Do you find this interesting?

Question

Apparently states that have no death penalty statues have half the Murder rate than those with a death penalty statue.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169

Answer 1

Interesting; there fore, we must conclude, the death penalty promotes murder,

Gomer. Surprise!...Surprise!

Answer 2

The death penalty definitely worked on the one put to death. If the death penalty was more swift, instead of the average being 18 years on death row, then I think it would be more of a deterrent. However, The cost for a prisoner is somewhere around 30-35 thousand a year whether on death row or not so I don't see how the death penalty is more costly that life in prison.

Yes, you do have the chance of no recall happening in a very limited amount of cases. Some of those cases that have been caught before a death sentence was carried out doesn't mean the person was totally exonerated either.

The advent of DNA used in cases is definitely helpful to the cause of both pro and con death penalty. Many of those taken off death row were because of DNA tests. When they were found guilty originally, doesn't mean the circumstances weren't there to convict.

Answer 3

Yes, study after study shows that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is questionable at best. Violent crime rates ARE higher in death penalty states. This may seem counterintuitive, and there are many theories about why this is (Ted Bundy saw it as a challenge, so he chose Florida – the most active execution state at the time – to carry out his final murder spree). Personally, I think it has to do with the hypocrisy of taking a stand against murder…by killing people. The government becomes the bad parent who says, ‘do as I say, not as I do.’

There are many, many other reasons to oppose the death penalty. Among them:

1. For me, the most compelling is this: Sometimes the legal system gets it wrong. Look at all the people who have been released after years of imprisonment because they were exonerated by DNA evidence. Unfortunately, DNA evidence is not available in most cases. No matter how rare it is, the government should not risk executing one single innocent person.

Really, that should be reason enough for most people. If you need more, read on:

2. Because of the extra expense of prosecuting a DP case and the appeals process (which is necessary - see reason #1), it costs taxpayers MUCH more to execute prisoners than to imprison them for life.

3. There’s also an argument to be made that death is too good for the worst of our criminals. Let them wake up and go to bed every day of their lives in a prison cell, and think about the freedom they DON’T have, until they rot of old age. When Ted Bundy was finally arrested in 1978, he told the police officer, “I wish you had killed me.”

4. The U.S. government is supposed to be secular, but for those who invoke Christian law in this debate, you can find arguments both for AND against the death penalty in the Bible. For example, Matthew 5:38-39 insists that violence shall not beget violence. James 4:12 says that God is the only one who can take a life in the name of justice. Leviticus 19:18 warns against vengeance (which, really, is what the death penalty amounts to). In John 8:7, Jesus himself says, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Answer 4

This is the clearest evidence that the death penalty is not a deterrent. BTW, regions with an active death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it.

To act as a deterrent (that is, to convince others not to commit a crime) a punishment must be sure and swift. The death penalty is neither. (Why not? The worst mistakes are not reversible.) Life without parole, on the other hand, is sure and swift (and costs much less than the death penalty.)

Answer 5

This has been known for quite some time. As for those who claim that Michigan "invalidates" the data, not true since you are talking about an overall average and rates. To have a single statistical anomaly within the data is not rare. In fact, almost all of the states without the death penalty have murder rates lower than the national average.

Answer 6

Did you check and see the rates BEFORE they had the death penalty.....no change. This stat is mis--construed because they enacted the death penalty to lower the rate. It lowered in those states...but only fractionally. you need to dig deeper on stuff like this. it does not prove anything.

Answer 7

its been know for a long time that the death penalty is not a deterrent. only ideologues that want to exact revenge support the death penalty.

not that revenge is bad, its just that the supporters of the death penalty like to sugar coat their position and prop it up with falsehoods. if they were honest with everyone about why they really wanted the death penalty they would at least be more respectable.

Answer 8

You could argue that states without the death penalty don't need it yet, as their crime is often lower.

When their crime catches up to the rest of us, they'll be getting the death penalty.

Answer 9

Where are these death penalty statues, in front of a museum. Try statute. I guess your spell check wouldn't have caught that.

Answer 10

No, because I didn't open the site. To me it's the same as opening a URL in an e-mail. Now if you actually asked a question that I could reply to without visiting unknow websites, I certainly would.