|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 22, 2010 13:01:12 GMT -5
Of course my question is what good is done by executing these prisoners? . And what's bad about executing the worse of them. Rules.. 1. Beyond ANY reasonable doubt. 2. Can't bring the moral question if the cage solution has no more moral value then death. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 22, 2010 14:18:31 GMT -5
Has an inmate in a maximum security prison, serving a life sentence for murder, ever escaped a Canadian jail? Kingston has had 26 escapes, although only 1 since 1958 (in 1999 a bank robber named Tyn Conn went over the wall). I can't find anything else about any other facilities right now, but I would imagine that if Mr. Conn (who had a history of escape) was able to escape from Kingston (considered to be the most secure facility in Canada) then your average run of the mill murderer could also do it at another high security site. Not a Bernardo or an Olsen mind you - they are probably more closely monitored due to their notoriety, but not everyone is quite as notorious as that. I know there was a murderer that escaped from Frontenac (thats in Kingston isnt it?) last year ... but it was a minimum security prison. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 22, 2010 14:25:04 GMT -5
Of course my question is what good is done by executing these prisoners? . And what's bad about executing the worse of them. Rules.. 1. Beyond ANY reasonable doubt. That criteria can not be satisfied .... there are some people that confess to stuff they didn't do, as foolish as it may seem. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Oct 22, 2010 14:27:50 GMT -5
Of course my question is what good is done by executing these prisoners? . Rules.. 1. Beyond ANY reasonable doubt. definition, please. Donald Marshall spent how many years in jail . . . no reasonable doubt [actually, doesn't reasonable doubt keep them out of jail in the first place?] |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 22, 2010 19:14:08 GMT -5
Rules.. 1. Beyond ANY reasonable doubt. definition, please. Donald Marshall spent how many years in jail . . . no reasonable doubt [actually, doesn't reasonable doubt keep them out of jail in the first place?] I will let Williams, Bernardo, Homolka, Olson answer that question. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 22, 2010 19:22:06 GMT -5
And what's bad about executing the worse of them. Rules.. 1. Beyond ANY reasonable doubt. That criteria can not be satisfied .... there are some people that confess to stuff they didn't do, as foolish as it may seem. They can confess to being Laffs fans for all I care. If there is no proof of the crime, then it's not beyond any resonable doubt. I think Bernardo and Wiliams filmed themselves in the act. I don't need more proof then that. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 22, 2010 19:22:59 GMT -5
And what's bad about executing the worse of them. Rules.. 1. Beyond ANY reasonable doubt. 2. Can't bring the moral question if the cage solution has no more moral value then death. One would imagine that anyone convicted of a crime was guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt (after all, that's the minimum threshold for a conviction, is it not). As others have pointed out it's not always as cut and dried as guilty or not - but for the sake of not quibbling I'll give you this. The second one it a bit more difficult to accede to. I will bring morality into it. I have no choice. On almost any topic morals will enter into any good discussion. And I intend to reach a conclusion whereby I have proven that keeping a man alive and in prison is more moral than killing him. What I will give you, however, is reasons for it being more moral. And they won't be vague, quasi-spiritual arguments either. In fact, I won't focus on the prisoner/condemned at all. I prefer to focus on everyone else. You see everyone has a certain capacity to do things for the benefit of others. It's not a fixed amount (a spiritual type might say that man has an infinite capacity to do - I can prove empirically that that statement is false, but there is a kernel of truth to it), nor does everyone fulfill it. But the potential is there. It may be hard to see it in certain people. People like Bernardo, like Williams and like Olsen may seem like evil personified. But being evil and twisted does not preclude doing good things. Williams, during his interrogation, showed police where he buried one of the bodies (the one they hadn't found yet). He also plead guilty to first degree murder, knowing what the possible sentence was. Now don't get me wrong - Williams did not do these things out of the goodness of his heart. He did them because he wanted to maintain some kind of control on what was going on around him. But his intentions do not matter. In the end a family was able to bury their daughter and a community was spared a long and gruesome trial. He has done good. Of course, those good acts predate his conviction. But the potential for good is still there even now. It may come in strange forms. Maybe we understand the psychosis of others by observing him for the rest of his life. Maybe he reveals other crimes he committed, exonerating innocents who were convicted in his place. Maybe he just saves someone's life in prison. It's happened before. George Harsh, a medical student, killed a grocer (in 1929) in what was described as a thrill killing. He later saved the life of a fellow inmate by performing an emergency appendectomy. He then went on to be paroled and pardoned before he joined the RCAF and wound up in another prison - Stalag Luft III - where he organized a "great escape" such as it were. Does allowing them to live do good? We can not know. We can not see the future. Certainly can not compare a world with and without them. But so long as they live there is at least a chance they will do some good some time. There is no chance of it if they are dead. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 22, 2010 22:01:03 GMT -5
And what's bad about executing the worse of them. Rules.. 1. Beyond ANY reasonable doubt. That criteria can not be satisfied .... there are some people that confess to stuff they didn't do, as foolish as it may seem. This is true here, Skilly. But, as foolish as it seems, there are cases where people have actually been bullied into confessions where it was proven later that they didn't do the deed. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 23, 2010 1:15:08 GMT -5
And what's bad about executing the worse of them. Rules.. 1. Beyond ANY reasonable doubt. 2. Can't bring the moral question if the cage solution has no more moral value then death. One would imagine that anyone convicted of a crime was guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt (after all, that's the minimum threshold for a conviction, is it not). As others have pointed out it's not always as cut and dried as guilty or not - but for the sake of not quibbling I'll give you this. The second one it a bit more difficult to accede to. I will bring morality into it. I have no choice. On almost any topic morals will enter into any good discussion. And I intend to reach a conclusion whereby I have proven that keeping a man alive and in prison is more moral than killing him. What I will give you, however, is reasons for it being more moral. And they won't be vague, quasi-spiritual arguments either. In fact, I won't focus on the prisoner/condemned at all. I prefer to focus on everyone else. You see everyone has a certain capacity to do things for the benefit of others. It's not a fixed amount (a spiritual type might say that man has an infinite capacity to do - I can prove empirically that that statement is false, but there is a kernel of truth to it), nor does everyone fulfill it. But the potential is there. It may be hard to see it in certain people. People like Bernardo, like Williams and like Olsen may seem like evil personified. But being evil and twisted does not preclude doing good things. Williams, during his interrogation, showed police where he buried one of the bodies (the one they hadn't found yet). He also plead guilty to first degree murder, knowing what the possible sentence was. Now don't get me wrong - Williams did not do these things out of the goodness of his heart. He did them because he wanted to maintain some kind of control on what was going on around him. But his intentions do not matter. In the end a family was able to bury their daughter and a community was spared a long and gruesome trial. He has done good. Of course, those good acts predate his conviction. But the potential for good is still there even now. It may come in strange forms. Maybe we understand the psychosis of others by observing him for the rest of his life. Maybe he reveals other crimes he committed, exonerating innocents who were convicted in his place. Maybe he just saves someone's life in prison. It's happened before. George Harsh, a medical student, killed a grocer (in 1929) in what was described as a thrill killing. He later saved the life of a fellow inmate by performing an emergency appendectomy. He then went on to be paroled and pardoned before he joined the RCAF and wound up in another prison - Stalag Luft III - where he organized a "great escape" such as it were. Does allowing them to live do good? We can not know. We can not see the future. Certainly can not compare a world with and without them. But so long as they live there is at least a chance they will do some good some time. There is no chance of it if they are dead. Anytime a serial murderer "confesses" to more deaths is to glorify themselves OR seek some favors for their caging. Homolka was part and parcel to the most henious murders and she "confessed"....to save her skin. Doing "good" because of some wake up morality code was not even in her vocabulary. Further...Killing a grocer in a "fit" or curcumstance is a FAR cry from serial killers or heinious murderers whose only purpose for existence is their next victim. Now let's look at the other side of the "do good" ledger. Manson life has served to spawn an underground cult. His t-shirts sell into the thousands. He even has a flock of woman who still "love" him. How did allowing to live do some good? It gets worse.... There are people out there who are fascinated by the lives of these murderes. The vast majority fascination is nothing more then just that, but there are probably more then a few who see these people as anti-society heroes or romanticize their lives as "bad-boys". Their existence serves as a reminder that a pine box barely extinguishes. But at the very least, they are no longer "spokesman" for the twisted. As for..... Certainly can not compare a world with and without them.Are you sure you want to write this? I can certainly compare the world without them. It's a safer place. BTW, when I looking for serial killer groupies, I cam across this..... www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/s_k_groupies/index.html |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Oct 23, 2010 8:19:15 GMT -5
Anytime a serial murderer "confesses" to more deaths is to glorify themselves OR seek some favors for their caging. Homolka was part and parcel to the most henious murders and she "confessed"....to save her skin. Doing "good" because of some wake up morality code was not even in her vocabulary. You're quite correct - I even said that Williams acted in his own twisted interests when he did what he did. However we are evaluating the worth of a man's life here and I'm simply saying that despite their intentions they have done some good for the rest of society. You mention Karla and I think she's an interesting case study. To me she's an example of precisely why we need to keep people alive. Without her we might never have convicted Bernardo (although I can't imagine how - the video evidence was pretty damning - but then I'm not a lawyer). Her early release, on the other hand, is an example of what happens when the prosecution makes a mistake. She should never have been promised what she had been promised, never given what she was given. But that's a completely different flaw within the system. Further...Killing a grocer in a "fit" or curcumstance is a FAR cry from serial killers or heinious murderers whose only purpose for existence is their next victim. Note that I said "thrill killing" - that is killing simply for the thrill of taking a life. Granted he obviously did not go on to become a serial killer (and, in fact, he went on to become a hero) but how much of that is because he was caught before he killed again. Now let's look at the other side of the "do good" ledger. Manson life has served to spawn an underground cult. His t-shirts sell into the thousands. He even has a flock of woman who still "love" him. How did allowing to live do some good? Manson. Well my question about Manson is "would killing Manson have prevented any of what followed". It's not a question any of us can answer because we can't see these alternate futures, but I'm doubtful. Manson led a so-called underground cult before he would up in jail. While he was on trial the members of his cult did their best to break up proceedings. And after he was imprisoned his followers (the ones that weren't already in jail anyways) continued to spread his message of hate. And they tried to kill the president. But that's another story. Killing Manson would've done nothing to stop his cult. Hitler's death did not prevent the rise of the Neo-Nazi's and the Aryan Brotherhood (ironically a group which Manson has been connected with while in prison). However you are right in that little good has come from letting him live. There is still potential there, however, although it may never be realized. It gets worse.... There are people out there who are fascinated by the lives of these murderes. The vast majority fascination is nothing more then just that, but there are probably more then a few who see these people as anti-society heroes or romanticize their lives as "bad-boys". Their existence serves as a reminder that a pine box barely extinguishes. But at the very least, they are no longer "spokesman" for the twisted. I could be smarmy here and mention the fellow the Romans killed in Jerusalem a couple thousand years ago and how no one's heard of him since, but that's not really fair. Besides, you more or less cop to that when you say it barely extinguishes. However you say it prevents them from "being a spokesman". Which is true. But you know what else prevents them from being a spokesman? Not letting them speak. Real simple. There's a reason you don't here from Bernardo all that much. Why you don't hear from Olsen (except when he's bragging about collecting his pension). Why you won't hear from Williams once he goes behind bars. Because the laws and institutions in Canada do not permit them to pontificate. Legislation is preferable to murder, do you not agree? As for..... Certainly can not compare a world with and without them.Are you sure you want to write this? I can certainly compare the world without them. It's a safer place. Are you sure you can back that up? Because I'm willing to bet you can not prove, conclusively, that the world would be a better place without them. Like I said, evil men do good on occasion, even though their intentions are dark. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Oct 23, 2010 9:09:27 GMT -5
Absolutely not.
Life and death being administered by man made laws? I don't think so. We'd like to think that there are ways to establish "crystal clear" circumstances to kill a human being in a legal way but there isn't. Our justice system is made of men, lawyers, judges, cops, specialists, jury, etc... Hundreds can be involved in a trial. All of whom being good or bad, competent or not does have an influence on the outcome of that trial. I believe in consequences and I believe in punishment. But a murder is a murder and in my book it isn't prettier or more right, when executed under the cloak of justice versus being done by a deranged individual. It doesn't even things out. It doesn't erase what's been done. It doesn't bring back anyone. It just adds to the body count.
yeah, it's bad. Those atrocities committed. If my loved ones would have been a victim I'd probably wish the guy dead. But that's no argument. Once you get there, give everyone a gun and let vigilante justice prevail.
And while the Bundys, Bernardos, Williams make perfect culprit for death sentences because of the violence of their crimes. Are they really more deserving of death than a Vincent Lacroix who didn’t violently kill or physically torture anyone, but nevertheless broke the lives of thousands of people, propelling them into poverty and in many case sentencing them, by his act, to finish their lives in misery? Fraud is a “clean crime” but the consequences to the victims are sometimes worst than what a serial killer would do.
As for cost savings, really, are we trying to make an argument that it makes sense to kill a human being in order to be fiscally responsible as a society . Wow…
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 23, 2010 10:54:15 GMT -5
You mention Karla and I think she's an interesting case study. To me she's an example of precisely why we need to keep people alive. Without her we might never have convicted Bernardo (although I can't imagine how - the video evidence was pretty damning - but then I'm not a lawyer). Her early release, on the other hand, is an example of what happens when the prosecution makes a mistake. She should never have been promised what she had been promised, never given what she was given. But that's a completely different flaw within the system. They don’t execute people during a trial, though. And I don’t think they found the video tape (hidden in a light fixture) til after the trial....or it wasn’t turned in....or something bizarre like that. The plea bargain, or deal made to convict who they really want to nail, is a flaw....that’s for sure, as the testimony they give could very well be a lie to save their butts. Bernardo didn’t start murdering until he met Karla. Til that point, he was the Scarborough rapist. Bad enough...but not a murderer. But there was no damning tape at the time, otherwise they would’ve nailed them both. And what’s the price for her testimony....her freedom. Unless I’m totally forgetting how it went down. I’d say, for all of the people we’re talking about here, their evil deeds FAR outweigh their good ones. They’re the ones who reneged on their membership, not the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Oct 23, 2010 11:02:25 GMT -5
Absolutely not. Life and death being administered by man made laws? We're talking now about the human element as a flaw in the justice system. This is the hardest element, IMHO, to overcome when determining a 'judgment.' This is what I've been trying to get into the discussion, but just couldn't get the time to, Doc. Anytime where a 'judgment' has to be made, it will be determined by others whose values, perceptions and judgments vary from person to person. And those values and perceptions aren't always written in stone. In fact, they can be affected depending what influences those very people are put under. This is the thing, Doc. Everything, including human life nowadays has a monetary value on it, or so it seems sometimes. True story. Back in the early 80's I was living in PEI. A young girl was walking home one night when she was killed by a drunk driver. According to the judge the driver was 'an upstanding man' in the community. The driver also had a family to support and given these factors the judge sentenced him to five years incarceration to be served on weekends. TNG referred to another problem in our system WRT Holmoka's plea bargain. Despite her part in the murders she and Bernardo committed, she was 'only' made to do 12 years because of her cooperation. Here's another flaw in our system that is entirely due to the 'human factor.' I was originally going to put it in the "Williams" thread, but it will do here as well. It's a rather emotional column, but I find the same with a lot of what has come out on Williams recently. From Canoe.ca. The way this is written, it suggests that Williams has celebrity status: ========================================================== Williams getting special treatment
Greeted by warden upon arrival at pen
By JOE WARMINGTON, QMI Agency link BELLEVILLE, Ont. - The disgraced ‘Killer Colonel’ was not even sentenced to life in prison for one hour and it appears he was already getting special treatment. Sources tell me upon arriving at Kingston Penitentiary Thursday the low-life Russell Williams was given the VIP welcome. “The new warden of KP (Jay Pyke) was on hand to meet Williams immediately upon his arrival,” said an insider. Wonder what they talked about? High level warden to colonel, commanding officer stuff I guess. Above our pay grade. Any autographs? “This is completely unheard of in any federal penitentiary or institution,” said an outraged insider. “Any federally incarcerated inmate who arrives at any prison is never met by a warden.” If this did happen Williams, who rubbed noses with the Queen, prime ministers and some of the country’s most powerful figures, now has high level contacts his fellow inmates don’t have. The source said “inmates are always processed through admissions by correctional officers, may go and see a Correctional supervisor in extreme cases, and escorted to their unit/cell. But not in this case. Special attention for this guy already?” First he gets paid, then gets to keep his pension and severance pay, gets away without having a dangerous offender hearing that would solidify his life in prison (who is more dangerous?) and now gets to rub shoulders with the commanding officer of his new unit? He was also greeted by a special psychologist (not an on-staff KP psychologist, either) as well — also unheard of for new arrivals. “Why the special treatment?” asks the insider. “There are several inmates within the walls of KP that have committed crimes just as brutal. To us, it is just another inmate that we have to look after, protect, keep alive, feed, clothe, provide medical and dental, legal help, and put up with their endless BS. “ So what gives? I called and e-mailed Corrections Canada and no one got back to me. Maybe they were too busy helping their new superstar inmate pick out his new wardrobe? My source says stay tuned for the conjugal visit application which should come around the same time as the taxpayers pay Williams’ too silent wife Mary-Elizabeth Harriman $3,000 for the OPP disturbing her home while they searched for vital murder investigation evidence. - - - “I prefer to watch Law and Order but I do watch CSI occasionally yes.” As he said that Feb. 7, CFB Trenton base commander Williams had no idea he was sitting in the middle of a real-life episode of both. The focus this week was on the colonel but the real story is actually a veteran OPP behavioural sciences expert by the name of Det.-Sgt. Jim Smyth, a 43-year-old 22-year copper and father of two. He is a national hero. Just like Belleville copper Sgt. Grant Boulias who matched the tire print taken from a field to Williams truck, Smyth deserves every citation imaginable for his coaxing a confession out this vicious killer. But he’s too humble for any of that. “I am just going to take a break and spend some time with family,” Smyth told me. “I am also going to take some time to reflect on the victims.” He admits there will be lingering affects “but I was doing my job and this is what I trained for and you know that when you sign on.” Thank God Smyth did because you may recall he is the same officer who used descriptions from suspect Terri-Lynne McClintic and went out on a hunch and found the murdered remains of missing eight-year-old Tori Stafford. “You could say something clicked,” he told me at the time. He’s so smart. You watch that interview with Williams and you see something click with Smyth again as he noticed Williams seemed to have care for his wife and zeroed in on that. “I want to minimize the impact on my wife,” said Williams. “So do I,” responded Smyth “So how do we do that?” asked Williams. “You start by telling the truth.” “Okay,” said Williams. “Alright, so where is she?” Smyth asked about Jessica Lloyd. “Got a map?” said Williams. Case solved. - - - One last thing that needs to be said — special thanks to Belleville Chief Cory McMullan and Insp. Mike Graham of the OPP, the Crown’s office and court staff at the Pinnacle St. court for running a tight and professional ship in what was a very difficult week for all. I have covered a lot of big trials — John Gotti in New York — and these people set the standard of how it should be done. None of us will ever forget about the victims and those reading this 25 years from now at a parole hearing, please remember that this man deeply wounded this region. Try to have a good weekend everyone. Scrawler out. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 9, 2010 12:40:02 GMT -5
the debate/discussion on the issue continues . . . A jury voted on Monday to impose the death penalty on a habitual criminal who took part in a home invasion in Cheshire, Conn., that left a woman and her two daughters dead, a crime of such inexplicable cruelty and randomness — the family was apparently chosen after being spotted in a shopping center parking lot — that it upended a debate about capital punishment.
For nearly two months, jurors learned every searing detail of the night and morning in July 2007, when two men armed only with a BB gun that looked like a real pistol burst into the Colonial-style home of a successful doctor.
The men put him and his family through an ordeal of beatings and sexual abuse that ended as flames tore through the house where the girls, still alive, had been strapped to their beds. Their mother had already been strangled.
Only the father — Dr. William A. Petit Jr., dazed and bloodied after being beaten with a baseball bat in his sleep — managed to escape.
He was in the front row of a courtroom here on Monday, slumped forward, as the defendant, Steven J. Hayes, sat motionless at the defense table. The court clerk announced, again and again, that jurors believed the crimes Mr. Hayes had committed required that he be put to death. In thanking jurors, Judge Jon C. Blue of State Superior Court said they had been “exposed to images of depravity and horror no human being should have to see.”
The verdict came at the beginning of the fourth day of deliberations in the trial’s penalty phase. Only one person has been executed in Connecticut since 1960.
“This is a verdict for justice,” Dr. Petit said afterward. “The defendant faces far more serious punishment from the Lord than he can ever face from mankind.”
One juror, Herbert R. Gram, of Madison, said the panel experienced little disagreement during deliberations.
“It was just so heinous, and just so over the top and so depraved,” he said of the crime. “Here’s a case where somebody doesn’t deserve to remain on the face of the earth.”
Another juror, Delores A. Carter, 67, a retired health care worker from Hamden, said, “Justice has prevailed.” She added that it was draining to reach the verdict. more from the New York Times, includingMr. Hayes’s chief lawyer, Thomas Ullmann, patted the convicted killer on the shoulder as he was taken out through a side entrance in a baggy blue dress shirt and loose pants, the last civilian clothing he was ever likely to wear. He later told reporters that Mr. Hayes “was smiling.”
“That’s what he’s wanted all along,” he continued. “ ‘Suicide by state.’ ” |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 9, 2010 13:22:12 GMT -5
Death penalty brings about considerable debate for criminals that are generally not worthy of the consideration.
The argument that "we are no better than them"' does not apply. "We are better than them!"
The argument that a particular type of lethal injection is cruel and unusual makes as much sense as steralizing the needle.
Kill them, get it over, move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 9, 2010 17:08:49 GMT -5
the debate/discussion on the issue continues . . . “That’s what he’s wanted all along,” he continued. “ ‘Suicide by state.’ ” [/i] [/quote] As heinous as the crimes are described .... this is sort of an argument against capital punishment. Hayes killed because he wanted to die and was too much a chicken to end his own life, so in essence, he gets his way. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 10, 2010 15:48:07 GMT -5
I strongly believe in the death penalty. It is a deterrant.
The only worse deterrant would be life imprisonment with parole only to attend leafs games. A leafs jersey would replace the standard prison uniform whatever that is. Put the prisoners in Burkes box and force them to listen to tapes of the collective wisdom of Harold Ballard and Gary Bettman.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 10, 2010 21:14:30 GMT -5
I strongly believe in the death penalty. It is a deterrant. The only worse deterrant would be life imprisonment with parole only to attend leafs games. A leafs jersey would replace the standard prison uniform whatever that is. Put the prisoners in Burkes box and force them to listen to tapes of the collective wisdom of Harold Ballard and Gary Bettman. If it is a deterrent .... than why are there so many murders in the United States? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 10, 2010 22:51:48 GMT -5
I strongly believe in the death penalty. It is a deterrant. The only worse deterrant would be life imprisonment with parole only to attend leafs games. A leafs jersey would replace the standard prison uniform whatever that is. Put the prisoners in Burkes box and force them to listen to tapes of the collective wisdom of Harold Ballard and Gary Bettman. If it is a deterrent .... than why are there so many murders in the United States? I'd like to see a stat breakdown of murders in North America. 1. Murders in states who have/don't have capital punishment. 2. Weapons used. 3. Nature of murderer: sociopath, gang/mob, domestic disputes, alcohol-related, illegal drug-induced, self-defense, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 11, 2010 8:58:25 GMT -5
If it is a deterrent .... than why are there so many murders in the United States? I'd like to see a stat breakdown of murders in North America. 1. Murders in states who have/don't have capital punishment. 2. Weapons used. 3. Nature of murderer: sociopath, gang/mob, domestic disputes, alcohol-related, illegal drug-induced, self-defense, etc. Stats would be the way to look at ... when you look at an analysis of the stats, you get right wing and left wing analysis. Here is a link I found, and I am trying to find numbers that prove the conclusions. Death penalty no deterrent to murderBy Kirk Ross By Jeremy J. Collins Though most experts have long dismissed any measurable deterrent effect from the use of the death penalty, a recent AP story helped spark new discussion on the topic.
According to the report, some academic studies have purported to find such a deterrent impact. The story cited a 2003 Emory University study which concluded that each execution deters an average of 18 murders. To read the story, one might believe that new life has been pumped into what had largely been a settled argument.
A closer look at the facts, however, reveals that there was very little to the story. The truth is that leading academics have roundly rejected these studies. A rigorous 2006 study conducted by John Donohue of Yale Law School and the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business and NBER analyzed the same data used in the Emory study and like studies and debunked their conclusions in striking terms: “The view that the death penalty deters is still the product of belief, not evidence.” In fact, the researchers found that, if anything, “the evidence suggests that the death penalty may increase the murder rate.”
These dueling findings have a deja vu quality. The studies purporting to find a deterrent effect all build upon the foundation of a 1975 article in which Prof. Isaac Ehrlich claimed that each execution averted eight murders. Economists and social scientists attempted to replicate his findings by using different data and improving on his methodology. The overwhelming majority of such studies found no evidence that the death penalty deters murderers. Indeed, a 1978 panel of experts appointed by the National Academy of Sciences strongly criticized Ehrlich’s work and methodology.
Jeffrey Fagan, a professor at Columbia Law School and an expert on statistics, testified before Congress that the Emory study and similar Ehrlich-inspired studies finding a deterrent effect are “fraught with numerous technical and conceptual errors.” Important among these problems is that the studies “avoid any direct tests of deterrence.” That road would likely not lead to deterrence findings: numerous studies “show the limits of the assumptions or rationality that underlie deterrence” while others show the cognitive, organic and neuropsychological impairments which characterize violent offenders.
Instead of attempting a direct test of deterrence, the Ehrlich-inspired studies acknowledge that the factors leading a person to murder (or not murder) are complex and numerous — including socioeconomic variables, crime rates and the efficacy of the criminal justice system in catching, convicting and punishing criminals. The studies purport to isolate every other factor but the availability of the death penalty as punishment for murder. But common sense and respected scientists such as Profs. Donahue and Wolfers tell us that the number of homicides that executions “can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot be reliably disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors.”
When touting superficially powerful arguments in favor of the state executing our fellow human beings, the media and academics have a duty to acknowledge the facts contradicting their claims. These facts include not only that respected academics have rejected claims that the death penalty deters, but also the following:
* Murder rates are lower in states without the death penalty. This holds true even when comparing neighboring states.
* While Southern states account for over 80 percent of the executions in this country, they have consistently had the highest murder rate of the nation’s four regions.
* Since 1972, homicide rates in Canada and the United States have moved in lockstep, yet in that period, Canada has not executed a single person and the United States has executed over 1,000 people. When homicides go down in the United States, they go down in Canada, even though Canada does not use capital punishment.
* One of the authors of the Emory study (Joanna Shepherd) found in a separate study that while the death penalty deterred murder in six states, it actually increased murder in 13 states and had no effect on the murder rate in eight states. Other studies have found that the death penalty has a “brutalization effect,” increasing the number of murders.
Danger lurks whenever we look at statistical claims without a skeptical eye, never more so than when the issue is life and death. We need straight information before making an informed decision on the death penalty. Statistical claims that wilt under the mildest scrutiny woefully fail to meet that test. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 11, 2010 9:30:21 GMT -5
Here is a state by state breakdown, the yellow highlighted states do not have the death penalty MURDER RATE BY STATE 14 states do NOT have the death penalty. Here they are listed with their national murder rank. I'll also highlight the states without the death penalty. 2009 stats 1. Louisiana (11.8 per 100,000 people) 2. New Mexico (8.7) 3. Maryland (7.7) 4. Tennessee (7.3) 5. Alabama (6.9) 6. Mississippi (6.4) 7. Missouri (6.4) 8. Michigan (6.3)9. South Carolina (6.3) 10. Oklahoma (6.2) 11. Arkansas (6.2) 12. Illinois (6.0) 13. Nevada (5.9) 14. Georgia (5.8) 15. Florida (5.5) 16. Arizona (5.4) 17. Texas (5.4) 18. North Carolina (5.3) 19. California (5.3) 20. Pennsylvania (5.2) 21. Indiana (4.8) 22. Delaware (4.6) 23. West Virginia (4.6)24. Ohio (4.5) 25. Virginia (4.4) 26. Kansas (4.2) 27. Kentucky (4.1) 28. New York (4.0)29. New Jersey (3.7)30. Colorado (3.5) 31. Alaska (3.1)32. Connecticut (3.0) 33. Rhode Island (2.9)34. Montana (2.9) 35. Washington (2.7) 36. South Dakota (2.6) 37. Massachusetts (2.6)38. Wisconsin (2.5)39. Wyoming (2.5) 40. Nebraska (2.2) 41. Oregon (2.2) 42. Maine (2.0)43. Hawaii (1.7)44. North Dakota (1.5)45. Minnesota (1.4)46. Idaho (1.4) 47. Utah (1.3) 48. Vermont (1.1)49. Iowa (1.1)50. New Hampshire (0.8) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 11, 2010 9:40:23 GMT -5
2009 Murder numbers for Canada
Nunavut 18.64
Northwest Territories 4.60
Yukon 5.94
Manitoba 4.66
Saskatchewan 3.49
British Columbia 2.65
Alberta 2.58
Nova Scotia 1.60
New Brunswick 1.60
Ontario 1.36
Quebec 1.12
Newfoundland and Labrador 0.20
Prince Edward Island 0.00
So if you neglect the territories, the worst Canadian province would not rank in the top 20 in the US .... and six of the Canadian provinces would rank in the bottom 8 in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 11, 2010 14:13:16 GMT -5
I strongly believe in the death penalty. It is a deterrant. The only worse deterrant would be life imprisonment with parole only to attend leafs games. A leafs jersey would replace the standard prison uniform whatever that is. Put the prisoners in Burkes box and force them to listen to tapes of the collective wisdom of Harold Ballard and Gary Bettman. If it is a deterrent .... than why are there so many murders in the United States? There are lots of crazy people here! The death penalty may or may not not be a deterrant. Hypothetical. Radical Islamist Mohammad bin Mohammud puts on a suicide vest, covers it with a raincoat and goes to a leafs game. He opens the coat and presses the button but the trigger mechanism fails. He is captured and tried. Although no actual murder occurred: Is any penalty a deterrant for this radical? Can this religeous zealot be rehabilitated? Should we spend millions of dollars on trials, appeals, hearings? Can he be trained to be a nuclear physicist and productive member of society? Is money for his incarceration better spent than on youth in Newfoundland or hospitals in Saskatchewan for the deserving and needy? As a pragmatist I make decisions every day, buy vegtables at the grocery store or eat a big Mac; buy a Corvette or buy a Miata and a Prius for my wife; spend money for my childrens schoolbooks or support a hooker in LA? We all make practical decisions on allocation of scarce resources. Wasting money on rapists, murderers, pimps and drug dealers makes less sense than supporting schools, hospitals and law enforcement. In a philisophical perfect world I might reach a different conclusion about the death penalty, but in the world where I live practical considerations make the death penalty an acceptable if imperfect alternative. Thousands of lives were saved in WW II by dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thousands of lives were lost. It was a decision that had to be made about which lives were to be taken and spared. In a perfect world that decision might never have come up, but in the real world......... If a radical Islamist is not deterred by his own death, would he and his Imam be deterred by the threat of detonation of a nuclear devices over Mecca and Medina? Is a threat a deterrent if it is never carried out. Maybe I got up on the wrong side othe bed today or maybe it's 11/11 11:11? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 3, 2010 7:02:55 GMT -5
if anyone deserves it . . . VANCOUVER — One of Canada’s most heinous and prolific serial killers, Michael Wayne McGray warned he could murder again, even while in prison.
“Just because I’m locked up in segregation doesn’t mean I can’t kill somebody,” he told the National Post’s Graeme Hamilton a decade ago, while sitting inside a federal penitentiary in Renous, N.B. “I have a chance every day.”
Killing, he went on, is “almost a hunger. It’s something I need. I have to have that physical release. When I kill, it’s a big high for me.” The years passed. Convicted of six murders, McGray was moved from prison to prison. Last year he wound up in B.C. He was most recently moved to a medium-security institution, of all places.
And one morning last week, McGray’s new cellmate was found dead.
The RCMP have confirmed that Jeremy Phillips, 33, was murdered. His body was discovered inside the medium-security cell he shared with McGray in Agassiz, B.C. The same cell in which the pair had been locked up the previous night. more |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2010 7:40:58 GMT -5
If it is a deterrent .... than why are there so many murders in the United States? There are lots of crazy people here! The death penalty may or may not not be a deterrant. Hypothetical. Radical Islamist Mohammad bin Mohammud puts on a suicide vest, covers it with a raincoat and goes to a leafs game. He opens the coat and presses the button but the trigger mechanism fails. He is captured and tried. Although no actual murder occurred: Is any penalty a deterrant for this radical? Can this religeous zealot be rehabilitated? Should we spend millions of dollars on trials, appeals, hearings? Can he be trained to be a nuclear physicist and productive member of society? Is money for his incarceration better spent than on youth in Newfoundland or hospitals in Saskatchewan for the deserving and needy? As a pragmatist I make decisions every day, buy vegtables at the grocery store or eat a big Mac; buy a Corvette or buy a Miata and a Prius for my wife; spend money for my childrens schoolbooks or support a hooker in LA? We all make practical decisions on allocation of scarce resources. Wasting money on rapists, murderers, pimps and drug dealers makes less sense than supporting schools, hospitals and law enforcement. In a philisophical perfect world I might reach a different conclusion about the death penalty, but in the world where I live practical considerations make the death penalty an acceptable if imperfect alternative. Thousands of lives were saved in WW II by dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thousands of lives were lost. It was a decision that had to be made about which lives were to be taken and spared. In a perfect world that decision might never have come up, but in the real world......... If a radical Islamist is not deterred by his own death, would he and his Imam be deterred by the threat of detonation of a nuclear devices over Mecca and Medina? Is a threat a deterrent if it is never carried out. Maybe I got up on the wrong side othe bed today or maybe it's 11/11 11:11? There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin ..... so I'll leave it, but willpoint out that no lives were saved by the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war was well in hand to being an Alied victory by that time .... the dropping of those bombs was nothing more than the Americans need to flex their might to respond to the bombing of Pearl Harbour. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 3, 2010 7:43:21 GMT -5
if anyone deserves it . . . VANCOUVER — One of Canada’s most heinous and prolific serial killers, Michael Wayne McGray warned he could murder again, even while in prison.
“Just because I’m locked up in segregation doesn’t mean I can’t kill somebody,” he told the National Post’s Graeme Hamilton a decade ago, while sitting inside a federal penitentiary in Renous, N.B. “I have a chance every day.”
Killing, he went on, is “almost a hunger. It’s something I need. I have to have that physical release. When I kill, it’s a big high for me.” The years passed. Convicted of six murders, McGray was moved from prison to prison. Last year he wound up in B.C. He was most recently moved to a medium-security institution, of all places.
And one morning last week, McGray’s new cellmate was found dead.
The RCMP have confirmed that Jeremy Phillips, 33, was murdered. His body was discovered inside the medium-security cell he shared with McGray in Agassiz, B.C. The same cell in which the pair had been locked up the previous night. moreSounds to me like someone in the "system" should learn to listen. Who in God's name put this guy in a minimum security prison and then added to the stupidity by giving him a cellmate? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 3, 2010 8:37:00 GMT -5
that was my first impression too, Skilly . . . what were they thinking? . . . or maybe were they thinking?.
the guy basically says ya, I'll kill again, it's my nature, and the "system" says go ahead [I'm waiting for someone to ask why he wasn't put in a cell with Bernardo or Olson]
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 5, 2010 1:55:11 GMT -5
There are lots of crazy people here! The death penalty may or may not not be a deterrant. Hypothetical. Radical Islamist Mohammad bin Mohammud puts on a suicide vest, covers it with a raincoat and goes to a leafs game. He opens the coat and presses the button but the trigger mechanism fails. He is captured and tried. Although no actual murder occurred: Is any penalty a deterrant for this radical? Can this religeous zealot be rehabilitated? Should we spend millions of dollars on trials, appeals, hearings? Can he be trained to be a nuclear physicist and productive member of society? Is money for his incarceration better spent than on youth in Newfoundland or hospitals in Saskatchewan for the deserving and needy? As a pragmatist I make decisions every day, buy vegtables at the grocery store or eat a big Mac; buy a Corvette or buy a Miata and a Prius for my wife; spend money for my childrens schoolbooks or support a hooker in LA? We all make practical decisions on allocation of scarce resources. Wasting money on rapists, murderers, pimps and drug dealers makes less sense than supporting schools, hospitals and law enforcement. In a philisophical perfect world I might reach a different conclusion about the death penalty, but in the world where I live practical considerations make the death penalty an acceptable if imperfect alternative. Thousands of lives were saved in WW II by dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thousands of lives were lost. It was a decision that had to be made about which lives were to be taken and spared. In a perfect world that decision might never have come up, but in the real world......... If a radical Islamist is not deterred by his own death, would he and his Imam be deterred by the threat of detonation of a nuclear devices over Mecca and Medina? Is a threat a deterrent if it is never carried out. Maybe I got up on the wrong side othe bed today or maybe it's 11/11 11:11? There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin ..... so I'll leave it, but willpoint out that no lives were saved by the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The war was well in hand to being an Alied victory by that time .... the dropping of those bombs was nothing more than the Americans need to flex their might to respond to the bombing of Pearl Harbour. I'll try to refine it to a single point. Does it make sense for sick people to have to go without medicine, students go books, potholes to go unfilled and babies go without food while million$ of dollars are spent caring for the most evil murderers, feeding them, giving them medical treatment and leagal council? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 5, 2010 11:27:36 GMT -5
In one word
YES
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 5, 2010 13:08:44 GMT -5
In a word.
NO.
|
|
