<< So do you think N.Y. went up because of THEIR long moratorium on the death penalty! >>
Your reply!
"Yes, you've got. The murder rate went up because there was no death penalty. Then, when the death penalty was reinstated, the murder rate went down by a record 23%."
LOL, Bill!! Firstly, the 28% represents the INCREASE in Arkansas and the 23% represents the INCREASE in Arizona AFTER the Death Penalty re-instatement!! Secondly, the murder rate did not go up after the DP was removed in New York, dear Bill. It went DOWN by 23% while there was no death penalty!!! (11 per 100,000 in 72 down to 8.5 per 100,000 in 95)!!! I know what it is like typing fast. It is easy to make mistakes.
Facts:
When the DP statutes were removed in 1972, the murder rate in New York increased 2%.
When the DP was reintroduced to New York in 1995 the rate was 8.5 murders per 100,000. During the moratorium from 1972 until 1995 ( the period in which you claim it went up because there was no death penalty) we find that it actually DECREASED by 23 %!!, from 11 murders per 100,000 to 8.5 murders per 100,000.
<< The moratoria were on death penalties, Bill; they were not on MURDERS. >>
You replied!
"Au contraire. In Furman, the supreme court commuted the sentences of 629 death row inmates around the country. God only knows how many of them went back out and started killing again."
So you still contend that the huge decreases in murders in places such as Arizona, Arkansas, and so forth were due to the removal of the death penalty! Only now you have provided the explanation that "the supreme court commuted the sentences of 629 death row inmates around the country. God only knows how many of them went back out and started killing again"!!!!!!!
Let me get this straight! 204 were murdered in Arkansas in 1971 (before the Furman decision). 180 were murdered in 1973, the year after the moratorium--a 12% DECREASE. In 1974 (the year after Arkansas revised the death penalty), one of the guys who had his death sentence commuted to life in 1972 was able to get an early release, and proceeded to move to Arkansas where he then, in 1974, murdered 51 more people than were murdered in 1973 in order that you could amuse me with your "statistics" by claiming that this imaginary killer's murders ought not to be applied to the murders that the reinstatement of the death penalty correlates with as an increase in crime in 1974, but rather should be considered as belonging to 1972 and 1973 when he would have been killing if it had not taken so long for him to find Arkansas.
Well, you are making a perfectly sensible case. It is so perceptive and irrefutable that I think I will copy it again and ponder the profundity of it!
"Au contraire. In Furman, the supreme court commuted the sentences of 629 death row inmates around the country. God only knows how many of them went back out and started killing again"
You say that God knows something about this. But God isn't claiming it! YOU ARE! So tell me why you claim that 629 people had their death sentences commuted to life (what is your source for this, btw), but were released the next year and proceeded to move to Arizona (and other warm spots--or just to the spots which required statistical assistance) and then proceeded to bring people back to life and then stopped killing people as soon as the death penalty was re-enacted which immediately made the murder rate shoot up like the dickens, as they resumed their wicked ways!!
Yes, Bill. God only knows there must be an explanation to explain away the facts. Maybe you ought to get God to do your arguing, LOL!
"No matter how many paragraphs you write, you cannot provide a single reasonable argument against the death penalty as deterrent, Solon"
Other than the statistics which have shredded your arguments into silliness, what more would you like?! Your reliance on statistics reduced you to the very corner I had told you it would...jibberish and abject nonsense.
But in order to return to a serious and sensible place, I will leave you with something to read which is typical of the understanding we find in the plethora of studies which have proven that the DP is not a deterrent. Rather, for poorly understood reasons (the brutalization effect), it sometimes correlates with increased homicides.
This from Greg Jones and Michael Connelly of the State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy of Maryland:
(Maryland has had the death penalty since 1975)
gov.state.md.us
The death penalty is one of the most controversial and debated topics among criminal justice professionals today. Many proponents believe in the idea of retribution and the old adage an “eye for an eye” whereas many opponents feel that criminal justice policymakers, judges, and prosecutors do not have the right to decide the fate of another person’s life regardless of the callousness of the crime. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty; however, many surveys show sharp declines in support since the mid-1990s (DPIC, 2001). Even the justice system has been divided over this issue, as shown by Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s, concerns about executing the mentally retarded, and recent statements by governors and Supreme Court justices (Healy, 2001). Despite the fact that 38 states have authorized the use of the death penalty in one form or another, many have been resistant to using the death penalty to its full capability. On the other hand, some states have used the death penalty routinely, provoking moratoriums and public protest.
Several other issues have emerged surrounding the death penalty, for example, changes in juvenile statutes. Much of the crime being committed by juveniles today is becoming more violent and policymakers have begun to take action. Beginning in the mid-90s up to the present, many states lowered their age for criminal sanction, allowing the courts to impose the death penalty on juveniles who commit serious crimes. Another important issue has been racial disparity in the imposition of the death penalty. Statistics show that minorities have been disproportionately given death penalty sentences and received the brunt of capital punishment legislation.
The issue of most concern in this paper is the deterrence effect of the death penalty. More importantly, does the death penalty deter homicide? Much of the research suggests that the death penalty does not have a deterrent effect for either crime in general or homicides. However, some feel that actually trying to measure this effect is very problematic, that it is too difficult to conclude one way or another if the death penalty has a deterrent effect.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the current research about the death penalty and related topics, including deterrence, juveniles, women, and disparity. In addition, we will discuss some of the pros and cons in the debate on the death penalty. Finally, we will present statistics about the death penalty, specifically, in the state of Maryland, and demonstrate how the state compares to other death penalty states.
Death Penalty and Deterrence
Much of the current recent research suggests that the death penalty does not have a significant deterrent effect. One study by Sorenson and Wrinkle (1999) in Texas speculated that, if a deterrent effect did exist, it would be found in Texas because of the extreme numbers of death sentences and executions within the state. They not only found that there was no deterrent effect but that number of executions was unrelated to murder rates and felony rates as well. Another study by William Bailey (1998) in Oklahoma also found no deterrent effect; however, he did find that there was a significant increase in stranger killings and non-felony killings after Oklahoma resumed executions.
Moreover, Bailey conducted studies of several states, including Ohio, Oregon, North Carolina, and California and found no deterrent effect (Bailey, 1978, 1979, 1979, 1979). A study by Decker and Kohfeld (1990) used a 50-year time series from 1930–1980 to assess the effect of executions on murder rates in North Carolina, California, Texas, New York, and Georgia. Essentially, they found no deterrent effect in their analysis.
Most recently, according to a survey by the New York Times, states without the death penalty have lower homicides rates than states with the death penalty. Comparisons show that the average murder rate per 10,000 population in 1999 was 5.5 among death penalty states versus 3.6 among non-death penalty states (DPIC, 2001
In California, instead of finding support evidence of a deterrent effect, Robert Harris found support for the brutalization effect (Harris, 1999). The brutalization effect suggests that executions increase crime rather than act as a deterrent. Harris found slight increases in homicides during the eight months following the execution. Another study, entitled The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, examined differences in homicides and violent crime in 293 pairs of counties. They found no deterrent effect and higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties (Harries & Cheatwood, 1997).
A study by Radelet and Akers (1996) surveyed America’s criminologists and discovered that most (87.5%) believe that the death penalty does, and can do, very little to reduce rates of criminal violence. In addition, they cited a survey by Peter D. Hart Associates, which found little support (26%) for the deterrence argument out of a random sample of police chiefs and county sheriffs throughout the Unites States.
An earlier study by Issac Ehrlich (1975) has played an important role in the public debate on the death penalty. Before this, most of the work on death penalty and deterrence was conducted by Thomas Sellin. In one particular study, Sellin examined groups of contiguous states, each group containing one state with capital punsishment (“retentionist”) and one state without (“abolitionist”). His conclusion was that executions have no discernible effect on homicide death rates (McGahey, 1996). However, using an econometric technique to examine murder and execution rates in the U.S. from 1933-1969, Ehrlich found that capital punishment did in fact have a deterrent effect. He concluded that for each execution there was a deterrence of 7 to 8 murders (McGahey, 1996). This study received immediately criticisms from other criminologists. Passell and Taylor replicated the study and found when the period from 1963-1969 was excluded, the deterrent effect was statistically insignificant (McGahey, 1996). Bowers and Pierce found similar results and also questioned Erhlich’s use of FBI rather than Vital Statistics data (McGahey, 1996). In 1985, Layson repeated Erhlich’s study, making several improvements, including the use of Vital Statistics data, and confirmed findings of a deterrent effect (Layson, 1985). Finally, work by Brian Forst (1983) suggests that on balance the death penalty does not have a perceptible influence on the homicide rate.
Despite the ambiguity found amongst these studies, some proponents still argue that a swifter death penalty would be an effective deterrent, but, to achieve this, the criminal justice system must eliminate abuses of the use of writ of habeus corpus, which can delay death sentences. They also argue that by executing these dangerous criminals countless lives are being saved.
...
If the DP was a deterrent it would show up in statistics, Bill. All the experts would know about it. All the lawmakers would know about it; and all the states would have the death penalty. There would be no reason for those 12 states to continue to have half the average homicide rates to enjoy the relative safety they have found living without a death penalty. |
