected you altered your stance to "It's a stupid example and there aren't very many". I can already tell this will be another good one.

[Noxx]

The death penalty has been proven to be completely ineffective as a deterrent time after time after time.

 

Abolishing it is an important step in reforming our archaic justice system into something that actually functions.

 

Firstly, it should not be a mere matter of statistical patterns, as statistics have been inaccurate or misleading time after time.

 

Secondly, I have statistics suggesting the exact opposite of what you just claimed. The only difference is I don't use it solely as the backbone of my argument, and have provided most of you people several rhetorical arguments such as Operant Conditioning - proof that cognitive beings tend to want to preserve themselves and avoid negative consequence. But I guess since statistics are all that matter, this should suffice in convincing you unbiased rational posters:

 

http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter

 

During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University said:

 

"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."

 

Notes Dudley Sharp of the criminal-justice reform group Justice For All:

 

"From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "

 

 

The most striking protection of innocent life has been seen in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 -- a 72 percent decrease

 

Anyway... this is why I don't like arguments of credibility and statistics. We all know how easily it can become a stalemate. I'd prefer if it came down to a battle of witty remarks:

 

 

This guy, killed your entire family, burned down your house, blew up your car, and killed all your pets. Could you honestly say you're ok with just letting him live? If you say yes, that's means you're a bold faced liar.

 

Or it could mean you think you're supporting a logical or moral argument, when you're actually doing the inverse.

 

I'm arguing that there's more to homicide than whether or not a country runs the death penalty, and that judging all countries the same way (Read: against our own) is ethnocentric.

 

Yes, hence why I believe people need to deal with statistics delicately when attempting to exhibit a causation. There are more factors than what meets the eye, especially when comparing completely different cultures to one another.

 

There have been but there aren't enough and they don't happen often enough to bring back a form of capital punishment. It's a pretty stupid example anyway

 

You just said they never happened, and when corrected you altered your stance to "It's a stupid example and there aren't very many". I can already tell this will be another good one.

Enjoyed your post very much. Makes a lot of sense. I especially liked the last three remarks.

[dsavi]

My friends' aunt's family was murdered (including two small children) and the killer ended up getting life in jail rather than he death penalty. The surviving members of the family still aren't able to feel closure.

There's a reason that most school shooters end up killing themselves. Death is, to them, the easy way out.

 

As for my opinion, it's a life you're talking about, no matter what the person did, you have no right to kill them.

[Zygimantas]

No man can decide about any other man life, especially when choosing to terminate it

Put yourself in the shoes of the victim.

 

This guy, killed your entire family, burned down your house, blew up your car, and killed all your pets. Could you honestly say you're ok with just letting him live? If you say yes, that's means you're a bold faced liar.

Lets go kill all murderers!!!!!!!! Revenge and hate FTW@@@@@

[Will H]

No man can decide about any other man life, especially when choosing to terminate it

Put yourself in the shoes of the victim.

 

This guy, killed your entire family, burned down your house, blew up your car, and killed all your pets. Could you honestly say you're ok with just letting him live? If you say yes, that's means you're a bold faced liar.

 

Oh and uhh welcome to tip.it. We all float down here.

 

Call me a liar then. Seriously, as far as I'm concerned, that guy would get off far too lightly if he was killed. I would have him locked up for the rest of his life in the most brutal prison I can think of, or solitary confinement. Make him live to death.

[obfuscator]

@Zierro: Like you said, statistics can prove anything. Here are some more: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-rights/statistics-on-capital-punishment/

 

And here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

 

Specifically

2009 poll commissioned by DPIC found police chiefs ranked

the death penalty last among ways to reduce violent crime. The

police chiefs also considered the death penalty the least efficient

use of taxpayers’ money

and

According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the

country's top academic criminological societies, 88% of these

experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a

deterrent to murder. (Radelet & Lacock, 2009

 

My arguments against CP are several. Firstly, we need to talk about punishment.

 

What is more of a punishment? I suppose it really depends on the person, as some people are certainly so afraid of death that they see it as the worst thing that can possibly happen - but myself (like many) I'd much rather be put to death than spend my entire life in the hell that is prison.

 

Secondly, wrongful conviction. As bad as prison may be - when someone is wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, once the sentence is carried out, there's no going back. There's no way the government can make amends for what they've done to that person, to their family and friends, and more. Wrongful convictions make people lose faith in the justice system, especially so when capital punishment is involved. Info here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/causes-wrongful-convictions. 86 people were on death row but had their convictions overturned. 86 people who's lives would have been ended, for nothing. That's not even including the people who actually did have their lives ended for nothing.

 

Thirdly: What is more in the public interest? In fact, at this point I'd have to say my objection(to CP) is not even 100% - I believe capital punishment is necessarily and acceptable when it really serves the public's best interests. When does it serve the public's best interests? When someone poses a real, certain threat to the safety of others in their place of incarceration. Until then, society is far better off attempting to rehabilitate.

 

I don't mean to say universal rehabilitation is achievable, but it (partial rehab) should be tried. Some criminals cannot be reformed - but if we can reform others, why shouldn't we? It has been, and with some success (see european countries).

 

Someone made a point above that "if you don't want to see your families murderer die, you're lying". I think it's true in the sense that you have that emotional, instinctive desire to exact revenge - yet I've never met anyone who says revenge has truly made them happy. If someone killed my family...I'd want them to pay. I'd want them to spend their life in jail. But if, by the end, they could be rehabilitated to actually be a functioning member of society, able to teach others about the consequences of their actions, then yes, I'd prefer that (and I know my family would as well).

[Bloodstain]

Zierro it's funny that your study compares rates NOW to back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's when violent crime has been decreasing since the 1970's.

 

Operant Conditioning - proof that cognitive beings tend to want to preserve themselves and avoid negative consequence

And I've told you time and time again that this isn't the case. I'm not even going to respond to your other remarks because I know where it's going to lead

[stevepole]

There have been primary/elementary school shootings. The first one that comes to mind was a shooting at an amish school a couple years back.

 

There have been but there aren't enough and they don't happen often enough to bring back a form of capital punishment. It's a pretty stupid example anyway

 

There is also the fact that most school shooters end up killing themselves or get killed.

 

Of course there is the case of the shooting at the University of Alabama last year where a biology teacher shoot and killed three of her coworkers. She was charged with capital murder and in the state of Alabama could get her the death penalty.

[Zealot]

No man can decide about any other man life, especially when choosing to terminate it

 

Yet if somebody starts shooting at me or my buddy, or trying to blow us up, I have no hesitation in shooting back. Simply put, death is not the worst thing which can happen to you, especially if you are attempting to harm or destroy others' lives.

 

I would rather protect life, but the boundaries of that domain blur in places, and sometimes humans are forced to make an awful choice. When I make them, the one suffering the ill consiquences is going to be the one who forced into existance the situation where I had to make that choice.

[Bloodstain]

No man can decide about any other man life, especially when choosing to terminate it

 

Yet if somebody starts shooting at me or my buddy, or trying to blow us up, I have no hesitation in shooting back. Simply put, death is not the worst thing which can happen to you, especially if you are attempting to harm or destroy others' lives.

 

I would rather protect life, but the boundaries of that domain blur in places, and sometimes humans are forced to make an awful choice. When I make them, the one suffering the ill consiquences is going to be the one who forced into existance the situation where I had to make that choice.

 

You're talking about self defence vs after the fact decision making. Personally I think we should give people who get huge sentences (like 20 to life, or life) the choice of doing that time or death (I'd like to see some other things, but those aren't available in the CJS right now).

[Zierro]

What is more of a punishment? I suppose it really depends on the person, as some people are certainly so afraid of death that they see it as the worst thing that can possibly happen - but myself (like many) I'd much rather be put to death than spend my entire life in the hell that is prison.

 

To some people, sure it's a lesser punishment. There have been many serial killers who would just commit suicide rather than deal with the legal consequences. But at the same time (and this is relevant to your third point), it is a safeguard preventing further damage done to society. There have been murders in prison, people have escaped, and people have been released freely after supposed rehabilitation or a long enough sentence and then end up taking more lives regardless. I remember one case where a man gets released because the prisons were too full and days later he started killing again. Not to mention all the people who are strong advocates of self-preservation and do fear that punishment.

 

Secondly, wrongful conviction. As bad as prison may be - when someone is wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, once the sentence is carried out, there's no going back. There's no way the government can make amends for what they've done to that person, to their family and friends, and more. Wrongful convictions make people lose faith in the justice system, especially so when capital punishment is involved. Info here: http://www.deathpena...ul-convictions. 86 people were on death row but had their convictions overturned. 86 people who's lives would have been ended, for nothing. That's not even including the people who actually did have their lives ended for nothing.

 

This is really the only point I can agree on. There is no going back with the death sentence, however there is no going back once you let a serial killer strike again. I guess it's dependent on which happens more frequently.

 

By the way, I apologize for saying statistics were your only argument. I was confusing you with someone else.

 

But if, by the end, they could be rehabilitated to actually be a functioning member of society, able to teach others about the consequences of their actions, then yes, I'd prefer that (and I know my family would as well)

 

Ideally, I feel the same way. But it is a gamble in two senses. One, it isn't setting a good precedent for some potential criminals - the ones that would much rather go through rehab than be killed by the state. Two, we never know if they are going to kill again until it's too late. My argument here is that the criminal already forfeited his right by breaching others, therefore the safety of innocent public exceeds that of someone who has shown intent to harm the public. Furthermore, why should society give them benefits that they themselves try to pry from society for no good reason?

 

Zierro it's funny that your study compares rates NOW to back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's when violent crime has been decreasing since the 1970's.

 

Yes, my studies compare year by year for the same country. Your studies compare country to country. Both statistics have their discrepancies, as the death penalty being implemented is not the only thing that happened that year, and it is not the only difference between different countries. Now do you see why statistics should not be the only means of deciphering truths in our world?

 

And I've told you time and time again that this isn't the case. I'm not even going to respond to your other remarks because I know where it's going to lead

 

People acting off self-interest is not the case? No, please continue.

[Bloodstain]

Yes, my studies compare year by year for the same country. Your studies compare country to country. Both statistics have their discrepancies, as the death penalty being implemented is not the only thing that happened that year, and it is not the only difference between different countries. Now do you see why statistics should not be the only means of deciphering truths in our world?

 

I haven't even posted any statistics in this topic fyi. Pretty sure this topic is dead now, it's just going to be you and me arguing back and forth for 4 pages until one of us gets bored

[Zierro]

Yes, my studies compare year by year for the same country. Your studies compare country to country. Both statistics have their discrepancies, as the death penalty being implemented is not the only thing that happened that year, and it is not the only difference between different countries. Now do you see why statistics should not be the only means of deciphering truths in our world?

 

I haven't even posted any statistics in this topic fyi. Pretty sure this topic is dead now, it's just going to be you and me arguing back and forth for 4 pages until one of us gets bored

 

Obviously I was referring to the past debates where it was literally just an argument of me "disregarding" your "proof", even though I was giving a counterargument as to why statistics should not be the only thing we take into account. Then I post statistics showing that there is a correlation behind criminals fearing the death penalty, since apparently that is the most important factor to take into account, and big surprise you just dismiss it and exit stage, claiming the topic as dead. I don't know about you, but I'm just here to discuss how we could best save innocent lives and virginities.

[The Observer]

The main problem I see is wrongful conviction. Death is irreversible, so obviously it'd be an issue. This is probably the reason it was abolished in a lot of countries. And I'm not sure if it would affect crime too much. As Y_Guy said, you can make statistics prove anything. The problem arises when someone commits a crime. They usually aren't thinking like they normally would and in some cases would 'welcome' the death penalty.

[Giordano]

Death is irreversible

So is time.

[Zygimantas]

Death is irreversible

So is time.

So is everything.

[Zierro]

Prove to me that these factors are not more significant causes for the rise in murder rate then the death penalty?

 

By the looks of it, we seem to be in agreement. My point is that statistics should not be esteemed as infallible proof, because of the simple fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. People would dismiss my rhetorical arguments simply because statistics supported their claims, so I decided to return the favor and point out how it is a blatant stalemate when all we rely on is "seeing what effect implementing the death penalty has on a certain year or country". (I made the mistake of directing that remark towards the wrong person though.) Unsurprisingly, there were mixed results, just as I predicted with statistics concerning something of such a controversial nature.

 

You and I could discuss other aspects of death penalty, such as morality if you'd like. But as for statistics, I think we're on the same page. I don't take either set of statistics as infallible proof that "criminals are or are not deterred by the death penalty".

[The Observer]

Death is irreversible

So is time.

So is everything.

 

The person is still alive though, that's the thing. They have the ability to make up for that time. What chance do they have for that when they're dead?

 

At any rate, any system of punishment has its flaws, but there are some cases in which one is better than the other.

[Zygimantas]

Death is irreversible

So is time.

So is everything.

 

The person is still alive though, that's the thing. They have the ability to make up for that time. What chance do they have for that when they're dead?

 

At any rate, any system of punishment has its flaws, but there are some cases in which one is better than the other.

I'm not trying to debate for the death penalty here. I don't think it is necessary to murder others, but to each his own...

[Bloodstain]

Prove to me that these factors are not more significant causes for the rise in murder rate then the death penalty?

 

By the looks of it, we seem to be in agreement. My point is that statistics should not be esteemed as infallible proof, because of the simple fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. People would dismiss my rhetorical arguments simply because statistics supported their claims, so I decided to return the favor and point out how it is a blatant stalemate when all we rely on is "seeing what effect implementing the death penalty has on a certain year or country". (I made the mistake of directing that remark towards the wrong person though.) Unsurprisingly, there were mixed results, just as I predicted with statistics concerning something of such a controversial nature.

 

You and I could discuss other aspects of death penalty, such as morality if you'd like. But as for statistics, I think we're on the same page. I don't take either set of statistics as infallible proof that "criminals are or are not deterred by the death penalty".

 

But if you are saying x is effective, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that it is, what grounds are you basing your claims on? What seems to you like "commonsense"?

[Zierro]

Prove to me that these factors are not more significant causes for the rise in murder rate then the death penalty?

 

By the looks of it, we seem to be in agreement. My point is that statistics should not be esteemed as infallible proof, because of the simple fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. People would dismiss my rhetorical arguments simply because statistics supported their claims, so I decided to return the favor and point out how it is a blatant stalemate when all we rely on is "seeing what effect implementing the death penalty has on a certain year or country". (I made the mistake of directing that remark towards the wrong person though.) Unsurprisingly, there were mixed results, just as I predicted with statistics concerning something of such a controversial nature.

 

You and I could discuss other aspects of death penalty, such as morality if you'd like. But as for statistics, I think we're on the same page. I don't take either set of statistics as infallible proof that "criminals are or are not deterred by the death penalty".

 

But if you are saying x is effective, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that it is, what grounds are you basing your claims on? What seems to you like "commonsense"?

 

I never said statistics = absolutely ZERO evidence. Just that they should not be the end-all factor to look at, like what you did the last couple of threads when I didn't post statistics supporting my claims and you told me I was just closing my ears and ignoring your "proof". Sure they count as evidence - they are correlations, but they are not infallible and should not be the only thing to look at, especially when trying to find an accurate depiction of how the world will work if X happens. As stated several billion times, there are other factors besides the death penalty that should be taken into account. For example, different cultures, governments, crime scenes. We need more than just [faulty] statistics when dealing with a subject as delicate as this.

 

Also, I have given you several non-statistical logical arguments that I base my beliefs off of time and time again. I would advise you to stop consistently being so slanderous about my credibility - it doesn't paint very a good picture of someone who is supposedly against revenge.

[Bloodstain]

 

 

I never said statistics = absolutely ZERO evidence. Just that they should not be the end-all factor to look at, like what you did the last couple of threads when I didn't post statistics supporting my claims and you told me I was just closing my ears and ignoring your "proof". Sure they count as evidence - they are correlations, but they are not infallible and should not be the only thing to look at, especially when trying to find an accurate depiction of how the world will work if X happens. As stated several billion times, there are other factors besides the death penalty that should be taken into account. We need more than just [faulty] statistics when dealing with a subject as delicate as this.

 

Look at the research methods part of the studies. If you are claiming that capital punishment reduces crime, but there is no evidence (however flawed you think it may be) that the crime rates are affected at all by capital punishment (and this finding is reported on near every single study done on the subject), what are you basing it on? 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. I'm aware there are many, many other factors, as are the people who do the studies and they account for them.

[Zierro]

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.

 

And hypothetically, if that were true, I just "proved" it by your very own definition of "proven", by posting a graph of an obvious drop of homicides after the death penalty has been implemented.

 

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, observe, and measure all of the contributing factors, ESPECIALLY FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE. Don't know where you heard otherwise.