1
   

Please help save an innocent man from execution

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 01:50 am
One more piece of probable common ground (that makes my comparison an even smaller piece of the pie)...

Thomas wrote:
Yes, but you still care about the innocent people killed by murderers, don't you?
Add to that the suffering friends and families of both the condemned murderer and his victim(s). Jeffrey Dahmer's parents seemed like decent people to me.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 08:27 am
Without good estimations of the number of wrongly convicted people who received the death penalty and the number who might otherwise have been killed if there was not a death penalty (and the only other option was life with possibility of parole), it's impossible to know whether the risk of executing innocents is worth it in order to prevent future murders. Your standard seems to be that the state would have to kill as many or more innocents than the convicted killers would if they got out in order to justify eliminating the death penalty. That seems like a pretty high bar to me. It also seems contrary to our system of American values which values justice more than crime prevention.

I'm not necessarily opposed to the death penalty. But until we have a system that inspires more confidence in verdicts, I object to it.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 09:20 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Sez you. A rather silly time to resort to such a tactic, too; since for two quotes in a row I was recognizing the reasonable difference of opinion we have on assigning rank to our objectives.

Not silly at all. The time to conclude that you are convincingly, irretrievably wrong is at the point where all possibility of persuasion is exhausted. That happened when you said that it was time for us to agree to disagree.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
No Joe, that isn't complete nonsense. Your response however, is. I made no claim that the death penalty was the only punishment; I said it was what the ultimate punishment could be. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider this a misunderstanding on your part, but you're becoming increasingly obvious in your attempts to discredit my valid arguments with nonsense yourself.

But that still does not explain why there appears to be a direct correlation between executions and murders in the period up to 1960 and an inverse correlation afterwards. If more executions = less murders, then we would expect that the pre-1960 period would show a rise in murders -- but it doesn't.

I suppose it's possible you're suggesting that there were just fewer executions because deterence was actually working, such that the pre-1960 period saw the following cycle at work: capital punishment --> fewer murders --> fewer murderers --> fewer executions. If that's the case, though, we should see the same cycle reiterated some time after 1976, when the USSC declared that the death penalty could be constitutional. It has been thirty years since death again could be the ultimate punishment -- the same amount of time between 1930 and 1960, at the left end of your graph. So why hasn't the pattern reestablished itself?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Yes Joe; I freely admit I'm neither an expert in law nor history nor statistics. That's why I suggested everyone would have to interpret them for themselves. (This type of sniping is as unnecessary as it is inappropriate.)

I do not subscribe to the Protestant notion that everyone is qualified to interpret the evidence for themselves. As you amply demonstrate, there is no reason to assume that everyone is even competent to read and interpret a simple graph. That you choose to do so despite your obvious limitations is a reflection on you and your argument, whether you like it or not.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Here again; you've deliberately misinterpreted my words. I googled up a sufficient number of murders to satisfy myself that the number would exceed six. May I remind you that even those six have yet to be proven to be erroneous State executions. Your rant may be convincing to those predisposed to agree with you but is utterly lacking in content.

Those six cases are important to you, not to me, so I regard your attempts to counter them as irrelevant. For the purposes of this argument, I really don't care if six innocent persons were executed or if a hundred were or if none were. Frankly, I don't think that any of those six cases have been conclusively found to be innocent, but then that's the nature of these cases: when the state kills its mistakes, there are few people who can be bothered with correcting them. What you need to do (and what you still haven't done) is show why capital punishment is preferable to life without parole.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
McDuff remains a perfect example of what can and has happened when condemnation is commuted to life imprisonment.

No, it's a perfect example of what can happen when a murderer is released on parole.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
History shows us that the inclusion of the words "without parole" may or may not mean anything. In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. In 1982, sentencing laws were changed in New York and now James Moore is eligible for parole every two years. The parents of his victim, like many others, now get to relive their pain every two years to insure the Cretin isn't released. That's justice?

That's an argument to change the sentencing laws, not to kill people.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
It takes very little googling to learn just how short a "life sentence" can be. Here's a very small sampling of recidivism that someone else went to the trouble of collecting (for the page click here). I'll cut and paste a few of the shorter ones, since the entire list would probably be rejected by A2K.

No need to worry about the lengthy cut-and-paste: I'll summarize for you:

Robert Massie: paroled.


Joe Atkins: paroled.

Timothy Hancock: killed a fellow prisoner.

Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita: killed a fellow prisoner.

Cuhuatemoc Little Warrior Peraita: undoubtedly the same person as the previous entry (or else he will be executed twice).

Robert Massie: paroled.

Robert Lynn Pruett: killed a guard while in prison

Kenneth Williams: killed someone after escaping from prison (he was not on death row at the time of his escape)

William Suff: paroled.

None of these cases support your argument that the death penalty is preferable to life without parole. The cases where an inmate kills a fellow inmate or a guard or commits murder after escaping merely provide an argument in favor of better prisons, not capital punishment.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 10:33 am
I have been following this conversation and I must say, it's pretty fascinating. Some of my views may have changed a bit because of it.

I am sure we all remember Carla Faye Tucker? Please bear with me. Bill bringing up the family members of both the murderers and victims got me going.

The crime this woman committed, IMO, did deserve the death penalty. I heard her taped confession. It's was horrifying. She was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. This provided a bit of closure for the husband of one of the victims, but only some.

Then the Appeals process began and during that time Carla Faye Tucker appeared to many to have honestly rehabilitated and become a productive member of society (well, the society she was incarcerated in). She started doing the right things, helping others, caring about others, etc. For the sake of this discussion, let's just assume that her rehabilitation was real. Even though she changed, she was still executed for her crime.

I'm not completely against the death penalty. I am against the obvious flaws in the death penalty system. The Appeals Process may provide a longer life for the convicted but it provides agony for the loved ones of victims. The Appeals Process provides a time period in which the convicted can truly make a change. Does this change then negate the crime committed in the first place?

If we are going to put someone to death I feel there should be absolutely no doubt they committed the crime. I think in death penalty cases the standards of proof must be higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt."

If someone is then sentenced to death, I think it should be carried out within a very short period of time. Give the convicted time to say good bye to everyone and just do it. Do not prolong the agony of the convicted nor the family members and loved ones of the victims.

If someone is given the death penalty, they IMO have lost their civil rights by taking away the life of another. They shold be afforded no special treatment whatsoever.

Sound cruel? Perhaps. But I am all about forgiveness. However, I do know that there are people that don't even think they need forgiveness. There are people that don't want to be forgiven. I don't think it's a mass amount of people, but there are some nonetheless.

I'm not sure I'd want the death penalty abolished but I do know that the process must be changed. There are too many on death row that, as we all know now, obviously do not belong there. And, there are those that do.

Wouldn't the prudent thing for us to do be to fix the process instead of doing away with it because an innocent person has and does get caught in the system? We can't let the Jeffrey Dahmer's, Ted Bundy's, etc., live as parasites on society by providing for all their needs for the rest of their lives.

The husband of the woman that Carla Faye Tucker did not get closure until the day Carla Faye Tucker died. His closure did not come until her sentence was completed. I can't say he is 100% at fault for feeling that way and I can't say that he is. It's just it seems he suffered for so long after his wife's death because our death penalty process is so flawed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 10:56 am
And I've thaught, Momma Angel, you were a Christian, a follower of Jesus, who taught and practised forgiveness, even of those who would murder him.

Never mind. Kill them.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 11:00 am
I understand, Walter. Believe me, it's a conflict with me. I do agree with the death penalty in certain cases, not in all. But for me, it has to one of those "THERE IS NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER" type of case and the crime has to be one I consider rather heinous. I am a Christian, Walter, true. I am also a human being that has feelings and sometimes my feelings are in conflict yes. I have to be honest about those feelings when they are there.

I can't lie and say that there should be no death penalty when I see a necessity for it. I'm watching this conversation with everyone rather closely. It's helping me quite a bit and hopefully, some of my conflict can be resolved.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 12:29 pm
I have always found the spectacle of a devoted christian advocating capital punishment and then worshipping at the image of a crucified Christ to be the very apex of irony.

Momma Angel wrote:
I can't lie and say that there should be no death penalty when I see a necessity for it.

I'm sure the Romans felt the same way.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 12:41 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
I have always found the spectacle of a devoted christian advocating capital punishment and then worshipping at the image of a crucified Christ to be the very apex of irony.

Momma Angel wrote:
I can't lie and say that there should be no death penalty when I see a necessity for it.

I'm sure the Romans felt the same way.
Joe,

Okay, that's a couple of times you have said things that have, well, hurt my feelings a bit.

Spectacle? I can surely understand how one might have some problem with one being a Christian and yet believing there is a necessity for capital punishment and I don't have a problem with that whatsoever.

Joe, the hardest part about being a Christian, IMO, is that everyone else seems to think they know what a Christian should be or act like and they make judgments about it. Those judgments hurt sometimes.

I am not perfect. I never will be. I am a human being with feelings and emotions just like you and everyone else. At times, those feelings and emotions conflict. At times they conflict with my beliefs. I did not say that I think capital punishment is RIGHT. I said I think it is a necessity in some cases. I don't like abortion either and am against it but I can, as a human being, understand there are certain instances a woman may feel she has no answer but abortion. I don't like it. I don't think it's right, but I can understand it.

So, if you think I am making a spectacle of myself because I can tell you and everyone else that I honestly have conflictions about issues and my beliefs, well pop yourself some popcorn, pull up a chair and have a good time. Laughing I woud imagine this won't be the first time it's going to happen to me and I am pretty positive it won't be the last. :wink:
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 01:01 pm
In my opinion, Capital Punishment is NEVER right. We kill a man because he killed someone. Isn't that just a form of legalized murder? It's our justice system saying "you can't kill unless we say you can". Granted, I have heard of murderers who have committed attrocities so heinous that I'd like them dead but if I was the one doing the injecting or pulling the switch I am guilty of the same crime.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 01:05 pm
And thus, is the real conflict, NickFun. I so totally understand where you are coming from.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 01:14 pm
The death penalty should be abolished. Prisoners who have committed crimes such as murder should be locked into their cell 23 hours a day, with one hour supervised exercise. They have a toilet, a sink and a bed. No tv.

The death penalty is the most hypocritical piece of ****...if the executioner kills a murderer, what does that make the executioner?

If it's a justified murder, it's ok?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 02:24 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Sez you. A rather silly time to resort to such a tactic, too; since for two quotes in a row I was recognizing the reasonable difference of opinion we have on assigning rank to our objectives.

Not silly at all. The time to conclude that you are convincingly, irretrievably wrong is at the point where all possibility of persuasion is exhausted. That happened when you said that it was time for us to agree to disagree.
Having never seen any demonstration of a propensity towards any possibility of persuasion from you, on this thread or any previous DP discussion, that's a sorry excuse for your Sez me. I too, tend to believe in my conclusions until they are proven false, but have frequently demonstrated a better ability to admit to such an occurrence.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
No Joe, that isn't complete nonsense. Your response however, is. I made no claim that the death penalty was the only punishment; I said it was what the ultimate punishment could be. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider this a misunderstanding on your part, but you're becoming increasingly obvious in your attempts to discredit my valid arguments with nonsense yourself.

But that still does not explain why there appears to be a direct correlation between executions and murders in the period up to 1960 and an inverse correlation afterwards. If more executions = less murders, then we would expect that the pre-1960 period would show a rise in murders -- but it doesn't.
Try to follow along here, Joe. Prior to the 60's era anti-DP success, there was no reason to consider an execution/murder ratio (per my theory) because it was well established and common knowledge that the DP could be the ultimate punishment for murder... though the fact that the ratio remained relatively constant could lend some credibility to the theory that the later absence of DP was (at least in part) responsible for the spike in murders in the next period. During the following period, when the DP was near-non-existent to non-existent; the murder rates spiked up dramatically. Next, the resumption of DP in earnest coincides with the numbers being cut in half once again. So far this isn't opinion, Joe; it's a simple reflection of historical trends.

Previously, I tipped my hat to Thomas' expertise and conceded that there may well be an alternative explanation for the obvious trend (though none has been provided, by anyone), but "Joefromchicago said so" isn't one of them. Thus far you've offered no alternative explanation for the obvious deviation... rather you've chosen to snidely draw attention to my non-expert-admission while implying that you are better qualified to explain it. Why haven't you?

joefromchicago wrote:
I suppose it's possible you're suggesting that there were just fewer executions because deterence was actually working, such that the pre-1960 period saw the following cycle at work: capital punishment --> fewer murders --> fewer murderers --> fewer executions. If that's the case, though, we should see the same cycle reiterated some time after 1976, when the USSC declared that the death penalty could be constitutional. It has been thirty years since death again could be the ultimate punishment -- the same amount of time between 1930 and 1960, at the left end of your graph. So why hasn't the pattern reestablished itself?
Shocked The above explanation strikes me as sound enough, but your conclusion bares no recognition of the information contained in that graph. (And you think I'm the one having trouble reading it?)1976 is when the USSC declared the DP constitutional, but as demonstrated by the graph it was scarcely utilized until later... so couldn't be expected to provide much of a deterrent. As for re-establishment, you're either looking at a different graph or are displaying an acute inability to read one. By the year 2000, the murder rate had dropped to 5.5... which is approximately where it was at in 1960. Coincidentally(?), this occurred just after the DP rates had returned to pre 1960 levels. After the big bubble of discrepancy, the graph indicates that the execution/murder ratio returned to essentially the same level as they were before the DP moratorium debacle.

Next let's check and see if they stayed there, shall we?
According to this chart from the FBI, the murder numbers have remained fairly consistent since the graph ended in 2000.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/images/content_images/2.3.gif
Now lets cross reference the FBI's murder numbers to the execution numbers and examine the ratio between them. I'll use the numbers from the DPIC (your source):
2000 executions-85- 5.5 per 100,000
2001 executions-66- 5.6 per 100,000
2002 executions-71- 5.6 per 100,000
2003 executions-65- 5.7 per 100,000
2004 executions-59- 5.5 per 100,000

As you can see, the execution/murder ratio has returned to a relative lockstep, much like it was prior to the anti-DP campaign's success.

Do you still wish to contend that the pattern has not reestablished itself?

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Yes Joe; I freely admit I'm neither an expert in law nor history nor statistics. That's why I suggested everyone would have to interpret them for themselves. (This type of sniping is as unnecessary as it is inappropriate.)

I do not subscribe to the Protestant notion that everyone is qualified to interpret the evidence for themselves. As you amply demonstrate, there is no reason to assume that everyone is even competent to read and interpret a simple graph. That you choose to do so despite your obvious limitations is a reflection on you and your argument, whether you like it or not.
Actually Joe, I agree with your words, just not the snide sentiment. In fact, I take pride in my ability to admit my limitations. Your seeming inability to do the same says just as much about you. Idea (See above to clarify which one of us really has trouble reading a graph :wink:)


joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Here again; you've deliberately misinterpreted my words. I googled up a sufficient number of murders to satisfy myself that the number would exceed six. May I remind you that even those six have yet to be proven to be erroneous State executions. Your rant may be convincing to those predisposed to agree with you but is utterly lacking in content.

Those six cases are important to you, not to me, so I regard your attempts to counter them as irrelevant. For the purposes of this argument, I really don't care if six innocent persons were executed or if a hundred were or if none were. Frankly, I don't think that any of those six cases have been conclusively found to be innocent, but then that's the nature of these cases: when the state kills its mistakes, there are few people who can be bothered with correcting them.
That beats the hell out of your earlier uncalled for sarcasm since my argument against the fact that recidivism causes more innocent death than the State is damn near irrefutable. Thanks for the late concession. Better late than never.

joefromchicago wrote:
What you need to do (and what you still haven't done) is show why capital punishment is preferable to life without parole.
I've done so all along. Look below.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
McDuff remains a perfect example of what can and has happened when condemnation is commuted to life imprisonment.

No, it's a perfect example of what can happen when a murderer is released on parole.
And therein lies the problem, Joe. Sentencing laws do change and have resulted in condemned-> commuted to life-> to parole-> recidivism... as well as additional dangers to guards, prison employees and inmates alike. Historically, DP has proven to be the only proven safeguard against recidivism.

Now, you still have yet to provide an alternative explanation for the enormous spike (double) in murder rates that accompanied the lack of executions and coincidentally(?) dropped back in half upon their resumption in earnest. Question
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 02:48 pm
It is true that if an inmate is put to death then he/she is unlikely to reoffend.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 03:09 pm
I have heard that, NickFun, but don't have any empirical evidence to back it up. Laughing
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 03:56 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Okay, that's a couple of times you have said things that have, well, hurt my feelings a bit.

Spectacle?

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you as a "spectacle." I was merely refering to a generic christian, not to any specific one.

Momma Angel wrote:
Joe, the hardest part about being a Christian, IMO, is that everyone else seems to think they know what a Christian should be or act like and they make judgments about it. Those judgments hurt sometimes.

I would imagine that the hardest part about being a christian was following the precepts set down by Christ. The judgments of others, in contrast, would seem trifling.

Momma Angel wrote:
I did not say that I think capital punishment is RIGHT. I said I think it is a necessity in some cases. I don't like abortion either and am against it but I can, as a human being, understand there are certain instances a woman may feel she has no answer but abortion. I don't like it. I don't think it's right, but I can understand it.

If you tolerate something that is wrong because you think it is necessary, then I don't think much of your notions of right and wrong.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 04:02 pm
Joe,

Okay, I can certainly understand where you are coming from. But, haven't you ever had conflicting feelings about something and just haven't been able to firmly plant your feet on one side of the issue or not yet? Do you immediately know you are for or against and that's it? There's no inbetween? You can't understand the reasoning or necessity for something but still feel it's not right?

I may not be explaining this well and I hope I am not confusing you. Being conflicted on this issue is the best way I can think to describe how I feel about it.

I should have said one of the hardest things about Christianity. You are very correct in what you stated. Poor choice of words on my part. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 04:20 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
And I've thaught, Momma Angel, you were a Christian, a follower of Jesus, who taught and practised forgiveness, even of those who would murder him.

Never mind. Kill them.


Since I'm not a religious man, I have no intention of participating in the religious aspects of this debate. However, MA, don't go thinking Chrisianity and the DP don't mix. There is no hypocrisy (that doesn't stem from the bible itself). There are a couple passages in Luke which speak directly on Jesus' position on the death penalty:

Quote:
"A certain man planted a vineyard, leased it to vinedressers, and went into a far country for a long time. Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that they might gave him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the vinedressers beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent another servant; and they beat him also, treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. And again he sent a third; and they wounded him also and cast him out. then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. Probably they will respect him when they see him.' But when the vinedressers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.' So they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those vinedressers and give the vineyard to others." -Luke 20:9-16.


Then, even more directly; Christ also pronounced this judgment on those who rebelled against their king:

Quote:
"But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me." -Luke19:27
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 04:24 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Having never seen any demonstration of a propensity towards any possibility of persuasion from you, on this thread or any previous DP discussion, that's a sorry excuse for your Sez me. I too, tend to believe in my conclusions until they are proven false, but have frequently demonstrated a better ability to admit to such an occurrence.

Quite possibly because you're wrong more often than I am.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Try to follow along here, Joe. Prior to the 60's era anti-DP success, there was no reason to consider an execution/murder ratio (per my theory) because it was well established and common knowledge that the DP could be the ultimate punishment for murder... though the fact that the ratio remained relatively constant could lend some credibility to the theory that the later absence of DP was (at least in part) responsible for the spike in murders in the next period.

Only if there was something that made the relationship reverse itself.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
During the following period, when the DP was near-non-existent to non-existent; the murder rates spiked up dramatically. Next, the resumption of DP in earnest coincides with the numbers being cut in half once again. So far this isn't opinion, Joe; it's a simple reflection of historical trends.

No, it's a simplistic reading of the graph.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Previously, I tipped my hat to Thomas' expertise and conceded that there may well be an alternative explanation for the obvious trend (though none has been provided, by anyone), but "Joefromchicago said so" isn't one of them. Thus far you've offered no alternative explanation for the obvious deviation... rather you've chosen to snidely draw attention to my non-expert-admission while implying that you are better qualified to explain it. Why haven't you?

Because IT'S NOT MY EVIDENCE! I am not relying on the graph to prove anything, so I don't see why I have to explain it. Moreover, as I pointed out before, I have no idea where the graph came from or what sources it relied upon. I'm not going to accept your graph as reliable simply because it's a graph and you produced it (you linked to a graphics site, not to the source of the information). You've had ample opportunity to provide some context for the graph, but so far you have failed. As far as I know, the most plausible explanation for the graph is that it was drawn by a four-year-old with a pair of crayons.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Shocked The above explanation strikes me as sound enough, but your conclusion bares no recognition of the information contained in that graph. (And you think I'm the one having trouble reading it?)1976 is when the USSC declared the DP constitutional, but as demonstrated by the graph it was scarcely utilized until later... so couldn't be expected to provide much of a deterrent. As for re-establishment, you're either looking at a different graph or are displaying an acute inability to read one. By the year 2000, the murder rate had dropped to 5.5... which is approximately where it was at in 1960. Coincidentally(?), this occurred just after the DP rates had returned to pre 1960 levels. After the big bubble of discrepancy, the graph indicates that the execution/murder ratio returned to essentially the same level as they were before the DP moratorium debacle.

But there was an inverse relationship at that time, not a direct relationship.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Next let's check and see if they stayed there, shall we?
According to this chart from the FBI, the murder numbers have remained fairly consistent since the graph ended in 2000.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/images/content_images/2.3.gif
Now lets cross reference the FBI's murder numbers to the execution numbers and examine the ratio between them. I'll use the numbers from the DPIC (your source):
2000 executions-85- 5.5 per 100,000
2001 executions-66- 5.6 per 100,000
2002 executions-71- 5.6 per 100,000
2003 executions-65- 5.7 per 100,000
2004 executions-59- 5.5 per 100,000

As you can see, the execution/murder ratio has returned to a relative lockstep, much like it was prior to the anti-DP campaign's success.

Do you still wish to contend that the pattern has not reestablished itself?

I have no idea. It appears that executions fluctuated, whereas murder rates remained relatively constant. If there was a direct relationship between executions and murder rates (as apparently was the case before 1960), then the murder rate should have fallen between 2000 and 2001 (when the number of executions decreased), but instead it rose slightly, suggesting that the inverse relationship was still at work. The same is true between 2002 and 2003. And between 2001 and 2002 executions increased but the murder rate remained constant, whereas over the five year period executions decreased but the rate likewise remained constant. Indeed, the only time period which showed a direct relationship was between 2003 and 2004.

Now, what can we conclude from this? Well, I don't know what you can come up with, O'Bill, but I can conclude nothing. The numbers don't appear to establish any kind of consistent pattern. Maybe you need another graph.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Actually Joe, I agree with your words, just not the snide sentiment. In fact, I take pride in my ability to admit my limitations. Your seeming inability to do the same says just as much about you. Idea (See above to clarify which one of us really has trouble reading a graph :wink:)

I've seen the above, and you don't come off any better than before.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That beats the hell out of your earlier uncalled for sarcasm since my argument against the fact that recidivism causes more innocent death than the State is damn near irrefutable. Thanks for the late concession. Better late than never.

Would that your ability to manufacture graphs were matched by your ability to manufacture concessions.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
And therein lies the problem, Joe. Sentencing laws do change and have resulted in condemned-> commuted to life-> to parole-> recidivism... as well as additional dangers to guards, prison employees and inmates alike. Historically, DP has proven to be the only proven safeguard against recidivism.

You act as if sentencing laws were wild and untameable beasts, totally beyond the power of mere humans to control. If sentencing laws are too lenient or too mercurial, that merely provides an argument to change the sentencing laws, not to kill those people that we somehow can't keep in prison.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Now, you still have yet to provide an alternative explanation for the enormous spike (double) in murder rates that accompanied the lack of executions and coincidentally(?) dropped back in half upon their resumption in earnest. Question

Four-year-old child. Crayons.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 04:28 pm
OCCOM BILL,

Thank you so much! That was very kind of you to post that for me. It helped!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 04:28 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Joe,

Okay, I can certainly understand where you are coming from. But, haven't you ever had conflicting feelings about something and just haven't been able to firmly plant your feet on one side of the issue or not yet? Do you immediately know you are for or against and that's it? There's no inbetween? You can't understand the reasoning or necessity for something but still feel it's not right?

I have moments of doubt. They quickly pass.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Too crazy to be executed? - Discussion by joefromchicago
A case to end the death penalty - Discussion by gungasnake
The least cruel method of execution? - Discussion by pistoff
Death Penalty Drugs - Question by HesDeltanCaptain
Cyanide Pill - Question by gollum
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/02/2023 at 10:16:44