Boston bomber to be executed

If you read the literature (I provided a handy list a few pages back), or even read the Shepherd study Christocracy is talking about, you would see that there needs to be a threshold level of executions before the deterrent effect kicks in. Your graph completely ignores that. I mean what's the point in a death penalty if you're going to execute 1 person in 40 years? Clearly it's not going to have a deterrent effect if you're not going to use it.

Moreover, what's to say Texas wouldn't have an even higher murder rate without the death penalty?

How does this even work?

Also, what happens if you can't reach the threshold level for any number of reasons? You end up with a brutalisation effect that does more harm than good.

I'm sure Hudud amputation has proven to be a nifty deterrent for theft in Saudi Arabia too. That doesn't mean we should do it tho!

How does this even work?

Also, what happens if you can't reach the threshold level for any number of reasons? You end up with a brutalisation effect that does more harm than good.

It makes sense if you think about it. How can something act as a deterrent if it only rarely happens? Potential murderers would simply think that it's unlikely they'd ever be executed.

If a state finds that it really can't execute the threshold number I would say it should take the option of capital punishment off the table.

look at my previous post; I have just explained why this threshold is ridiculously easy to meet

I doubt potential murderers keep count of the number of murderers who have been executed in their state. Most of these murderers would not be familiar with the intricate workings of the judicial system; how would they know they wouldn't be executed?

Even if the point about threshold number is assumed to be valid, the burden of proof required for a death penalty conviction would be so high, it would be very difficult to maintain the execution count consistently across the states.

I doubt potential murderers keep count of the number of murderers who have been executed in their state. Most of these murderers would not be familiar with the intricate workings of the judicial system; how would they know they wouldn't be executed?

Even if the point about threshold number is assumed to be valid, the burden of proof required for a death penalty conviction would be so high, it would be very difficult to maintain the execution count consistently. across the states.

So we've switched from "it's not a deterrent" to "we still shouldn't do it"?

Is this an admission that you were wrong in your assertions? Boy I didn't expect that one; usually people just disappear when proved wrong.

If it's so ridiculously easy to meet, why was it not met in those states, where the brutalisation effect was observed instead?

If you actually read my 1st few posts, my stance was always "we shouldn't do it"

So, pumpkin. Seeing as amputation is apparently a successful deterrent for theft, do you think we should incorporate that into our legislation? Deterrence at all costs right!

I imagine most Americans have some idea about people getting executed even if it's very rough. The media is generally quite good at reporting.

If you read christocracy's posts giving number of death row etc, you would see it's pretty easy to meet this threshold with the current process.

If you actually read my 1st few posts, my stance was always "we shouldn't do it"

So, pumpkin. Seeing as amputation is apparently a successful deterrent for theft, do you think we should incorporate that into our legislation? Deterrence at all costs right!

Theft is a property offense. Amputation is a violent punishment. This is what you call disproportionate.

Killing a murderer is at worst an eye for an eye. It is not disproportionate. It is an equal trade.

It will. You vastly underestimate the number of prisoners on life terms ( some 160,000 ) and the threshold required (only some 200+).

This just means that as long as 0.1-0.3% of convictions were safe, the threshold is met

Because you can definitely definitely conclude that from someone who identifies as a muslim.

Besides, doesn't that lower your thinking to that of someone willing to permanently maim hundreds of people. Also, was it necessarily jihad?

You keep getting better and better to be honest.

You aren't being serious, are you?

Firstly an appeal will be made completely void by the Supreme Court of Justice. Those who tend to be acquitted are minor criminals who commit assault, not 4 counts of 1st degree murder with the intent to cause extra harm and the destruction through means of treason and terrorism. He will not be let out on parole, it is not reasonably proportionate and within the bounds of judicial sentencing for such a thing to occur. I do not think 'good behavior' will let him leave, after what he just did.

He has not mitigated his action at all, little remorse and in fact he had been a terror suspect and listed by the FBI prior to the bombings, this aggravates it. Due to factors such as populist demands and correlation and proportionality of sentencing; his death sentence cannot be repealed to a life sentence, an appeal will not be allowed due to the severity and seriousness of the act which he has caused - legally speaking it is 'beyond reasonable doubt' that he has committed such an offence.

Theft is a property offense. Amputation is a violent punishment. This is what you call disproportionate.

Killing a murderer is at worst an eye for an eye. It is not disproportionate. It is an equal trade.

An eye for an eye and the world will go blind right? You call it "equal trade". But let's just call it what it is - Revenge. Stolen property can be returned, you can not restore life by taking another. Thieves can be rehabilitated, you can not rehabilitate someone by executing them. And if an innocent person is excecuted, you can not restore that life either. Countries with these brutal governments are some the most ugly places to live in. Meanwhile people are a lot happier and safer in countries like Switerzerland with less bloodthirsty castigating doctrine, other societies should follow their lead!

Well technically, only 64% of those sentenced to life in prison were convicted of homicide, but that's a minor point. I still think there must be more to this deterrent effect than a mere threshold.

What factors, if any, affect the threshold figure? Why is 200, as opposed to something else?

No, because:

1) Not everybody goes around poking others in the eye. Not many do it. In fact, people who do poke others in the eye number as a very small minority. So if I do blind them, the whole world hardly goes blind.

2)Not all stolen property can be returned. What if a thief steals a priceless Rembrandt and irreparably damages it in the process?

Also, it is true that taking a life does not return one, but this in itself is insufficient reason not to impose it. Imprisoning a kidnapper will not make up the time a kidnapped victim loses while being kidnapped; yet it is perfectly just to imprison the kidnapper and take away his time. Ticketing a person speeding also does not make him 'unspeed' as you cannot go back in time to reverse his act of speeding, but we fine him for it nontheless.

3) Luckily for me and unluckily for you, the case study of Singapore exists.

Singapore is a country with extremely harsh punishments, bordering on what some consider brutal. It is also a strong advocate of capital punishment. Yet, Singapore consistently ranks #1 in overall safety, as well as personal safety. Some studies might rank is as #2, but it has always fallen within the #3, usually #1.

So what you just said is factually inaccurate.

However, it is also true that most european countries are safe without capital punishment, but here you are, missing the point again. The point is not that capital punishment is a must to keep states safe. The point is that capital punishment keeps states even safer.

To draw an example: A state without capital punishment has 1 case of homicide for 500,000 citizens (very good)
But a state with capital punishment has only 1 case for every 5,000,000 citizens.

This is an extreme example, but it makes the point perfectly: in the state with capital punishment, 9 more lives are saved, despite them both being very safe countries.

To compare US and Singapore, US is a case where implementation of a good thing (capital punishment) is badly done: needlessly long and complicated appeals, executions happening below the brutalization threshold-thereby causing all the problems Professor Shepard has listed.

Singapore however, is the perfect example of capital punishment done right - a very efficient yet just criminal system, with executions well above the brutalization threshold.

End result? Extremely low crime, extremely low rates of miscarriages of justice (one of the lowest in the world)