PDA

View Full Version : Death Penalty Deters Crime



Yurt
06-10-2007, 02:10 PM
Studies say death penalty deters crime

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.

The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations — pointing out flaws in the justice system — has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.

What gets little notice, however, is 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.

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."

But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

Among the conclusions:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.

The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"

"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.

do the crime... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070610/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence;_ylt=AhlV4FUEK7IWdmc1vEVl .tIDW7oF)

chum43
06-10-2007, 02:16 PM
it also kills innocent people in the name of the law... what about that study.

5stringJeff
06-10-2007, 02:26 PM
it also kills innocent people in the name of the law... what about that study.

How many innocent people have been executed for a murder they didn't commit?

And also, please realize that while I am pro-death penalty, I also support a higher standard of proof for such a sentence.

shattered
06-10-2007, 02:31 PM
How many innocent people have been executed for a murder they didn't commit?

And also, please realize that while I am pro-death penalty, I also support a higher standard of proof for such a sentence.

Higher standard of proof, yes..but, once that's established, nix the appeals process for those found guilty.

Mr. P
06-10-2007, 02:35 PM
it also kills innocent people in the name of the law... what about that study.

Haven't seen it have you?

chum43
06-10-2007, 02:35 PM
How many innocent people have been executed for a murder they didn't commit?

And also, please realize that while I am pro-death penalty, I also support a higher standard of proof for such a sentence.

I should have explained myself more, I probably sounded like one of those people that whine about murderers being killed... I'm not... I'm not sure exactly the number, but I know it's higher than zero... and for me thats enough to get rid of it... I believe very strongly in the "rather let a guilty man go free than put an innocent man behind bars" principle... to the point where if one innocent man got life in prison instead of the death penalty and murder rates quadrupled because of it, it'd be worth it.

murder is a thing we can't get rid of, you do your best to stop it and hope what you are doing helps but I just can't imagine a government that willingly kills innocent people, it's simple probability, they know the system isn't perfect and I can deal with that if the sentence is prison, but death, that just shouldn't happen, if killing innocent people stops murderers from killing innocent people, I say too bad you can't kill innocent people, just because you're fairly sure they aren't innocent.

higher standards of proof for such a sentence is the bear minimum and there should have to be undeniable proof in order to sentence someone to death, but I would feel alot better if they just did away with it all together, that and life with parole, I think life sentences should be a lot stricter and we should do away with the death penalty... but like I said if a thousand people get murdered because one innocent man spends life behind bars instead of being murdered by the state, it's worth it in my eyes.

Yurt
06-10-2007, 03:09 PM
it also kills innocent people in the name of the law... what about that study.

Does it deter crime?

Yurt
06-10-2007, 03:12 PM
I should have explained myself more, I probably sounded like one of those people that whine about murderers being killed... I'm not... I'm not sure exactly the number, but I know it's higher than zero... and for me thats enough to get rid of it... I believe very strongly in the "rather let a guilty man go free than put an innocent man behind bars" principle... to the point where if one innocent man got life in prison instead of the death penalty and murder rates quadrupled because of it, it'd be worth it.

murder is a thing we can't get rid of, you do your best to stop it and hope what you are doing helps but I just can't imagine a government that willingly kills innocent people, it's simple probability, they know the system isn't perfect and I can deal with that if the sentence is prison, but death, that just shouldn't happen, if killing innocent people stops murderers from killing innocent people, I say too bad you can't kill innocent people, just because you're fairly sure they aren't innocent.

higher standards of proof for such a sentence is the bear minimum and there should have to be undeniable proof in order to sentence someone to death, but I would feel alot better if they just did away with it all together, that and life with parole, I think life sentences should be a lot stricter and we should do away with the death penalty... but like I said if a thousand people get murdered because one innocent man spends life behind bars instead of being murdered by the state, it's worth it in my eyes.

I don't know about other states, but CA has very high standards. In fact, to argue a death row appeal you have to be certified.

As to the innocent argument, I understand. What about the innocent people killed by the guilty? They are far greater in number than those wrongly convicted. Is it a price to pay? That is morality. When considering the greater good, again, morality. This is not a perfect system, nothing on this planet is.

The fact remains:

Death penalty deters crime.....................

chum43
06-10-2007, 03:12 PM
Does it deter crime?

yes... but so do public hangings and lynch mobs... if you read my above post my stance is that the crime it deters doesn't matter to me when it comes to certain principles this country should be holding, one of them is not killing innocent people.

Yurt
06-10-2007, 03:17 PM
yes... but so do public hangings and lynch mobs... if you read my above post my stance is that the crime it deters doesn't matter to me when it comes to certain principles this country should be holding, one of them is not killing innocent people.

Do you have a system that is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, able to that?

I would like to hear it.

If you don't, then you must agree, that the death penalty works overall. Innocent people die all the time, it is a shame. I am not callous, just a realist.

chum43
06-10-2007, 03:18 PM
I don't know about other states, but CA has very high standards. In fact, to argue a death row appeal you have to be certified.

As to the innocent argument, I understand. What about the innocent people killed by the guilty? They are far greater in number than those wrongly convicted. Is it a price to pay? That is morality. When considering the greater good, again, morality. This is not a perfect system, nothing on this planet is.

The fact remains:

Death penalty deters crime.....................

I completely agree with you... I just have a different idea of what a reasonable price to pay is... I say the reasonable price to pay for deterring murder is putting numerous innocent people behind bars for life, anything more than that I say is excessive, even if it saves many many people from being killed by other citizens. To me justice isn't about making sure crime doesn't happen, It's about holding people accountable when they do commit crimes, and I would feel alot better if 1000 innocent people were killed knowing the murderers would spend their life behind bars than I would about one innocent person being killed knowing the murderers were paid for it by the government because we all were pretty sure he was guilty.

thats just my opinion, I have to say it does make a lot more sense now that they have some sort of study saying it actually deters crime, no matter how relevant that may be, I don't know the specifics so I can't say it's exactly conclusive personally... but for me that just isn't enough to knowingly kill innocent people by court order.

chum43
06-10-2007, 03:22 PM
Do you have a system that is absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, able to that?

I would like to hear it.

If you don't, then you must agree, that the death penalty works overall. Innocent people die all the time, it is a shame. I am not callous, just a realist.

well the system that doesn't do that is a system where we don't have the death penalty... innocent people dying by the hand of someone who will eventually pay for it is innevitable and if it goes up a little well thats unfortunate, but I still think state-sponsored murder is wrong considering the system isn't perfect and innocent people inevitably get the sentence...

I do agree the death penalty works in deterring crime, but I think it's a problem to fix a problem, and I'd rather fix one problem and let the other get a little worse and deal with that.

Yurt
06-10-2007, 03:24 PM
Chum:

Just noticed your sig:



See You In Hell


Hope it is not influencing your stance here....:laugh2:

Yurt
06-10-2007, 03:30 PM
chum43;75443]I completely agree with you...

Cool. Though we seem to not meet eye to eye on "life terms." No worries.




I just have a different idea of what a reasonable price to pay is... I say the reasonable price to pay for deterring murder is putting numerous innocent people behind bars for life, anything more than that I say is excessive,

To many, life behind bars w/o parole is a death sentence. Of course now we enter the philosophical area of what is "life?" What does it mean? The same for you? The same for me? Death is quick and usually painless. Would you live in a toilet stall that was 12*8 for all of your life? Is that life? Again, the philosophy.



even if it saves many many people from being killed by other citizens. To me justice isn't about making sure crime doesn't happen, It's about holding people accountable when they do commit crimes, and I would feel alot better if 1000 innocent people were killed knowing the murderers would spend their life behind bars than I would about one innocent person being killed knowing the murderers were paid for it by the government because we all were pretty sure he was guilty.

What about police car chases? Do you support them?





thats just my opinion, I have to say it does make a lot more sense now that they have some sort of study saying it actually deters crime, no matter how relevant that may be, I don't know the specifics so I can't say it's exactly conclusive personally... but for me that just isn't enough to knowingly kill innocent people by court order.


To be honest, the study thing is overrated in this country. It is a well known fact around the WORLD that death penalties deter crime.

I understand your innocent person concern. What about the innocents killed in war? Sometimes necessary? What about those killed in cop car chases? Necessary? What about those hostage situations? Necessary?

Where and when do you draw the line?

Gaffer
06-10-2007, 03:38 PM
Someone convicted of murder is done so because the jury believes 100% that they did do it based on the testimony and evidence. They then have years of appeal processes to go through. Many even admit to commiting the murders. Medical and technological advances today make it very unlikely any innocent person would be executed.

A thousand innocents should die so that one may live does not equate as fair to me.

And a bullet in the head is more than humane.

chum43
06-10-2007, 03:41 PM
I understand your innocent person concern. What about the innocents killed in war? Sometimes necessary? What about those killed in cop car chases? Necessary? What about those hostage situations? Necessary?

Where and when do you draw the line?

thats a really tough question... I don't have one good answer, I guess I just see it in a case by case basis, I think most countries practice is to not kill innocents, aside from innocents that volunteer to risk it(soldiers), I wouldn't support a draft, Cop car chases is a situation where you risk innocent peoples lives with as much regard for them as possible to try and prevent others from a direct and obvious threat, I think that's ok, and hostage situations you do everything you can not to get hostages killed... thats the way I see it...

the big problem here is I just can't imagine the state knowingly killing innocent people, regardless of other factors or other lives saved, I can understand why we started to have the death penalty, but once it became common knowledge that a large number of them are innocent I think a sane country has to stop and just bite the bullet on the murder rates...

the other factor in this issue is life without parole, I just don't see the problem with that, for people who are actually guilty and insane enough to actually murder human beings would be a lot better off dead, many people on death row would probably welcome death as opposed to maximum security prison for the rest of their life. And innocent people would probably rather sit in jail hoping for a break in the case than to be put away and have that break come after they were murdered... it just seems like a win/win... and as for overcrowding and money and all that, I thought I read somewhere it costs more money to execute a prisoner than it does to hold him for many years, again I don't know the numbers but I know death row and executions are expensive, and there are plenty of people in jail for things that don't need to be there, it's not really a murderers in jail sort of issue.

shattered
06-10-2007, 03:43 PM
and as for overcrowding and money and all that, I thought I read somewhere it costs more money to execute a prisoner than it does to hold him for many years,

Depends on the method of execution - my way is cheap. :)

chum43
06-10-2007, 03:47 PM
Someone convicted of murder is done so because the jury believes 100% that they did do it based on the testimony and evidence. They then have years of appeal processes to go through. Many even admit to commiting the murders. Medical and technological advances today make it very unlikely any innocent person would be executed.

A thousand innocents should die so that one may live does not equate as fair to me.

And a bullet in the head is more than humane.

If you were brought in to court with lots of "iffy" evidence pointing towards you being the killer and some witnesses falsely fingered you, you would feel comfortable that a jury of your peers would see the truth? I wouldn't, juries are quick to convict murderers... many pass judgement before the trial and then they confirm their own assumptions... and yes a thousand innocents should die by the hands of people who will be brought to justice so that one may live that was killed by men in uniforms with court orders to do so, that seems fair to me... but i completely understand the opposing opinion, I just see it differently, it's a principle I feel very strongly in, for me the justice system is more about justice than prevention, and I think sometimes we swing to far to the wrong side, and I think the government stopping killing of any innocent people no matter how high crime rates may go because of it, is just.

we also have a system where an admittance of guilt will likely get you out of a death sentence, insentive for admittance of guilt is horribly unjust... you have a better shot of living if you admit guilt to something you didn't do and show remorse for it than if you maintain your innocence... it makes me sick.

chum43
06-10-2007, 03:53 PM
Depends on the method of execution - my way is cheap. :)

Like i said, i'm all for killing murderers, if you can close your eyes to the fact that innocent people get executed by the government then I really have no argument for you, you are right, deterr murder, and kill a few innocents in the process... just personally I can't do that... I see myself on death row as an innocent man asking myself if a few murderers at heart staying on the streets and not actually murdering anyone, probably committing lesser crimes as to avoid the death penalty, and 18 people not being murdered by murderers because I'm here on death row, and I see myself saying no that is not okay, I'm innocent... it's really easy to say other innocent lives are worth the sacrifice.

Gaffer
06-10-2007, 04:23 PM
thats a really tough question... I don't have one good answer, I guess I just see it in a case by case basis, I think most countries practice is to not kill innocents, aside from innocents that volunteer to risk it(soldiers), I wouldn't support a draft, Cop car chases is a situation where you risk innocent peoples lives with as much regard for them as possible to try and prevent others from a direct and obvious threat, I think that's ok, and hostage situations you do everything you can not to get hostages killed... thats the way I see it...

the big problem here is I just can't imagine the state knowingly killing innocent people, regardless of other factors or other lives saved, I can understand why we started to have the death penalty, but once it became common knowledge that a large number of them are innocent I think a sane country has to stop and just bite the bullet on the murder rates...

the other factor in this issue is life without parole, I just don't see the problem with that, for people who are actually guilty and insane enough to actually murder human beings would be a lot better off dead, many people on death row would probably welcome death as opposed to maximum security prison for the rest of their life. And innocent people would probably rather sit in jail hoping for a break in the case than to be put away and have that break come after they were murdered... it just seems like a win/win... and as for overcrowding and money and all that, I thought I read somewhere it costs more money to execute a prisoner than it does to hold him for many years, again I don't know the numbers but I know death row and executions are expensive, and there are plenty of people in jail for things that don't need to be there, it's not really a murderers in jail sort of issue.

The state does not knowingly kill innocent people. They have been tried and convicted with overwhelming evidence. 99% of convicts on death row are guilty. Only a small percentage might not be guilty. It's why there are so many safe guards in place in the appeals system.

I believe your reacting to news accounts on a few individuals who were found to be not guilty based on DNA tests which weren't available when they were first tried. There are just not that many innocent people being sentenced to death row.

chum43
06-10-2007, 04:26 PM
The state does not knowingly kill innocent people. They have been tried and convicted with overwhelming evidence. 99% of convicts on death row are guilty. Only a small percentage might not be guilty. It's why there are so many safe guards in place in the appeals system.

I believe your reacting to news accounts on a few individuals who were found to be not guilty based on DNA tests which weren't available when they were first tried. There are just not that many innocent people being sentenced to death row.

99% of convicts being executed being guilty IS knowingly killing innocent people... and I never said there were a lot, even if it's only 1 a decade, it's too many to keep it going in my opinion.

Yurt
06-10-2007, 04:32 PM
Someone convicted of murder is done so because the jury believes 100% that they did do it based on the testimony and evidence. They then have years of appeal processes to go through. Many even admit to commiting the murders. Medical and technological advances today make it very unlikely any innocent person would be executed.

A thousand innocents should die so that one may live does not equate as fair to me.

And a bullet in the head is more than humane.

Is the jury system without flaws? Are those jurors without flaws?

Yurt
06-10-2007, 04:36 PM
99% of convicts being executed being guilty IS knowingly killing innocent people... and I never said there were a lot, even if it's only 1 a decade, it's too many to keep it going in my opinion.

So you think we should not have police car chases? We should not have any wars, period?

I understand what you are saying, but, where do you accept innocence people being killed and were do you not?

That is the ultimate question.

JohnDoe
06-10-2007, 05:35 PM
I don't know about other states, but CA has very high standards. In fact, to argue a death row appeal you have to be certified.

As to the innocent argument, I understand. What about the innocent people killed by the guilty? They are far greater in number than those wrongly convicted. Is it a price to pay? That is morality. When considering the greater good, again, morality. This is not a perfect system, nothing on this planet is.

The fact remains:

Death penalty deters crime.....................

No, that is not a FACT, that is the OPINION of these groups and there is compelling OPINIONS that differ.

Also, the difference between a killer killing an innocent person and an innocent person being killed by OUR GOVERNMENT, is that you and I then BECOME THE KILLERS OF INNOCENT people.

I think that there is a HUGE difference, and I for one, want NO PART in killing any INNOCENT people EVER. That is not a price that I am willing to pay, because....''Thou shall not kill ''or murder and killing an innocent person is murder.

And I will not take the word of this article or these groups without reviewing the studies they performed, the criteria they used and whether it really leans the way they say it does.

I went in to the article but I could not find any links to these studies, there also were no links or mere mention of opposing opinions which any solid article would have so, I am going to say without further research, I don't buy it, I don't buy this opinion and have no idea how they could even come to their conclusions, as I said, without reviewing the studies.

In addition to this, we could solve this problem if the death penalty were allowed only for the WORST OF THE WORST murderers. This will knock out the chance of anyone innocent being killed at our hands. And the discriminatory justice system that some complain of us having with the extraordinary amounts of blacks getting the death sentence over other white men up for equal type murders... and other issues that the civil liberties groups are concerned with, would be knocked out and silenced, with only the worst of the worst murders getting the death penalty.

Who do I mean?

People like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, the Green River Killer, and Timothy Mcveigh types.

There is no way, that these people could be innocent by the mass numbers that they killed.

Otherwise, I believe that we should send the murders off to hard labor for the rest of their lives and throw away the key.

Of course this is just my opinion on it.

chum43
06-10-2007, 05:48 PM
So you think we should not have police car chases? We should not have any wars, period?

I understand what you are saying, but, where do you accept innocence people being killed and were do you not?

That is the ultimate question.

well it is tough thing to differentiate, but I do think there is a small difference, execution is much more direct with a much more definite alternative than car chases and the goal has nothing to do with killing, it's simply a rare byproduct, and wars are fought between voluntary martyrs.

diuretic
06-11-2007, 01:42 AM
Who wants to volunteer to be the innocent person executed for a murder that he or she didn't commit?

chum43
06-11-2007, 01:10 PM
Who wants to volunteer to be the innocent person executed for a murder that he or she didn't commit?

but it would save so many other people from being murdered!... everyone should volunteer, we could have a raffle...:laugh2:

Yurt
06-11-2007, 07:04 PM
well it is tough thing to differentiate, but I do think there is a small difference, execution is much more direct with a much more definite alternative than car chases and the goal has nothing to do with killing, it's simply a rare byproduct, and wars are fought between voluntary martyrs.

One could argue that a execution is a byproduct of the proverbial car chase:

the crime, the investigation to get the criminal, the arrest, the sentence, the death

the crime, the alert for the car, the chase, the innocent people killed by the runner or the squad car

My point is that you are willing to accept death in the chase of a guilty man on the streets in a car, but seem to have a problem with the same chase through the legal "streets."



I understand it is a tough issue. So should we not chase criminals for fear we might harm or kill an innocent person?

nevadamedic
06-11-2007, 07:06 PM
Chum:

Just noticed your sig:



See You In Hell


Hope it is not influencing your stance here....:laugh2:

:laugh2:

Hobbit
06-11-2007, 07:29 PM
A lot of people seem to be missing the point. Any deterrant effect is icing on the cake. It's not called 'capital deterrant.' It's called:

Capital PUNISHMENT

Yurt
06-11-2007, 08:39 PM
A lot of people seem to be missing the point. Any deterrant effect is icing on the cake. It's not called 'capital deterrant.' It's called:

Capital PUNISHMENT

Which is also a deterrent....

diuretic
06-12-2007, 06:58 AM
"Beyond a reasonable doubt".

Yep, in a jurisdiction that has capital punishment you can be executed because you were found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Have you done jury duty? Are you a judge? Are you a lawyer? Are you a cop?

Can you explain proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" in any applied fashion?

Heck I can give you a string of cases which explain it but that's just so much legal waffle. Do YOU know what it really means?

Best thing is to bang them up for natural life.

chum43
06-12-2007, 12:19 PM
One could argue that a execution is a byproduct of the proverbial car chase:

the crime, the investigation to get the criminal, the arrest, the sentence, the death

the crime, the alert for the car, the chase, the innocent people killed by the runner or the squad car

My point is that you are willing to accept death in the chase of a guilty man on the streets in a car, but seem to have a problem with the same chase through the legal "streets."



I understand it is a tough issue. So should we not chase criminals for fear we might harm or kill an innocent person?

it's a very good point... but the way i see it a person in a high speed car chase poses an immediate threat to the safety of the people, while a man spending life in jail as an alternative to being executed poses absolutely no threat.

Lightning Waltz
06-12-2007, 12:57 PM
Interesting, but I bet, at the end of the day, this "study" won't pan out like the pro-deterrent studies of the past, have not.


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, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."

...

The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.

Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.)

Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed.

diuretic
06-13-2007, 05:55 AM
but it would save so many other people from being murdered!... everyone should volunteer, we could have a raffle...:laugh2:

Raffle's a good idea, saves the crush in the rush :laugh2:

JohnDoe
06-13-2007, 07:05 AM
some info:


Death penalty data:
In the United States, about 13,000 people have been legally executed since colonial times.

By the 1930's up to 150 people were executed yearly. 2 Lack of public support for capital punishment and various legal challenges reduced the execution rate to near zero by 1967. The U.S. Supreme Court banned the practice in 1972.

In 1976, the Supreme Court authorized its resumption. 3 Each state could then decide whether or not to have the death penalty. As of the 2002-OCT, only the District of Columbia and 12 states do not have the death penalty. The states which have abolished executions are typically northern: Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. However, seven jurisdictions have the death penalty but have not performed any executions since 1976. They are also mostly northern: Connecticut, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota and the U.S. military.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that whenever a sentencing jury has the ability to impose capital punishment, the jury must be informed in advance if the defendant would be eligible for parole.

Almost all states have an automatic review of each conviction by their highest appellate court.

There are a number of federal offenses that can lead to the death penalty. About 21 prisoners are housed in death row at the federal Terre Haute, IN facility. One was executed in 2001. This was the first federal execution in 36 years.

Texas holds the record for the largest number of executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Virginia has executed a larger percentage of its population than any other state over 1 million in population.

As of 2002-JAN-1: From 1976, when executions were resumed, until 2002-JUL-1, there have been 784 executions in the US. About 30 to 60 prisoners are currently killed annually, most by lethal injection. About two out of three executions (65.6%) are conducted in five states: Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. Texas leads the other states in number of killings (256 killings; 34% of the national total). There were about 3,690 prisoners sentenced to death in 37 state death rows, and 31 being held by the U.S. government and military. 4 About 1.5% are women. Recent laws have expanded the number of crimes for which capital punishment can be applied. Other legislation has reduced some of the appeal mechanisms available to those on death row.

Public approval of the death penalty is currently about 70%. Public support is essentially the same in Canada, a country which abandoned capital punishment.

The vast majority of those executed were poor. About 90% could not afford a lawyer when they went to trial. They had to rely upon a court-appointed lawyer.

The homicide rate in those states with the death penalty is almost double the rate in states without the death penalty. It is not known whether this is due to:

People in high-homicide states demanding the death penalty as a perceived deterrent, or

Use of the death penalty by the state cheapens the value of life, and causes a higher homicide rate, or

Some other reason.

Essentially all of the persons executed are male. since 1976 when executions resumed, there have only been four women executed -- all in Southern states. These were: 1984-NOV-02: North Carolina: Velma Barfield confessed to murdering three people with arsenic. According to About.com:
"In prison she became a born-again Christian and her list of supporters who objected to her execution grew, including evangelist Billy Graham. Velma also discovered she was a skilled counselor and helped inmates adjust to their prison existence. She co-wrote a book, Woman on Death Row, a collection of her memoirs." 11

While in prison she confessed to additional murders.

1998-FEB-3: Texas: Karla Faye Tucker, 38, was convicted of killing two people in 1983 with a pickax. She was the first woman since 1863 to be executed in that state. She had repented of her crimes, and been "born again" during her 14 years of imprisonment . Her case received a great deal of publicity. Many individuals and groups pleaded for clemency. This included Fundamentalist Teleminister Pat Robertson; Ron Carlson (brother of victim Deborah Thornton); Peggy Kurtz, (sister of victim Jerry Dean); Paul Ward, a juror who convicted Tucker; and even her arresting officer, J.C. Mosier. 5

1998-MAR-30: Florida: Judy Beenano, 54 was called the "Black Widow" for poisoning her husband, drowning her son and trying to blow up her fiancι. She was the first woman to be executed in Florida since 1848.

2002-OCT-09: Florida: Aileen Wuornos was found guilty for the murders of six men including one police officer and a missionary. A movie name titled "Monster" starring Charlize Theron was made about her life. Several books, documentaries, and TV specials have also been produced. She also became a Christian in prison. Her last words were: "I'd just like to say I'm sailing with the Rock and I'll be back like Independence Day with Jesus, June 6, like the movie, big mothership and all. I'll be back." There is no evidence that she has returned yet. 12

Canada does not have a death penalty. In most cases, the most serious sentence for murder is life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years. However, if a person has a long history of violent crime, then they can be declared a "dangerous offender." With this classification they are given an indefinite sentence with little chance of ever being released from prison.

Public opinion polls show that over 70% of the adult population would like to see a return of hanging for first degree murder. This is almost identical to the level of support in the U.S. The Roman Catholic Church and liberal churches wish to continue the present status; conservative Protestant denominations are overwhelmingly in favor of a return to capital punishment. However, they do not appear to be aggressively promoting the death penalty. Their effort seems to be directed mainly at preventing same-sex couples from marrying, fighting abortion access, and maintaining as criminal acts soliciting for prostitution and marijuana use.

The homicide rate in Canada has been gradually dropping since executions were stopped. This phenomenon has been observed in many other countries who have abandoned the death penalty. However, it has never been convincingly proven that there is a relationship between the decrease in homicides and the cessation of the death penalty.

Relatively few other developed countries in the world impose the death penalty. Japan and South Korea are the only established democracies in the world, other than the U.S., which still conduct executions. The execution rate in Japan is a small fraction of that in the U.S.

Some countries, such as Italy, routinely refuse to extradite accused murderers to the US because of the possibility that they might be executed. Canada originally refused to extradite suspected mass murderer Charles Ng to California for a trial. The government ruling was later overturned by Canada's Supreme Court.
continued at, http://www.religioustolerance.org/execut3.htm

statistics on your own state's crime rates can be found here:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

click on states in yellow column to compare the murder rates in states with capital punishment vs. states without it.

My state is ranked 48th in murder with no capital punishment as a supposed deterent.

Yurt
06-13-2007, 08:39 PM
some info:



statistics on your own state's crime rates can be found here:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

click on states in yellow column to compare the murder rates in states with capital punishment vs. states without it.

My state is ranked 48th in murder with no capital punishment as a supposed deterent.


Are you saying then that the death penalty is "no" deterrent?

Comparing states is irrelevent, states vary widely in population, thus their crime rates will vary. And yes, don't give me that per person capita bullshit. Crime is crime, should be zero across the board, no matter the size of the city.

Your quoted source is highly misquided:



The vast majority of those executed were poor. About 90% could not afford a lawyer when they went to trial. They had to rely upon a court-appointed lawyer.

And.... In CA you have to have a special certification to try death cases. Besides, you know as well as I that death row inmates are on death row a LONG, LONG time. Why? Because of appeals. And if you don't know, the first attack is on the trial lawyer. Always. So this point is without merit.



The homicide rate in those states with the death penalty is almost double the rate in states without the death penalty. It is not known whether this is due to:

People in high-homicide states demanding the death penalty as a perceived deterrent, or

Use of the death penalty by the state cheapens the value of life, and causes a higher homicide rate, or

Some other reason.


huh, huh, uuh, beavis, he said:

some other reason....


You have got to be kidding me.

JohnDoe
06-14-2007, 08:23 AM
Are you saying then that the death penalty is "no" deterrent?

Comparing states is irrelevent, states vary widely in population, thus their crime rates will vary. And yes, don't give me that per person capita bullshit. Crime is crime, should be zero across the board, no matter the size of the city.

Your quoted source is highly misquided:




And.... In CA you have to have a special certification to try death cases. Besides, you know as well as I that death row inmates are on death row a LONG, LONG time. Why? Because of appeals. And if you don't know, the first attack is on the trial lawyer. Always. So this point is without merit.





huh, huh, uuh, beavis, he said:

some other reason....


You have got to be kidding me.

Why not compare our states in the united states, this IS WHERE we live, isn't it?

And yes, i am saying that the death penalty has not been proven to be a deterent in murder...according to most, and some believe it is...I have not seen any valid statistics proving such!

Per 100,000 people is how the rate is calculated and any business or person that deals with statistics, KNOWS it is the ONLY WAY that it would be fair and comparable.

And yes some other factors may come in to play, like urban vs. the suberbs or rural areas...

Guess you must be an english or foreign language major? ;) jk u!

ONE MORE THING, I am not saying there is still not an argument for the death penalty, but that deterence has not been proven, and is void in that argument, imo.