♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 6, 2010 18:18:26 GMT
On this thread members are welcome to present their reason(s) to justify or dispute the justification of the Death Penalty as it is used in modern nations today such as the US, Japan, etc..
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Jan 6, 2010 19:07:33 GMT
Against: 1) It might put off a jury coming up with a guilty verdict if they are conscientious objectors, and the jury is not selected to prevent this so they can focus ONLY on determining guilt
2) Someone wrongly found guilty, there are no tapbacks
For: 1) A deterrent for planned crimes, though not crimes of passion, as these are uncontrolled spur of the moment things
2) Spares the future victims of serial offenders
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2010 19:10:04 GMT
But what evidence is there that the death penalty works as a deterrent?
I presented some (on t'other thread) which suggests that it doesn't.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 6, 2010 19:20:33 GMT
The death penalty clearly is a stronger deterrent than LWOP in reducing murder-especially capital murder. Not only is this COMMON SENSE! BUT, this conviction has statistical support! This study examines DP eligible murders, in particular serial killers www.health-care-technology-llc.com/frbdeathpen.htm QUOTE:
Since 1972, when the death penalty was banned, there have been over 591,000 murders in the U.S. This analysis shows that the DEATH PENALTY DOES REDUCE MURDER!
IS THE DEATH PENALTY EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING MURDER?
This analysis demonstrates that the death penalty DOES REDUCE MURDER in general, and serial murderers in particular. Since ancient times capital punishment was recognized as the most effective way of dealing with crimes against society. The Bible condones and even commands death for murder and a variety of other offenses including kidnapping, witchcraft, and sodomy. Jesus never condemned capital punishment and the Apostle Paul appeared to condone it. The practice of capital punishment came to America from English common law. Since then the death penalty has almost always been a feature of our criminal justice system. The first known execution in America was of Daniel Frank, put to death in 1622 in the Colony of Virginia for the crime of theft. The phrase in the Fifth Amendment, which states that no man, shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law certainly seems to indicate that death was seen as an acceptable punishment for convicted criminals. Widespread approval of the death penalty, with the exception of the abolitionist movements of the mid nineteenth century, appears to have persisted in the United States from colonial times up to the 1950s.
However, beginning in the 1950s and the civil rights era, critics of the death penalty claimed that it was barbaric, racist, and ineffective in preventing murder. They point out that States such as Texas and Florida that employ capital punishment have higher murder rates than do states that don't employ it, and that no statistical correlation can be shown between capital punishment and murder. Concern is also expressed about innocent men, especially minorities, being executed. At that time, the violent crime rate was low and the belief among many Americans was that capital punishment was no longer justified as a crime deterrent. Consequently, executions declined sharply in the U.S. from an average of 130 executions yearly (1930s-1940's) to just one in 1967. The late 1960s were challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment (Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 153 (1972). Three justices focused on the arbitrariness of the application of capital punishment and the appearance of racial bias against black defendants. Although the violent crime rate was at historic lows in the early 1950s, the murder rate began to increase sharply in the 1960s and 1970s. Capital punishment laws were subsequently rewritten to comply with the Supreme Court's decision against the death penalty as practiced and executions resumed in 1977.
With the increase of murders in the 1960's came a new phenomenon. The explosive increases in serial or series murderers. Prior to the 1950s, the number of serial murderers in the U.S. since colonial times was typically between two to four per decade (Figure 1 below). The exceptions were the turbulent decades of the 1870s and 1920s, when nine serial murders were recorded. However, during the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the number of serial murderers increased exponentially from 10 to 60 per decade! Never before in history had such an explosion of serial killings occurred. Serial murders were killing dozens of people before being captured. Jack the Ripper, with five victims, is an amateur compared to today's serial murderer. Of the over 15,000 murders committed annually in the U.S., an estimated 30 to 40 percent are committed by serial murderers. Before the 1970s the term "serial murderer" did not even exist. Robert K. Ressler of the FBI coined the term 'serial killer' in the mid-1970s because the murders occurred in a series over time.
Why the sudden increase in murder in general and serial murder in particular, beginning in the late 1950s? Was it caused by poverty, racism, and despair, or was it caused by the suspension of the death penalty? Figure 2 shows the number of murders, the number of sentences for murder, and the number of executions in the U.S. for the period 1972-2000 (Source: US Department of Justice, FBI). The decline in the number of murder can be seen starting in the 1990's. A steady increase in sentences since 1972 and a sharp increase in executions preceded this decline in murders. When polynumerial curves are fitted to the number of murders and executions, a definite inverse relationship is evident. As executions declined in the 70s, murders increased, and as executions increased in the 1980s, murders decreased.
Let's consider the effect of capital punishment on serial murderers. Figure 3 shows U.S. serial murderers and executions by decade for the 1930s through the 1990s (Source: US Bureau of Justice Statistics). The direct relationship between the number of serial murderers in a given decade and the number of executions during that decade is inescapable. During the 1970s when the number of executions reached their lowest point at three, the number of serial murderers reached their highest point at 60! And as executions increased in the 1980s and 1990s, their number has declined.
Thus, a statistical correlation is shown between capital punishment and murder, especially serial murder. When one considers that the U.S. with just six- percent of the world population has three quarters of the world's serial murderers, the importance of this correlation cannot be ignored. Profiles of serial murders show them to typically be white males between 25-35 years old with average to above average intelligence. They usually come from middle income homes, are married with children, and have careers. Serial murderers are not the product of poverty, cruelty, or social injustice. They kill simply because they enjoy killing. Base upon the above analysis, serial killers are also very rational and are deterred by the threat of retribution for their heinous crimes. No one wants to die, including serial murderers. Proof of this is the very long stay on death row for murders, now over eight years. If the death penalty is not a deterrent, why do murderers so fear it?
The next question is, given that capital punishment deters murder, how much capital punishment is enough. Unfortunately, reliable execution statistics are not available prior to the 1930s when the Bureau of Justice began to systematically collect them. According to the ACLU, over 13,000 people have been executed in the U.S. to date. Dividing this number by 200 years (1790s-1990s) gives an average of 65 executions a year or 650 per decade. Considering the relatively small number of serial murderers prior to the 1950s, this level of executions, appears justified.
Death penalty critics argue that it should be abolished since an innocent man may be put to death. As they say, "you can't pardon a corpse".
A friend of mine once asked me, "Frank, would you want to be unjustly executed. I answered, "Steve, would you want to be a victim of a paroled murderer?"
We must weigh the innocent man argument with the 15,000 plus innocent victims of murder in the U.S. each year. How many lives does executing one murderer spare? Can this be determined? Should it be determined? I say yes to both questions. Between 1994 and 2000 an average of 65 murderers were executed. During this same period the number of murders dropped from an average of more than 20,000 yearly between 1972 and 1993 to about 15,000 yearly. Thus a yearly average of 65 executions reduced murder by about 5,000 per year. Each execution during this period appears to have prevented about 77 murders of innocent victims. Think of the many thousands of innocent lives that could have been saved had the death penalty not been banned during the 1970s. The U.S. Constitution requires the government to protect its citizens. The use of the death penalty is not only effective, but is constitutionally required! REMEMBER, EXECUTED MURDERERS DO NOT MURDER AGAIN! See Repeat Murderers.
Looking at Chart 1 - Repeat Murders - we see that over 8 percent of convicted state and federal prisoners under sentence of death had PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDER! When we consider that about 37 percent of homicides committed in 2000 went UNSOLVED (BJS Statistics), we must wonder how many innocent people these convicted murderers have really killed! When we consider that the average sentence for murder in 1996 was only eight and one-half years (with time off for good behavior!) with the median sentence only 5 years, and that only about 45 percent sucessfully completed parole, the wisdom of putting murderers to death is evident.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 6, 2010 19:24:13 GMT
I agree with you, Skylark, and I always find that too many pros overuse the deterrence claim just as too many antis overuse the innocence claim.
I've come across antis who are stupid enough to believe that Ramirez and Manson were INNOCENT; I've come across a pro who believes that NO innocent person has EVER been executed.
I support the death penalty because it's a proportionate punishment for murder. I don't support the use of execution for any other crime but if you take another person's life then you should pay the price for that with your own life.
That's why I'm a pro.
All the arguments about deterrence or non-deterrence, guilt or innocence, costs of execution versus imprisonment, mean nothing to me.
It's because murder is the deliberate killing of another person that the only proper punishment for it is execution.
That's how I feel, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Jan 6, 2010 19:26:45 GMT
I agree with you, Skylark, and I always find that too many pros overuse the deterrence claim just as too many antis overuse the innocence claim. I concur. For me, it is just to prevent a repeat-offending (or overly cruel) killer/rapist from having more victims in the future. The other points I made above were for completion's sake, but this is the most important one in my mind
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 6, 2010 21:54:51 GMT
Anna
I am not sure what your figures prove but there is no way you can use these figures to verify any of the claims you have made. You have no way of knowing how many murders far less serial murders there where in America in 1780 for example. Given that many serial killers target people with little or no ties in a community, it is only recently that we had accurate figures and communications to how many people were in any City in America so people going 'missing' or killed without being detected would have been fairly common.
We have far better detection now, so we are able to identify serial murders now. How could ten unconnected murders in Boston in 1820 be counted as a serial murderer if there was no underlying MO we could identify? Or even a murder in Jacksonvile, Tampa, Atlanta and New York? We can detect murders now that prevoiusly they would have been regarded as natural causes, sucides, or worse. How many slaves were routinely killed and not even treated as a crime? Surely most of these figures are down the fact that we have became better equiped to measure serial killers?
When we learn to identify fingerprints and record such evidence then we can identify the fact that these finger prints are at two or three murder sites, then we can call that a serial murderer? The sheriff and Marshalls would have no way collecting such information sothe figures are not the same.
The other glaringly obvious flaw in the stats is the fact there is a time lag in built into these figures. Serial murders are active over years and decades. If we look at the 1970s. The highest spike, many of them will have been active in the 1960s or even the 1950s, so it would be difficult to equate them being caught (or identified) with the low death penalty because they will have started when the death penalty was higher.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 6, 2010 22:14:47 GMT
The modern serial killer, who murdered as a hobby was virtually non-existent before Jack the Ripper. It could be argued that only those with political power were serial killers before that period such as the historical Count Dracula in Romania.
Displaying murdered victims to shock society as in the Samantha Runnion case was virtually non-existent, during the pioneer days of the US.
It's a simple fact that serial killers such as b*ndy and g@cy committed their first murders after the DP was foolishly outlawed by the Supreme Court in the US. Not only did serial killers get started in a number that was never experience in US history.. other capital murders skyrocketed! My relatives in Rockford, Ill. USA are still shocked by the abduction and torture murder of a 14 year old newspaper delivery boy, named Joey Didier, shortly after the DP was outlawed!
Many of the thrill killers, who struck after the DP was outlawed were captured after their first capital murder so they technically don't qualify as serial killers, although the mindset is the same!
The "loving gesture" of outlawing the DP was the wrong message to send to these potential hobby killers!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 6, 2010 23:09:05 GMT
The modern serial killer, who murdered as a hobby was virtually non-existent before Jack the Ripper. Where is your evidence for that, Anna? Surely you mean that serial killers were merely not identified as such until 'Jack the ripper'? There could just as easily been as many then as now, but we merely have failed to regonise that fact.
It's a simple fact that serial killers such as b*ndy and g@cy committed their first murders after the DP was foolishly outlawed by the Supreme Court in the US. Again evidence that the death penalty deterred them appears to be missing. Have you anything to back that up?
Not only did serial killers get started in a number that was never experience in US historyAgain, is that because we can identify serial murderers as our understanding of collecting and identifying evidence is better?
Many of the thrill killers, who struck after the DP was outlawed were captured after their first capital murder so they technically don't qualify as serial killers, although the mindset is the same!
Again, does this mean that the ending of the death sentence was a factor? They have the death sentence in Russia, but Russia has more murders than during the Soviet union too.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2010 6:39:36 GMT
Anna ........................ The other glaringly obvious flaw in the stats is the fact there is a time lag in built into these figures. Serial murders are active over years and decades. If we look at the 1970s. The highest spike, many of them will have been active in the 1960s or even the 1950s, so it would be difficult to equate them being caught (or identified) with the low death penalty because they will have started when the death penalty was higher. Indeed - and the graphs also overlook the fact that "Death row inmates in the U.S. typically spend over a decade awaiting execution. Some prisoners have been on death row for well over 20 years." (see www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row)Presumably death row prisoners have the sme rights as anyone else to milk the appeal process to their hearts' content.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2010 6:43:43 GMT
So far, only Lin has come out in support of the death penalty as retribution. It is a perfectly honourable reason for punishment, and so far as I am concerned the only valid justification for the death penalty - though I don't agree with it largely because of the very real risk of wrongful conviction.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 7, 2010 9:59:36 GMT
The modern serial killer, who murdered as a hobby was virtually non-existent before Jack the Ripper. Where is your evidence for that, Anna? Surely you mean that serial killers were merely not identified as such until 'Jack the ripper'? There could just as easily been as many then as now, but we merely have failed to regonise that fact. Again evidence that the death penalty deterred them appears to be missing. Have you anything to back that up? Again, is that because we can identify serial murderers as our understanding of collecting and identifying evidence is better?
Many of the thrill killers, who struck after the DP was outlawed were captured after their first capital murder so they technically don't qualify as serial killers, although the mindset is the same!
Again, does this mean that the ending of the death sentence was a factor? They have the death sentence in Russia, but Russia has more murders than during the Soviet union too. Deterrence is of course not prevention! There is no threat of punishment that will eliminate murder 100%.
I think you must concede however that if a strong deterrent like the death penalty is replaced with a weak deterrent like a $50- fine murder would increase. True neither of us would commit murder, regardless of the punishment, but i think you understand my point.
The form of murders that Jack the Ripper committed shocked society in a manner that was previously unknown. You suggest that maybe serial killers just were never noticed before that and their victims weren't noticed either. This leaves you with the burden of proof that modern serial killers existed earlier. Some could argue that American killers like Jesse James, John Dillinger and Billy the Kid were "modern serial killers". The "robbery murderer has always existed in recorded history-true-but not sadistic, predatorial hobby murderers, without political power-such as the historical Count Dracula, the Inca/Aztec ritual murdering priests and certain other tyrants.
I suppose it's "politically correct" to believe that the massive increase in predatorial serial killings in the US after the DP was outlawed was a "coincidence". For some reason it's however accepted that more severe punishments reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road.
When the DP is horribly misused to deter good actions it is also very effective. Everyone is also in agreement as far as i know that Hitler's liberal use of the death penalty greatly reduced active political opposition and was a major reason why he remained in power.
The DP is a deterrent just as morphine is a pain killer and both can be rightfully or wrongfully used or misued! B ut common sense is of course "politically incorrect"!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2010 10:08:05 GMT
Anna, there is absolutely nothing "politically correct" in my rejection of a correlation between the death penalty and murder. I simply think that using statistics clouds the issue. That is why I have not used this kind of information in support of my arguments: There are some indicators that it acts as an anti-deterrent i.e. the death penalty actually increases the homicide rate:
In 1996, those states which had the death penalty had an average murder rate of 7.1 per 100,000 population; those states which do not execute people had a homicide rate of 3.6. 3 Comparing adjacent states where one state has the death penalty and the other does not, frequently shows that the states with capital punishment have a much higher homicide rate. 3 A report of the Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that during 1996, Southern states, where about 81% of the executions are performed, have an average murder rate of 9 per 100,000 population. States in the Northeast are responsible for 1% of the executions and have a murder rate of 5.4 3 A 1980 study of homicides in New York found that the average numbers of murders increased in the month following an execution 16 A 1995 study of the annual percentage increases in homicide rates in California showed that murders increased 10% a year during 1952 to 1967 when the state was executing people. When the state performed no executions (1968-1991) the average rate of increase was less (4.8%) Canada's homicide rate has dropped 27% since the death penalty was abolished in that country (for ordinary crimes) in 1976. For many years prior to 1976, the federal government had converted each death sentence to life imprisonment. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports Division publication Crime in the US for 1995 reports that there were 4.9 murders per 100,000 people in states that have abolished the death penalty, compared with 9.2 murders in those states which still have the death penalty. "In no state has the number of murders diminished after legalizing the death penalty."
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 7, 2010 10:25:09 GMT
Dearest SkyLark, Again as is typical this study ignores the fact that 99% of all homicides in the US are not DP eligible. Asking why non-DP eligible homicides aren't neccesarily deterred by the DP is like asking why robbery isn't deterred by the DP. The answer should be obvious!
True states with a traditionally higher murder rate do have more pressure to enact the DP as an option in the judical system. The northern states with their cold winters have also traditionally always had a lower homicide rate and here we find a number of anti-DP states.
Finally there is no US state where the US federal government cannot pursue a death penalty case. The abductor and murderer of Dru Sjodin committed this crime in the anti-DP states of Minnesota and North Dakota and was to his shock sentenced to death by the federal government which took the case!
In other words the death penalty is a possibility in all 50 states as well as Puerto Rico and other US terriorities!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2010 10:52:22 GMT
Anna, I said at the top of my last post that I do NOT rely on statistics such as this to argue my case, and you have rightly illustrated why I take that stand.
Take the bar chart in your message 3 purporting to draw a link between serial murderers (does it mean murders?) and the abolition of the death penalty.
I'm not sure what counts as a serial murder; the second or subsequent killing in a series perhaps? Either way, you can see that the number was creeing up in the 1960s, and went sky high in the 1970s when (for about five years) the death penalty was abolished.
The table doesn't show that the killings in the 1970s were all committed between 1972 and 1977 - but even if they were, what happened subsequently? The rate dropped, but no way did it drop to the 1960 level. The table is not any proof that the death penalty deters serial kilelrs, any more than the statistics in my previous post show that it increases homicide.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 7, 2010 11:40:27 GMT
Anna
The concept of serial killers is a newish one. Here in Britian, we have a case of a guy going round the Country killing young girls in Scotland down to Kent. Previously, if he were caught he would have been convicted in one area by one judge for one of the crimes. There was little or no co-operation between the law makers at the time. So the rest of the crimes would have remained unsolved. No-one would have connected a seemingly random attack in Bathgate to one in Kent or even Glasgow for that matter. But since the 1900s and esp. the 1950s police forces pool information about crimes andwe are able to link crimes to given mo fingerprint, DNA etc so that even if we are unable to capture the crimminal, we are at least able to identify the fact that they are connected to the same killer. Tobin's crimes are still being investigated and further victims identified and he will face further chargers in the future. To compare these figures today, with those of 1790 and draw reasonible conclusions seems pretty pointless.
We have had the death penalty in this Country right up to the 1960s but during that time some of the most notorious murderers and offenders were never detered. Jack the ripper was never detered, nor was Crippen, Dick Turpin or any number of people during that time. You cannot show be evidence that murderers were detered by the Death penalty.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 7, 2010 11:57:59 GMT
Dearest RV and SkyLark! True there will never be statistics of "envisioned murders" that didn't occur, because the potential murderer abandonned his plan to kill, due to fear of the death penalty! Envisoned or planned murders that don't occur can't be measured.
To deny the deterrent effect of the DP you have to claim that no "potential murderer" ever in history decided against carrying out an envisioned murder because he felt that getting the death penalty was too great a risk to take.
I think we have here in part at least a COMMON SENSE vs POLITICAL CORRECTNESS argument!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 7, 2010 12:19:33 GMT
...99% of all homicides in the US are not DP eligible... I don't know what the criteria are for a murder to be DP eligible - are they so easy to understand that a person contemplating murder would be clear before committing it whether his particular murder would be eligible or not? Or are the criteria such that he could make a calculated decision to commit another sort of murder instead?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2010 12:27:36 GMT
Anna, in your reply 13 you accuse those who reject the correlation between an (alleged) rise in serial murders and the abolition of the death penalty as being "politically correct." No-one who knows anything about statistics (and I don't know much) could come to this conclusion without further proof.
Did it happen in Canada? Did it happen in New Zealand, or any other country which abolished the DP?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 7, 2010 12:29:46 GMT
...99% of all homicides in the US are not DP eligible... I don't know what the criteria are for a murder to be DP eligible - are they so easy to understand that a person contemplating murder would be clear before committing it whether his particular murder would be eligible or not? Or are the criteria such that he could make a calculated decision to commit another sort of murder instead? Most homicides are committed when a dispute between friends or family escalates into lethal violence. These homicides are not really planned and generally regretted afterwards.
The DP eligible homicides in the US always have severe aggravating circumstances and are committing in the course of another crime e.g. robbery, kidnapping, rape, arson, etc.. These murders are planned and usually not regretted by the murderer, unless he/she is caught.
|
|