capital punishment/death punishment (carry, homosexuals, permit, prison)

[texanborn]

Here, I don't want to leave out one of our finer Texas ladies !

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/holbergbrittany.htm (broken link)

[texanborn]

For you that think Texas executes more blacks need to read this too...

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htm (broken link)

[emjbulls]

Originally Posted by crashcop

First, you are using old data. Why? If you can't find anything less than 12 years old to support your case, when DNA testing was not as common and all the costly technological advances that go into, then you need to find more current sources to properly account for the cost of technological advances. Also, since then, there have been a plethora of people who have been exonerated. There cases were much cheaper, when all were tried before 1996, when DNA and other advanced testing was not routinely done. And there sure were a lot of acquittals. There is a high cost of making sure you are truly executing the wrong person.

Those earlier cases were also at a time when those convicted were not given automatic appeals. Once again, another cost not factored in by using early data.

It was also a time when the popular mood was more in favor of the death penalty. Hence, one could hypothesize that a prosecutor did not need to present as strong of a case and bring in a whole slew of charges and a defender might not be inclined to do costly procedures to help their client. It's only a hypothesis, but that alone could help to explain some of that. Once again, old data that might not factor in how vigorous the prosecutor and defendant prepared based on the political mood of the country at the time. Don't forget, this was before a lot of people were found to be innocent sitting on death row.

You can't use statistics that are over 12 years old willy-nilly and apply them to a modern day issue such as this. It's clearly easy to mis-use statistics to choose a point. I'm not saying you intentionally mislead, but before you whip out statistics, make sure you are using ones that are applicable to the modern day issue.

Kinda ot, but here's a case to prove my point about how statistics can be misused. It's like those anti-vaccine people. They make claims to a small sample sized study that is too small to make any inferences and has been disproved by every large sample study since then and even their own methodology has been shown to be incorrect. But that's the first and only main paper that anti-vaccine people can use to prove their point so that's the thing they whip out.

Bottom line: statistical information that is provided in incorrect contexts don't mean a thing.

[famenity]

Originally Posted by Mooseketeer

I pretty much agree with you on the whole but I still feel that should anybody kill a loved one I would turn into a murderous machine so I feel a bit hypocritical. I am really very uncomfortable with the concept and have struggled with this for a very long time.

Sure is a tough one, but this type of question must be why we formed communities, elected politicians, installed a police force and trained lawyers, to take decisions that are responsible and thought to be good for the community, which in a microcosm is mankind.

[crashcop]

Originally Posted by emjbulls

First, you are using old data. Why? If you can't find anything less than 12 years old to support your case, when DNA testing was not as common and all the costly technological advances that go into, then you need to find more current sources to properly account for the cost of technological advances. Also, since then, there have been a plethora of people who have been exonerated. There cases were much cheaper, when all were tried before 1996, when DNA and other advanced testing was not routinely done. And there sure were a lot of acquittals. There is a high cost of making sure you are truly executing the wrong person.

Those earlier cases were also at a time when those convicted were not given automatic appeals. Once again, another cost not factored in by using early data.

1995 is not modern day? These are more stats than you support your case with. Factor in inlation and you can have updated stats. In 1995 DNA was in widespread use and has been for at least 15 years.

The post seems to imply that DNA testing and its cost apply only to capital cases. The cost of a capital trial and one for LWOP is the same if you compare apples to apples. LWOP convicts also appeal there cases. So do robbers, rapists, burgulars, etc... Stats from 2006 show the average stay on death row is 11 1/2 years. Cost to build 1 cell for a LWOP convict varies between $50000 and $100000. Cost to house a convict $32000 to $75000 per year. The NY Times reports that 132000 adults and 2200 juveniles are serving LWOP sentences. BJS reports 3254 inmates on death row. LWOP convicts spend approixmately 1/2 of there adult lives in prison 34 1/2 years. Add to this the cost of medical/dental care. The math is fairly simple.

Nothing I provided was in incorrect context. And it beats blanket unsupported statements like, "economicly LWOP is cheaper, there have been a plethora , when DNA and other advanced testing was not routinely done, were a lot of acquittals"....nonsupported statements amount to nothing more than fiction.

[RedWingsFan]

Originally Posted by kate angels

What you think about death punishment ? In the Poland is prohibit and how is in the USA?

If someone has beyond a reasonable doubt been convicted of murder I think they should get the death penalty.

My only problem with the death penalty is that they don't do it quick enough. Instead they put someone on death row for 20 years at the tune of $40k per year to keep them there.

I say after they are found guilty put them on death row for a year. And put pictures of their victim up in their cell.

[gallowsCalibrator]

I know I'm going to get bashed for this, but I believe punishment is a means of deterring a criminal from further action. I know that sometimes a guilty criminal goes free and an innocent victim is found guilty. It happens. We're human. However, if a person is found guilty upon evidence of DNA and/or another method of proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a heinous crime as such to murder/kill/torture another human being and is THAT much a DANGER to society, then the death penalty is one of the only ways to deter him/her from future crimes.

Having them sit in a jail cell for an indefinite amount of years is much more costly.

Saying that it's "inhumane" is irony in the fact the CRIME COMMITTED was "inhumane." The punishment should fit the crime.

[emjbulls]

Originally Posted by crashcop

Nothing I provided was in incorrect context. And it beats blanket unsupported statements like, "economicly LWOP is cheaper, there have been a plethora , when DNA and other advanced testing was not routinely done, were a lot of acquittals"....nonsupported statements amount to nothing more than fiction.

You obviously don't understand the points I was trying to make because you don't understand how to use statistics properly. You can't apply old data and act like it applies to the cost of trials or the scenarios that have happened since then. 11-13 year old data sets are not applicable when so many of the basic ways that death penalty cases are tried have changed. These haven't been minor cases. You are comparing costs before there was common DNA evidence used. You are comparing costs before there were mandatory appeals for death penalty convictions. You are comparing costs from before there was as vigorous defenses for death penalty cases due to people at that time not being exonerated. You are in reality comparing a data set to a time when those assumptions no longer apply. I can't explain it any clearer and if you don't get it, then you just don't get it. Maybe someone else will say it in words that you'll understand.

Your data is old and you obviously have no grasp of how to apply statistical data or analysis. That was the point I was making when you applied a statistical analysis incorrectly. If all you can throw out is old data, then you have a serious issue in understanding how statistical analysis is and should be used. Try taking some statistic courses and get back to me when you learn how to properly use them.

ETA..Here are some sources with current information..I googled cached them for convenience. If you still don't comprende, then I can get some academic papers for you with deeper statistical analysis.


greensboropeerpressure: Economic impact of death penalty vs. life sentence - this has some citations with more current data sources

EXPERTS AGREE: DEATH PENALTY NOT A DETERRENT TO VIOLENT CRIME (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:9nV2QVum1gIJ:www.napa.ufl.edu/oldnews/death1.htm+cost+of+death+penalty+versus+life+in+pr ison&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us - broken link)

LJWorld.com : Kansans pay high price for death penalty, opponents say (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cachewwcxmSNJ5gJ:6news.ljworld.com/section/deathpenalty/story/119087+cost+of+death+penalty+versus+life+in+prison &hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us - broken link)

The Death Penalty: Specific Issues (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:0Tt3D0HOKZ0J:justice.uaa.alaska.edu/death/issues.html+cost+of+death+penalty+versus+life+in+p rison&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us - broken link)

Las Vegas SUN: Death penalty foes speak out in Las Vegas (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:0jlKQpo9aV8J:www.cuadp.org/news/LVS-20040325.htm+cost+of+death+penalty+versus+life+in+ prison&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us - broken link)

I could go on and on and on. It's about using the changes that have occurred in death penalty prosecutions after the old data you are throwing around. You can't compare apples to oranges. You can only make the inferences in death penalty cases before the years you are citing. You can make zero inference, statistically speaking, for the years after.

And those articles are pointing some of the same points that I mentioned. As I said, I'd be happy to pull academic papers for you too or explain basic statistical procedures and how to use them under what circumstances.

[crashcop]

[quote]

Originally Posted by emjbulls

You obviously don't understand the points I was trying to make because you don't understand how to use statistics properly. You can't apply old data and act like it applies to the cost of trials or the scenarios that have happened since then. 11-13 year old data sets are not applicable when so many of the basic ways that death penalty cases are tried have changed. These haven't been minor cases. You are comparing costs before there was common DNA evidence used. You are comparing costs before there were mandatory appeals for death penalty convictions. You are comparing costs from before there was as vigorous defenses for death penalty cases due to people at that time not being exonerated. You are in reality comparing a data set to a time when those assumptions no longer apply. I can't explain it any clearer and if you don't get it, then you just don't get it. Maybe someone else will say it in words that you'll understand.

Your data is old and you obviously have no grasp of how to apply statistical data or analysis. That was the point I was making when you applied a statistical analysis incorrectly. If all you can throw out is old data, then you have a serious issue in understanding how statistical analysis is and should be used. Try taking some statistic courses and get back to me when you learn how to properly use them.

If you chose to disagree with me, or refute my post that is fine. However, your condesending, self proclaimed expert post has no place here. I am well educated and understand stats, studies, and there historical significance.

DNA evidence has been in use for the last 15 years, longer in some jurisdictions. Thats 3-4 years before the BJS study. Mandatoty appeals, since 1976, I do not believe, you can find one execution that was not appealed before hand, the same goes for sentences of LWOP. There has been groups opposed to the death penalty for years and some have helped fund defences, Amnesty International, 1967, NCADP, 1976, VADP, 1991, I could go on.

All figures lie and all liars figure. I could use stats from self serving interest groups, but chose to use the most recent study by the Federal Government that I could find. What you do not seem to understand is my point, the appeals process is costly, not only for those sentenced to death, but also for those sentenced to LWOP. The assumptions made due apply, the cost have gone up, but for both sides. I my last post I gave you stats fron '05 and '06, but you have overlooked them.

[crashcop]

ABC News poll:
Favor or oppose the death penalty:



Since 1996, high 77% low 63% in '06 65%, 10 year average 66.1% favor.


Gallup Poll:

Favor death penalty, '06, 65%, 5/04 71%, 5/03 70%, 18 polls taken since 1991, average in favor 69.6%.