1
   

Please help save an innocent man from execution

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 04:31 pm
Well, then send me the recipe, Joe because this one's taking it's own sweet time passing. Laughing
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 10:23 pm
Signed. Exclamation
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 10:33 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
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.
Probably. <shrugs>

joefromchicago wrote:
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.
Precisely, and it would certainly appear there was. Still waiting for your alternative theory as to what.

joefromchicago wrote:
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.
Laughing True that. The graph is pretty simple to read if you don't have your blinders on.

joefromchicago wrote:
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.
Joe, get a hold of yourself! All this talk of four-year-olds is making you behave like one. A graph is nothing more than an easy way to track patterns in number changes. Unless you are challenging the numbers, that's a pretty shotty argument. Next time you try reading it; you might notice that its original source is printed on it. In a bit, I'll verify the numbers for you using your source as well as mine.

That's twice now you've contested my points, got boxed in and then boldly denounced it as irrelevant anyway. Interesting rhetorical device, that...

joefromchicago wrote:
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.
Here again; you are deliberately missing the point which is: X number of executions seems to cause murder rates to drop. Obviously there's no slide rule and a myriad of other variables will no doubt cause fluxuations... even though the totallity of the information suggests something drastically changed in the mid to late 60s and didn't correct itself until the late 90s. If not the drop in execution rates; what?

joefromchicago wrote:
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.
Rolling Eyes Here we see another insightful attempt to obfuscate the obvious. The point that evidence was refuting was your erroneous suggestion that the relatively tight correlation in the pre 60s era didn't repeat when the death penalty resumed. The annual fluctuations you attempted to change the focus to, look no different than they did in the pre 60s era. Please stop misrepresenting my argument in feeble attempts to avoid admitting your errors.

joefromchicago wrote:
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.
Again Joe: We can conclude that after the enormous spike in murder rates that coincidentally(?) occurred during the near-nonexistent to nonexistent DP period; the pattern of execution/murder rates being relatively consistent reappears. While the explanation for this phenomenon my be questionable; the phenomenon is not.
joefromchicago wrote:
Maybe you need another graph.
Maybe you need to collect the data and build your own to prove to yourself that it matters little who builds a graph, as long as the numbers are accurate... or, of course, you could just concede the obvious...

joefromchicago wrote:
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.
Unfortunately, this continues to speak volumes about you.

joefromchicago wrote:
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.
You attacked my position, got boxed in and then you abandoned your feeble attack by claiming it irrelevant anyway. Funny, you didn't start that way if that's how you feel.

joefromchicago wrote:
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.
Funny you just can't seem to grasp the obvious fact that your solution is part of the problem; sentencing laws could be changed to keep lifers in for life. They could also be changed to grant lifers parole. This shouldn't take to much imagination since both have already occurred. Idea

joefromchicago wrote:
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.
I can ill imagine a more childish response and am very surprised to see you author it. Again, unless you dispute the accuracy of the numbers in the graph; attacking the graph itself is ridiculous. Funny how you were perfectly willing to refer to it before you figured out you couldn't pretend it suggested something other than what I supposed. Why are you so afraid to address the enormous bubble, Joe? Can't come up with a plausible alternative theory for obvious discrepancy? Smile At no point did I think you could but I remain interested in seeing you try. :wink:

I don't remember precisely where I copied that graph from, but it matters not. That's the weakest argument I've seen you forward. I don't know how to lift a graph from a PDF file and save it as a picture to post on line, but (:wink:), a little more than half way down this page you can view a graph depicting murder rates from 1900 to 1991… at the U.S. department of Justice's website. I do hope you find that source acceptable. You will notice that the peaks and valleys between 1930 and 1991 match those of the other graph I provided exactly. Also please note that the time span before 1930 shouldn't be relied upon because that's when the FBI started collecting all the Data.

Quote:
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program was conceived in 1929 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to meet a need for reliable, uniform crime statistics for the nation. In 1930, the FBI was tasked with collecting, publishing, and archiving those statistics. Today, several annual statistical publications, such as the comprehensive Crime in the United States, are produced from data provided by nearly 17,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States.

Look a little more than half way down This Page.


The second part of the graph verification requires a little more work. I couldn't find a graph, but took the numbers, again from the bureau of justice. This time I fed the numbers into Microsoft Excel and then used the graph feature… and once again the graph matched the previous one I posted perfectly. Feel free to verify it for yourself; the experiment is repeatable. :wink:
Here is the info.
Quote:
Number of persons executed in the United States, 1930-2005

Year Executions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1930 155
1931 153
1932 140
1933 160
1934 168
1935 199
1936 195
1937 147
1938 190
1939 160
1940 124
1941 123
1942 147
1943 131
1944 120
1945 117
1946 131
1947 153
1948 119
1949 119
1950 82
1951 105
1952 83
1953 62
1954 81
1955 76
1956 65
1957 65
1958 49
1959 49
1960 56
1961 42
1962 47
1963 21
1964 15
1965 7
1966 1
1967 2
1968 0
1969 0
1970 0
1971 0
1972 0
1973 0
1974 0
1975 0
1976 0
1977 1
1978 0
1979 2
1980 0
1981 1
1982 2
1983 5
1984 21
1985 18
1986 18
1987 25
1988 11
1989 16
1990 23
1991 14
1992 31
1993 38
1994 31
1995 56
1996 45
1997 74
1998 68
1999 98
2000 85
2001 66
2002 71
2003 65
2004 59
2005 60

Source: Capital Punishment 2004, November 2005, NCJ 211349
Source
Now that we know (Rolling Eyes) the graph is authentic; I'll resume waiting for your explanation… if you can muster one.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 10:43 pm
I also have a graph. Check this out:

http://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2006/3/1/959952.jpghttp://drawapig.desktopcreatures.com/gallery/2006/3/1/959952.jpg
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2006 11:27 pm
Bless you 2PacksADay!
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 07:41 am
I recently heard that Sister Helen Prejean, author of Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penelty in the United States and a new book The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions will be speaking in the Chicago area on the evening of May 4th. I thought the timing was interesting in that many of the people on this discussion thread will be in Chicago that week for the A2K meet.

Sister Helen has dedicated her life to working with and for the poor of New Orleans. She began a prison ministry in 1981 and became the spiritual advisor of Patrick Sonnier, the convicted killer of two teenagers.

Anyone wanting specific details is welcome to send me a PM.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:23 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
No, it's a simplistic reading of the graph.
Laughing True that. The graph is pretty simple to read if you don't have your blinders on.

PM me if you want someone to explain to you the difference between "simple" and "simplistic."

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Joe, get a hold of yourself! All this talk of four-year-olds is making you behave like one. A graph is nothing more than an easy way to track patterns in number changes. Unless you are challenging the numbers, that's a pretty shotty argument.

Explain to me how someone can challenge the numbers but not the graph. A graph is nothing more than a graphical representation of data: in other words, the graph is the same thing as the numbers, just expressed in a different way.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Next time you try reading it; you might notice that its original source is printed on it. In a bit, I'll verify the numbers for you using your source as well as mine.

It's not my job to verify your evidence. That's your job.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's twice now you've contested my points, got boxed in and then boldly denounced it as irrelevant anyway. Interesting rhetorical device, that...

If only saying it so would make it so, then you'd really have a good point there.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Here again; you are deliberately missing the point which is: X number of executions seems to cause murder rates to drop. Obviously there's no slide rule and a myriad of other variables will no doubt cause fluxuations... even though the totallity of the information suggests something drastically changed in the mid to late 60s and didn't correct itself until the late 90s.

This is beginning to sound more and more like the defenders of supply side economics -- "when revenues are high, the government should cut taxes, and when revenues are low, the government should cut taxes." Instead of that, we get: "when murder rates are high, we should kill murderers, and when murder rates are low, we should kill murderers."

Your "x number of executions" is a fantasy, much like the optimal point of the Laffer Curve. You don't know what that point is, and your numbers don't provide any evidence for such a point, but you'll still go on advocating the death penalty as if such a number could be established.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
If not the drop in execution rates; what?

I have no clue. Unlike you, O'Bill, I'm not so foolish as to think that a simple correlation constitutes solid evidence of causation, especially for a social phenomenon as complex as murder. Nevertheless, let me lay out some of the problems that could be affecting the numbers:

1. Reporting problems: as we know quite clearly from rape statistics, reported instances of crime do not always reflect the actual rate of crime. Although murder is the kind of crime that is typically reported, jurisdictions may have different standards of reporting, or may just be unwilling to report all the crimes. Jurisdictions that changed their reporting standards, therefore, would show either a sudden increase or decrease in murders, without any corresponding increase or decrease in homicides. The increase in the 1960s, consequently, may be attributable solely to a change in reporting standards.

2. Better data collection: as you admit, the pre-1930 statistics are unreliable because there was no uniform method of reporting murders. Better data collection after 1960, therefore, might explain the rise in murder rates without any corresponding increase in actual murders. Now, are the numbers after 1930 reliable? Are they consistent? Without more thorough research, I would have no idea.

3. Change in judicial attitudes: it is not clear how a "murder" is defined for the purposes of these statistics. If it is equal to a "murder conviction," then a sudden rise in "murders" could simply reflect a greater willingness on the part of juries/judges to convict defendants of murder rather than of some lesser charge, such as manslaughter. The rise in "murders," therefore, would not represent a rise in homicides, it would just represent a shift in judicial attitudes toward the crime of murder. Indeed, one might even suggest that juries would be more willing to convict someone of murder if they were spared the disagreeable task of deciding whether to execute the defendant, but that would be pure speculation.

4. Changes in socioeconomic factors: I won't even attempt to list all of the possible factors that might affect murder rates. Suffice it to say that violent crime, in general, tracks economic trends. There are also political trends to consider (the 1960s saw the emergence of "law and order" candidates such as Richard Nixon and George Wallace). These are complex situations that need to be analyzed to give a better picture of what was happening.

A competent statistician would want to do some regression analyses in order to eliminate possible confounding factors and alternate explanations. I don't know enough about the data to offer even a vague guess as to all the possible alternate explanations that might be behind the numbers in your graph, O'Bill, but then that puts me in the exact same position that you occupy. The only difference is that I won't make ill-informed, irresponsible guesses on the basis of limited information.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Rolling Eyes Here we see another insightful attempt to obfuscate the obvious. The point that evidence was refuting was your erroneous suggestion that the relatively tight correlation in the pre 60s era didn't repeat when the death penalty resumed. The annual fluctuations you attempted to change the focus to, look no different than they did in the pre 60s era. Please stop misrepresenting my argument in feeble attempts to avoid admitting your errors.

There was no misrepresentation: your argument is what it is. You have taken two sets of numbers and have intuited a causal connection between the two. I, on the other hand, see no reason to make that logical leap.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Again Joe: We can conclude that after the enormous spike in murder rates that coincidentally(?) occurred during the near-nonexistent to nonexistent DP period; the pattern of execution/murder rates being relatively consistent reappears. While the explanation for this phenomenon my be questionable; the phenomenon is not.

And how right you are to put a question mark after "coincidentally," since it may very well be nothing more than a coincidence. And if it is a coincidence, then the phenomenon, no matter how real or apparent it is, is not worth investigating.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Maybe you need to collect the data and build your own to prove to yourself that it matters little who builds a graph, as long as the numbers are accurate... or, of course, you could just concede the obvious...

I need no graphs. My argument does not rest on graphs. Yours does. You should, therefore, take the trouble to learn more about them.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You attacked my position, got boxed in and then you abandoned your feeble attack by claiming it irrelevant anyway. Funny, you didn't start that way if that's how you feel.

Show me exactly where I "attacked" your position with regard to recidivism rates?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Funny you just can't seem to grasp the obvious fact that your solution is part of the problem; sentencing laws could be changed to keep lifers in for life. They could also be changed to grant lifers parole. This shouldn't take to much imagination since both have already occurred. Idea

If we can't figure out ways to keep convicted murderers in jail, then that's a failure of political will or imagination, for which the death penalty is not the solution.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I can ill imagine a more childish response and am very surprised to see you author it. Again, unless you dispute the accuracy of the numbers in the graph; attacking the graph itself is ridiculous.

The graph and the numbers are THE SAME THING. Geez, for somebody who uses lots of graphs, you really don't understand them very well.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Funny how you were perfectly willing to refer to it before you figured out you couldn't pretend it suggested something other than what I supposed. Why are you so afraid to address the enormous bubble, Joe? Can't come up with a plausible alternative theory for obvious discrepancy? Smile At no point did I think you could but I remain interested in seeing you try. :wink:

Show me where I referred to the graph to support my argument.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't remember precisely where I copied that graph from, but it matters not. That's the weakest argument I've seen you forward. I don't know how to lift a graph from a PDF file and save it as a picture to post on line, but (:wink:), a little more than half way down this page you can view a graph depicting murder rates from 1900 to 1991… at the U.S. department of Justice's website. I do hope you find that source acceptable. You will notice that the peaks and valleys between 1930 and 1991 match those of the other graph I provided exactly. Also please note that the time span before 1930 shouldn't be relied upon because that's when the FBI started collecting all the Data.
<snip>
Look a little more than half way down This Page.

That's a graph that represents the homicide rate. To refresh your recollection, here's your graph:
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9430/deathpenaltygraph22vn.th.jpg
It purports to depict the murder rate. Are you claiming that all homicides are murders?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Now that we know (Rolling Eyes) the graph is authentic;

We know no such thing. Unless "murders" in the first graph are identical to "homicides" in the second, they are not comparable.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
...I'll resume waiting for your explanation… if you can muster one.

Let me explain this as simply as possible: I don't have to offer an alternate explanation to your evidence, especially if you can't even offer a plausible explanation of it. I repeat: it's not my evidence. I don't rely on it, so I don't have to support it or refute it. And just because I don't offer an alternate explanation doesn't mean that yours is the only one possible explanation left. I won't offer an alternate explanation because I don't know enough to offer one. Your eagerness to engage in baseless speculation is no reason why I have to do the same.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:33 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
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.


All due respect, that's a parable that has never been interpreted to have anything to do with the death penalty.

Matthew 13:10 wrote:
10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.
'[a]
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:40 am
O'Bill wrote:
Obviously there's no slide rule and a myriad of other variables will no doubt cause fluxuations... even though the totallity of the information suggests something drastically changed in the mid to late 60s and didn't correct itself until the late 90s. If not the drop in execution rates; what?


Drugs? Just a guess.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Mar, 2006 10:44 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Joe, get a hold of yourself! All this talk of four-year-olds is making you behave like one. A graph is nothing more than an easy way to track patterns in number changes. Unless you are challenging the numbers, that's a pretty shotty argument.

Explain to me how someone can challenge the numbers but not the graph. A graph is nothing more than a graphical representation of data: in other words, the graph is the same thing as the numbers, just expressed in a different way.
Precisely my point, Joe. Other than an inconsequential word substitution the numbers and the graph are spot on, contrary to your lazy assumptions to the contrary.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Next time you try reading it; you might notice that its original source is printed on it. In a bit, I'll verify the numbers for you using your source as well as mine.

It's not my job to verify your evidence. That's your job.
Whatever Joe. I've never seen a bibliography at the bottom of your posts either. Usually when someone challenges the veracity of a fact; they provide an alternate source for same. Not only did you not try, you'd have failed if you did. Now that it's been conclusively proven factual, you resort to "it doesn't matter anyway. Am I ever glad I wasted my time proving it for you.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's twice now you've contested my points, got boxed in and then boldly denounced it as irrelevant anyway. Interesting rhetorical device, that...

If only saying it so would make it so, then you'd really have a good point there.
Laughing One need only look back on our exchange, Joe.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Here again; you are deliberately missing the point which is: X number of executions seems to cause murder rates to drop. Obviously there's no slide rule and a myriad of other variables will no doubt cause fluctuations... even though the totality of the information suggests something drastically changed in the mid to late 60s and didn't correct itself until the late 90s.

This is beginning to sound more and more like the defenders of supply side economics -- "when revenues are high, the government should cut taxes, and when revenues are low, the government should cut taxes." Instead of that, we get: "when murder rates are high, we should kill murderers, and when murder rates are low, we should kill murderers."
Only in Joefromchicagoland; there is nothing unclear about my position, whether one agrees with it or not.
Fact: Capital crime increased dramatically during the absence of capital punishment and decreased just as dramatically upon it's return.
Opinion:These phenomenon are related.

joefromchicago wrote:
Your "x number of executions" is a fantasy, much like the optimal point of the Laffer Curve. You don't know what that point is, and your numbers don't provide any evidence for such a point, but you'll still go on advocating the death penalty as if such a number could be established.
I don't know if your obtuseness is deliberate or misunderstanding; but I'll try to clarify it for you one last time:
Opinion:A significant number of annual examples of capital punishment appear to result in a reduction of capital offenses. No slide rule. No lack of recognition of other factors. The big picture considering a totality of the last 75 years data appears to indicate as much.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
If not the drop in execution rates; what?

I have no clue. Unlike you, O'Bill, I'm not so foolish as to think that a simple correlation constitutes solid evidence of causation, especially for a social phenomenon as complex as murder. Nevertheless, let me lay out some of the problems that could be affecting the numbers:

1. Reporting problems: as we know quite clearly from rape statistics, reported instances of crime do not always reflect the actual rate of crime. Although murder is the kind of crime that is typically reported, jurisdictions may have different standards of reporting, or may just be unwilling to report all the crimes. Jurisdictions that changed their reporting standards, therefore, would show either a sudden increase or decrease in murders, without any corresponding increase or decrease in homicides. The increase in the 1960s, consequently, may be attributable solely to a change in reporting standards.
The FBI standardized the reporting system in 1930. While no system is perfect; murder is a tougher stat than most to fudge, or let go unreported. I find it difficult to impossible to believe reporting has gotten less accurate in the last 20 years.

joefromchicago wrote:
2. Better data collection: as you admit, the pre-1930 statistics are unreliable because there was no uniform method of reporting murders. Better data collection after 1960, therefore, might explain the rise in murder rates without any corresponding increase in actual murders. Now, are the numbers after 1930 reliable? Are they consistent? Without more thorough research, I would have no idea.
While I find it likely that reporting has been steadily improving since the system was installed, a 100% increase is pretty far-fetched. People have been counting, recording and doing arithmetic for a pretty long time. Until there is some evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to doubt the veracity of the FBI's statistics, beyond the exceptions that they freely and forthrightly admit to. In fact, they even have statisticians tracking presumptions on unreported crimes and reflect a 5% increase over the last decade for crime reporting in general, but at the same time pointed out that murder is pretty tough to not report. There is simply to many cross-reference points for the information to be that far off.

joefromchicago wrote:
3. Change in judicial attitudes: it is not clear how a "murder" is defined for the purposes of these statistics. If it is equal to a "murder conviction," then a sudden rise in "murders" could simply reflect a greater willingness on the part of juries/judges to convict defendants of murder rather than of some lesser charge, such as manslaughter. The rise in "murders," therefore, would not represent a rise in homicides, it would just represent a shift in judicial attitudes toward the crime of murder. Indeed, one might even suggest that juries would be more willing to convict someone of murder if they were spared the disagreeable task of deciding whether to execute the defendant, but that would be pure speculation.
Completely false. That is not how the system works. For the purpose of Uniform Crime Reporting there is no difference between murder and homocide and neither a judge nor jury has anything to do with it:
Quote:
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults.

Source

joefromchicago wrote:
4. Changes in socioeconomic factors: I won't even attempt to list all of the possible factors that might affect murder rates. Suffice it to say that violent crime, in general, tracks economic trends. There are also political trends to consider (the 1960s saw the emergence of "law and order" candidates such as Richard Nixon and George Wallace). These are complex situations that need to be analyzed to give a better picture of what was happening.
I concur that there are a myriad of factors that most certainly effect the murder rates. I've brainstormed and read plenty but can come up with no single or even set of factors that could have had such a dramatic effect as to create that giant bubble... Other than the DP theory and possibly Freeduck's thought that it could be drug-related.

joefromchicago wrote:
A competent statistician would want to do some regression analyses in order to eliminate possible confounding factors and alternate explanations. I don't know enough about the data to offer even a vague guess as to all the possible alternate explanations that might be behind the numbers in your graph, O'Bill, but then that puts me in the exact same position that you occupy. The only difference is that I won't make ill-informed, irresponsible guesses on the basis of limited information.
Sure you will Joe, and have. I haven't been arguing with myself here. The fact that you're now backpedaling to Thomas's position is surely the best solution, since your attempts to disprove the veracity of my stats/graph have proven futile, and your inability or unwillingness to supply an alternative theory to explain the enormous bubble they illustrate does nothing to disprove my theory. May I point out that considering the myriad of factors that you consider possible explanations (both those you realize and those you don't) that denying the possibility that the DP theory is one of them is just plain ignorant. If you don't know, and don't feel qualified to even opine; how can you be so obstinate in your refusal to accept the imminently reasonable possible explanation that the DP is the cause? The fact that correlation doesn't prove causation is certainly no reason to ignore it. What fool wouldn't look at correlation while trying to determine causation? The problem with your belated alliance with Thomas's position is your utter lack of open-mindedness. Steadfastly denying the obvious correlation could reflect causation; does put you in the "exact same position I occupy". The difference isn't that I'm more willing to opine without proof; the difference lies in the fact that the evidence supplied thus far leans more towards confirming my theory, not your incessant, unsupported denial of same.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Rolling Eyes Here we see another insightful attempt to obfuscate the obvious. The point that evidence was refuting was your erroneous suggestion that the relatively tight correlation in the pre 60s era didn't repeat when the death penalty resumed. The annual fluctuations you attempted to change the focus to, look no different than they did in the pre 60s era. Please stop misrepresenting my argument in feeble attempts to avoid admitting your errors.

There was no misrepresentation: your argument is what it is. You have taken two sets of numbers and have intuited a causal connection between the two. I, on the other hand, see no reason to make that logical leap.
Nonsense. The point we were both addressing is still there for all to see. I see no need to clog the board by re-quoting you every time you backpedal. That strategy is as futile as it is tedious to correct.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Again Joe: We can conclude that after the enormous spike in murder rates that coincidentally(?) occurred during the near-nonexistent to nonexistent DP period; the pattern of execution/murder rates being relatively consistent reappears. While the explanation for this phenomenon my be questionable; the phenomenon is not.

And how right you are to put a question mark after "coincidentally," since it may very well be nothing more than a coincidence. And if it is a coincidence, then the phenomenon, no matter how real or apparent it is, is not worth investigating.
This supposition is absurd on its face. What competent statistician wouldn't investigate a correlation-phenomenon based on the fact that it could prove coincidence? (Perhaps one with a predisposition so strong he's able to ignore the obvious?)

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Maybe you need to collect the data and build your own to prove to yourself that it matters little who builds a graph, as long as the numbers are accurate... or, of course, you could just concede the obvious...

I need no graphs. My argument does not rest on graphs. Yours does. You should, therefore, take the trouble to learn more about them.
Rolling Eyes "Joe sez" is a sorry substitution for facts, graphs and figures. I'm growing tired of this idiotic taunt, too, Joe. The graph is real. The numbers are accurate. And, I would have guessed that the lawyer accusing the layman of ignorance would have known better than question its veracity without at least some reason for believing it wasn't. That you didn't even know there's no difference between Homicide and Murder for the purpose of Unified Crime Reporting astounds me. Cleary it is you, not I, that has been lazy in his approach to researching the subject. The accurate graph still reflects the truth, my reading of it has been spot on and my opinions about what it reflect remain reasonable. Not so, your irrational, unsubstantiated denial of same.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You attacked my position, got boxed in and then you abandoned your feeble attack by claiming it irrelevant anyway. Funny, you didn't start that way if that's how you feel.

Show me exactly where I "attacked" your position with regard to recidivism rates?
Here. (You'll also notice at the top of that page; by then I was already being forced to outline your backpedaling. Confused Tedious strategy, that.)

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Funny you just can't seem to grasp the obvious fact that your solution is part of the problem; sentencing laws could be changed to keep lifers in for life. They could also be changed to grant lifers parole. This shouldn't take to much imagination since both have already occurred. Idea

If we can't figure out ways to keep convicted murderers in jail, then that's a failure of political will or imagination, for which the death penalty is not the solution.
<shakes head> The writing is on the wall. We have figured out ways to keep convicted murderers in jail. We've also figured out ways to release them anyway. The DP, too, is a reflection of political will and remains the only proven way to prevent recidivism.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I can ill imagine a more childish response and am very surprised to see you author it. Again, unless you dispute the accuracy of the numbers in the graph; attacking the graph itself is ridiculous.

The graph and the numbers are THE SAME THING. Geez, for somebody who uses lots of graphs, you really don't understand them very well.
Rolling Eyes So here we see you again dispute the veracity of the graph, and this time the numbers it reflects as well, both to the detriment of your credibility. Again, both were and are accurate.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Funny how you were perfectly willing to refer to it before you figured out you couldn't pretend it suggested something other than what I supposed. Why are you so afraid to address the enormous bubble, Joe? Can't come up with a plausible alternative theory for obvious discrepancy? Smile At no point did I think you could but I remain interested in seeing you try. :wink:

Show me where I referred to the graph to support my argument.
Almost half of our exchange has been your counter-argument to my argument, since you've scarcely much else. Again, a counter argument isn't an argument? Moreover, you did refer to it more than once while suggesting it reflected something other than my theory. Go back and look for yourself.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't remember precisely where I copied that graph from, but it matters not. That's the weakest argument I've seen you forward. I don't know how to lift a graph from a PDF file and save it as a picture to post on line, but (:wink:), a little more than half way down this page you can view a graph depicting murder rates from 1900 to 1991… at the U.S. department of Justice's website. I do hope you find that source acceptable. You will notice that the peaks and valleys between 1930 and 1991 match those of the other graph I provided exactly. Also please note that the time span before 1930 shouldn't be relied upon because that's when the FBI started collecting all the Data.
<snip>
Look a little more than half way down This Page.

That's a graph that represents the homicide rate. To refresh your recollection, here's your graph:
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9430/deathpenaltygraph22vn.th.jpg
It purports to depict the murder rate. Are you claiming that all homicides are murders?
No Joe. As explained above there is no definitional difference between murder and homicide for the purpose of the Uniform Crime Reporting.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Now that we know (Rolling Eyes) the graph is authentic;

We know no such thing. Unless "murders" in the first graph are identical to "homicides" in the second, they are not comparable.
Wrong again, Joe. We do know, even if you are stuck in denial.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
...I'll resume waiting for your explanation… if you can muster one.

Let me explain this as simply as possible: I don't have to offer an alternate explanation to your evidence, especially if you can't even offer a plausible explanation of it. I repeat: it's not my evidence. I don't rely on it, so I don't have to support it or refute it. And just because I don't offer an alternate explanation doesn't mean that yours is the only one possible explanation left. I won't offer an alternate explanation because I don't know enough to offer one. Your eagerness to engage in baseless speculation is no reason why I have to do the same.
There is nothing wrong with my evidence, other than the fact that it appears to support my theory and that troubles you.

Btw, I've since verified the authenticity of the graph/numbers here.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/totals.gif
Click on the graph to see the numbers behind it! (pretty cool trick, eh?)

I also discovered a link between the execution numbers I listed last and discovered there is indeed a handy graph provided (so no need to repeat my excel experiment Embarrassed ). It can be viewed here .
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/exe.gif
Click on it to see the numbers behind it.

Do note that both graphs reflect the exact same peaks and valleys as the one I originally provided. Case closed.

So much for the 4-year old with crayons nonsense. I'm guessing you've already verified this and that would explain your shift from "it's unreliable" to its "irrelevant". Your backpedaling is well shielded by the thrust of your argument, but is nonetheless easily recognized in a re-read of our exchange.

I don't know how you reconcile your counter-arguments of veracity with claims that the evidence you question has nothing to do with your argument. Are counter-arguments not arguments? At this juncture; you've back pedaled all the way from contesting my every argument to Thomas's position of inconclusive data to make a judgment. Read back and you'll see I conceded that as reasonable, pages ago, with very little argument. You'll also see I predicted the futility of debating the bubble-rationale in recognition of Thomas's expertise and opinion that it would ultimately be deemed inconclusive. Now I've wasted hours proving the veracity of a trend in the face of your challenges, only to have you deem said veracity irrelevant.

This is not unlike proving that the State kills less people than recidivism, in the face of your sarcasm, only to have you claim that too is irrelevant upon the evidence being provided. You have a habit of making challenges to other's positions without offering converse opinions, and then dismissing the challenge as irrelevant when it's proven fruitless, sometimes even to the point of denying you made it in the first place. This is tedious and I'm tired of it. I again suggest we agree to disagree.

Hope there's no hard feelings. I'd like to buy you a drink when I'm Billinchicago. (Providing we don't have to discuss this over it. :wink: )
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 09:49 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Precisely my point, Joe. Other than an inconsequential word substitution the numbers and the graph are spot on, contrary to your lazy assumptions to the contrary.

I have freely admitted that many of my assumptions regarding your evidence have been based on a lack of information -- that's why I have had to make assumptions. You have too, you just won't admit it.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Usually when someone challenges the veracity of a fact; they provide an alternate source for same. Not only did you not try, you'd have failed if you did. Now that it's been conclusively proven factual, you resort to "it doesn't matter anyway. Am I ever glad I wasted my time proving it for you.

I have not challenged the veracity of your numbers, I have questioned the sources of them. If I don't know what the sources are, then I can't judge their veracity. All I can do is raise possible questions regarding them.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Laughing One need only look back on our exchange, Joe.

Translation: you can't find them so you want me to find them. Sorry, I won't do your legwork for you this time, O'Bill.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Only in Joefromchicagoland; there is nothing unclear about my position, whether one agrees with it or not.
Fact: Capital crime increased dramatically during the absence of capital punishment and decreased just as dramatically upon it's return.
Opinion:These phenomenon are related.

And, as I have stated over and over (and which you have conveniently ignored), your opinion is based on a common logical fallacy.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't know if your obtuseness is deliberate or misunderstanding; but I'll try to clarify it for you one last time:
Opinion:A significant number of annual examples of capital punishment appear to result in a reduction of capital offenses. No slide rule. No lack of recognition of other factors. The big picture considering a totality of the last 75 years data appears to indicate as much.

And your obtuseness consists in failing to recognize that I have criticized your fallacious reasoning in inferring causation where there is only correlation. You have attempted over and over to back me into some kind of corner over the reliability of the numbers, but you simply don't understand that I am not disputing your numbers. For all I know, your numbers are correct (and, for all you know, the numbers aren't). What I have objected to is your reasoning, not your numbers.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Completely false. That is not how the system works. For the purpose of Uniform Crime Reporting there is no difference between murder and homocide and neither a judge nor jury has anything to do with it:
Quote:
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and nonnegligent manslaughter as the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another.

That's fine for the FBI, but the second graph that you linked used statistics from National Center for Health Statistics. Is the NCHS definition of murder the same as the FBI definition?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I concur that there are a myriad of factors that most certainly effect the murder rates. I've brainstormed and read plenty but can come up with no single or even set of factors that could have had such a dramatic effect as to create that giant bubble... Other than the DP theory and possibly Freeduck's thought that it could be drug-related.

Again, your lack of imagination does not equal the lack of alternative explanations.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Sure you will Joe, and have. I haven't been arguing with myself here. The fact that you're now backpedaling to Thomas's position is surely the best solution, since your attempts to disprove the veracity of my stats/graph have proven futile, and your inability or unwillingness to supply an alternative theory to explain the enormous bubble they illustrate does nothing to disprove my theory.

Perhaps if I shout you'll finally understand: I DON'T HAVE TO DISPROVE YOUR GODDAMNED GRAPH! Your graph says what it says, and you have drawn your conclusions from the graph. I have argued that your conclusion is an unwarranted inference of causation from correlation.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
May I point out that considering the myriad of factors that you consider possible explanations (both those you realize and those you don't) that denying the possibility that the DP theory is one of them is just plain ignorant. If you don't know, and don't feel qualified to even opine; how can you be so obstinate in your refusal to accept the imminently reasonable possible explanation that the DP is the cause? The fact that correlation doesn't prove causation is certainly no reason to ignore it. What fool wouldn't look at correlation while trying to determine causation? The problem with your belated alliance with Thomas's position is your utter lack of open-mindedness. Steadfastly denying the obvious correlation could reflect causation; does put you in the "exact same position I occupy". The difference isn't that I'm more willing to opine without proof; the difference lies in the fact that the evidence supplied thus far leans more towards confirming my theory, not your incessant, unsupported denial of same.

I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that the death penalty acts to deter murderers. Your graph doesn't prove it (it doesn't even make a slightly convincing case for it), but I suppose anything is possible. My opposition to the death penalty, however, does not rest on its ineffectiveness as a deterrent. If that were the case, then proof that the death penalty actually deterred potential murderers would be fatal to my position. But it's not, so it isn't.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Nonsense. The point we were both addressing is still there for all to see. I see no need to clog the board by re-quoting you every time you backpedal. That strategy is as futile as it is tedious to correct.

There would be no clogging because there has been no backpedalling. My argument has remained consistent throughout, just as you have consistently misunderstood it.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
This supposition is absurd on its face. What competent statistician wouldn't investigate a correlation-phenomenon based on the fact that it could prove coincidence? (Perhaps one with a predisposition so strong he's able to ignore the obvious?)

Yet another misunderstanding. I merely noted that, once something has been shown to be a coincidence, it is no longer of interest.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Rolling Eyes "Joe sez" is a sorry substitution for facts, graphs and figures. I'm growing tired of this idiotic taunt, too, Joe. The graph is real. The numbers are accurate. And, I would have guessed that the lawyer accusing the layman of ignorance would have known better than question its veracity without at least some reason for believing it wasn't.

I haven't questioned its veracity; I have stated that I have no basis for judging its veracity.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That you didn't even know there's no difference between Homicide and Murder for the purpose of Unified Crime Reporting astounds me.

Why should I? It's unlikely that you knew that they were the same before I raised a question about it.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cleary it is you, not I, that has been lazy in his approach to researching the subject. The accurate graph still reflects the truth, my reading of it has been spot on and my opinions about what it reflect remain reasonable. Not so, your irrational, unsubstantiated denial of same.

I have not researched the subject because IT'S NOT MY ARGUMENT! (oops, shouted again). I don't see why I need to research your argument, even if you're doing a poor job of it yourself. If the evidence is out there that supports your position, then you need to track it down, not me.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Show me exactly where I "attacked" your position with regard to recidivism rates?
Here. (You'll also notice at the top of that page; by then I was already being forced to outline your backpedaling. Confused Tedious strategy, that.)

You linked to one of your posts.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
<shakes head> The writing is on the wall. We have figured out ways to keep convicted murderers in jail. We've also figured out ways to release them anyway. The DP, too, is a reflection of political will and remains the only proven way to prevent recidivism.

If elected officials insist upon paroling murderers, then the democratic solution is to elect different officials, not to kill the inmates that they would otherwise be tempted to release.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Rolling Eyes So here we see you again dispute the veracity of the graph, and this time the numbers it reflects as well, both to the detriment of your credibility. Again, both were and are accurate.

No, I'm not disputing the veracity of your graph (that was an odd misreading of my statement), but I'm growing tired of having to correct these obvious distortions.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Show me where I referred to the graph to support my argument.
Almost half of our exchange has been your counter-argument to my argument, since you've scarcely much else. Again, a counter argument isn't an argument? Moreover, you did refer to it more than once while suggesting it reflected something other than my theory. Go back and look for yourself.

Just because your argument is wrong doesn't mean that mine is right. If I show that your argument doesn't work on its own terms, that doesn't prove my argument at all -- to say otherwise would be to engage in the fallacy of the excluded middle. Your argument in favor of the death penalty rests on your graph; my argument against the death penalty does not. The reliability of the graph says nothing whatsoever about my argument, it says something about yours.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
No Joe. As explained above there is no definitional difference between murder and homicide for the purpose of the Uniform Crime Reporting.

According to the NCHS?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
There is nothing wrong with my evidence, other than the fact that it appears to support my theory and that troubles you.

Of course it appears to support your theory. That's why so many people confuse correlation and causation.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Do note that both graphs reflect the exact same peaks and valleys as the one I originally provided. Case closed.

Case closed indeed. But before we put away all of our graphs, just one more:
http://www.ncc.go.jp/en/statistics/2001/figures/f1/g01e.gif

As you'll note, the orange line shows a remarkable similarity to the execution statistics in your graphs: falling sharply from the 1950s to the 1970s, and then rising slowly into the 1990s. Likewise, the green line seems to track the murder rate: also falling in the 1950s but then spiking sharply in the 1970s, only to fall again in the 1980s and '90s.

Of course, the orange line in the above graph represents the incidence of pneumonia in Japan, while the green line represents cerebrovascular diseases. I'm sure, though, that you can intuit a causal connection between these trends and the crime statistics in the US.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
At this juncture; you've back pedaled all the way from contesting my every argument to Thomas's position of inconclusive data to make a judgment. Read back and you'll see I conceded that as reasonable, pages ago, with very little argument.

Then why are you still arguing?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You'll also see I predicted the futility of debating the bubble-rationale in recognition of Thomas's expertise and opinion that it would ultimately be deemed inconclusive. Now I've wasted hours proving the veracity of a trend in the face of your challenges, only to have you deem said veracity irrelevant.

The time that would have been necessary to understand my argument would have been far less than the time you expended on fruitless research.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
This is not unlike proving that the State kills less people than recidivism, in the face of your sarcasm, only to have you claim that too is irrelevant upon the evidence being provided. You have a habit of making challenges to other's positions without offering converse opinions, and then dismissing the challenge as irrelevant when it's proven fruitless, sometimes even to the point of denying you made it in the first place. This is tedious and I'm tired of it. I again suggest we agree to disagree.

Of course your recidivism argument was irrelevant. You wanted to prove (because you said it was a "FACT") that murderers who had been sentenced to life without parole had killed more people than innocents had been executed by the state. That "FACT," however, proved to be bogus, so your argument was without any foundation. But then there was no need to make that argument if what you had wanted to do was address my argument. The fact that you advance groundless arguments in conjunction with your own position does not reflect upon my argument at all.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Hope there's no hard feelings. I'd like to buy you a drink when I'm Billinchicago. (Providing we don't have to discuss this over it. :wink: )

Anybody can buy me a drink. I'm ecumenical when it comes to alcohol.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 03:31 pm
bloody hell graphs an all

what can it all mean?

ps will this thread terminate when he's dead?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Mar, 2006 04:03 pm
I think I am done debating this topic for now, but just for clarification. Yes, the FBI links you to the U.S. Department of Justice to research these statistics, so the only logical inference is that the DOJ defines Homicide and Murder the same way for the purpose of tally and chart building. The first graph is consistent with the final two from the U.S. Department of Justice which obliterates your 4 year old with crayons conjecture (it sounded good and provocative, but was proven to be utter nonsense).

I've no need to research your greater argument (State killing of innocents- more compelling than recidivism in your view) because I long ago conceded it was reasonable, but disagree… remember?

Contrary to your conclusions, I never once stated that the graph proved my theory; rather I went out of my way to demonstrate that it appears consistent with it. All along I've readily agreed that correlation doesn't prove causation… but there's been no evidence supplied that proves or even suggests this correlation is coincidence, either. That's your unsubstantiated logical leap, not mine. Until such time as the correlation is proven coincidence; it remains a reasonable, if circumstantial, factor to consider in forming my opinion. Example: There is no direct evidence that proves the theoretical existence of Black Holes, but: the behavior of some Quasars seems to lend much credibility to the theory. One can't definitively say this correlation is proof of causation but until there is a more compelling alternative theory; one would be a fool to dismiss it as coincidence. (The above example should not be misconstrued as a comparison of plausibility or measure of reliability. Its sole purpose was to demonstrate the logical fallacy in assuming coincidence where causation cannot be proven by correlation.) While neither the murder-bubble nor the Black Hole theories can be proven by their respective correlations; it would be foolhardy to arbitrarily dismiss either correlation as coincidence. Absence of proof proof of absence. Assumptions to the contrary sound logic. Idea While I freely admit the possibility that this correlation is coincidence; your insistence on assuming it so demonstrates an absence of logic.

Ps. My overall argument rests not only on a belief in deterent; but is also heavily invested in the Fact that the State is responsible for less innocent death than residivism. It wouldn't kill you to admit this is perfectly reasonable, while disagreeing completely.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Mar, 2006 09:06 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I've no need to research your greater argument (State killing of innocents- more compelling than recidivism in your view) because I long ago conceded it was reasonable, but disagree… remember?

I never asked you to research my argument.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Contrary to your conclusions, I never once stated that the graph proved my theory; rather I went out of my way to demonstrate that it appears consistent with it. All along I've readily agreed that correlation doesn't prove causation… but there's been no evidence supplied that proves or even suggests this correlation is coincidence, either. That's your unsubstantiated logical leap, not mine.

Causation needs evidence, coincidence doesn't.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Until such time as the correlation is proven coincidence; it remains a reasonable, if circumstantial, factor to consider in forming my opinion. Example: There is no direct evidence that proves the theoretical existence of Black Holes, but: the behavior of some Quasars seems to lend much credibility to the theory.

Of course, astrophysicists didn't simply take two sets of numbers and infer a causal relationship from them.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
One can't definitively say this correlation is proof of causation but until there is a more compelling alternative theory; one would be a fool to dismiss it as coincidence.

Just as one would be a fool to accept it as causation.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
(The above example should not be misconstrued as a comparison of plausibility or measure of reliability. Its sole purpose was to demonstrate the logical fallacy in assuming coincidence where causation cannot be proven by correlation.) While neither the murder-bubble nor the Black Hole theories can be proven by their respective correlations; it would be foolhardy to arbitrarily dismiss either correlation as coincidence. Absence of proof proof of absence. Assumptions to the contrary sound logic. Idea While I freely admit the possibility that this correlation is coincidence; your insistence on assuming it so demonstrates an absence of logic.

I don't assume that it's a coincidence. I don't even know enough to state that for certain. I know, however, that there's not enough evidence to support the conclusion that there's a causative relationship there.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Ps. My overall argument rests not only on a belief in deterent; but is also heavily invested in the Fact that the State is responsible for less innocent death than residivism. It wouldn't kill you to admit this is perfectly reasonable, while disagreeing completely.

I'm more than willing to concede that dead murderers are less likely to commit additional crimes than are living ones.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 02:50 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Well, we could save them all by abolishing the death penalty.


I am certainly all for abolishing the death penalty to save the innocent, but that alone won't save them, it will merely give them life in prison instead of killing them.

There are too many (in my opinion) cases already where clearly innocent people get long prison terms and no one seems to do anything about it.

And even when an innocent person is freed from prison, more often than not they aren't given any compensation, or they are given ridiculously low compensation.


To truly reform the system, we need to not only abolish the death penalty, but provide a more reliable way to overturn wrongful convictions, and provide adequate compensation to those who have been wrongfully convicted.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 03:40 am
This is a very long thread & I haven't read all of it. But may I just go on the record as saying that I am totally opposed to the imposition of the death penalty for any human being, full stop. No doubt this has been said here already.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 10:12 am
On September 21, 2006, the death sentence for Cory Maye was overturned by Judge Michael Eubanks.

I am not sure if he is still in prison or not. I am having trouble finding much on this. The original website www.mayeisinnocent.com is no longer a valid link.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 10:23 am
Thanks for the bump
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 10:25 am
I found some information on Cory. Surprisingly, Cory was still on death row as of December 10, 2006. He requested to stay there! It seems he felt safer there. Here is a link to that info:

http://www.theagitator.com/category/cory-maye/

I'm looking for more.

Cory's sentence was changed to life in prison without the possibility of parole. I'm not sure justice was served at all but I am grateful that he is no longer facing the death penalty.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/12/02819/426

0 Replies
 
archerb6065
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 07:16 am
@joefromchicago,
I'm Bryant Archer I got shot 5 times at popeye's PERAITA, CUHUATEMOC HINRICY worked there 3 weeks and stop coming in I was covering the shifts robbed us with a black male MELSON, ROBERT BRYANT shot and killed 3 and shot 5 times leaving me for dead both are on death row for there crimes in Alabama
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 09:02:28