Important point before I start - this post isn't to say what my feelings are on the death penalty (in fact, I go back and forth on it), but instead to comment on some of the posts I've seen thus far.

One thing that I think some people are missing here:
Jail is decidedly NOT an "easy way out." Just because someone wasn't put on death row doesn't mean that they're getting off easy. Jail is a hellish place - there's a good chance that, depending on the crime, violent criminals could meet their death in jail anyways.

Now - as far as making the case for the death penalty based on personal cases (what if a loved one was killed, wouldn't you want the criminal put to death?) - I think once you start trying to apply a hypothetical personal tragedy to an overhaul of the system, that there should be more to it than that.

The fact remains that the death penalty has not served as a deterrent to crime. A tougher criminal justice system is needed for that. As Lil G said - if there's more of a chance of getting caught, the likelihood of committing the crime is lesser. If there are 1000 crimes committed, and only 5 people are caught (and all put to death), there's more of a chance of wanting to commit a crime than if the same 1000 crimes are committed and 500 people are sent to jail (with no or very few people sent to their deaths) If you're talking about stopping people from committing crimes, then the answer would be to catch/convict more of the people who are committing these crimes.

Collin

haha - Sorry if I wasn't inordinately clear - I'll try to clean it up a bit, and not jump into arguing logic as much as I did the last post, terminology can become jargon quite easily.

OK - the reasoning for the citation was perverted in later arguments, I feel. The point was that the death penalty would NOT have 'prevented' (directly) many of the crimes from that particular case study. This was an attack on your point that "dead people don't commit crimes" - evidence shows that to be true . . . and there aren't a lot of repeat murderers. Many crimes are committed by repeat offenders - but not necessarily repeat capital offenders, and seeing as we're discussing the death penalty, I found it necessary to point out that the death penalty would NOT have 'prevented' (in a direct, measurable sense) crimes in many of these cases. Remember - capital crimes are an extremely small part of overall crime, and even of violent crime in general.

True, and well-put.

This is a values statement - not an arguable point, and I'll respect it as such. Criminal behavior is extremely complex.

Wow - not true, unless I'm taking this the wrong way. The criminal loses certain freedoms and rights, which is supposed to be a rehabilitative measure. In the US, they are still protected under the US constitution (see: amendments to constitution specifically), and in no way lose rights to freedom of all sorts (ie speech, assembly, representation). My point was that if you're going to argue Gov'tal responsibility to its citizens, then you must concede that, under the current system of rights granted to all citizens, the gov't has a right to protect and attempt to rehabilitate AND/OR punish criminals effectively - and I'm simply questioning the effectiveness of this type of punishment, as part of the current system.

I'm familiar with the topic - although perhaps not to the same level that you are, after all I'm studying a topic only related passingly.

HOWEVER - you are not correct in assuming the death penalty to be an effective deterrent to future crime. I posted a citation above that combines many studies into one overriding hypothesis to this point, and if you look you'll find many more. As Lil_G pointed out, I have never seen evidence to the contrary; however, many studies have shown evidence against the death penalty being an effective deterrent for crime. As you said - the time to prevent crime is not after the fact, and that's what the death penalty becomes.

To my mind, this is not a strong point in favor of the death penalty; I have stated previously the only basis on which I think a solid platform can be built, and a simple one at that - I can justify the death penalty to myself on a conceptual basis simply as a punishment, but can't justify making it a part of our legal system.

Good point - I was merely questioning the extensibility of the use of such a penalty, as well as the extensibility of the "A criminal is a criminal" concept, and was only doing this for discussion purposes.

The decision for which crimes to punish capitally begets a difficult problem, though - I don't know that there really is a 'line in the sand' as such where everyone who supports the death penalty will, in fact, know the crime deserves death. This introduces some sort of moral standard to crime and punishment, doesn't it? This, I feel, removes the 'blind justice' aspect to the judicial system. Why is one occurance of any crime worse than any other? Is moral outrage enough to institute a harsher penalty? I don't know - this almost smacks more of revenge than punishment.

haha - interesting . . . ; )

Did you ever see the Saturday Night skits-Point, Counter Point?
Dan Akroid starts out-"Jane, you slimy sleazy slut, how can you possibly think..." to which she responds, " Dan you pompous, purulent pervert..." I'm so glad we can have a discussion like this. I really miss sparring with agile minds on issues that get one to think a little deeper. (Even if there's not a damn darn thing we can do about it -unless we get jury duty lol)

Yes, I see where you and Lil_G are coming from on the studies about percentages of criminals and crime in relationship to being caught. I guess I'll have to pull out the old abnormal psychology
book and find what I'm trying to express. They did have an article in our paper that said as much, but again, are we talking about the same mind? By this I mean a study like that enters the arena of risk/reward which more or less forms a sub group or- another variable all its own. Since Lil_G is familiar with this area mabe a better explanation could be offered?

Valkyrie- I would like to think I would NOT have asked for the death penalty in that situation. Having a relative who is retarded and having worked with Downs children would have made that impossible for me. In the end, the system did not fail him. Thank God.

OK- You guys are great and this is fun! Give me some time to pull out my "stuff" and if the debate is still ongoing I'll chime in! It may take a couple of days since I'M A WORKING MOM!

--hocnsoc81

yep! i agree with that, too...these ppl that have done these horrible acts get lethal injection and go to sleep like a dog--and that's it. their stay in jail should be horrific to counteract the peaceful way they get to die...unlike their victims.

and i don't know how much of a deterrent capital punishment is b/c i've never had a class that got into the details of it all...but i do know that it is called capital punishment, not capital deterrent. i think that's its main focus. to punish those who have done wrong. i mean, if it keeps someone from killing another, then great...but if someone has got it fixed in their heads to actually take the life of another, there's probably not a whole lot to keep it from happening unless someone knows about it in advance. ya know? i don't think a psycho-path sits around and weighs his options...

NEW YORK (AP) - Marking DNA's stunning revelations for the nation's criminal justice system, new tests led to the release of the 100th person to be freed nationwide because of genetic testing.

The release of Larry Mayes in Indiana last month comes as a timely victory for a nationwide coalition of advocates seeking to free those wrongfully convicted. The advocates plan to gather this weekend to call for reform of the criminal justice system.

Mayes, 52, spent 21 years in prison for a rape of a gas station cashier that he steadfastly maintained he never committed. He was released from Indiana State Prison on Dec. 21 after DNA tests of old crime scene evidence was compared to his own genetic tests.

``This DNA revolution, it's made clear our criminal justice system is not as reliable as we always thought it was,'' said Peter Neufeld, one of the founders of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.

``It's very easy for an innocent person to be convicted,'' he said, noting problems with eyewitness testimony, police lineups and state crime labs.

Police, too, welcomed the latest exoneration.

``That's a good thing as well, and not only for law enforcement,'' said Sheriff Aaron Kennard in Salt Lake County, Utah, who worked with a national commission addressing DNA's uses in the criminal justice system. ``We want the bad people behind bars and held accountable, and those innocent to be let go.''

Last week, Kennard was able to pinpoint the rapist in an unsolved 8-year-old case through DNA, as the state goes through and tests evidence of unsolved cases. The rapist is in prison for another sex offense, he said.

Neufeld, a defense attorney who launched the Innocence Project with attorney Barry Scheck, said the first exonerations came slowly, with the first two released in 1989, one in 1990 and two in 1991. But as more judges allowed exceptions to statutes for DNA tests, and some states passed laws to allow for post-conviction testing, the pace picked up.

At the same time, more projects began modeling themselves after the New York-based pro bono project. Now there are at least 25 working nationwide.

Last year, there were 20 prison inmates freed by DNA tests, Neufeld said.

``This whole movement is about ... trying to make the criminal justice system a lot more reliable than it ever was in the past,'' Neufeld said. ``It's really mushroomed into a national civil rights project.''

The advocates are seeking a federal law to guarantee all those with claims of wrongful conviction have access to DNA evidence without time limits; compensation for those wrongfully convicted; widespread reforms of law enforcement procedures; and a moratorium on the death penalty until reforms are made.

In Mayes' case, Neufeld said, the victim had failed to identify him in two separate lineups and only did so after she was hypnotized by police prior to viewing his photograph.

He was able to get tested last year after a new law allowing the tests took effect last summer. Mayes will speak to the advocates when they gather in San Diego

I am so thankful we have DNA testing available. It should cut down on cases like this.

"Even if you no longer care much about the well-being of prisoners while they are incarcerated, you need to remember that most of them are going to get out one day," says Haney. "It should matter to all of us what state of mind they are in when they are released." I believe this to be a true and chilling statement.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/wk1/t417.wk1
Feature Story: Review, Summer 2000 "We're looking for the factors of an individual's life story that help explain who he is and what he did, thereby lessening the need to punish him with death." As scarred as Harris's own background was, Haney says that degree of childhood abuse and trauma is commonplace among people who have committed egregious crimes. And therein lies the real key to crime prevention, says Haney: Rather than calling for ever more sophisticated prison fortresses that numb us to the humanity of those inside, prison officials must tend to the individual needs of inmates and prepare them for eventual release. And society needs to address the real causes of criminal behavior, embracing its youngest members early on to ensure that all children receive the emotional and material support that will help keep them safely beyond the reach of prison walls.

If capital punishment is even a potential deterrent, that is a significant enough social reason to implement it. Statistical analysis by Dr. Isaac Ehrlich at the University of Chicago suggests that capital punishment is a deterrent.(2) Although his conclusions were vigorously challenged, further cross- sectional analysis has confirmed his conclusions.(3) His research has shown that if the death penalty is used in a consistent way, it may deter as many as eight murders for every execution carried out. If these numbers are indeed accurate, it demonstrates that capital punishment could be a significant deterrent to crime in our society. Certainly capital punishment will not deter all crime. Psychotic and deranged killers, members of organized crime, and street gangs will no doubt kill whether capital punishment is implemented or not. A person who is irrational or wants to commit a murder will do so whether capital punishment exists or not. But social statistics as well as logic suggest that rational people will be deterred from murder because capital punishment is part of the criminal code. Capital Punishment In fact, most of the social and philosophical arguments against capital punishment are really not arguments against it at all. These arguments are really arguments for improving the criminal justice system. If discrimination is taking place and guilty people are escaping penalty, then that is an argument for extending the penalty, not doing away with it. Furthermore, opponents of capital punishment candidly admit that they would oppose the death penalty even if it were an effective deterrent.(5) So while these are important social and political issues to consider, they are not sufficient justification for the abolition of the death penalty. 2. Isaac Ehrlich, "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death," American Economic Review, June 1975. 3. Journal of Legal Studies, January 1977; Journal of Political Economy, June 1977; American Economic Review, June 1977. 4. Frank Carrington, Neither Cruel nor Unusual: The Case for Capital Punishment (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington, 1978), 118. 5. Further discussion of these points can be found in an essay by Ernest van den Haag, "The Collapse of the Case Against Capital Punishment," National Review, 31 March 1978, 395-407.
Abolitionist's Dictionary funny
Syndicated columnist Charley Reese made an interesting analogy while criticizing the way abolitionists typically behave when he wrote:When I think of all the sweet, innocent people who suffer extreme pain and who die every day in this country, then the outpouring of sympathy for cold-blooded killers enrages me. Where is your (expletive deleted) sympathy for the good, the kind and the innocent? This fixation on murderers is a sickness, a putrefaction of the soul. It's the equivalent of someone spending all day mooning and cooing over a handful of human feces. Sick and abnormal.
Pro Capital Punishment Page
In 1985, a study was published by economist Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina that showed that every execution of a murderer deters, on average, 18 murders. The study also showed that raising the number of death sentences by one percent would prevent 105 murders. However, only 38 percent of all murder cases result in a death sentence, and of those, only 0.1 percent are actually executed.During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University came up with these statistics, in 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Spence said:"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."And more recently, there have been 56 executions in the USA in 1995, more in one year since executions resumed in 1976, and there has been a 12 percent drop in the murder rate nationwide.And JFA (Justice for All) reports that in Texas, the highest murder rate in Houston (Harris County) occurred in 1981 with 701 murders. Since Texas reinstated the death penalty in 1982, Harris County has executed more murderers than any other city or state in the union and has seen the greatest reduction in murder from 701 in 1982 down to 261 in 1996 - a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential!Also, in the 1920s and 30s, Death penalty advocates were known to refer to England as a means of proving capital punishment's deterrent effect. Back then, at least 120 murderers were executed every year in the US and sometimes the number reached 200. Even then, England used the death penalty far more consistently than we did and their overall murder rate was smaller than any one of our major cities at the time. Now, since England abolished capital punishment about thirty years ago, the murder rate has subsequently doubled there and 75 English citizens have been murdered by released killers!The Honorable B. Rey Shauer, Justice of the Supreme Court of California, has said:"That the ever present potentiality in California of the death penalty, for murder in the commission of armed robbery, each year saves the lives of scores, if not hundreds of victims of such crimes, I cannot think, reasonably be doubted by any judge who has had substantial experience at the trial court level with the handling of such persons. I know that during my own trial court experience...included some four to five years (1930-1934) in a department of the superior court exclusively engaged in handling felony cases, I repeatedly heard from the lips of robbers...substantially the same story: 'I used a toy gun [or a simulated gun or a gun in which the firing pin or hammer had been extracted or damaged] because I didn't want my neck stretched.' (The penalty, at the time referred to, was hanging.)"What's more, in my state of New York, the death penalty is now in effect and there are many death penalty cases in progress, and the murder rate continues to drop faster than ever.In 1997, in the Atlantic, reporter Robert Kaplan remarked that "Democratic South Africa has become one of the most violent places on earth that are no war zones. The murder rate is six times that in the United States, five times that in Russia. There are private security guards for every policeman." Yet, South African officials still insist that the death penalty won't do a thing to reduce the murder rate. The New York Times magazine carried a story on the epidemic of rapes of children in the country:South Africa may have the highest incidence of reported rape in the world-120.6 rapes for every 100,000 women in 1997, compared with 71 in the US in 1996.One reason for the increase in attacks on young children is that the rapists think they are less likely to have AIDS since they know that AIDS itself has skyrocketed in Nelson Mandela's "earthly paradise." Think about that. Those rapists are less likely to attack grown women because they fear the lethal consequences of AIDS. This demonstrates that violent criminals are indeed capable of being deterred by lethal consequences for their actions if only on a sub-conscious level. If the death penalty were just as consistent, lethal, and as unstoppable as the AIDS virus, criminals would actually have reason to back down. Given the evidence, there is no logical reason to believe otherwise.Edward Koch, former mayor of New York City, said:"Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of...murderers, they might well have stayed their hand. They might have shown moral awareness before their victims died...Consider the tragic death of Rosa Velez, who happened to be home when a man named Luis Vera burglarized her apartment in Brooklyn. "Yeah, I shot her," Vera admitted. "...and I knew I wouldn't go to the chair."Abolitionists will claim that most studies show that the death penalty has no effect on the murder rate at all. But that's only because those studies have been focused on inconsistent executions. Capital punishment, like all other applications, must be used consistently in order to be effective. However, the death penalty hasn't been used consistently in the USA for decades, so abolitionists have been able to establish the delusion that it doesn't deter at all to rationalize their fallacious arguments. But the evidence shows that whenever capital punishment is applied consistently or against a small murder rate it has always been followed by a decrease in murder. I have yet to see an example on how the death penalty has failed to reduce the murder rate under those conditions.So capital punishment is very capable of deterring murder if we allow it to , but our legal system is so slow and inefficient, criminals are able to stay several steps ahead of us and gain leeway through our lenience. Several reforms must be made in our justice system so the death penalty can cause a positive effect.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...alty&hl=en</a>

Attitude change by society towards the death penalty. It's now "OK" to be against it.
http://www.ncjrs.org/works/chapter9.htm

This is important as it explains the analyst's expectations can influence the result of most studies. So, how many theories put ot there are suspect from the begining? http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...udies%22++</a>*expectations*+*affect+results*&hl=en


"Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. From this perspective, it is reasonable to attempt to prevent crime by preventing known offenders from continuing their criminal behavior. This chapter focuses on the options for dealing with actual perpetrators once they are identified so that crime in the community can be reduced."
I have NO IDEA how that smiley got in there!!! LOL