- Sorry, we couldn't find that question.
| Should the death penalty be used when studies show that for every murderer executed it deters 5 other murderers? |
|
Should the death penalty be used when studies show that for every murderer executed it deters 5 other murderers?
Click to vote
|
|
||||
|
|
United States
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Yes! And their cat, dog, pet bird and the rest of their relatives.
I sure do, and it saves taxpayers the money to keep them alive.
hi bec. wanted to point out another study, but had to work. but can't find it now. (convenient eh? - it was probably wrong, that's why it's lost in cyber space ;)) anyway, it claimed to show that death row trials cost much more then the cost of life imprisonment, including food, healthcare, education, etc... sorry i can't find it.
It just inst right to have to let work interfere :) I would like to see that study if you find it, thanks.
Dr. Heller speaks of the erroneous argument that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to murder:
Deterrence is the worst, the most fraudulent principle. The death penalty has no deterrent effect because murder is committed for three different reasons or motivations. First, passion. Second, profit. And third, compulsion.
If it's for profit, the people who kill for profit do it very rationally. They are always convinced that they will not be caught.
Second, passion crimes cannot...cannot be deterred. If you hate your husband that much that you kill your husband, no one, no punishment can deter you.
And the worst is, of course, crimes by compulsion. If a sexual criminal kills a child, for example. Unfortunately, these are the kind of criminal, violent acts which cannot be deterred at all because it is a compulsion.
Who is Dr. Heller?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81gnes_Heller
If you hate your husband so much that no punishment can deter you, why should you suppose you have a right to live after you killed him?
Same deal for someone who is compelled to kill.
In other words, what's your point?
The ONLY reason I am personally against the death penalty is because it is a known fact there have been more than a couple of innocent people released from death row in the last ten years. As long as humans are imperfect and cannot be 100% positive of guilt or innocence 100% of the time there should be no death penalty.
Dr. Heller offered the following opinion on the death penalty:
If you support the death penalty and only one single innocent person is killed, and killing an innocent person is murder, then you become murderers. So, you also deserve to be killed. This is the paradox of the death penalty, and you cannot avoid this paradox.
You are begging the question with your implicit assumption that the particular studies you cite are definitive. There are other studies that show it has no deterrence effect. So the correct choice (which you didn't offer) is, "Studies disagree."
This statement in the study says "a series" so it looks definitive to me. Do you have studies that show different? I'm willing to listen but one of the studies cited puts the number at 18 lives saved!! Looks like the people doing the study were against the death penalty too.
What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument _ whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted kille
Wow!! Somebody actually read the study. I'm impressed.
The "studies" are flawed both statistically and methodologically.
<http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2374>
Very good articles and they actually address the very study cited above. I'll let the studies authors defend themselves with the following quote from the article.
"Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws."
"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."
Would you expect them to say differently? Please note that they only address the fact that they are being criticized, not the validity of the criticism. Regardless of their motives, if the criticism is valid, it's valid.
Which study is this? How was it constructed? Who took part? So far as I can see, The 'murder rate' is rather better now than it was 200 years ago. I think they hung young children for bread stealing at that time. Mmmm. Lets kill some peeps!
Its actually a series of studies done over a 6 year period by well known Liberal Universities. You can go to the link and from there you could easily find the entire studies online.
But lets just say for arguments sake that for every execution it DID deter 18 others. Would you then allow the death penalty?
No. I'd never be totally confident I would not kill an innocent
Huge amounts of information through the links. Could you answer my questions above? I understand the desire for vengeance. Some people deserve to die. Some people need to die in order to protect others from them. Still, In no way can I be sure that the Black Hat will make any difference. From a moral point the Death point is impossible
I'm sure many people feel like that but I think we should protect the truly innocent.
To make this clear, I can not and will not ever agree with the Death Sentence; regardless of how much I may sympathise
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
No, I can't answer those questions in the very limited space available here and it would be very boring if I tried. The studies are there for you to look at and I'll let you read them and answer your own questions. If you are unable to do that then simply ignore the entire question and go to one that is a little simpler. There are plenty of them on here.
Not at all. I oppose the Death Penalty because it is almost impossible to ensure that the innocent are not killed by the State. The State represents us. I would rather not be implicated in such foolishness outside war
"Outside war"?
You mean you wouldn't mind being implicated in such foolishness INSIDE war?
Is war a valid excuse for foolishness?
Yes. What the F**k was I thinking! Take my meaning to be "foolishness" and throw this idiot thought in the lake!!
I know what you meant and it is a worthy opinion. I'm for killing the murderers only when extraordinary proof is present. I too would hate to execute an innocent. It seems though that if these studies are correct then that is what happens when we fail to do our duty.
Still can't accept the thought of The Black Hat. We are better than that!
Even if the studies are correct (which it appears they are not... heck, they are not even consistent), your premise is flawed. If we fail to execute a murderer and 18 (or 5 or 3 or -1) murderers are not deterred because of that, that does NOT make us responsible for the subsequent murders.