Capital Punishment

[Gene Honda Civic]

I'm sure LCR will come through with this one, but the short answer is: Multiple death row inmates were found to be wrongly convicted. The whole system was put on indefinite hold until the a better system could be found. (which essentially means no more death penalty)

[3E8]

The death penalty has no effect on crime rates and is not useful as a deterrent. So I vote no.

[minors]

The death penalty has no effect on crime rates and is not useful as a deterrent.  So I vote no.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

 

 

THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:

One argument states that the death penalty does not deter murder. Dismissing capital punishment on that basis requires us to eliminate all prisons as well because they do not seem to be any more effective in the deterrence of crime.

 

Others say that states which do have the death penalty have higher crime rates than those that don't, that a more severe punishment only inspires more severe crimes. I must point out that every state in the union is different. These differences include the populations, number of cities, and yes, the crime rates. Strongly urbanized states are more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are more rural, such as those that lack capital punishment. The states that have capital punishment are compelled to have it due to their higher crime rates, not the other way around.

 

Abolitionists also hold the notion that criminals do not fear death because they do not take time to think about the concequences of their acts. If that were true, then I wonder how police officers manage to arrest criminals without killing them. When a policeman holds a criminal at gunpoint and tells him to get on the ground, the criminal will comply fully in the vast majority of of these cases. Why would they do that unless they were afraid of the lethal power of the gun? It is because regardless of what abolitionists claim, criminals are not immune to fear! It is a common misconception to believe that fear is a thought process that has to be worked out with a piece of paper. It's not! It is an instinct that automatically kicks in when one is faced with lethal force! The examples below should confirm that point.

 

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."

[YASNY]

Wow ProDeathPenalty.com sure showed me with their detailed, scientific, factually based argumentation and debate skills

 

If they want to talk about being moral degenerates then perhaps they can stop with the active bloodlust wanting to kill somebody.

 

And I am pro-choice.  I believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  But when you have abstinence only being promoted in schools, many parents either unwilling or not knowing how to talk about safe sexual practices with their children, etc, then it is no wonder that these children are growing up into adults who don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to safe sexuality practices.  Plus, I don't see all these pro-lifers who want all these women to have these kids, I don't see them paying the medical bills and paying for all the needs of the kid for 18 years.  If you want them around so badly, take care of them.

 

It always struck me as odd that many self-described politicians that described themselves as Christians were always for the death penalty.  If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3).  But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical mores come under the authority of the Spirit. /ends.theological.banter

[YASNY]

Wow ProDeathPenalty.com sure showed me with their detailed, scientific, factually based argumentation and debate skills

 

If they want to talk about being moral degenerates then perhaps they can stop with the active bloodlust wanting to kill somebody.

 

And I am pro-choice.  I believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  But when you have abstinence only being promoted in schools, many parents either unwilling or not knowing how to talk about safe sexual practices with their children, etc, then it is no wonder that these children are growing up into adults who don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to safe sexuality practices.  Plus, I don't see all these pro-lifers who want all these women to have these kids, I don't see them paying the medical bills and paying for all the needs of the kid for 18 years.  If you want them around so badly, take care of them.

 

It always struck me as odd that many self-described politicians that described themselves as Christians were always for the death penalty.  If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3).  But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical mores come under the authority of the Spirit. /ends.theological.banter

 

There is a concept that many people live by. You don't see it too much on liberal side of things, so it might an obscure concept to you. It's commonly called, "being responsible for your actions". In other words, if you don't want a baby, take precautions or choose abstinence.

Edited January 30, 2006 by YASNY

[Texsox]

There is a concept that many people live by.  You don't see it too much on liberal side of things,

 

YAS, that really isn't fair. Liberals want to responsibility for many things, some of which isn't theirs. Example, let's take care of ANWR and the wildlife in it. Let's take care of murderers until God calls them home, or not. Let's as a nation take responsibility for our poor, not abandon them. Let's take responsibility for our nation's elders, through a strong social security program. Let's take responsibility for our Troops, not just wave flags and cheer as they go off to die. Let's work to bring them home and out of harms way as quickly as possible.

 

You've made many good points, this one is not one of them and shows a complete lack of understanding liberals. Caring and taking responsibility for others are core priciples.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

BHAM, ask and ye shall receive

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illi....executions.02/ -- It was stopped because at the time, the state had executed 12 men but exonerated 13.

 

http://www.truthinjustice.org/dphistory-IL.htm -- some of the historical facts as to why Ryan made his decision

 

I'd also suggest looking at the Illinois Governor's Commission on Capital Punishment. It is the report that they made about the death penalty and how it is used in Illinois.

 

And YAS, what if having an abortion is being responsible for their actions? Isn't it responsible to not bring a baby into the world if one can't pay for it, feed it, take care of it, etc.? Wouldn't it be much more irresponsible to put them under the mountain of debt just from the birthing procedure costs? I am not an over-zealous supporter of abortion but like the fact that it is legal for the women who would need it. I'm all for lowering the rate of abortions, but I believe that a sane, rational argument about sexual practices and equipping young adults with the skills to protect themselves would do much more to lower the rate of abortion than merely making it illegal to get one.

 

And Nuke, even if abortion is outlawed, women still get them. It just becomes more unsafe and more hazardous for women. Nuke, children who are 14-15 should be taught the basics so they have a working knowledge of it when it comes time for them to do so. High school health classes could easily incorporate abstinence plus (saying that abstinence is the safest way, but some people don't do that so here's how to protect yourself and here's the possible risks you'd have) or comprehensive (which is just giving out all the facts, without endorsing one way over another) Right now, the government only gives funding for abstinence only without discussing the other options available. That's as bad as, say, me teaching history and not bringing up the Civil War, World War II and the Industrial Revolution.

 

A majority of Americans (55 percent) believes that giving teens information about how to obtain and use condoms will not encourage them to have sexual intercourse earlier than they would have otherwise (39 percent say it would encourage them), and 77 percent think such information makes it more likely the teens will practice safe sex now or in the future (only 17 percent say it will not make it more likely). -- details about the study found http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1622610

[jackie hayes]

The death penalty has no effect on crime rates and is not useful as a deterrent.  So I vote no.

A couple (credible) conservative bloggers' take on this. They argue that there is a deterrent effect. Becker is one of Chicago's Nobelists, and Posner was formerly a federal judge.

 

Actually, I'm a 'no', too -- but it seems fair to throw this out there. The deterrent effect is just uncertain, not rejected.

[Texsox]

It is hard to measure deterents. Since it is causing people to not do something, who really knows how many would have if the deterent wasn't there. You also have to assume that the appearance or lack there of, is the only factor. There are other factors in murder rates, poverty, battles for drug "turf", etc. Anyone of those changes and that may have a bigger impact than the penalty for murder.

[jackie hayes]

It is hard to measure deterents. Since it is causing people to not do something, who really knows how many would have if the deterent wasn't there. You also have to assume that the appearance or lack there of, is the only factor. There are other factors in murder rates, poverty, battles for drug "turf", etc. Anyone of those changes and that may have a bigger impact than the penalty for murder.

Well, it is possible to measure it statistically, using differences between states (legal differences and de facto probability of being convicted/executed), and using the moratorium period. Comparing murder rates across periods/places with varying punishments allows you, in principle, anyway, to identify the deterrent effect. These studies do control for a number of other factors, to answer the second charge. I don't know them well enough to say they do/don't get all the big causes of murder, but they certainly make the effort.

[3E8]

So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank.

And the opposite occurred for the next 16 years.

[kevin57]

I don't see all these pro-lifers who want all these women to have these kids, I don't see them paying the medical bills and paying for all the needs of the kid for 18 years.  If you want them around so badly, take care of them.

 

Actually, lots and lots of help is given to expectant mothers who feel as if they have no choice but to abort their children: counseling services, financial help from doctors and diapers. Should anyone wish to be edified by such help, PM me and I will be happy to give a tour of such places.

[vandy125]

And YAS, what if having an abortion is being responsible for their actions?  Isn't it responsible to not bring a baby into the world if one can't pay for it, feed it, take care of it, etc.?  Wouldn't it be much more irresponsible to put them under the mountain of debt just from the birthing procedure costs?

 

That sounds like a very dangerous argument to me. What else do you sacrifice because you do not think that you can do those things? Can we apply that argument to other issues... "Well, we cannot feed, pay for, or take care of such and such. Let's do the responsible thing...." You find a way to get it done. This is life that we are talking about. It is not something that you do not fight for.

 

This is also why I am against the death penalty. I do hold out hope that people can change. You do not give up.

[BHAMBARONS]

Yeah made a 100 on faze 1, Thanks for everyones help

 

Tom

 

 

 

 

Student: Babbage, Tom

 

 

Paper Grade : 100.0/ 100.0

 

100% A+

 

 

Instructor comments: Really liked faze 1; I would like to see you take a little more opinion on the paper. You included some good quotes to back up your research and gave solid stats which also supported your research.

 

Faze 2: Take a nationwide survey on the issue place this data between the last topic section and the conclusion section. Faze 2 is due 2-1-06

 

James R. Moon

Edited January 30, 2006 by BHAMBARONS

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Yeah made a 100 on faze 1, Thanks for everyones help

 

Tom

Student: Babbage, Tom

Paper Grade : 100.0/ 100.0

                   

                      100% A+

Instructor comments:  Really liked faze 1; I would like to see you take a little more opinion on the paper.  You included some good quotes to back up your research and gave solid stats which also supported your research.

 

Faze 2:  Take a nationwide survey on the issue place this data between the last topic section and the conclusion section.  Faze 2 is due 2-1-06

 

James R. Moon

 

[Mplssoxfan]

Good job, BHAM!

[Mplssoxfan]

Very simple.  Killing the innocent is wrong.  Killing the guilty is justice.

Or vengance, depending on your point of view.

[Texsox]

Very simple.  Killing the innocent is wrong.  Killing the guilty is justice.

 

I'm curious, if an innocent person is put to death, would you charge anyone with murder, or would you rack it up to a mistake, no harm, no foul?

[CrimsonWeltall]

One argument states that the death penalty does not deter murder. Dismissing capital punishment on that basis requires us to eliminate all prisons as well because they do not seem to be any more effective in the deterrence of crime.

 

No, it doesn't. The argument is that the DP doesn't deter any MORE than imprisonment already does, not that it has zero effect.

 

Stop copying and pasting from that s***ty site. I'm sure you can find better pro-DP websites.

[minors]

No, it doesn't.  The argument is that the DP doesn't deter any MORE than imprisonment already does, not that it has zero effect.

 

Stop copying and pasting from that s***ty site.  I'm sure you can find better pro-DP websites.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well if we cut appeals to a 1 each and execution time down to 2 years you better believe it would make an impact with these thugs if they knew that they would be dead within 2 years they would think twice about killing.

 

And by the way what is it with you liberals first the death penalty isn't right because there isn't enough time to make sure the innocent are not killed, so come the 20+ year appeal process. Now it's the death penalty doesn't reduce crime rates, it is biased against blacks and it costs too much. Just what does it take to please you liberals? That is one problem with liberals it would kill them to take a stance on a issue they have to chance sides whenever the wind blows (ala John Kerry). And finally the public has caught on just look at the 2004 electoral map only small pockets where the liberals still control.

[BHAMBARONS]

Well if we cut appeals to a 1 each and execution time down to 2 years you better believe it would make an impact with these thugs if they knew that they would be dead within 2 years they would think twice about killing. 

 

And by the way what is it with you liberals first the death penalty isn't right because there isn't enough time to make sure the innocent are not killed, so come the 20+ year appeal process.  Now it's the death penalty doesn't reduce crime rates, it is biased against blacks and it costs too much.  Just what does it take to please you liberals?  That is one problem with liberals it would kill them to take a stance on a issue they have to chance sides whenever the wind blows (ala John Kerry).  And finally the public has caught on just look at the 2004 electoral map only small pockets where the liberals still control.

 

 

whoa.... not even touching that I will let LCR or Rex respond

[Texsox]

And finally the public has caught on just look at the 2004 electoral map only small pockets where the liberals still control.

 

LMAO, 49% the population voted for Kerry, so your small pocket argument is laughable. If that really meant anything the GOP would have folded their tent after Clinton's reelection.

 

Keep dreaming.

 

What would please me is if people would respect human life enough to never kill anyone, under any circumstances.

 

Who is it detering?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Well if we cut appeals to a 1 each and execution time down to 2 years you better believe it would make an impact with these thugs if they knew that they would be dead within 2 years they would think twice about killing.

 

Yes, as most killers are very rational people who expect to be caught.

 

And by the way what is it with you liberals first the death penalty isn't right because there isn't enough time to make sure the innocent are not killed, so come the 20+ year appeal process.  Now it's the death penalty doesn't reduce crime rates, it is biased against blacks and it costs too much.  Just what does it take to please you liberals?  That is one problem with liberals it would kill them to take a stance on a issue they have to chance sides whenever the wind blows (ala John Kerry).

 

 

That's ONE stance with multiple reasons for it.

[minors]

LMAO, 49% the population voted for Kerry, so your small pocket argument is laughable. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Here is some interseting facts

 

Counties won

 

Bush 2642

Kerry 483

 

 

Square miles of

counties won

 

 

Bush 2.54 million

 

Kerry 592,000

 

 

 

 

 

Crime Rate per 100,000 of area won

 

Kerry 13.2

Bush 2.9

 

The numbers speak for them selves

[Heads22]

Here is some interseting facts

 

Counties won

 

Bush 2642

Kerry 483

Square miles of

counties won

 

 

Bush  2.54 million 

 

Kerry  592,000

Crime Rate per 100,000 of area won

 

Kerry 13.2

Bush    2.9  

 

The numbers speak for them selves

 

 

Mind speaking on the population density of thouse counties? A lot of the really red counties are populated by 4 families and a cow.

 

Here's a map that is colored due to the amount that corresponds to how much the candidate won a county won by, as well as the population of the county. Really red, huh?