Grizz -- Thanks for the stats. I went to the site and found that Canada's homicide rate is 1.78 per 100,000. Contast that with a US homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 (from 1999, according to the DOJ). That seems to throw the death-penalty-as-deterrent argument out the window.
It is a striking difference isn’t it. There are some other significant factors, like our different gun laws, but it’s at least very suggestive that a lack of capital punishment would not promote a high murder rate.
It's all about money compare the murder rate with the poverty rate of the two countries. Also, compare the number of heavy drug users between the two countries I'd say that has more to do with it than the difference in gun laws, though I'd have to agree that the death penalty is no deterant people really think they won't get caught or don't think at all, why would it matter what the consequences are if killers think they'll never have to pay them?
You have no idea what I know. To presume that you do makes your argument worthless. As part of my law degree I studied the death penalty statistics and facts in depth. Not just a cursory review of the figures but the meaning behind them. Lo and behold...I came out of it still pro death penalty. Let's review a few cases: 1) Gary Graham: Forcibly sodomized a grandmother, breaking her hip in the process. Later that day he savagely commits murder. Yet you'd like to have mercy on him. That guy was not fit to breathe the same air as the rest of us. 2) Carla Faye Tucker: ADMITTED to driving a pick axe into a guy and feeling sexually gratified by doing it. Yet you want to show mercy...ABSURD. 3) And then there was the fellow who killed an A&M student. He was executed last week. He CONFESSED. Yet you want to show mercy. If you are starting to sense incredulity on my part...then good...I've gotten my point across. If somebody brutally killed a member of MY family, rest assured...if they ever saw the light of day again that MY face would be the first AND LAST they would ever see. It's called vigilanteism...and it's what we have laws and punishments to avoid.
Not necessarily. All other variables must be held constant to deduce that from the statistic. For instance, South Dakota has a homicide rate of 1.4 and New Hampshire's is 1.5, and they have the death penalty. Should Canada reconsider? Personally, I doubt that it acts as much of a deterrent. For each life that may be saved, others probably die because the offender may realize that they going to get the death sentence. I would like to see a study on that though. If it does save one more inncoent life...
Cohen, you're exactly right. You can not make that inference simply by looking at the statistic. Not to spark another 100 posts in this thread, but what are people's reaction to this comment (which I'm just throwing out there, it doesn't necessarily represent my opinion): Canada's crime statistics benefit from the abscence of a minority group that commits a disproportionate number of crimes relative to its population. In the US, statistics show this group to be blacks.
I agree there are other variables to consider (like gun laws). But comparing Canada to the US is probably more logical than comparing Canada to South Dakota. Both Canada and the US have varying minority groups and population concentrations in large cities. South Dakota, on the other hand, has about 10 old white farmers and 3 million cattle.
I assume that you mean to imply some type of cultural predisposition to crime, not genetic (which would be a comical assertion). Thus, I would look at social strata, drug use and gangs long before I would worry about some type of ethnic predisposition to crime.
You can say the death penalty is not a deterrent by comparing stats all you want, but the fact is jail/prison in general is not a deterrent. Our prison system is a revolving door where criminals go to serve their time until they can get out to commit their crimes again. The death penalty is only used in the most extreme cases. Those are the type of people who have committed crimes so bad you don't want them on the streets ever again to perpetrate the types of crimes they have been convicted of. If you commit a crime that warrants the death penalty do you care about your life? Did you care about your life, or the victims life when you were raping, murdering, robbing... that person(s)? Why would any of you spend one second worrying about a person convicted of such horrible deeds against society, when they have shown they fail to care about others, including themselves? <i>{side note - I worked with a lady whose head was bashed in by her ex-husband using a baseball bat. Because he didn't rape her, or steal from her at the same time he was only eligible for life in prison, not the death penalty. You have to commit a very, very, very bad crime to be eligible for the death penalty. You all should try and tell her kids their ex-step father doesn't deserve to die.}</i>
BTW...when DNA evidence can show that only 1 out of a BILLION people could have done the crime...I'm satisfied. That would mean that only 4 or 5 people on earth could have done it and God knows where the rest of them are. So it's nice to think of a better system developing later on, but a much better system isn't likely. DNA evidence isn't fool-proof. The Yogurt Shop murder trial here was apparently sketchy, if today's Daily Texan editorial is to be believed (I don't know how accurate it is). According to the article, someone was convicted of murder in that trial based on: (1) There was no physical evidence (2) DNA evidence existed that specifically did NOT match him (3) The primary evidence was his confession, which was given after 18 hours of interrogation and <I>with a gun pointed at his head by the cop</I> (this was captured on video tape). The confession also had a number of major factual errors. I don't know if this was a death-penalty case, but it seems like a perfect candidate for it with the high-profile crime and trial. With this kind of stuff going on, is it really worth taking the risk of getting it wrong permanently by executing people? Personally, I doubt that it acts as much of a deterrent. For each life that may be saved, others probably die because the offender may realize that they going to get the death sentence. I would like to see a study on that though. If it does save one more inncoent life... Cohen, do you know if there was any change in murder rates when the death penalty was changed from legal to illegal and back to legal in America? This would seem to be the clearest evidence of the deterrent effect, and I believe there was no significant change, but I'm not positive. Those are the type of people who have committed crimes so bad you don't want them on the streets ever again to perpetrate the types of crimes they have been convicted of. What does that have to do with the death penalty? Just because they don't get the death penalty doesn't mean they'll be roaming the streets. Those criminals get life-without-parole in the worst prisons in America. Why would any of you spend one second worrying about a person convicted of such horrible deeds against society, when they have shown they fail to care about others, including themselves? Perhaps because as a society, our standards are a bit higher than the standards of the worst murderers in our society.
I seriously doubt that this case would be a candidate for the death penalty. At the very least (assuming all this is true) it is fodder for appeal and likely could be overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. I have a huge problem with the interrogation methods often used by law enforcement. That is where there is the dangerous opportunity for abuse. That part of the process needs a serious overhaul.
I have a huge problem with the interrogation methods often used by law enforcement. That is where there is the dangerous opportunity for abuse. That part of the process needs a serious overhaul. This is the kind of stuff that's my concern with the death penalty. If I knew it would be applied fairly and reasonably, I would have no problem with it (I have no problems with the moral side of it). But hearing stories (especially in the deep south) of how things "really work", I just don't trust that it can be or is implemented reasonably right now.
I am in favor of reforming the methods used by law enforcement in order to provide more PDP (procedural due process). Just because I favor the death penalty does not mean that I don't favor its fair application. How would you feel if the PDP concerns were addressed?
Let me get this straight. Since I favor those convicted of heinous crimes, who have exhausted all avenues of appeal, getting the punishment deemed appropriate by the legislature, the court system, and a jury of their peers, my moral standards are that of the worst murders in our society? Please excuse me if I don't give a flip about the rights of the worst murders in our society. You commit a crime fitting of the punishment then want me to care about your rights? I don't think so. Should have thought about that before you committed such horrible acts against society that warranted you being sentenced to death.
Let me get this straight. Since I favor those convicted of heinous crimes, who have exhausted all avenues of appeal, getting the punishment deemed appropriate by the legislature, the court system, and a jury of their peers, my moral standards are that of the worst murders in our society? No, that's not the question you asked, nor the question I was responding to. Your question was: <I>("Why would any of you spend one second worrying about a person convicted of such horrible deeds against society, when they have shown they fail to care about others, including themselves?")</I> Society cares because society expects civility. We don't accept torturing people, no matter what crime they've committed. As a society, we don't accept tearing their arms and legs off for fun or stabbing them 50,000 times just for the hell of it. Therefore, we do care, in some way, what happens to them because it reflects on the nature of our society and what is acceptable to us. How much the individual murderer "cared about others" is irrelevent to what is acceptable in our society. Some people feel the death penalty would fit that criteria of unacceptable things to do to people, regardless of their crime. I am in favor of reforming the methods used by law enforcement in order to provide more PDP (procedural due process). Just because I favor the death penalty does not mean that I don't favor its fair application. How would you feel if the PDP concerns were addressed? Refman -- if the process was truly fair in regards to the death penalty, I wouldn't have the main objections I have today.
<b>We don't accept torturing people, no matter what crime they've committed. </b> The death penalty is hardly torture. <b>As a society, we don't accept tearing their arms and legs off for fun or stabbing them 50,000 times just for the hell of it. </b> No we don't! That type of crime is punishable by death, so be forewarned. if you do and you are convicted of it, the punishment will fit the crime. <b>Therefore, we do care, in some way, what happens to them because it reflects on the nature of our society and what is acceptable to us. </b> Don't expect society to be civil to you after you have proven yourself capable of such horrendous acts. Don't expect society to care for your life if you have chosen to disregard the right to life of others. <b>How much the individual murderer "cared about others" is irrelevant to what is acceptable in our society. </b> I happen to be a member or this society and a majority of us, along with our legislature (at least in Texas) have deemed the death penalty acceptable punishment if it fits the crime. Don't expect me to care for you if you don't care for yourself. <b>Some people feel the death penalty would fit that criteria of unacceptable things to do to people, regardless of their crime. </b> And many others would disagree. Reform needs to be to the justice system to stop the revolving door and prevent further crimes. In many instances the punishment fits the crime and many people feel the death penalty is one of those cases.
The death penalty is hardly torture. According to you. Others would disagree. I happen to be a member or this society and a majority of us, along with our legislature (at least in Texas) have deemed the death penalty acceptable punishment if it fits the crime. Don't expect me to care for you if you don't care for yourself. What's your point? That people against the death penalty are in the minority? DUH! Who cares? You asked why people would have a problem with it - that has nothing to do with whether it is the more popular position or not. Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.
Lethal injection is hardly torture. Euthinasia is as painful as dying in your sleep. We should all be so lucky when our time comes. Furthermore the victims of the convict should have been so lucky. Don't question my morals and answer me with some rhetoric about how society as a whole deems it uncivil and expect me to swallow it with out spitting up.
