Another news item about a botched lethal injection. WTF??? Don't we have tons of confiscated heroin on hand? Don't junkies die every day from ODs? Just shoot them up! Problem solved. Or don't we want to have them die with a smile on their face? We put pets down every day, what's wrong with those drugs?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Lethal Injection Fail??
- Thread starter xs hedspace
- Start date
Screw humane, feed them to alligators or mountain lions. The problem with crimes and punishment today is that it's not scary enough for someone not to want to do the crimes, and that it's not evenly applied across the spectrum of those guilty of the type of crimes that deserve it.
In the news just yesterday: More than 4% of death row inmates wrongly convicted, study says
More than 4% of death row inmates wrongly convicted, study says - latimes.com
In my opinion, we shouldn't be doing it at all if we can't get that 4% number down to 0%.
More than 4% of death row inmates wrongly convicted, study says - latimes.com
In my opinion, we shouldn't be doing it at all if we can't get that 4% number down to 0%.
While I dont think it should be 30 years before the offender is executed, the person changing for the better does not remove the guilt. They still committed the crime, and there is only one way to ensure they will never do it again.
As far as not being guilty, thats a whole other story about the court system, not the punishment.
Ryan
As far as not being guilty, thats a whole other story about the court system, not the punishment.
Ryan
The guillotine would work fine with a neck fixture. And for some I believe this is entirely to fast.
R
R
Jeffery Dahmer,
Clifford Robert Olsen,
Paul Bernardo,
Charles Manson,
John Wayne Gacy,
Ted Bundy,
There is practically no need to go much further than a guilty conviction, and it shouldn't take long to get one. After sentencing, there should be a trough from the 'defendents box' directly into a chipper down below.
Throw the switch, open the drop-gate, and move onto the next problem.
Anything else is simply a waste of taxpayers money, everyone's time, and society's energy. I apologize for even placing those names here, because they definitely DO NOT deserve recognition other than WHAT NOT TO DO.
It's up to us to make society better, isn't it? One community at a time. Isn't that what we're told to do here, in policing ourselves? Who draws the line, and where?
Clifford Robert Olsen,
Paul Bernardo,
Charles Manson,
John Wayne Gacy,
Ted Bundy,
There is practically no need to go much further than a guilty conviction, and it shouldn't take long to get one. After sentencing, there should be a trough from the 'defendents box' directly into a chipper down below.
Throw the switch, open the drop-gate, and move onto the next problem.
Anything else is simply a waste of taxpayers money, everyone's time, and society's energy. I apologize for even placing those names here, because they definitely DO NOT deserve recognition other than WHAT NOT TO DO.
It's up to us to make society better, isn't it? One community at a time. Isn't that what we're told to do here, in policing ourselves? Who draws the line, and where?
We had one in VA take the chair a few years back. I was working in town the night it happened and we joked the lights went dim hahaha.
And i have been to two shootings lately where a 22 was used. 3 to the chest for one survivor
And one to the philtrum that wound up above a molar for then other survivor.
I vote for something with more power like a 12 gauge to the back of the head. Stick it ton his head and talk shit till he pisses himself and pull the trigger. I have long said I'd take my spot my hell to do the dirty work on shitty people.
And i have been to two shootings lately where a 22 was used. 3 to the chest for one survivor
And one to the philtrum that wound up above a molar for then other survivor.
I vote for something with more power like a 12 gauge to the back of the head. Stick it ton his head and talk shit till he pisses himself and pull the trigger. I have long said I'd take my spot my hell to do the dirty work on shitty people.
Exactly. I'd much rather see them get a prison sentence, even a light one, than a single innocent person be executed. That could easily be any one of us.
Amen. My guess is that its higher than 4% and the majority of them are not economically secure, nor white.
The Innocence Project - Home
Is this true? Just wondering on how it is listed. I'm am in NO WAY being a smart ass. just sounds crazy. I'm all for getting the job done on the crooks.
Clayton Lockett execution: The shocking crime that put botched execution inmate on death row - Mirror Online
He had a much kinder death than his victim.
Its time the CJ system starts considering the victim after the facts of the trial have determined innocence or guilt. Right now it is nothing more than a revolving door that creates good money for lawyers and just about assures more people will be harmed.
Last edited:
agreed 1000% I think death penalty should be reserved for those that are undeniably guilty with not one shred of doubt.. I think may be 1% on death row would fall into this category
I think its higher than 4% as well
Last edited:
More on the screwed up criminal justice system topic. headline in the paper up here today was about the release of an inmate due to DNA findings.
The DNA evidence is legit but because he is an identical twin they cant be sure whether it was him or his brother that committed the crime. So the DNA has a hit and its like one in a billion or something that anyone but one of two brothers did the crime.
Boston suspect in two violent rapes walks free | Mail Online
Id say we need the wisdom of Solomon - Put both in jail and Im sure the innocent one will be ratting the other out most quickly. We should have a system that errs on the side of the innocent but at present our system is set up not so much for justice but to avoid sanctioning "real" criminals.
We have to have sympathy for the shitty upbringing of the criminal but there is little sympathy for the damage the criminal has wrought on some innocent party.
The DNA evidence is legit but because he is an identical twin they cant be sure whether it was him or his brother that committed the crime. So the DNA has a hit and its like one in a billion or something that anyone but one of two brothers did the crime.
Boston suspect in two violent rapes walks free | Mail Online
Id say we need the wisdom of Solomon - Put both in jail and Im sure the innocent one will be ratting the other out most quickly. We should have a system that errs on the side of the innocent but at present our system is set up not so much for justice but to avoid sanctioning "real" criminals.
We have to have sympathy for the shitty upbringing of the criminal but there is little sympathy for the damage the criminal has wrought on some innocent party.
Last edited:
That is how I would like the death penalty done. If found beyond any doubt, so forensic, multiple unrelated-nonconnected witnesses, video etc... the guilty party taken behind the court and executed.
Also get rid of the age limit. There is a cunt here in Utah that was a willing participant in the cold blooded murder of a sheriffs deputy. But since she is 17 she can't be executed.
Agree, I support the death penalty, but "eyewitness" testimony has proven time and time again to not be so accurate. Death sentence should require irrefutable evidence such as DNA or video tape. Not saying those can't be doctored but in general much more reliable than eyewitnesses
Why fucking waste perfectly good labor force and risk being unfair to 4% (are those 4% jurors, judges, cops, lawyers also going to be executed for killing/murdering wrong person - iMO they should've been). Simply all deathrow inmates (the rest of the lot also) should be stored in gulags and should do hard labour until their natural death. If one is wrongfully sentenced you can rollback with hefty money compensation and substituting this person with persons most responsible for his wrongful incarceration - that should thin out scum out of these professions.
I say lock them up for life. By the time all the appeals go through, it is much cheaper on the taxpayer to let the bastards rot in prison.
Sent from my NSA tapped mobile device using Tap-a-Talk
Sent from my NSA tapped mobile device using Tap-a-Talk
Thinking it over, it may be better for no one to ever go to jail/prison, in order to keep any innocent person from serving time, same goes for fines-no one should be fined, to insure that no innocent person is ever fined. An execution of an innocent person is terrible, but injustice at all levels must be stopped. I'm sure you'll agree.
Thinking it over a little more, with some crimes -when the evidence ( to include confessions) is so overwhelming, the probability of the person being wrongfully convicted is close to zero. This is why we have a jury system, not only do they decide guilt/innocence but also whether or not to administer the death penalty. It is too bad, a jury gets to decide life/death, but has NO say on cable TV, A/C, elaborate gyms, tennis courts etc. for the scum filling our prisons!!!
Last edited:
Best solution is for people to be armed and prepared to defend themselves. No doubt of the guilty party being punished, it's swift, and the would-be-victim gets to live. No form of punishment after the fact accomplishes anything near that good.
Oh totally, because an innocent person being fined is the same as an innocent person being executed. My point was that the most severe permanent and irreversible punishment should require the most ridiculously high standard or don't do it at all. An innocent person being sent to prison can be released, so a wrong can be righted. An innocent person wrongly fined can be reimbursed, but an innocent person executed can't be brought back from the dead. "Oh sorry, my bad." History is replete with cases of innocent people being jailed for a variety of reasons of which they are not at fault, so I strongly feel that executing innocent people can not be chalked up to collateral damage. Again, that could be you or any one of us. Fix it so the amount of innocent people getting executed is 0% or let them rot in prison.
Pawprint2's post came across fairly sarcastic to me. Maybe it wasn't IDK.
Anyway I don't believe with the current state of the court system here in America, that the number of innocent persons incarcerated will ever go down. In fact, I imagine that it will only increase due to the funding effect convictions have. Look at commifornia where the system is fucked beyond belief, prior felon (gang member as well) convicted of death threats, possession of a loaded handgun(stolen), DUI, paroled after paying a hefty fine, time served during trial period. What the fuck? The system is not about keeping the "streets safe", fuck that bullshit it is about money. The conviction rate will increase.
Our system of justice was designed that guilty should go free before innocent should suffer. Execution of an innocent person is no less murder than the underlying accusation. Hardship in our justice system is we are all humans, we all play a significant part, and we are all subject to significant bias. The more horrid the act, the more apt a juror is to ignore legitimate doubt as nothing more than a sleazebag defense lawyers trick to free their client. The death penalty is topic of fevered debate, even internationally, which is why the states are presently having such hardship in procuring the drugs needed to carry out lethal injections.
Any wrongful conviction, fine, jail, even public admonishment erodes at our system of justice--not only is it punishing the innocent, but there is another avoiding it. Our system is the best that we have come up with, but since it relies on us, and our bias and imperfections, killing folks we find guilty will remain an unfortunate, and hard to solve issue. There are those acts, committed by folks who should be excluded from a civil human society, like the names above. However, without certainty, death penalty sets the stage for disaster--because we get things wrong every now and then. Its bad to find out we have taken years or even decades of a man or woman's life--but at least the justice system can apologize, give pubic notice, even make monetary amends--but if we kill-em, that's pretty final. No sorry or backing away from that mistake.
All that said, being human, being subject to normal bias, if someone harmed me or mine, I would want them dead. That's the hypocrite in me, that's the human vengeful voice--and I'm even a sleazebag defense lawyer. This is a hard topic, with legit arguments on both sides, but an imperfect system making the use of death penalty uniformly across the the board a recipe for disaster--as history has shown.
Any wrongful conviction, fine, jail, even public admonishment erodes at our system of justice--not only is it punishing the innocent, but there is another avoiding it. Our system is the best that we have come up with, but since it relies on us, and our bias and imperfections, killing folks we find guilty will remain an unfortunate, and hard to solve issue. There are those acts, committed by folks who should be excluded from a civil human society, like the names above. However, without certainty, death penalty sets the stage for disaster--because we get things wrong every now and then. Its bad to find out we have taken years or even decades of a man or woman's life--but at least the justice system can apologize, give pubic notice, even make monetary amends--but if we kill-em, that's pretty final. No sorry or backing away from that mistake.
All that said, being human, being subject to normal bias, if someone harmed me or mine, I would want them dead. That's the hypocrite in me, that's the human vengeful voice--and I'm even a sleazebag defense lawyer. This is a hard topic, with legit arguments on both sides, but an imperfect system making the use of death penalty uniformly across the the board a recipe for disaster--as history has shown.
Yes, I got the sarcasm, but he was trying to extrapolate the point all the way out to minor offenses, which I completely disagree with.
Benjamin Franklin stated it as, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"
while More authoritarian personalities are supposed to have taken the opposite view; Bismarck is believed to have stated that "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape;"[1] and Pol Pot[12] made similar remarks.
from wikipedia
pretty much echo's my views. Better we err on the side of finding people innocent than guilty. Once they are dead, it becomes really hard to set them free if the are later determined to be innocent...
while More authoritarian personalities are supposed to have taken the opposite view; Bismarck is believed to have stated that "it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape;"[1] and Pol Pot[12] made similar remarks.
from wikipedia
pretty much echo's my views. Better we err on the side of finding people innocent than guilty. Once they are dead, it becomes really hard to set them free if the are later determined to be innocent...
Ok,
I will be more specific, damn near all. Not good enough for you perfectionist, but fine with me. Also, many that are "innocent" are guilty as hell of other heinous crimes. So, maybe we kill a few extra dirt balls. Not at all troubling to me. No different than a drone strike that kills a terrorist IED builder and 38 of his best friends. Nice shot!
I will be more specific, damn near all. Not good enough for you perfectionist, but fine with me. Also, many that are "innocent" are guilty as hell of other heinous crimes. So, maybe we kill a few extra dirt balls. Not at all troubling to me. No different than a drone strike that kills a terrorist IED builder and 38 of his best friends. Nice shot!
Allow me to "Clear the air", if one reads my post (#29) immediately follow my first post (#30), and has a problem understanding sarcasm, I was being sarcastic!!! Get real. Also, just for the record, far too many non-American's, those in liberal (almost communistic) countries, not having the death penalty should never be allowed to dictate what Americans do. In fact, the more restrictive the private ownership of guns are controlled by their govt.(s) the more likely they are to have NO death penalty! In Fact, these liberals would have kept Hiltler in a nice cozy "club fed" rather than impose the death penalty. But let there be no doubt, if one of their subjects keeps a handgun, or semi-auto rifle or the like, he will see the inside of a prison! One thing I should point out about NZ, this country was kept from a Japanese invasion during WWII, I'll bet you can guess what country supplied the money, men, ships etc., but when an American ship CAPABLE of carrying a nuclear weapon (just Capable), would like to port in NZ for fuel, shore leave etc. we are not welcome!!! My bet is, if NZ ever is in need of assistance because let's say for example, the commie Chinese, are making a move, they'll be crying like little girls for help, again men and money. But in the mean time, they want to tell American's how to live, and how to run our justice system, etc., and they sure love access to our markets!!! These kind of friends we don't need, never have. They want to be able to sell their products to the US, keep our ships from their shores, and scream for help when they need it, and feel as if they can tell us how to run our country in the mean time!! Far tooooo many of these little low life, socialist countries, will not deport to the US, known criminals (even if they have raped and murdered children) unless we agree with them NOT to impose the death penalty!! I for one would not deport their criminals unless they agreed to execute if found guilty, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. They are in fact so adamant about saving the lives of criminals, they don't even bother to read past post #30, their knees start to jerk-and they start telling Americans how to live, once again.
Last edited:
"Damn near all"? Where are you coming up with these "specific" figures?
Love it. Firmly agree.
I'm American, fuckstick. I also served more than the average joe, so I think I've earned my right to comment on what Americans do, let alone criticize the legal system. Oh and you want to talk about restrictive gun laws? Explain to me your process for buying a suppressor and SBR. You've got about the 10 minutes it takes me to drive down to the local gun shop and buy both over the counter.
Now where the fuck is that ignore button? There's a mad man loose....
I have read the liberal anti punishment BS for 40 years about death row inmates having their convictions overturned and the reasons. Very few have been due to innocence. Just due to some whining liberals finding some minor technical flaw or some such bullshit.
Same lack of logic opposes death penalty due to cost. When they are the ones making it costly. Ask China how much it cost. Thinking less than 10c.
Same lack of logic opposes death penalty due to cost. When they are the ones making it costly. Ask China how much it cost. Thinking less than 10c.
Of course, when one reads my entire post, they realize, you have, in a cowardly fashion, failed to address NZs decision to bar American Ships that are Capable of carrying nuclear weapons (ones that could and would be used to again protect NZ) from their ports!! I don't know if this is because you have trouble reading, or are just a fool. Nonetheless, NZ should in No Way tell America how to run our justice system, or our gun laws, or that we should bow to a queen/king. Now I think in your case, you're the queen that's doing the bowing. This is typical of a socialistic, low life country. One, demand American military protection, and access to American markets, two, shit on our Navy and active duty military.I 'm real sure, if NZ were to come under attack, or even the likelihood of attack, the little queen like screams for help would be heard all the way to the US. America does not need to fix our "gun ownership problem", because some socialistic country (or a claimed American that decided to leave the US) thinks they know what is best for the world. Lastly, your stupidity shows through with the statement, "Explain to me your process for buying a suppressor and SBR", an American would have said, our process-not,"...your process", either you aren't an American, or you've given up on America, in either case, you would be the last person to give advice on what is right for America.
Last edited:
A short length of rope is all that's needed. Its cheap, effective, painless, and it can be reused.
When folks talk about people getting released or cases tossed for technicalities--anyone ever take a moment to think about what that actually means. Like a 4th amendment violation, maybe 5th amendment. We spend so much time focused on our 2nd amendment rights, sometimes we fail to recognize our other rights are precious too. Expecting to have a right to life, liberty, presumption of innocence, freedom of speech isn't being a fucking liberal--it's enjoyment of our American rights, ones so many here have faught hard to ensure.
Death penalty as a principle finds a lot of heart-felt support, most can relate to eye-for-an-eye reckoning. However, in practice it leads to potential to cause a greater evil, and all the processes that are I place to TRY and prevent killing an American citizen who may not otherwise be subject to death creates an overly cumbersome, slow and costly process that bogs down the justice system and at times drags out closure for victim families not just years, but decades.
All that said, if we are going to have the death penalty, to further its part of its purpose, deterrent (which doesn't work), it should be very public and not necessarily less gruesome. Likely reason why public hangings and be headings have been in practice many more centuries than poinsons and any other new fangled gas, electricity, firearms, etc. Would also make organ harvest a possible side market to offset costs. So many facets to these issues, pros, cons, mild to wild, conservative to liberal--only one certainty, there is simply no short and right answer.
Death penalty as a principle finds a lot of heart-felt support, most can relate to eye-for-an-eye reckoning. However, in practice it leads to potential to cause a greater evil, and all the processes that are I place to TRY and prevent killing an American citizen who may not otherwise be subject to death creates an overly cumbersome, slow and costly process that bogs down the justice system and at times drags out closure for victim families not just years, but decades.
All that said, if we are going to have the death penalty, to further its part of its purpose, deterrent (which doesn't work), it should be very public and not necessarily less gruesome. Likely reason why public hangings and be headings have been in practice many more centuries than poinsons and any other new fangled gas, electricity, firearms, etc. Would also make organ harvest a possible side market to offset costs. So many facets to these issues, pros, cons, mild to wild, conservative to liberal--only one certainty, there is simply no short and right answer.
Your assertion that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent is refuted by a large number of actual experts, large studies, and volumes of facts, here is just one example:
The Death Penalty as a Deterrent - Confirmed - Seven Recent Studies
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, updated 11/12/04
CONTACT information for all of the study authors is within the footnotes
"The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums."
(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (1) Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.
(2003) University of Colorado (Denver) Economics Department Chairman Naci Mocan and Graduate Assistant R. Kaj Gottings found "a statistically significant relationship between executions, pardons and homicide. Specifically each additional execution reduces homicides by 5 to 6, and three additional pardons (commutations) generate 1 to 1.5 additional murders." Their "data set contains detailed information on the entire 6,143 death sentences between 1977 and 1997. (2)
(2001) University of Houston Professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini, found that death penalty moratoriums contribute to more homicides. They found: "The (Texas) execution hiatus (in 1996), therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 (to as many as 150) additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost." (3)
(2001) SUNY (Buffalo) Professor Liu finds that legalizing the death penalty not only adds capital punishment as a deterrent but also increases the marginal productivity of other deterrence measures in reducing murder rates. "Abolishing the death penalty not only gets rid of a valuable deterrent, it also decreases the deterrent effect of other punishments." "The deterrent effects of the certainty and severity of punishments on murder are greater in retentionist (death penalty) states than in abolition (non death penalty) states." (4)
(2003) Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that each execution results, on average, in five fewer murders. Longer waits on death row reduce the deterrent effect. Therefore, recent legislation to shorten the time prior to execution should increase deterrence and thus save more innocent lives. Moratoriums and other delays should put more innocents at risk. In addition, capital punishment deters all kinds of murders, including crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Murders of both blacks and whites decrease after executions. (5)
(2003) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds: "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (6)
(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that "The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data's aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable to measure executions." (7)
The findings reflect reason, common sense and history.
"According to the standard economic model of crime, a rational offender would respond to perceived costs and benefits of committing crime." "Capital punishment is particularly significant in this context, because it represents a very high cost for committing murder (loss of life). Thus, the presence of capital punishment in a state, or the frequency with which it is used, should unequivocally deter homicide." Furthermore, "an increase in pardons (commutations) implies a decrease in the probability of execution, which economic theory predicts should have a positive (increase) impact on murder rates." (8)
Isaac Ehrlich (1975) provided the first systemic analysis of the relationship between capital punishment and the crime of murder along with the first empirical analysis of the deterrence hypothesis. He found that each execution deterred, on average, 8 murders. Many additional studies have found corroborating evidence supporting the deterrent effect of the death penalty -- from the United States (Ehrlich, 1977, Layson, 1985, Cloninger, 1992, Ehrlich and Liu, 1999, Dezhbakhsh et al, 2000) and Canada (Layson 1983) and the UK (Wolpin, 1978). (9)
Pubic policy makers take note. Stopping executions will sacrifice innocent lives. Reinstating capital punishment will spare more innocent lives.
The Death Penalty as a Deterrent - Confirmed - Seven Recent Studies
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, updated 11/12/04
CONTACT information for all of the study authors is within the footnotes
"The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums."
(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (1) Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.
(2003) University of Colorado (Denver) Economics Department Chairman Naci Mocan and Graduate Assistant R. Kaj Gottings found "a statistically significant relationship between executions, pardons and homicide. Specifically each additional execution reduces homicides by 5 to 6, and three additional pardons (commutations) generate 1 to 1.5 additional murders." Their "data set contains detailed information on the entire 6,143 death sentences between 1977 and 1997. (2)
(2001) University of Houston Professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini, found that death penalty moratoriums contribute to more homicides. They found: "The (Texas) execution hiatus (in 1996), therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 (to as many as 150) additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost." (3)
(2001) SUNY (Buffalo) Professor Liu finds that legalizing the death penalty not only adds capital punishment as a deterrent but also increases the marginal productivity of other deterrence measures in reducing murder rates. "Abolishing the death penalty not only gets rid of a valuable deterrent, it also decreases the deterrent effect of other punishments." "The deterrent effects of the certainty and severity of punishments on murder are greater in retentionist (death penalty) states than in abolition (non death penalty) states." (4)
(2003) Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that each execution results, on average, in five fewer murders. Longer waits on death row reduce the deterrent effect. Therefore, recent legislation to shorten the time prior to execution should increase deterrence and thus save more innocent lives. Moratoriums and other delays should put more innocents at risk. In addition, capital punishment deters all kinds of murders, including crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Murders of both blacks and whites decrease after executions. (5)
(2003) FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds: "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deters somewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assuming that the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average of the range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply that society avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at the current rate of execution all else equal." The study used state level data from 1978 to 1997 for all 50 states (excluding Washington D.C.). (6)
(2003) Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Clemson U. Professor Shepherd found that "The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data's aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable to measure executions." (7)
The findings reflect reason, common sense and history.
"According to the standard economic model of crime, a rational offender would respond to perceived costs and benefits of committing crime." "Capital punishment is particularly significant in this context, because it represents a very high cost for committing murder (loss of life). Thus, the presence of capital punishment in a state, or the frequency with which it is used, should unequivocally deter homicide." Furthermore, "an increase in pardons (commutations) implies a decrease in the probability of execution, which economic theory predicts should have a positive (increase) impact on murder rates." (8)
Isaac Ehrlich (1975) provided the first systemic analysis of the relationship between capital punishment and the crime of murder along with the first empirical analysis of the deterrence hypothesis. He found that each execution deterred, on average, 8 murders. Many additional studies have found corroborating evidence supporting the deterrent effect of the death penalty -- from the United States (Ehrlich, 1977, Layson, 1985, Cloninger, 1992, Ehrlich and Liu, 1999, Dezhbakhsh et al, 2000) and Canada (Layson 1983) and the UK (Wolpin, 1978). (9)
Pubic policy makers take note. Stopping executions will sacrifice innocent lives. Reinstating capital punishment will spare more innocent lives.
A decent job there. Still, next time, use evidence that hasn't been refuted, studies that haven't been proven flawed, and consider necessary variables that weren't included.
