Why don't libs just accept that studies prove they are liars?

Question

Why can't they accept the proof provided by study after study that demonstrates that the death penalty deters crime? After all, they think we should all drink the kool-aid about man causing global warming.

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

The only evidence libs have that the death penalty doesn't deter crime is all their whiny hot air.

Answer 1

Back before there were self-service gas stations, 60 Minutes did an expose about gas stations that would sabotage something on your car as you were getting gas. They installed hidden cameras all around the car, and the tape clearly showed this mechanic, his face, his name tag.... everything.... puncturing a tire.

When 60 Minutes confronted the thieving mechanic, and showed him the tape, he said, "That's not me". The interviewer didn't even know how to respond to this brazen lying. He could only sputter, "What do you mean that's not you? We just filmed this five minutes ago. That's your face, right? That's the name tag on your shirt, right?" The mechanic just kept repeating, "That's not me".

Well, that is Liberals in a nutshell. You can have them figuratively pinned to the wall, and they still won't admit the truth. They won't admit they are wrong. If you watch the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle", you can see that man made global warming is a massive hoax.

The death penalty is not a deterrent? That's a joke. This is typical Liberal wishful thinking.

Answer 2

I'll answer Stephanie's question and I'll even be nice about it. The reason the Death Penalty fails to provide the deterrent it should is because of liberals. Now, before you quit reading hear me out.

The ACLU and other organizations have for decades gotten involved in death penalty cases, even when not wanted by the person on death row, and in doing so have gotten laws on the books that never should have been. Things like the overwhelming amount of appeals which cause the application to be repeatedly delayed limit the effectiveness of the penalty.

By the time most people, in states other than Texas and a select few others, finally reach the death chamber and the sentence is carried out most people not directly affected by the crime have forgotten about it. This leads to apathy and the deterrent value of the penalty is again diluted.

Only in the last few years when the penalty is applied, within a short period of time, has it begun to again make an impact on society. The liberal slant that death should be quiet and easy has also lead to the decreased effectiveness of the penalty. To lay down and go to sleep compared to the violent drop and twitching of a hanging also makes a marked difference.

To be more effective the penalty should be applied as grotesquely and publicly as possible. If done in that manner it would in fact have the effect most proponents hope for.

Ok, someone else brought up that fake fact that has bounced around forever. "It costs more than keeping a person in jail". The reason for the increased cost of a death penalty case is the unusal amount of appeals available. The penalty, when applied in a fair amount of time, costs less than a 30 year life sentence.

As for morally wrong. You are wrong and right. To your morals it is wrong, to mine it is right and to Society it is right as well. Therefore, since the majority of society finds the penalty to be morally justified and correct your opinion becomes irrelevant.

Answer 3

I don't care if it has a deterrent effect, you never know if a guy is really guilty, new evidence might be presented ten years later, and if he's already dead, you would feel pretty bad...
plus don't you think it's a worse punishment to force someone to rot in a cell the rest of their life...
And, contrary to popular beliefe, it costs more to execute someone under the death penalty then it does to pay for them rotting in jail... Why?
Because of all the appeals, paying for the judges, public defenders and prosecutors, those on death row can appeal their decision a bunch of times (if i remember correctly the average was 8, not sure though), on average it costs more than paying for a life sentence...

Answer 4

I don't know if it deters crime but if their crime was that heinous for a jury to convict, then give the person one appeal and if they don't get it, put them down quickly and silently. Society doesn't need someone who was not deterred by the death penalty any opportunity to prolong execution of their sentence.

Answer 5

The death penalty is morally wrong,,period.
If you want to live by economics instead of by scruples and morals,,then go sleep with George Bush.
;
If you want to be the next innocent person accused, and put to death, for a crime you did not commit, then cheer this study.
.
The study used an economic model, and I don't trust economic models.
Why?
Because no economist has ever been right about anything.
Whether it was Keynes or Feldman, they were never right.
.
No study has ever been done that fully leads to understanding why people commit mayhem.
When you take all of the other factors in hand, like the one person killing 30 students and the woman killing all 3 of her children, then you will realize that the death penalty does no good at all.
People who are mentally unstable will kill no matter what the law says. As our population continues to grow, so will the number of people who commit crime.
.
If you want to stop crime, hang a politician for lying, stealing or leading this country into a stupid war.

Answer 6

Another charge leveled at the 'liberal' strawman. The way this works is you redefine a word, and that object, in this case the word 'liberal', and then you ascribe a new meaning, and in this case a pejoritive meaning. Now you have a strawman that can be accused of any kind of mischief you care to think about. So, let's say that the 'liberal' strawman' admits that he/she/it is a liar. What does that mean in the real world? Zero! The object of creating a strawman is to try to force your opponents to defend the strawman, rather than to reject the argument as being total nonsense. Give this a think the next time the 'strawman' takes a hit as in the 'question' above!

Answer 7

I'm a liberal and I always thought that the death penalty was a good crime deterrent.

Are we generalizing here?

And how does this prove that liberals are liars? Most people haven't a clue about these studies. People aren't for the death penalty because they believe another killing is pointless to carry out.

Answer 8

Here we go with these generalizations about Libs again...the question should begin with...why don't SOME Libs...?

Myself personally, being a Lib...I agree with the death penalty, and I also think you need a CT scan if you think people don't add to the detrimental effects of global warming!!

Answer 9

Not all libs are against the death penalty. I think it works.

Answer 10

Liberals are not good with using reason. Most liberals let thier emotions guide thier decision making, whereas conservatives base thier decision making on logic. Why would you expect a delusional person to good choices. Many liberals were raised to think that life is fair, nowhere in the bible or the constitution does it state that life is supposed to be fair. Thats the facts. Life is not fair, and thats just a fact.