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.
Louisiana has now suffered the highest murder rate among U.S. states for 23 years in row. This is puzzling considering that Louisiana's incarceration rate has been the highest among U.S. states for most of those 23 years
Why is that surprising? If the crime rate is higher, there are more to imprison. Massachusetts has a low murder rate and among the lowest incarceration rate.
I can't discern how there would be a social correlation between murder rates and the death penalty. Most murders are impulsive (rage) or accidental and therefore there is no forethought and very little deterrent possible from the death penalty. In all honesty, I've never seen the death penalty as a deterrent. Although, perhaps a study could be done as to the rate of proven planned murders per state for a better correlation (less planned murders as a possible correlate to death penalty institution). If I knew that there was a death penalty for a drunk driving murder, for instance, that would better deter me from drunk driving (if I were a drunk driver - I drink very rarely and never drive drunk). Robbery would likely be a gray area for a premeditated murder study, as I believe that many robberies and the resultant murders are impulsive while others are planned well in advance.
I see the death penalty as a placation to the state, society, the victims, and the victims families for their lost individual. I think that is also how many of those that implement it also view it. It's more of a revenge/justice mechanism than a deterrent. And I don't say that as a negative. There is a place for justice. I don't think that the death penalty is necessarily appropriately judged according to its deterrent value. Before you would cast judgment, I offer that you would take a look at some crime scene photos for a random victim that was raped and murdered, for instance. It may just change your mind. For some crimes, 3 hots and a cot in prison isn't really justice.
Why is that surprising? If the crime rate is higher, there are more to imprison. Massachusetts has a low murder rate and among the lowest incarceration rate.
I think the surprise comes from the idea of "if you imprison people more, maybe it will scare people from committing crimes in the future".
What is true, and is what I originally said, the death penalty, in and of itself, can not be correlated to a high or low murder rate.
When someone mentioned it in regards to states, I posted states with the death penalty and low murder rates.
You then posted states with the death penalty and high murder rates which further bolstered my point that the death penalty, in and of itself, can not be correlated to a high or low murder rate.
You then said that the death penalty was not a deterrent without anything to back up your argument.
I then stated, "States that have the death penalty vary widely in murder rates meaning there are other factors involved and you can not come to the conclusion that the death penalty is not a deterrent, well you can but it would just be your opinion and based on no conclusive evidence."
You also posted that, "Canada has a lower murder rate than the USA, without the death penalty. Few people ever ask why."
I responded showing that 2 of the 3 countries with the highest murder rate do not have the death penalty.
You have now made your way over to Europe, are we going to circumnavigate the globe before you realize that there is no direct correlation between the death penalty and murder rates? It is just one of many factors that play into the equation.
Here is a quote from a study on the subject.
Weak, insignificant, isn't enough proof, bordering on insignificance are just a few of the words used. A .2% difference, that is 1/5th of one percent, the numbers show that you can not make an argument that the death penalty is not a deterrent. You have no facts to back it up.
I was trying to say that the death penalty is inconsequential to murder rates. I think we might have been trying to say the same thing, just in different ways.
Did anyone watch the National Geographic series on the Ohio prisons? One inmate said something like it was like a college campus for inmates. This was someone convicted of murder. Make them work till they can't stand up and they won't want to come back. As it is most all they do is sit around or cause trouble with other gang segments. They get totally free health care, if they are there long enough they get hospice and nursing home care too. That costs plenty for law abiding people and they get it all free, they do not deserve any perks. Patch them up and thats all they should get, no dental and nothing else. Food and lodging in a facility with a/c, weights, TV. It costs something like 40k per inmate. What benefits are the victims getting?
The death penalty deters that particular killer from ever doing it again. Why pay for their keep for life when its clear they will never be productive members of society again. They should be given the same consideration they gave their victims, no more. Their punishment should be swift but instead they sit there for years. How would you feel if you were the family member of a victim that will never have any life at all. No second chance for them. I think every child molester should swing from a tree, period. Look how many are let out and do it again. The system is broken.
My point was that the death penalty is not much of a deterrent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
I was trying to say that the death penalty is inconsequential to murder rates. I think we might have been trying to say the same thing, just in different ways.
I think saying the death penalty is not a deterrent is much different from saying there is no correlation between the death penalty and murder rates but whatever, I think this has run it's course.
Why is that surprising? If the crime rate is higher, there are more to imprison. Massachusetts has a low murder rate and among the lowest incarceration rate.
Crime rate? Louisiana's problem is murder rate and if the incarceration rate also continues to be the highest , it doesn't make you think that violent criminals are the targets of law enforcement.
Crime rate? Louisiana's problem is murder rate and if the incarceration rate also continues to be the highest , it doesn't make you think that violent criminals are the targets of law enforcement.
Louisiana has historically had one of the highest murder rates in the USA, as well as other southern states, such as Mississippi, and Georgia. Texas is up there too.
Crime rate? Louisiana's problem is murder rate and if the incarceration rate also continues to be the highest , it doesn't make you think that violent criminals are the targets of law enforcement.
No, it suggests there are more prisoners because those commit the violent crimes get imprisoned. I'm saying more punishment is an effect of higher crime, you're saying (I think) that more punishment should be the cause of lower crime. Here's an interesting chart. Imprisonment rate / crime rate. If a state has a higher rate of imprisonment relative to its crime rate, it's "tough on crime" or higher strictness index. Low imprisonment relative to its crime, it's "soft on crime" or lower strictness index.
No, it suggests there are more prisoners because those commit the violent crimes get imprisoned. I'm saying more punishment is an effect of higher crime, you're saying (I think) that more punishment should be the cause of lower crime. Here's an interesting chart. Imprisonment rate / crime rate. If a state has a higher rate of imprisonment relative to its crime rate, it's "tough on crime" or higher strictness index. Low imprisonment relative to its crime, it's "soft on crime" or lower strictness index.
Massachusetts is the softest on crime state in the US according to my link. Louisana high but not the highest.
Louisiana is more willing to throw people behind bars, as is Mississippi. Why do those two states have the highest murder rates? Massachusetts is soft on crime and has a low murder rate, as does Minnesota.
This is the process I'm operating under. If a state is getting tougher on crime, then it should have a lower crime rate because of the consequences of committing crimes. However, With Louisiana and Mississippi, violent crime is higher in those states than in Massachusetts or Minnesota.
Last edited by green_mariner; 11-15-2012 at 01:40 PM..
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.
