Right so my statement that they contradict each other was not "false" as you claimed.
Obviously the claim I said was false was that there were any good statistical studies which show that the death penalty has a deterrent effect. Glad to clear that up.
Police Science is not a branch of mathematics or economics and so his PhD is mostly irrelevant. It'd be as useful as a PhD in music or biology.
You are displaying willful ignorance yet again. His thesis involved developing and employing a predictive statistical model to a sociological problem. Obviously this involves a high level of mathematics, and statistics, and understanding sociology of which a component is economics.
He is trained and has published in the field of econometrics (the application of statistical and mathematical methods in the field of economics). As he says in his testimony under oath. Indeed he is an expert in the field, that's why he was called to testify to the New York Judicial committee.
Econometrics is a sub-discipline, I dont know of any PhD level degree programs in specifically that topic. It is part of many programs, such as police science, economics, global derivatives, business statistics, etc.
Law doesn't have anything to do with econometrics. Even study of the "Law and Economics" school of thought within the philosophy of law doesn't involve study of econometrics.
Gah, more willful ignorance! If you are going to apply econometrics to the question of the potential deterrent effect of the death penalty then obviously it does have something to do with Law in this context. That is why a Law school would have a professor qualified to teach law students about econometrics, which Dr. Fagan does.
You've got to be kidding me! There are loads of people more qualified than he. You could start with someone who actually possesses a degree in mathematics or a degree in economics with a specialization in econometrics -- such as some of the people who developed the econometric studies showing the deterrent effect.
Im starting to think you live in some fantasy world where anything you say is true. Dr. Fagan has a degree in Police Science that involved much course work in econometrics. His thesis was basically the application of econometrics.
Ill repeat:
Please, if you know of anyone more qualified to review the work in this field - let me know. Untill then you are just blowing smoke.
You have not done so. Bring the study you are thinking of to the table so we can have a look. Lets look at the credentials of the author and discuss the validity of the work.
So you'd support it if it didn't have racial and economic bias?
And if it wasnt more expensive than life in prison without parole. Then yes, especially if there was any convincing evidence for a deterrent effect.
You said a few things about bias, and I agree with some of it. I only said I find the bias worrying, just as I would (and do) bias in other criminal courts.
My main argument is the viability of life without parole vs. the death penalty. My argument centers on the relative costs, the fallibility of human endeavors and the possibility for overturning a sentence, and my naïve belief in the value of rehabilitation over revenge.
If there were a strong deterrent effect of the death penalty, I would most likely support it even given the current problems.
If there were even a marginal effect, I would have to consider it.
The fact is that if there is an effect, it is swamped by other overriding factors. That is the point clearly made by the auto-regression argument, and one you have yet to address.
The issue we are discussing here is the deterrent effect, not my opinion of the death penalty, you have brought nothing to the table on that topic.
This doesn't even touch on the argument I made regarding possible genetic influence.
