Killing people is the best solution.

@Brandon9000,

Your response completely ignores the point i made to the effect that people who willfully commit criminal acts do not do so in the belief that they will inevitably be apprehended. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that they do so in the belief that they will not be apprehended.

You have, unlike the graph folks, attempted to base your argument on logic. I consider that reasonable, given, as DD's ongoing argument demonstrates, the unreliability of the alleged statistical evidence for the case. Therefore, i have responded with a logical argument. My point of logic is that people in crimes of passion aren't thinking at all about the consequences of their actions (which is why they are described as crimes of passion); and further that those who commit crimes in "cold blood" do not do so in the belief that they will be apprehended, but rather believing that they will not be apprehended.

I suggest to you that you have not adequately addressed this position.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

DrewDad wrote:

If you want to say, "I believe this" then no one can argue with that. If you want to say "this proves me right" then you need to provide hard evidence. You have not done so. Belief in your own infallibility does not constitute winning an argument.

My opening post said "Some will guess this is coincidence. I tend to doubt it." Let's break that down for the terminally obtuse:
"Some will guess this is coincidence." This allows for every dissenting opinion, reasonably.
" I tend to doubt it." This is MY opinion... which should have qualified for your "I believe this"... which you then said "no one can argue with that." But that's exactly what you did.

Right from my opening post; I provided accurate numbers and my opinion about what they reflect, while recognizing other's rights to reasonably disagree.

You, on the other hand, have insisted that your opinion is the only possible correct one. The burden to prove such an idiotic contention is yours, not mine.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

I never said I wouldn't make fun of your opinion; I said I wouldn't argue that it is your opinion.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Occom Bill: I see it in a graph!
Real statisticians: You're full of $#!7!

More nonsense.
OCCOM BILL: I see it in the graph (depicting a spike in murders during the execution moratorium).
Real statisticians: All will recognize the correlation. Some may suspect causation (as I do). Others will not. All will agree with me that those numbers alone do not constitute proof... but none would be stupid enough to deny the obvious correlation or that in a vacuum it would imply causation.

This assumes, of course, that our sample statisticians understand the definitions of correlation, causation, and implication (unlike DrewDad.)

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Bill, believe what you want.

Let me make this point clear, however: Your graph does not demonstrate correlation. Your numbers are flawed.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I agree with your analysis.

0 Replies

Thanks, Boss. I just find it ludicrous to believe that criminals go to work in the belief that they will be the victims of catastrophe. Certainly most criminals aren't very bright, which is why so many get caught--crime usually doesn't pay because of the caliber of those who go into the profession. However, that just reinforces my belief that the possibility of punishment does not deter crime.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Also, can I get your response to this?

(From the caption of a graph on the previous page)

Quote:

A study of executions in New York from 1907 to 1963 (when NY was executing more than any other state) found that, on average, homicides increased in the month following an execution.

(Bowers & Pierce, Deterrence or Brutalization: What is the Effect of Executions?, 26 Crime & Delinq. 453 (1980))

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Bill, believe what you want.

Let me make this point clear, however: Your graph does not demonstrate correlation. Your numbers are flawed.

How fitting that you'd close with another bare naked assertion of a "Sez me."
A. If it didn't show correlation; you wouldn't have objected to it. Laughing

B. In what way are the numbers flawed? (They are spot on, prove otherwise if you doubt it.)

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

A. If it did show correlation, I wouldn't have objected to it.
B. I've discussed elsewhere why the numbers are flawed.

I suppose my "sez me" cancels out your "sez me."

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Also, can I get your response to this?

(From the caption of a graph on the previous page)

Quote:
A study of executions in New York from 1907 to 1963 (when NY was executing more than any other state) found that, on average, homicides increased in the month following an execution.

(Bowers & Pierce, Deterrence or Brutalization: What is the Effect of Executions?, 26 Crime & Delinq. 453 (1980))

My opinion would be that it is a statistical anomaly. I'd give it more weight and perhaps even do further research, if it consistently repeated throughout the country. Note: even the 70 year, nationwide, statistics don't show a correlation tight enough to determine a concrete argument for causation.

1 Reply

The Myth of Deterrence

Quote:

Nationally, the murder rate is 5.7 murders per 100,000 people.

Most per capita executions, Murder rate

Oklahoma, 5.8

Texas, 5.9

Delaware, 4.9

Virginia, 5.2

Missouri, 6.3

• The 10 states with the lowest murder rates have collectively executed 11 people since 1976. That's only 1 percent of all executions carried out by states since the death penalty resumed.

• Nine of the 10 states with the highest murder rates in the country have the death penalty.

SOURCES: Death Penalty Information Center; FBI

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Good lord. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

A. If it did show correlation, I wouldn't have objected to it.

Get a dictionary already, you damn fool. Laughing

DrewDad wrote:

B. I've discussed elsewhere why the numbers are flawed.

I suppose my "sez me" cancels out your "sez me."

False. The veracity of my numbers can be verified with the DOJ. They are spot on.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

The Myth of Deterrence

Quote:
Nationally, the murder rate is 5.7 murders per 100,000 people.

Most per capita executions, Murder rate

Oklahoma, 5.8

Texas, 5.9

Delaware, 4.9

Virginia, 5.2

Missouri, 6.3

• The 10 states with the lowest murder rates have collectively executed 11 people since 1976. That's only 1 percent of all executions carried out by states since the death penalty resumed.

• Nine of the 10 states with the highest murder rates in the country have the death penalty.

SOURCES: Death Penalty Information Center; FBI

Comparing Apples to Oranges is fun, but it is hardly scientific. Has it occurred to you that the constituents of States with higher murder rates might be more likely to support the death penalty?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

A. You do realize that the word "correlation" (co-relation) means that there is an actual, computable mathematical relationship between the two numbers, right? That using statistical methods, one can determine exactly how much the two data sets are related to each other?

B. OK, you got me. Your numbers are correct. Rolling Eyes

Your method is flawed, because you include murders from non-death-penalty-states. The fact that this skews your numbers is entirely beside the point.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

So, you're saying the murder rate is dependent on geography. I thought the death penalty deterred people from murder, rather than where they live.

Again, you impeach your own argument.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

A. You do realize that the word "correlation" (co-relation) means that there is an actual, computable mathematical relationship between the two numbers, right? That using statistical methods, one can determine exactly how much the two data sets are related to each other?

thefreedictionary.com wrote:
cor•re•la•tion (kôr-lshn, kr-)
n.
2. Statistics The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision.
Any child of average intelligence could see the correlation in that graph.

DrewDad wrote:
B. OK, you got me. Your numbers are correct. Your method is flawed, because you include murders from non-death-penalty-states. The fact that this skews your numbers is entirely beside the point.
Well, better late then never. Problem is: I still never claimed the method was comprehensive or that it constituted proof. That argument is between you and your shadow.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

So, you're saying the murder rate is dependent on geography. I thought the death penalty deterred people from murder, rather than where they live.

Again, you impeach your own argument.

I didn't say anything of the sort. Look again and answer the question if you have the intellectual honesty to do so.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Any child of average intelligence could see the correlation in that graph.

OK. You have the reasoning ability of a child of average intelligence.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

DrewDad wrote:
The fact that this skews your numbers is entirely beside the point.
Well, better late then never. Problem is: I still never claimed the method was comprehensive or that it constituted proof. That argument is between you and your shadow.

I really, really need to talk to Robert about getting some sarcasm tags.

The flawed method skews your numbers; your numbers are not telling the story you claim they are.

0 Replies

Killing people is the best solution.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know