Solon.
re >You don't have any idea what you are talking about. The figures clearly show that
the murder rate is not conditioned by the rate of executions.<
It at most shows that the effect of deterrence is small enough to be swamped by the aggregate data that is included in the homicide rate.
Thought experiment... Homicide rate = 10/100,000, 1/3 of this rate comes from non DP states, 1/2 of remaining rate (3.3) is unaffected (crimes of passion, insanity, negligent homicide {i.e. drunk driving, reckless driving, etc.} These crimes are not subject to the DP in most states and given their nature would not be subject to deterrence if they were. A guy near here was recently convicted of negligent homicide because the guy riding in the back of his truck fell out and died while he was driving recklessly. DP had no and could have no effect on his actions.) That leaves 3.3 or 3.4 homicides left that are deterrable by DP. Suppose 10% of potential premeditated murderers are deterred by the DP. That amounts an effect of .34 homicides per hundred thousand deterred. With the rate ranging between 7.9 to 10.2 an effect of .34 vanishes among the noise. That .34 represents ~85 victims per year (using 250 million as US population) that would be saved by the DP scaring potential murderers.
I repeat, your data linked below is worthless for determining whether DP actually has a deterrence effect.
Message 18440507
re >But just for the record: the 12 States which have
abolished the death penalty have slightly more than half of the murder rate
as those States WITH the death penalty, while a detailed study of the
demographics showed no appreciable demographic differences!<
The relative rates are remarkably stable (as per the graph in the linked article) between DP and non DP states before, during and after the ban. But this is what one might expect given the small increase in deterrence the DP adds (if my thought experiment has any validity). Any idea that the DP causes the difference in rate between the two groups is a stretch at best. The possibility of being executed is unlikely to increase the likelihood of someone committing a murder.
It remains certain that if the DP does deter even one potential murderer, a virtual certainty IMO, to forgo the DP is to sacrifice the innocent victim of that murderer. This is one of the reasons some DP opponents so vehemently deny the possibility that anyone is deterred by the DP. If you can deny deterrence you can ignore the victims of your policy, 85 victims per year (again if the thought experiment is valid). Even if the rate of deterrence of potential murderers is only 1% of the .34 that is still 7.5 innocents per year saved by the DP. As anti DPers are so fond of pointing out, one innocent death is too many.
re >I doubt you really give a damn what the stats say
because I'll bet dollars to donuts you will simply backpedal and continue your
hostile and uninformed snips.<
I did not backpedal. The fact that you consider pointing out that your data does not in fact say what you think it says is "hostile and uninformed snips" says volumes about you and nothing about me. Send the dollars to the USO. Good thing you lost cuz I ate the donuts. ggg |
