Main > Everything Else
I've seen some random and cruel stuff, but...
Grasshopper:
--- Quote from: NoOne=NBA= on September 13, 2005, 07:58:36 pm ---
--- Quote from: Grasshopper on September 13, 2005, 05:16:44 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 ---
Two problems with those statistics.
--- End quote ---
How so?
I am refuting Shmokes claim that no states have shown a reduction in violent crime.
--- End quote ---
Actually you went beyond merely refuting Smokes claim. You said "Sounds like a pretty convincing argument for the death penalty to me".
The stats you presented simply do not show a clear correlation between the introduction of the death penalty and a reduction in the murder rate. If you presented someone with the raw figures and asked them to guess at what year the death penalty was introduced I'm sure that most people would get it wrong.
I'd be more impressed if the figures were more or less constant before 95, dropped sharply just after 95, and then remained more or less constant at a lower level from that point onwards.
The figures suggest that other factors are affecting the murder rate and therefore it would be rash to try and draw firm conclusions.
shmokes:
It will also be nice to see what the newer information will look like, since the NY Supreme court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in June 2004.
I just did some research that wasn't entirely conclusive, but I might as well post it anyway. First I checked how the states' crime ranks ranked up, comparing crimes per 100,000. I was looking great here. There are 14 states that don't have the death penalty. The top ten safest states in the crime ranking were ones that either do not have the death penalty or have not executed anyone since statistics began in 1976 (When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could rewrite their old death penalty statutes to make them constitutional -- Prior to that a USSC ruling had voided every state death penalty statute as unconstitutional), except for Pennsylvania, who hold spot number 9 and have executed three people in that time. In fact, of the states that do not have a death penalty, only three show up in the top 25 most crime ridden states (per capita): Alaska (20th), KS (19th), HI (2).
Then after putting all that data together, I got thinking that a more important measure might be violent crime, since a person cannot be given the death penalty for a crime against property. Some of the things I picked out from it that seem to favor my argument are the fact out of 892 total executions since 1976, 742 (or 83%) of them were carried out by states that were ranked as the top 25 most violent per capita as of 1993. Even if you omit Texas entirely (but leave Virginia) 72% of executions were carried out by states that were ranked as the top 25 most violent per capita. When, exactly, is this whole death penalty thing gonna start paying off for these states? The zero-execution states have a near monopoly on the 15 best rankings down at the bottom of the list.
Here is the data. States that do not allow the death penalty are orange. States that technically allow it, but haven't used it a single time since 1976 are red.
The format is: Rank- State - # of executions since 1976
1- SC - 32
2- FL - 60
3- MD - 4
4- TN - 1
5- NM - 1
6- DE - 13
7- LA - 27
8- NV- 11
9- AK - 0
10- CA - 11
11- IL - 12 (Governor issued a moratorium on executions pending review)
12- TX - 340 (not a typo)
13- AZ - 22
14- MI - 0
15- OK - 76
16- MO - 62
17- MA - 0
18- NY - 0 (New York reinstated the death penalty in 1995, but has yet to execute anyone, and as of 2004 it was declared unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court)
19- AR - 26
20- NC - 35
21- GA - 38
22- AL - 30
23- PA - 3
24- KS - 0
25- NJ - 0 (Court has temporarily halted executions here)
26- MT- 2
27- IN - 12
28- WA - 4
29- CO - 1
30- OH - 16
31- MS - 6
32- CT - 0
33- OR - 2
34- NE - 3
35- RI - 0
36- VA - 94
37- IA - 0
38- HI - 0
39- MN - 0
40- WY - 1
41- KY - 2
42- WV - 0
43- UT - 6
44- ID - 1
45- WI - 0
46- SD - 0
47- NH - 0
48- VT - 0
49- ME - 0
50- ND - 0
Sources:
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/MAPS/incrimUS.htm
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
Shortened link by saint - nicic.org
paigeoliver:
As far as the mythical "gun control" issue.
It wouldn't matter. You could stop selling guns to anyone TODAY, and they would still be on the street for the next 200 years.
NoOne=NBA=:
My point in all this has been that there is no empirical data to support either claim.
All the raw data can be skewed to prove just about anything you want it to, or can be explained away.
My big point in this thread is that everyone should learn to think for themselves.
Doesn't anybody else find it interesting that everyone in the thread just accepted Shmokes original claims, despite the fact there was no causal relationship between them, and the data used to support them?
Shmokes claims are the "hey, I've heard that before, it must be true" variety.
I've argued this same point from both sides (as well as gun control and evolution) several times, on different boards, and the results are the same.
People believe whatever it is that they have heard the most, or are inclined to believe from the beginning.
Shmokes,
Sorry to ride you so hard here, but hopefully SOMEBODY here learned that they need to question and learn.
Thanks for keeping up your end of the debate.
On a side note, the latest data you just posted doesn't DISPROVE that there is a deterrent effect to the death penalty because, in order to do so, one must assume that all states would have a similar murder rate, given the same death penalty laws.
This hypothesis is completely disproven by checking similar states, with similar laws, in similar parts of the country.
Minnesota/Wisconsin/Michigan is a good example.
They are very similar in size, etc..., all have no death penalty, but have 2.5, 3.3, and 6.1 murders per 100,000 in 2003.
Going down to Alabama/Georgia/Florida, which all have the death penalty gives 6.6, 7.6, 5.4 for the same time period.
Does this prove that the death penalty does not deter crime? No.
Those numbers may actually have been HIGHER down South without the death penalty, and lower up North with it.
It does prove that people down South like to kill each other more than people up North.
Without seeing the murder rates for a given state, during the same time period, and with/without the death penalty, there is no way to get TRUE statistics on the effect of one variable.
Look at the statistics I quoted for New York earlier.
The fact that they HAD the death penalty really didn't PROVE anything.
They didn't, in fact, execute ANYONE during that time period.
The data sure looks good when you use it to prove that it DID help though, doesn't it?
If you look at the 6 states I mentioned above, the common bonds between the higher murder states are drugs, poverty, and racial integration.
That's the point I made in one of the other threads.
There are factors in this equation that are not easily quantified, and affect the results much more than the death penalty, or gun laws.
I expect New York's murder rate to hold fairly steady where it is, with rises/drops that are within normal cycles.
It won't ever fall to the level of South Dakota because there are too many people in New York City who want to kill each other.
Shape D.:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on September 13, 2005, 08:27:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: Dartful Dodger on September 13, 2005, 06:47:24 pm ---
We can't even keep track of pedophiles. Do you want to burden those resource by tracking honest civilians?
--- End quote ---
Yeah, what the hell is up with that? I dunno what it's like in each state, but here in my state, a sex offender is required to register with the local police before moving into an area, but my question about that dumbass "law" is this: If the person doesn't register, how do they know where to find them, and if they don't register, what....do they throw them in jail for their sentence after molesting....plus the amount of time between moving in and getting caught?
Just a friggen IDIOTIC law set up to make both sides feel like something got done while doing not a damn thing. >:(
--- End quote ---
I don't know if you've seen this or not linky but it may be helpful.