Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you really think the difference is because of having it or not having it or do you think maybe it could have something to do with the states themselves?
I do think it has to do exactly with that. I think a lack of respect for human life on the part of the authorities probably goes in tandem with a lack of respect for human life on the part of the citizens. You have to admit, there is a pretty strong intuitive connection there.
Having said that, let me repeat that I'm not against a limited application of the death penalty for the most heinous murders, and above all I don't think it's unconstitutional. But it's an interesting comparison, regardless.
I do think it has to do exactly with that. I think a lack of respect for human life on the part of the authorities probably goes in tandem with a lack of respect for human life on the part of the citizens. You have to admit, there is a pretty strong intuitive connection there.
Having said that, let me repeat that I'm not against a limited application of the death penalty for the most heinous murders, and above all I don't think it's unconstitutional. But it's an interesting comparison, regardless.
Lets us look for example at some neighboring, similar states.
Nebraska and Iowa
Nebraska has the DP and Iowa does not.
Nebraska population is 1.78 million
Iowa population is 3 million
Nebraska 2008 murders were 22
Iowa 2008 murders were 74
Iowa without the DP has a higher murder rate
Michigan and Indiana
Indiana has the DP and Michigan does not.
Michigan population is 10 million (approx)
Indiana population is 6 million (approx)
Michigan 2008 murders were 536
Indiana 2008 murders were 306
Pretty similar murder rates
There will be some neighboring states that the one with the DP will have the higher rate but we must also look at states like California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida etc. that have a higher crime rate than places like North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin etc. for obvious reasons.
You can't really just say that the crime rate is lower in the non death penalty states because they don't have the DP. The factors involved are way too numerous and most outweigh the DP in importance in causing the higher crime rate.
Lets us look for example at some neighboring, similar states.
Nebraska and Iowa
Nebraska has the DP and Iowa does not.
Nebraska population is 1.78 million
Iowa population is 3 million
Nebraska 2008 murders were 22
Iowa 2008 murders were 74
Iowa without the DP has a higher murder rate
Michigan and Indiana
Indiana has the DP and Michigan does not.
Michigan population is 10 million (approx)
Indiana population is 6 million (approx)
Michigan 2008 murders were 536
Indiana 2008 murders were 306
Pretty similar murder rates
There will be some neighboring states that the one with the DP will have the higher rate but we must also look at states like California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida etc. that have a higher crime rate than places like North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin etc. for obvious reasons.
You can't really just say that the crime rate is lower in the non death penalty states because they don't have the DP. The factors involved are way too numerous and most outweigh the DP in importance in causing the higher crime rate.
So, at a minimum, the numbers prove that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent?
So, at a minimum, the numbers prove that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent?
No, I have shown with the numbers that there is no way to say whether it is or not.
There are many other factors that would have a more likely impact on the crime rate.
Those that say states without a DP have a lower crime rate may be stating a true fact but the inclusion or exclusion of the DP is not a factor of much importance if at all.
It is simply using data of no true relevance to back their point.
If it were true, would it not be true for all states without the DP. I have shown that not to be true.
For example, Iowa's murder rate is higher than Nebraska.
Lets us look for example at some neighboring, similar states.
Nebraska and Iowa
Nebraska has the DP and Iowa does not.
Nebraska population is 1.78 million
Iowa population is 3 million
Nebraska 2008 murders were 22
Iowa 2008 murders were 74
Iowa without the DP has a higher murder rate
Michigan and Indiana
Indiana has the DP and Michigan does not.
Michigan population is 10 million (approx)
Indiana population is 6 million (approx)
Michigan 2008 murders were 536
Indiana 2008 murders were 306
Pretty similar murder rates
There will be some neighboring states that the one with the DP will have the higher rate but we must also look at states like California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida etc. that have a higher crime rate than places like North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin etc. for obvious reasons.
You can't really just say that the crime rate is lower in the non death penalty states because they don't have the DP. The factors involved are way too numerous and most outweigh the DP in importance in causing the higher crime rate.
If the death penalty was an effective deterrent then there would be no pre-meditated murders in those states that practice it.
Exactly. The death penalty is not a deterrent. In some ways, it is just a form of revenge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
