@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
Deterrence:
There is no reliable evidence that the death penalty deters more criminals than other commonly applied punishments.
This kinda impeaches all of your arguments about how the death penalty is keeping people from getting killed.
You keep saying how "there must be an additional deterrent effect", but the facts argue against you. (I've posted multiple links regarding this; I do not intend to go dig them up again just so you can ignore them again.)
Your "Sez me" impeaches nothing, let alone your non sequitur about a lack of available proof of deterrent, somehow proves the death penalty is not keeping people from getting killed (which would include deterrence AND recidivism prevention). On deterrence you rely on the fallacious believe that absence of prove is proof of absence... yet don't hold your own evidence to the same standard. Same goes for your ceiling theory (demoted from fact after it was exposed). And comically; you think your hypocrisy isn't obvious.
DrewDad wrote:
Costs:
I do include the costs of all those appeals in the cost of the death penalty. That's because the appeals are triggered by the selected punishment, and not on the merit of the appeals themselves.
Yes, I know that. The simple fact of the matter is, however: Carrying out a Death Sentence costs a fraction of the cost of carrying out a Life Sentence.
Therefore; people who don’t want to admit this simple truth are forced to confound the issue with the cost of due process. Interesting how these same people consistently ignore questions about whether cases where Innocent people may be sentenced to Life Imprisonment
should receive less scrutiny. This selective hearing is intellectually dishonest, at best.
In an honest comparison; only those Life Sentences that were contested with the same zeal and frequency as your average Death Sentence should be compared.
Among the strongest arguments against the Death Penalty (IMO) is that it eliminates the opportunity to correct errors. Yet somehow, the same Death Penalty opponents who wish to add cost analysis to their arguments consistently ignore the inequity of due process available to the potential Innocent persons sentenced to Life in prison.
One cannot reasonably argue his or her Death Penalty concern is to correct errors, while also arguing that it’s cheaper because we take fewer precautions to correct errors. That is huge contradiction.
DrewDad wrote:
Recidivism:
You are correct that "continuing threat to society" is considered during capital cases, at least in Texas. Personally, I disagree with this policy, as I find it too speculative.
Your disagreement, though exceedingly naïve, is reasonable enough. Your forceful denial of the common sense truth was not.
DrewDad wrote:
Ceiling Effect:
A ceiling effect in statistics is when the measurement device does not give a large enough range. This would be like an IQ test that only went to 130. A ceiling effect in pharmaceuticals is when you get diminishing returns as you apply a drug, and higher and higher doses produce less and less effect. It is this second type of ceiling effect I was postulating with respect to the death penalty. It is my own theory; it makes sense to me.
I understood your ceiling theory when you first wrote it, and to an extent I agree that many people would be equally deterred beyond a certain threshold (myself, for instance). This doesn’t mean ALL people, however, as you attempted to imply by stating your theory as if it were an observed fact, and even suggesting it could be charted.
"It makes sense to me" is
reasonable enough, just as believing the threat of death acts as a deterrent is
reasonable enough. Unreasonable, is your consistent insistence on holding only opposing theories to higher standards.
DrewDad wrote: OCCOM BILL wrote:I provided a short list of suspected wrongful executions above, along with a MUCH longer list of examples of repeat murder.
So? How many of these murders were done by folks who would otherwise have been executed? You seem to have a habit of tossing around numbers to support your position, regardless of whether they mean what you say they do.
Total bullshit. I didn’t toss around numbers, I provided a comprehensive list, that you didn’t even bother to look at, or you wouldn’t have written such a ridiculous response. Here is a sprinkling that meet your every criteria...
12/4/01 - Alabama
Quote: Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita- Triple killer serving life without parole kills another inmate; finally gets death sentence
Quote: Robert Massie- In 1965, he was convicted of murdering a San Gabriel woman and sentenced to death. But his death sentence was commuted after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down California's death penalty laws. Because of lenient parole laws at the time, he was paroled in 1978, a year before he killed Naumoff.
Quote:Bennie Demps- Originally, Demps was sent to death row for the murders of R.N. Brinkworth and Celia Puhlick, who were fatally shot in a Lake County citrus grove. The victims were inspecting some land for sale when they happened upon Demps, who had fled to the grove with a stolen safe. Mrs. Puhlick's husband, Nicholas, was wounded. A year after Demps was sent to death row, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out capital punishment across the country, ruling death sentences had been imposed in an arbitrary way. Demps and 96 other death row inmates were taken off Florida's death row and returned to the general prison population. In July 1976, the nation's high court upheld Florida's new capital punishment law. And two months later, Alfred Sturgis was fatally stabbed in his prison cell. Before he died, Sturgis told a guard that Demps and another inmate had held him down while a third stabbed him. Demps was sentenced to death in 1978. Since his second death sentence, Demps has survived three death warrants - in 1982, 1987 and 1990 - by winning last-minute appeals.
DrewDad wrote: My suggestion is to replace the death penalty with life without the possibility of parole. This hardly lets prisoners back out on the street to kill again.
Your suggestion has been proven less effective, as evidenced by repeat murderers. Dead murderers don’t kill more people.
Btw, this is bullshit as well:
DrewDad wrote:I'll note at this point that your argument in favor of the death penalty has segued from "deterrence" to "preventing recidivism".
I made it clear that I found the prevention of recidivism most compelling from my second post on this thread. Don’t impugn me with your own inability to keep up.
DrewDad wrote:
On a personal note, I'm about done discussing this with you due to your continued rudeness.
Says the A-hole who was first on the thread to hurl an unqualified insult ("dumbass" at Brandon) for doing nothing more than pointing out
your own hypocrisy. You lowered the level of discourse yourself, you've given as much as you've gotten, and now you want to cry foul? I assure you I wouldn't miss your idiotic dogmatic denial (especially after Robert and I have thoroughly demonstrated your most absurd denial).
Only a ******* idiot would fail to see the obvious truth in that sentence. You really are pathetic.