<p>That’s what some recent studies indicate. </p>
<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003742913_execute11.html[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003742913_execute11.html</a></p>
<p>There are always exceptions, but have always believed it was simply common sense that the death penalty deterred some murders.</p>
<p>It had to do with how the death penalty was used in the past.</p>
<p>The killers who got it were mainly people who were psychopaths or who killed because they liked it or because it provided some kind of gratification to them. These folks cannot be reformed very well if at all, so the death penalty for them, stops them from killing anyone else. Certainly worthwhile, if you believe that there is no other way to protect society from them. </p>
<p>But killing them doesn’t deter the next Ted Bundy or Richard Speck. The twisted motivations people like that have for killing will eventually outweigh the fear they have of being caught and getting the death penalty.</p>
<p>So who is deterred by the death penalty? Your economic killer. The armed robber, the person who kills a spouse or child primarily for the insurance: these are people who might actually do cost-benefits analysis and be deterred by the death penalty. But because they are sensitive to punishment/reward, they’re often considered rehabilitatable, so juries and judges are reluctant to impose death.</p>
<p>Even if we stipulate that imposing the death penalty would save 14 - 18 lives, there is the issue of the wrongly imposed death penalty. Are we as a society going to say that we are willing to kill an innocent person because of this study? And if you say yes, the 14 lives saved more than equals the one life wrongfully ended, it means we are doing a cost benefit analysis rather than looking at the pure morality. Do we then have to do a true cost-benefit analysis, and analyze who the 14 people are that, according to this study, are not murdered. If 12 are gang members, does not equal one truly innocent life? </p>
<p>The numbers are interesting, and the analysis should be read. But at the end of the day, the murders which are truly on my conscience are the ones I have a hand in voting for.</p>
<p>I believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, but I simply can not support the taking of any life. Although I’m not sorry that Jeffrey Dahmer got his brains beaten out in prison.</p>
<p>My reaction is a little the same as Cass Sunstein’s: If true, this is a serious moral argument. But it’s really hard to see how it could be proved to be true. There are so many factors to consider, and so few executions. One would really have to dig into the analysis before accepting it as anything other than a glib, “lies, damn lies, and statistics” argument. After all, it’s awfully hard to reconcile this with the much lower homicide rates in the rest of the developed world, where there is no death penalty at all.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see if that lower murder rate holds as the demographics of the developed world change.</p>
<p>
I feel exactly the same way. And given our appalling record of convicting innocent people I see no way to justify the risk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>barrons, I think that for purposes of comparability they done changed a while ago.</p>
<p>Overall crime against persons is actually higher in England and France than in the US, but homicide rates in the US are three times what they are in those countries. See <a href=“http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-038.pdf”>http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-038.pdf</a> </p>
<p>IMO, killing someone is wrong, wrong, wrong. Whether he/she killed someone else first is irrelevant. That’s why we have prisons for these people – to keep them out of society.</p>
<p>My father had a very interesting take on capital punishment. As an avid fisherman and outdoorsman, he thought capital punishment was kinder than locking someone up for decades on end.</p>
<p>As a very religious man, he believed that capital punishment was administered in a way that was basically unfair to the victim. The victim might not get time to repent of sins or accept God–and end up in Hell. The killer on the other hand knows exactly the date he needs to repent by and has plenty of time, opportunity, and support to do it. </p>
<p>The idea of a victim going to Hell and the killer going to Heaven just appalled him. His solution was that capital punishment should be carried out by surprise, just like murders, no time to get affairs or soul in order. Just pick a day at random and shoot the killer in his sleep, so God can take him as he is.</p>
<p>“have always believed it was simply common sense that the death penalty deterred some murders.”</p>
<p>It definitely cuts down on the recidivism rate. There isn’t a single person taking a dirt nap who ever become a repeat offender.</p>
<p>“But killing them doesn’t deter the next Ted Bundy or Richard Speck. The twisted motivations people like that have for killing will eventually outweigh the fear they have of being caught and getting the death penalty.”</p>
<p>Ted Bundy escaped from custody twice and went on a killing rampage after one of the escapes. Nobody has ever gone on a killing rampage after settling down for a worm massage.</p>
<p>Would you rather spend $30K a year to incarcaerate somebody for the next 50-60 years or spend $30K a year on education or healthcare? Even incarcerated he is a threat to both his jailers and fellow inmates. Is it cruel and unusual punishment to lock an embezzler up with a psychopath?</p>
<p>“The numbers are interesting, and the analysis should be read. But at the end of the day, the murders which are truly on my conscience are the ones I have a hand in voting for.”</p>
<p>Well if you cannot bring yourself to kill a killer here are a couple of victims of you squemishness.</p>
<p>Patty Geddling, 23
Stacey Benjamin, 19</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Pending/05/jan05.htm[/url]”>http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Pending/05/jan05.htm</a></p>
<p>They were killed by a fellow out on parole for an earlier murder. Apparetly these young women owed somebody $185 for drugs. Sounds like a good reason to kill someone to me.</p>
<p>A more liberal view here.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/19/BEARDSLEE19.TMP[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/01/19/BEARDSLEE19.TMP</a></p>
<p>I agree that I couldn’t even support capital punishment for murderers. I wish I could, but my heart just doesn’t allow me to support the taking of a life. It always seemed to me as if it were messing with the cosmic scheme of things and heaven knows what unintended consequences could follow. Just can’t do it.</p>
<p>“The idea of a victim going to Hell and the killer going to Heaven just appalled him. His solution was that capital punishment should be carried out by surprise, just like murders, no time to get affairs or soul in order. Just pick a day at random and shoot the killer in his sleep, so God can take him as he is.”</p>
<p>Actually that is pretty much the way they do it in Japan and Thailand. There is no date set for the execution and they just show up one day and point a finger.</p>
<p>i didnt read it because i am too lazy. But i thing death penalty is deserved for murderers, and it should be issued to rapists and molesters (if they have legitimate proof of being guilty…evidence, not testimony.)</p>
<p>Sorry, but as someone who actually does some econometrics, it seems to me like the work is based on flimsy data. Assuming that the people doing the modeling are using OLS, there are maybe a few thousand observations. Some of the degrees of freedom in the model will be eaten up using fixed effects (or random effects, if you can). </p>
<p>Sorry, this is just not convincing. I haven’t yet seen a good, robust, well-specified model in this area yet. Don’t even get me started on the ARIMA models I saw…</p>
<p>I used to be pro-death penalty. There have been far too many cases overturned on the basis of DNA evidence, etc. Three percent, whatever, is far too high of an error rate to say “That’s life!” to the collateral victims of the justice system.</p>
<p>There is a difference between the level or type of evidence necessary to convict someone of the death penalty and the merits of the death penalty itself (once that level of evidence is met). When people say there are too many innocent people being put to death, they are really saying that the level of evidence necessary to impose the penalty is too low. They want a higher level of evidence. Their objection to the level of evidence does not address the merits of the death penalty, it only addresses when the death penalty is appropriate. </p>
<p>In other words, saying innocent people have been put to death means nothing as to whether our society should have a death penalty. Saying innocent people have been put to death really means we need a higher level of certainty before putting someone to death. </p>
<p>Those who oppose the death penalty, tell me why it is wrong to execute a college student who wakes up one morning, kills two people with his gun and then goes to a university building, chains a door so people can’t escape, then shoots over 30 people because he wants to kill them. He leaves a video explaining why he killed the students; his DNA is everywhere. (Obviously we have to assume he did not commit suicide.)</p>
<p>By the way, if your answer is that he was criminally insane, your answer is wrong because it is unlikely he would have met the standard for criminal insanity. He clearly knew what he was doing and knew it was wrong.</p>