@Eorl,
Eorl wrote: I apologize for the inconsiderate characterization.
Damn decent of you, thanks. Apology accepted.
Eorl wrote:OK, let's try looking at this from a slightly different angle.
The smoking/cancer correlation. The early statistics suggested there may be correlation, but causation wasn't proven until it was proven.
This was my point in it's entirety. The correlation of the statistics
implied causation (since I was born in the 60's at least)... and pretty much everyone knew it... even those who eventually died from the cancer. The Surgeon General found that smoking causes cancer and the FTC enacted warning requirements accordingly in the 60's as well. If we all agree that Robert's link is accurate; and substantial proof wasn't obtained until 1996; that's about 3 decades where "correlation implied causation" so strongly that our Federal Government regulated Warnings, absent concrete proof. Were we to accept the unfortunate phrase "correlation doesn't imply causation" as a Law of Science (as DrewDad suggests); that would have left 3 decades of denial. Fortunately; in the real world reasonable human beings have the ability to reason; and don't dogmatically deny the truth based on unfortunate (and frequently false) turns of phrase. Who knows how many lives may have been saved by recognizing that correlation did indeed imply causation.
Eorl wrote: No doubt you think everyone should have acted earlier based on the way the evidence seemed to be pointing. If, however, the research suggested that there was NO causation, or even that smoking helped PREVENT cancer, then you would have to assume that perhaps your graph was showing some other correlation, not necessarily co-incidental, but not causational either
For example, maybe there's a smoking culture in factories where workers handle carcinogenic chemicals. In this case, banning smoking would have no effect on the cancer rate and if it turned out that smoking helped prevent cancer, then banning smoking would in fact have increased the cancer rate.
I assume your point is that just because the correlation implies causation; that doesn't necessarily make it so. I agree. Where I dissent is in the ridiculous assumption that the
implication is "
meaningless" unless and until more concrete proof can be found. This type of dogmatic nonsense may have caused who knows how many additional cancer deaths?
Eorl wrote:That's why when we see a graph like yours, we set about looking for the proof of causation. The graph on it's own says nothing except..could be a correlation, let's look for evidence of causation.
You're mixing your words here (in deference to DrewDad's dogma I suspect) but the graph does show an obvious correlation. This doesn't mean we disagree. On a scale from Pirates/temperature to Smoking/Cancer there is are infinite degrees of likelihood. Obviously, the Smoking/Cancer relationship implies causation more strongly than the Pirate/temperature relationship. True? I would think any reasonable person should be able to recognize the murder rate/execution numbers to be somewhere in between. Only pure assumptive faith, or foolish scientific Dogma, could prevent someone from seeing the obvious connection between murders and a direct result of same as a "
possible factor". Not so the Pirate/Temperature silliness, so there would be no point in looking for a further connection there.
In summary:
1.
Smoking/Cancer provides that correlation
can obviously
imply causation. (This should in no way be considered to mean that it
always does.)
2. The DOJ numbers clearly show a spike in the murder rate during the moratorium. This correlation may or may not be indicative of a causal relationship. I am not insisting that it does (not from the very beginning). I am insisting that the fact that these statistics move invertedly at roughly the same time makes it worthy of consideration as a
possible effect.
3. No real scientist would ever dismiss a
possible factor unless it was
proven that no connection existed. That would be irrational. This means the graph is not "
meaningless", which is the term I took exception to.
4. A re-reading of this thread would reveal that I have accepted the distinct possibility that the graph represents a spike in murder rates that is wholly independent from the use of the death penalty (from my opening post). That I happen to
doubt it; is
reasonable, and any reasonable person should be able to concede as much. While I have steadfastly maintained that every opposing view is reasonable; one self-important fool has insisted that my reasonable view is not reasonable. Only DrewDad has insisted that his view is the only possible correct view; yet his sympathetic audience has given him a complete pass, and pretended I am the person insisting my view is correct...presumably because his overall view matches theirs. If this isn't intellectual dishonesty; what is it?
5. For the record; I do believe
some would-be murderers are deterred from killing based on a fear of death; just as I believe penalty enhancements for carrying a gun to a crime scene deter some perps from carrying a gun to a crime scene. At the same time; I strongly suspect that the decline in the murder rates is mostly reflective of alcohol prohibition's repeal, the spike reflects the increase in attempts at drug prohibition... and the latter decline is the result of harsher sentences on many of those same offenders. Half of all crimes are committed by people under the influence of Drugs or alcohol, and the vast majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders. It so follows that 3 strikes laws and other harsher penalties that have greatly increased our incarceration rates have also served to keep a lot of would-be murders off the streets. I freely concede that it would be impossible to separate these and other factors away from whatever effect the death penalty may have on murder rates.
6. The above mentioned reasons and others tell me, as a rational human being, that no concrete evidence will ever be established. Consequently, the burden of proof required for causation cannot be established; but, and it's a big BUT, neither will can any evidence to the contrary. This is what frustrates the hell out of me when some fool wants to insist that a lack of provable causation renders relevant evidence "
meaningless." In this country; the Death Penalty will roughly follow the will of the people, who in turn merely have to decide for themselves based on a preponderance of the evidence, by their own standards (not some scientific, semantic, mumbo jumbo). While I don't believe for one minute that scientists monolithically, dogmatically subscribe to a nonsensical belief like "correlation CAN'T imply causation" (as demonstrated by smoking/cancer for 3 decades); I KNOW the American public would never collectively buy into something so absurd. This means NO relevant data is "meaningless".
Eorl wrote:...and once more I'd like to point out that even if CP was an effective deterrent, I still wouldn't support it.
I find this sentiment completely reasonable and in many ways even admirable.
I do, however, disagree. Too many presumed innocent people have lost their lives to recidivism. Only the Death Penalty can insure murderers cannot kill again. Were I in charge; the Death Penalty would be used a hell of a lot more often. Habitually violent offenders, rapists and child molesters would all be eligible candidates for execution.
The leading cause of death among pregnant women in this country is murder. Most of these offences are committed by repeat violent offenders. He who is too depraved to not refrain from beating a pregnant woman, for
any reason, exhibits a depraved indifference to the sanctity of life that IMO is sufficient to mark him as a threat to human-kind.
Studies show sex offenders, abusers (who too frequently become murderers), etc. tend to grow up in environments where these things go on. It is too frequently a disgusting vicious circle, which is in my opinion too frequently perpetuated by society's apathy towards the victim's plight, and more specifically by society's unwillingness to take greater measures against the offenders of this nature. Those who have repeatedly demonstrated a total of respect for humanity, depraved indifference, should, IMO, be eliminated for the greater health of the species. I believe in due process and that a person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. After that; my concerns for the innocent are infinitely more compelling than my concerns for the guilty.
There is such thing as justifiable homicide. There is no such thing as justifiable rape or child molestation. I believe there are people who are capable of such heinous atrocities and those who are not. The latter deserves a lot more protection from the former.
Every beating that exceeds self defense and/or protection runs a great risk of causing death. Repeat violent offenders of this nature should be treated as the credible threats that they are. If fair warning of consequences for repeat offenses are insufficient for a man to restrain himself from future offenses; his very being presents a clear and present danger to us all.
I'd like to see far harsher sentencing guidelines across the board for all manner of violent offenses. For the most depraved among us; "3 strikes and you're out should" be a permanent solution.
Please don't take my opinion as an attack on yours, because it isn't. I actually do admire those who have enough compassion in their hearts to believe even the worst among us should be spared. I don't share the sentiment, but I do respect it.
