Shmokes,
Sorry, I missed your original request for this.
I got the raw numbers off the
DeathPenaltyInfo.org site.
It's the 2nd chart down on the left.
I tallied the numbers myself to get the percentages listed above.
Now for the fun part.
What? That wasn't your point. Your point was that the death penalty deters crime and that the Raw data proved it. You even went so far as saying that we don't get to pick and choose how we present the data.
So you are now admitting that there is a difference between stated intent, and actual motive?
So, if I were to say....oh, I don't know.....kill a black guy for being black, and then be SMART enough to keep my mouth shut until I had a lawyer, I could get that lawyer to dig up dirt on the guy, find out he has a past history of drug-dealing, and then STATE, for the record, that I killed him because he was dealing crack to kids, and the crime wouldn't be as bad, right?
How about if my REAL motive was to kill a black guy, and one just happened to work the night shift at the 7-11 down the street?
I could go in, kill him for being black, and THEN take the money.
That way, if I was somehow caught later, I could STATE that I killed him to get the money, and get a reduced sentence.
I love how you just come in, sounding like the high-handed lecture that Jerry Springer gives at the end of his show, and declare yourself the winner and start talking about the lessons you hope each of us has learned.
People didn't blindly accept my claims here? It has, in fact, been me against the rest of the people in this thread for the most part, with the exception of Grasshopper (sorry if I missed any supporters).
Grasshopper immediately questioned MY statistics, in spite of the fact that they didn't hold up to objective scrutiny, but didn't question the same type of data on your side.
This was partly due to the over-the-top presentation I gave it, so that YOU would post actual statistics to support your side.
The people supporting the death penalty here are a large part of my target audience with this because they are all blindly following the "baby-stabber" mob, rather than actually THINKING about any of this.
And I haven't made any claims that have turned out to be false, except the irrelevant one that you twisted out of context.
You have a tendency toward exaggeration NBA. I did not say that the death penalty increases crime rate. I said that there is some evidence that it might. Then in the very next sentence I said, "One thing for near certain, it does not decrease the rate. (I even bolded the does not)
That is why I targeted that statement specifically.
If the real MOTIVE behind my first post had been to further a logical debate, I would firstly not have digested the data in the manner that I did; and, secondly, would have questioned the validity of some of the other data immediately.
The exaggeration in my first post was INTENTional, and designed specifically to provoke an emotional "that isn't true" response--exactly as it did.
Once you had everyone focused on the fact that MY numbers didn't objectively support my side of the argument, I could point out that NONE of the data supports either side more easily.
Similarly, you act like I claimed that the Canada stats closed the case. The first line of my post after giving those stats was: Could there be other reasons? Sure. Maybe Canada's economic situation has greatly improved in the same time period. I don't know. But the evidence is still pretty compelling. It's at least worthy of asking yourself...
The "could there be other reasons" argument, coupled with the later "pretty compelling" argument forces the conclusion that repealing the death penalty did in fact contribute to lowering the crime rate.
That conclusion is shown to be false by the fact that the crime rate dropped in the U.S. by the same amount in half the time--during the same period.
Adding the fact that the crime rates dropped more in non-death penalty States, than in death penalty states, still does not address the impact of those "other reasons".
There is also the fact of the decreases I quoted above (37.8% decrease from 1990-2003 for death penalty states, and 55.2% for non-death penalty states).
Viewing all that data objectively, one can only conclude that the effect of the death penalty as a deterrent is minimal at best.
When I presented my most recent batch of data I specifically said that it wasn't conclusive. I just pointed out elements of it that "seem to support my argument".
That sounds like an admission that "Your method of presentation is a common one known supressing evidence" to me.
But just because a single set of data doesn't provide a smoking gun, doesn't make the data irrelevant. It identifies trends, and when you aggregate lots of inconclusive data together you can begin to develop conclusions based on similar trends that pop up in all the data.
Yes.
And when viewing it ALL objectively, the death penalty is a non-factor in the murder rate.
Places that have abolished it haven't seen non-tolerance changes in their murder rates, and places that have enacted it haven't seen changes either.
The only logical conclusion to that is that there are other, more vital factors involved in the equation.
At the very least you should look at the data I just provided and ask yourself, "Why is Texas number 12 on the list after 30 years of the most prolific death row in the nation?" And, "Why, after 30 years of threatening criminals with their lives do the death penalty states still make up the bulk of the most violent states, while the states who are not threatening criminals with their lives take up nearly every spot on the safest-state list?"
I've done exactly that, and am hoping that others will as well.
I don't attribute any causal relationship to that.
Texas is high on the list because people in Texas like to kill each other.
If the death penalty and handgun control had any major effect on murder rates, D.C. would be low on the list--NOT at the top.
High unemployment, and drug-related crime, are the two main factors that I can see affecting murder rates.
I also can't discount the fact that Texas has more major urban areas than just about any other state.
Racial tensions add fuel to this fire, but are a secondary factor in most cases, as same race killings outpace interracial killings by a fair margin.
Another thing I can't seem to find is murder rates by State based on population density.
States lacking big integrated urban areas, with rampant poverty and unemployment, will naturally be farther down the list than others.
Maybe it's the drug rehab that is having the benefits on the crime rate, but since they tend to occur in the same place it's easy to identify the lack of a death penalty as the cause. But an honest person wouldn't just assume that is the case and refuse to treat the trend as significant.
Exactly my point.
Unfortunately people tend to believe what they've heard, when they hear it again.
Familiarity lends credence to an otherwise indefensible argument.
That is exactly what people on both sides of this argument are doing however.
For science to work properly, one must develop a hypothesis, and then OBJECTIVELY view all data associated with the object being studied.
Using portions of the data, which are contradicted by other portions of the data, to support ones original hypothesis is NOT science--it's religion.
They are believing what they want to believe because they believe it, and the only data they will give validity to is that which SUPPORTS their belief.
I still don't think that it deters any significant amount of crime, and I don't think you can find any evidence that it does.
I fully agree.
BUT, I've never been able to find any conclusive evidence that it affects the rates at all, either way.
There are places with it that have low crime rates (South Dakota--2nd from the bottom), there are places with it that have high crime rates (Louisiana tops the list), there are places without it that have low crime rates (Maine bottom of the list), and places without it that have high crime rates (Michigan - 13th).
I must mention that I find it interesting that the anti-death penalty sites INTENTIONALLY exclude the District of Columbia from all their lists based on the fact that "it's not really a State".
Could it be that, with it's complete gun control, and lack of a death penalty, it bucks the trend they'd like you to see--with a 45.8 per 100,000 death rate, compared to 13% for Louisiana at the top of the list?
That lends great support to my "density" and "diversity" hypotheses.
Relatively homogenous and sprawling urban areas (Porland, OR and Seattle being the two I'm most familiar with) have lower murder rates than highly integrated, high density urban areas (D.C., Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, etc...).
Also, I think a fundamental part of my philosophy on the death penalty that you don't understand, is that I begin with the death penalty being a negative thing, as should all people.
I do understand that, but am trying to get people to THINK about this from a logical standpoint.
The original "baby stabber" comments are what really motivated me to post in this thread in the first place.
I picked you out of the crowd, to the end of trying to make people think, specifically because you HAD already thought about it, and could put up valid defense to my Devil's Advocate position.
You might have gathered that this is a topic that I am interested in.
And just to bring this completely full-circle, I am relatively ambivalent about the death penalty in general.
I support its use in clear-cut cases, but lean toward life in prison for any case where there is possible doubt.
My passion, and the true MOTIVE spurring my participation here, is that I am tired of living in a world full of unthinking sheep.
Our schools are teaching kids to tell the teacher what they want to hear, and believe the teacher because they are the ones who know.
My experience has been completely counter to this idea.
I found out early that my teachers didn't know EVERYTHING; and, in many cases, were actually LESS intelligent/knowledgable about many areas than I was.
This led me to question everything they said, and to seek raw data that I could draw my own conclusions from.
What I am seeing from the general populace today makes me cringe.
I am one of the remaining people who realize that this country didn't always have an income tax (we paid for the entire federal government using import tariffs prior to the reparation period following WWI), didn't always have "social" programs (that was the function of communities and churches), and didn't always cater to the lowest common denominator in almost every facet of it's existence (we used to have standards that you had to meet, not standards that met you).
Now I see people on T.V. pleading for stronger gun control to stop crime, and using the fact that "this country or that has a lower crime rate without guns".
They completely ignore that fact that the only guns that have EVER been seized as a result of gun control/buy-back programs came from the VICTIMS of the crimes they hope to stop--NOT the perpetrators.
I see people pleading for the abolition of the death penalty to stop crime, using the fact that Canada saw a crime reduction after abolishing it, but refusing to acknowledge that the U.S. saw the same reduction while keeping it.
I see the opposite of that, where people plead for the institution of the death penalty to stop crime, while ignoring the fact that it hasn't been shown to produce a reduction in crime anywhere it's been implemented.
I see them pleading for handouts to stop poverty, in spite of the fact that all my experience in the area suggests that the best route out of poverty is to CUT welfare to those unwilling to work.
If you give people just enough to squeak by, and then cut that amount if they get a job, you give them NO incentive to work.
If you ONLY give them money IF they are working, and supplement them until they can establish a work history, they will become productive, self-sustaining members of society.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: I've seen some random and cruel stuff, but... (Read 22369 times)
