Will death penalty opponents (LIBERALS) please respond to these findings?

Question

Among the conclusions:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.

Answer 1

I'm all for the death penalty. but i gotta say that study you quoted is a crock, i don't believe it's possible to come up with the number of murders that weren't committed. i believe in the death penalty because quite simply, a dead murder/rapist/child molester will NEVER EVER do it again. and the thought of them living off of my tax dollars, watching cable tv is just wrong. i don't have cable or satellite tv, i have just the local air broadcasts, why should they get better?

Answer 2

If you don't read this whole thing just know this: there is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment.

Take a look at the statistics from various criminology studies and you will see that as executions decreased so did the number of murders commited.

William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder.

Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

Answer 3

It raises some interesting questions. But--if you are going to be fair--what are the estimates of how many innocent people are executed each year.

I'm familiar with these studies. They may be telling us something--but they are not conclusive. I'd definately favor faster executions as long as we do have them. But I'd rather we didn't have htem at alll. That--for me and a lot of people, raises a serious question. If the death penalty does save innocent lives, a lot of people hare going to have to do some hard thinking.

But--there is one question that these studies do not address that the research will have to aswer--and its a serious question regardless of ones position.

In brief--if this statistical data holds up--then we need to know : saves lives compared to what? And under what circumstances? In short--which homicides are prevented, which executions deter?--and what other types of punishment have what effects; are there non-lethal alternatives we don'tuse now tha twill work as well or better.

My point is: this opens up a lot of questions. IF--which unfortunately I doubt--the right wing will leae this alone so the scientists can do a good job onn these questions--we'll learn a lot that will definately save lives--even more than these studies predict.

But--that probably won't happen. Instead it will be seized on as "proof" merely bexause it coheres to right-wing ideology. Without waiting for real proof--which isn't there yet. And the losers will be the victims that could be saved--regardless of which way the final judgement goes--because the right-wing cares more for its ideology than real understanding.

Answer 4

Since 1973, 123 people on death row have been found to be innocent. These 123 are absolutely and truly innocent – that is, they did not just receive a lesser sentence, or have their conviction overturned on a technicality, or even win an appeal by a narrow margin – these are people whose innocence was determined because it would have been physically impossible for them to have been present when the crime was committed.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/NJtest.pdf


All but one of the 10 states with the highest death-sentencing rates had overall reversal rates that exceeded 68%--the national average--according to the review of more than 5,000 capital cases over 23 years by Columbia University law professor James S. Liebman, assisted by criminologists and statisticians.

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/ipa/021502.html

A University of Florida study found that between 1972 and 1997, 70 people were released from death row.

According to the study’s author:

• "These prisoners weren't let out of prison because of the system. They were let out in spite of the system. If the system had worked the way in which it was designed, these prisoners would have been dead before their innocence was discovered."

He further identified at least 23 instances innocent people being executed.

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/oldnews/innocent.htm

Answer 5

The other side to the argument is that you assume that everyone put in jail is guilty. Forensic Science has shown unequivocal evidence that many inmates have been sentenced for a crime they did not commit. Therefore, the strength of the advancement of blood testing, genetics and even carbon dating would be useful in making sure that our Justice System acts with greater precision. If we re-open the questionable cases that warrant scientific inquiry for those that further warrant additional investigation around the reasons of their incarceration; if found innocent of the charges leveled against them, then they should be paid restitution. This would be based on the number of years they have been on death row. Perhaps speeding up executions would not be such Byzantine public policy. We also would reduce the growing jail population. Surely you would not be advocating the death sentence for a U.S. citizen who has been inadvertently wronged by our judicial system. Killing an innocent man/woman can now be less of a casualty to our civility towards each other. I believe the iconic woman holding the scales of justice with a blindfold over her eyes would agree with this approach, as we weigh the merits of execution.

Answer 6

This is not a liberal vs conservative thing. The studies that you are referring to have been discredited by most researchers in the field. The researches relied on the methods of econometrics, which attempts to create statistical models that mirror what is going on it reality. However, when there is very little data (on capital punishment, the data comes overwhelming from a very few states and there is little data from others) these studies can be manipulated to reach whatever conclusion the researcher has hypothesized and results are innacurate.

Easiest to understand, however, is the fact that homicide rates are consistently higher in states and nations with death penalty than in those without it.

Answer 7

a million) it truly isn't certainly genuine. the backside homicide value is in a state with a loss of life penalty and the optimal homicide value is in DC, which does no longer have a loss of life penalty. added, on a nationwide point, the homicide value rose critically while the loss of life penalty replaced into positioned on carry around the country and then at once shrank while it replaced into back. So, the loss of life penalty of course deters crime. 2) study prepare that executions can steer away from as much as 18 murders each and each. From a basically value perspective, the value to look into, attempt and abode those murderers could far exceed the value of an execution. From a human perspective, we've in basic terms saved a lot of harmless lives. 3) There at the instant are not any regularly occurring situations of somebody being shown harmless after an execution interior the U. S.. And with advances in forensic technology it ought to no longer take place very oftentimes interior the destiny. 4) you won't be in a position to combat crime devoid of justice, and you will have justice devoid of a greater fit punishment for crime. So truly it boils right down to the fabled having our cake and eating too.. We no longer basically get justice, yet we are additionally lowering crime and lowering the entire value of the justice device.

Answer 8

I would have to look at those studies before a could draw any conclusions. I have doubts that any methodolgy could prove any of those things. The murders rate is higher in US states that have the death penalty than those that don't. There are numerous studies that show the death penalty is NOT a deterent to murder.

Answer 9

Before completing your question, keep in mind that those are the results of a single, probably biased, study. But I'll answer if you first respond to the repeated findings that many innocent people are executed in the U.S. each year for crimes they did not commit, especially in the biggest death penalty state, Texas.

Answer 10

Sorry A1BC, one error doesn't make an entire system flawed. That's not how the world works and you know it.

I guess since it's possible to wrongfully convict people, even when there's enough evidence TODAY to convict them but find out in 10 years we were wrong, we should totally get rid of our judicial system. You know, since it's flawed we may as well not have jails anymore since it's possible one person might be there by mistake.

Just think how much "better" the world would be if we all thought like you.

One person isn't enough to make something flawed. Heck, when drug companies do months of tests on a single revolutionary product, you think 1 failure is enough for them to stop? Imagine if they did, how many drugs on the market would be considered illegal (including Tylenol!).