Main > Everything Else
I've seen some random and cruel stuff, but...
<< < (24/51) > >>
ChadTower:

The death penalty is pretty good at eliminating chronic offenders.
fredster:
Chad's right.  Dead killers don't kill again.

Shmokes is right.  You can't be sure, and it doesn't seem to deter others from the emotional crime of murder.

I don't like the death penalty either based on all the innocent people that have been cleared with DNA evidence.

I'm kinda on the Bill O'Reilley bandwagon.  If you are a murder then you have to go to Alaska and live in the dark or do very hard time.

It irks me sometimes to see people who can't defend themselves in these situations.  A "real" murder trial takes like 4 days max.  The OJ trial took months.  I think we all have examples of people believed to be the one and only culprit, only for it to be found he wasn't the one at all.  That is frightning. 

I guess I also have the belief that if the crime is so horrendous and blatant, like this thread is about, there has to be clear and objective evidence that this person is the only person that could be at fault, bar none.

I guess that evidence would be that the person was not only identified by witnesses, DNA evidence, and photographed.  The bar has to be high. 

But in such cases it wouldn't be equal to other murders if the evidence wasn't there for them.  So I have to err on the side of don't kill 'em.

As far as these statistics, there was a lot more things going on than this one event in both New York and Canada to account for this "relationship".  Might be that they already killed all those that needed killin' or something.   ;)

And a question Shmokes, what exactly does deter people from Killing each other?  What has to be done if it's not to invoke the death penalty?  What is the solution or is there one?



ChadTower:

Yay, fredster brings the argument full circle to gun control!
Grasshopper:

--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 13, 2005, 04:43:19 pm ---
--- Quote from: shmokes on September 13, 2005, 01:17:01 pm ---One thing for near certain, it does not decrease the rate.  U.S. states that have implemented the death penalty recently have not had a reduction of violent crime.
--- End quote ---

Would New York qualify for this?
They implemented it in 1995, which I think is the MOST recent implementation.

Their murder rates per 100,000 people are as follows:

PRE Death Penalty
1990 - 14.5
1991 - 14.2
1992 - 13.2
1993 - 13.3
1994 - 11.1
1995 - 8.5

POST Death Penalty
1996 - 7.4
1997 - 6.0
1998 - 5.1
1999 - 5.0
2000 - 5.0
2001 - 5.0
2002 - 4.7
2003 - 4.9

Looks pretty much like they went down to me.
How about you?

Looks like a 66% DROP in murder to me, as a matter of fact.
That's almost 300% as much as the drop you cite for taking it away in Canada, and in only 50% of the time it took you guys.

That means that the drop/year was 600% as much as you cite for Canada.
Sounds like a pretty convincing argument for the death penalty to me.

--- End quote ---

Two problems with those statistics.

Firstly the trend was already downwards and the decrease from 95 to 96 doesn't appear to buck the trend.

Secondly, IIRC the mayor of New York introduced various (apparently successful) changes to the way the city was policed. I don't remember the details but I believe that was when the term 'zero tolerance' was first used.

I believe that rates for all crimes in New York (not just murder) went down over the same period. But I could be wrong.

fredster:
If there are no guns, does the goverment have the responsiblity of protecting you from people that would do you harm? 
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page

Go to full version