Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Secondly I asked you directly what you are referring to when you stated that page 6 of the study proves that the murder rate decreased solely due to executions, and you have not responded. I have read the entire thing and I have told you the conclusions I drew from the study, which evidently are very different to yours.

    In 2000 Illinois implemented a moratorium on the death penalty. The Cloninger and Marchesini (2006) article finds that there was an additional 150 homicides in Illinois in the 4 years following.

    Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd (2006) find that when the 1972 moratorium was imposed annual murder rate jumped by 9.3%. When it was lifted, it fell by 8.3%.

    Taken together, these are 3 articles showing such a link; the article I cited also conducted research over 100 years.

    While it is still not definitive proof, of 100% certainty that it was not due to other factors, it nontheless establishes a very strong link. In contract, you have offered no evidence on your points.

    stated that anyone who is radicalised wouldn't care about the death penalty, which logically comes from the fact that they don't care if they die and would probably welcome martyrdom

    you completedly ignored my point - this would deter other murderers who murder for other reasons, such as jealousy or spite. Overall, it leads to lower murderer rates.

    This is going in circles so I'll just end this here.
    yes, because you have no evidence, and you ignore my points about what you dont like
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emmaworters)
    Emm yes it is (many variations yes) but killing anything is murder !!
    Keyword:
    "unlawful"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    But innocents will be killed by the death penalty regardless.

    Wrong. Innocents will only be killed if it does not exceed the threshold, and this threshold is easy to meet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Keyword:
    "unlawful"

    But it is unlawful to kill/murder anyone! Why does he deserve to die, yes he has killed 4 people and injured many more but what rights does that give anyone to kill him! I do believe he should spend the rest of his life in jail, but is it truly right to kill anyone good or bad??
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emmaworters)
    But it is unlawful to kill/murder anyone! Why does he deserve to die, yes he has killed 4 people and injured many more but what rights does that give anyone to kill him! I do believe he should spend the rest of his life in jail, but is it truly right to kill anyone good or bad??
    What he "deserves" and what is "right" are entirely irrelevant. Lawful means "abiding by the law". Capital punishment is lawful in the U.S.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    Wrong. Innocents will only be killed if it does not exceed the threshold, and this threshold is easy to meet.
    So people have never been exonerated on death row and after they've already been executed?...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    So people have never been exonerated on death row and after they've already been executed?...
    Which Is why I said I favour an approach where capital punishment is only used on cases beyond any doubt. Like in the present case: caught on camera, tons of witnesses, he himself admitting it under non-coercive conditions.


    Further, dont forget the meaning of deterrence: you kill one, save 7. So by choosing not to kill this murderer, you condemn 7 innocents to death by inaction.

    Which is worse?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    **** it. I'll respond again because now you're just making things up.

    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    In 2000 Illinois implemented a moratorium on the death penalty. The Cloninger and Marchesini (2006) article finds that there was an additional 150 homicides in Illinois in the 4 years following.

    Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd (2006) find that when the 1972 moratorium was imposed annual murder rate jumped by 9.3%. When it was lifted, it fell by 8.3%.

    Taken together, these are 3 articles showing such a link; the article I cited also conducted research over 100 years.

    While it is still not definitive proof, of 100% certainty that it was not due to other factors, it nontheless establishes a very strong link. In contract, you have offered no evidence on your points.
    No, it shows a correlation. It does not prove a direct link. In any case, there are many other articles and studies (e.g this which show the opposite.



    you completedly ignored my point - this would deter other murderers who murder for other reasons, such as jealousy or spite. Overall, it leads to lower murderer rates.
    No, you ignored my point, which was that this is absolute nonsense.


    yes, because you have no evidence, and you ignore my points about what you dont like
    As I explained, I am not required to provide evidence to refute your unsubstantiated claims.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No, it shows a correlation. It does not prove a direct link. In any case, there are many other articles and studies (e.g this which show the opposite.
    And these articles are wrong for the exact reason Sheppard points out: which, if you read her article in full, im which you would not be citing to me now.

    Also, the correlation is very strong. Certainly, it is very robust. If we were to insist on 100% certainty before implementing any policy, 99% of policies we have today would be non-existent.

    No, you ignored my point, which was that this is absolute nonsense.
    I stated that anyone who is radicalised wouldn't care about the death penalty, which logically comes from the fact that they don't care if they die and would probably welcome martyrdom.

    So what are you suggesting? That every murderer does so without pre-mediation? That they are all radicalized religious fanatics? What Im saying is that some people choose to murder in robberies, kidnappings, or out of jealousy or spite for another-it is these people who the deterrence effect deters, not the radical fundamentalists or those who do it in the heat of the moment.

    To make it extremely simple: The deterrence effect is not aimed at radicalized murderers only but murderers in general

    Do you understand?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    Which Is why I said I favour an approach where capital punishment is only used on cases beyond any doubt. Like in the present case: caught on camera, tons of witnesses, he himself admitting it under non-coercive conditions.


    Further, dont forget the meaning of deterrence: you kill one, save 7. So by choosing not to kill this murderer, you condemn 7 innocents to death by inaction.

    Which is worse?
    Sanctioning the government murdering people and potential innocents for it's own sake is much worse tbh.

    Similarly, if we only executed people as often as the underlined conditions are met, then execution rates would most certainly be below the ideal threshold suggested in that study you posted. Thus it would not be a successful deterrent.

    Maybe America should invest in non violent methods to deter crime, like most other civilised countries!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    Sanctioning the government murdering people and potential innocents for it's own sake is much worse tbh.

    What are you even on about? The point is capital punishment saves innocents, while not having it harms innocents

    Similarly, if we only executed people as often as the underlined conditions are met, then execution rates would most certainly be below the ideal threshold suggested in that study you posted. Thus it would not be a successful deterrent.
    Wrong again. The current amount life imprisonment prisoners (largely due to murder) is about 160,000. The threshold is about 100-200.

    which means we only need about 0.1% of that to be executed. Do you think it is possible for 0.1% to be proven guilty beyond any doubt? I certainly think so

    aybe America should invest in non violent methods to deter crime, like most other civilised countries!
    The point of this argument is that no other punishment is as effective in deterring murders as capital punishment.

    Therefore, if you do not impose this punishment, more murderers would murder. And what is the natural result of that? More innocents die.

    Hence, the logic is as follows:

    You do not execute murderers
    Potential murderers do not fear other punishments
    More potential murderers commit actual murders
    More innocents die
    The state is therefore guilty of condemning innocents to die through inaction (the act of not imposing the death penalty to deter murderers)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greg Jackson)
    RIP in peace
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    The death penalty is state murder.
    (Original post by izpenguin)
    What will be achieved by giving him the death penalty?
    Absolutely nothing, I suspect.
    If anything it will make him a hero and encourage others like him.
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    It's also the state being unduly nice in this sort of context. He no doubt believes that he will ascend to heaven upon his death as martyr.

    The Americans think this is the harshest, ultimate punishment, but a lifetime (especially when you're 21) in a supermax prison is the ultimate punishment.
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    That is so disgusting and barbaric, the US acting like we're in the Middle East/Middle Ages. People who actually want this are murderers just like him.
    I hope he dies painfully and slowly, and I hope every minute of his life up to his death will be spent suffering both physically and mentally.

    I also hope people like you cry at night because he will die. I hope you will be saddened because he did not receive forgiveness or a second chance. I hope every day for the rest of your lives you go to sleep remembering what happened to this man. I take great joy in knowing firstly this scum will die and secondly all of you will be in tears watching his death.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The two eds)
    I hope he dies painfully and slowly, and I hope every minute of his life up to his death will be spent suffering both physically and mentally.

    I also hope people like you cry at night because he will die. I hope you will be saddened because he did not receive forgiveness or a second chance. I hope every day for the rest of your lives you go to sleep remembering what happened to this man. I take great joy in knowing firstly this scum will die and secondly all of you will be in tears watching his death.
    Don't be so melodramatic and misrepresent my position. I want him to receive life imprisonment (without parole) because it is the harsher punishment. Death is giving him what he wants; he will go to his (early) grave a happy man, as he will believe he is destined for heaven and the rewards of a martyr. A dragged out sentence in a grim supermax prison from age 21 to 85 (hypothetically if he lives until then naturally) is a much, much harsher punishment in this context.

    When he receives the death penalty, I will be saddened that he received a light punishment, and that he won't have decades in prison to think about the lives he took.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    What are you even on about? The point is capital punishment saves innocents, while not having it harms innocents
    Huh? You do realise people who were false accused of a crime have been executed by the government? I.e innocent people?....
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    Wrong again. The current amount life imprisonment prisoners (largely due to murder) is about 160,000. The threshold is about 100-200.

    which means we only need about 0.1% of that to be executed. Do you think it is possible for 0.1% to be proven guilty beyond any doubt? I certainly think so
    1. If threshold is indeed 100-200 that is per state? The 160,000 people cover the entire united states no?
    2. Total life imprisonment convicts are accumulative, executions are not.
    See how the numbers are already getting smaller?
    3. People can get life imprisonment without meeting the criteria that I underlined in the previous post.

    I don't even know why I'm paying so much credence to this threshold concept that for all we know may just be manipulated figures. After that whole college rape/violence against women study, I've grown wary of those papers. I'm no good with data, and I sure as hell can't be asked to read through that whole paper and scrutinise. But what I do know is that the general consensus among criminologists is, that the death penalty does NOT deter murder. You have found one study that suggests it may, but for every study in favour of the death penalty, there are 10 more making the opposite assertion.

    At the end of the day, as long as there is a possibility that innocent lives are lost on death row, it's a no brainer that I should not support it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    Huh? You do realise people who were false accused of a crime have been executed by the government? I.e innocent people?....


    1. If threshold is indeed 100-200 that is per state? The 160,000 people cover the entire united states no?
    2. Total life imprisonment convicts are accumulative, executions are not.
    See how the numbers are already getting smaller?
    3. People can get life imprisonment without meeting the criteria that I underlined in the previous post.
    You see how if you did the math, assuming I agree with everything you say, the amount needed to cross the threshold can still be met many, many times over nontheless?

    I don't even know why I'm paying so much credence to this threshold concept that for all we know may just be manipulated figures. After that whole college rape/violence against women study, I've grown wary of those papers. I'm no good with data, and I sure as hell can't be asked to read through that whole paper and scrutinise. But what I do know is that the general consensus among criminologists is, that the death penalty does NOT deter murder. You have found one study that suggests it may, but for every study in favour of the death penalty, there are 10 more making the opposite assertion.

    If your way of debating is to say 'I cant be bothered to read a paper which proves me wrong,' then we can simply stop this now because nothing I say will convince you, since you dont look at logic.

    It is true many criminologists agree, but this paper shows you exactly why they are wrong, or that the survey methods they use are wrong; her analysis is made on solid, hard facts comparing history looking back almost a hundred years, across states, AND with different forms of punishment. Good luck trying to refute this.

    FIY: the reasons why she says the rest are not accurate is because they either use too small a timeframe, only look at individual states instead of comparing between states. In short, she tries as hard as possible to discount factors which might necessarily cause erroneous conclusions and use a very, very large sample size across a very long time frame.


    At the end of the day, as long as there is a possibility that innocent lives are lost on death row, it's a no brainer that I should not support it.
    You do realize on balance, if you are wrong and there is a deterrence effect (which there is), you are effectively condemning many more people to death by refusing to take action? There is a possibility much more lives are lost.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    You do realize on balance, if you are wrong and there is a deterrence effect (which there is), you are effectively condemning many more people to death by refusing to take action? There is a possibility much more lives are lost.
    Um. How bout investing in other means to lower murder rates? That way you can escape the worry of executing innocent citizens, meanwhile making society a safer place for everyone else too!

    Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc all have lower intentional homicide rates than the United States, all without the lazy "deterrent" that is the death penalty. America should start taking notes!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    Um. How bout investing in other means to lower murder rates? That way you can escape the worry of executing innocent citizens, meanwhile making society a safer place for everyone else too!

    Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc all have lower intentional homicide rates than the United States, all without the lazy "deterrent" that is the death penalty. America should start taking notes!
    You seem to be completely missing the point. The evidence found has showed that the most effective way is capital punishment. Hence there is no other way.

    Eg: Life imprisonment deters 2 deaths for 1 execution
    : Murder deters 9 deaths for 1 execution

    So if you choose to implement life over executions, you are effectively losing the 7 innocent parties who die as a result of your omission. See the point?

    Europe has less homicide rates, but how does this change anything? What i'm saying is, if europe choose to implement executions, the statistics, as shown by the studies I quoted, would lead to an even lower homicide rate.

    So in any case, you would still save even more people
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cristocracy)
    You seem to be completely missing the point. The evidence found has showed that the most effective way is capital punishment. Hence there is no other way.
    Whew. Hold your horses. Death penalty being a deterrent in and of itself is already debatable. Yet alone the "most" effective way.




    "If deterrence worked, how could Texas (the state with the most executions in the whole of America), which executes a dozen inmates a year, have a higher murder rate than Colorado, which has executed one murderer in more than four decades?"

    I'm sorry but the evidence is just not in your favour
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Dead men don't tell tales.





    Zionist Jews are pushing America further into a police state. They were leaders of the Patriot act, TSA that molests children and of course gun control because they fear resistance.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    Whew. Hold your horses. Death penalty being a deterrent in and of itself is already debatable. Yet alone the "most" effective way.




    "If deterrence worked, how could Texas (the state with the most executions in the whole of America), which executes a dozen inmates a year, have a higher murder rate than Colorado, which has executed one murderer in more than four decades?"

    I'm sorry but the evidence is just not in your favour
    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?
 
 
 

3,076

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.