The Death Penalty.

[ParadigmShifter]

That link of yours frob says that the death penalty is applied so rarely, but in order for it to have a 99.999999% rightful conviction rate then at least 1 million people would have had to have been executed. You can't argue with common sense.

EDIT: And besides, 62.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[MobBoss]

Sigh. That's what you get from poor research: http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp1949.html

First of all, you should try reading my links instead of just throwing this up. First of all, the study I linked to was published after the one you just linked by almost a year. Secondly, the links I give indicate the fallacy of some of the data used by anti-death penalty advocates in that several states had a death penalty on their books as active....but never used it. The second study I linked to indicates there is a direct correlation to the amount of deterrance to the number of executions committed. States which had a death penalty option, but didnt execute anyone actually had a rise in murder rates, while the states that DID execute murderers had a decrease.

Next time you may want to actually read something before you try to refute it with old data.

Yeah, you won alright

Apparently, I did.

 

[frob2900]

That link of yours frob says that the death penalty is applied so rarely, but in order for it to have a 99.999999% rightful conviction rate then at least 1 million people would have had to have been executed. You can't argue with common sense.

EDIT: And besides, 62.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Well, it's not so much the statistical data that's the point here, the point is that the data analysis performed in MobBosses links was based on poor/flawed mathematics together with preconceived notions and therefore was not at all 'robust' as the authors stated.

First of all, you should try reading my links instead of just throwing this up. First of all, the study I linked to was published after the one you just linked by almost a year. Secondly, the links I give indicate the fallacy of some of the data used by anti-death penalty advocates in that several states had a death penalty on their books as active....but never used it. The second study I linked to indicates there is a direct correlation to the amount of deterrance to the number of executions committed. States which had a death penalty option, but didnt execute anyone actually had a rise in murder rates, while the states that DID execute murderers had a decrease.

Next time you may want to actually read something before you try to refute it with old data.

Again, it's not the data, its the data analysis that's flawed (which was clearly stated in the links I gave). Talk about the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to actually reading sources

Apparently, I did.

Umm

 

[MobBoss]

Well, it's not so much the statistical data that's the point here, the point is that the data analysis performed in MobBosses links was based on poor/flawed mathematics together with preconceived notions and therefore was not at all 'robust' as the authors stated.

Errr. How can they refute it when they predate the study I linked to? NONE of what you link to specifically indicates that what I offered is based on poor or flawed mathematics. /sheesh

Also, yes, your second link is precisely from a biased website...just like the one you accused me of having to use. Hypocrite.

The bottom line, is you are so far in denial on the subject, no matter how valid the study I offer up has been done, you will merely deny its accuracy despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[frob2900]

Errr. How can they refute it when they predate the study I linked to?

Like I said above, because the method itself used in the article you posted is flawed It's explained quite adequately in the links I posted.

NONE of what you link to specifically indicates that what I offered is based on poor or flawed mathematics. /sheesh

Of course it does. Read it.

Also, yes, your second link is precisely from a biased website...just like the one you accused me of having to use. Hypocrite.

It doesn't matter where the file is stored, as long as the author isn't biased Isn't that rather obvious?

The bottom line, is you are so far in denial on the subject, no matter how valid the study I offer up has been done, you will merely deny its accuracy despite evidence to the contrary.

The bottom line is that I'm a sucker for properly conducted research. Sloppy statistics and godawful data analysis is a pet peeve of mine

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I know, I was just wondering why 1 million people have apparently been executed in America that's all. That's quite a lot in the 200 odd years the states have been going, like a couple of hundred thousand a year.

 

[MobBoss]

Like I said above, because the method itself used in the article you posted is flawed It's explained quite adequately in the links I posted.

Again, its not flawed. You are just trying to discredit it because it destroys your argument.

Of course it does. Read it.

I did read it. Again...the study I linked to was published AFTER the articles you link to in which you say my source is discredited.

Let me ask you....how do you discredit a source a year in advance? Dont you usually try to refute the findings AFTER a study is published?

The bottom line is that I'm a sucker for properly conducted research. Sloppy statistics and godawful data analysis is a pet peeve of mine

Apparently, the only thing you are a sucker for is biased articles which you agree with.

Would it help if I pointed out the state of New Jerseys own study into the matter in which they did concur there was a deterrance factor to using the death penalty, even though it was a anti-death penalty biased paper? Although it did mention a deterrence factor, it argued against the death penalty due to the cost and possible error in punishing an innocent victim.

 

[frob2900]

Again, its not flawed. You are just trying to discredit it because it destroys your argument.
...
I did read it. Again...the study I linked to was published AFTER the articles you link to in which you say my source is discredited.
...
Let me ask you....how do you discredit a source a year in advance? Dont you usually try to refute the findings AFTER a study is published?

Because you can discredit a method of treating data. It shows that the statistical analyses performed on 'death penalty as deterrent' data are weak, flawed and prone to the bias of the researcher. Did you read all of it?

[EDIT] Here's another source discussing the issue: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/01/decision_analys_2.html

Apparently, the only thing you are a sucker for is biased articles which you agree with.

Yeah, whatever

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Maybe the earlier study refutes the later one in much the same way that the Old Testament version of God in favour of the death penalty refutes the New Testament "those without sin cast the first stone".

 

[MobBoss]

Because you can discredit a method of treating data. It shows that the statistical analyses performed on 'death penalty as deterrent' data are weak, flawed and prone to the bias of the researcher. Did you read all of it?

Again, the method isnt exactly the same. The study I linked to studied individuals states and even counties in which the executions were performed against areas in which the death penalty was not enforced or didnt exist. Again, the method used wasnt the same method argued against.

The two articles you refer to do not address the study I linked to specifically in any way, shape or form. They dont consider any nuances done in the study, nor any differences in this study to ones they have seen before.

Bottom line, you ask for a study from a non-biased source and you got one - and yet you refuse to acknowledge the data because your own biased sources say any such study is fundamentally flawed...no matter how it was performed.

Keep your head in the sand for all I care. You accused me of having to provide a biased possibly lobbyist source....I didnt have to at all. So you gotta haul out the fanatical anti-death penalty biased crowd which gives a blanket discredit even upon studies not yet conducted. Simply ridiculous.

 

[frob2900]

You accused me of having to provide a biased possibly lobbyist source....I didnt have to at all.

To be honest, I'd actually prefer a pro-death penalty lobbyist source to one thats just plain wrong.

So you gotta haul out the fanatical anti-death penalty biased crowd... ...Simply ridiculous.

Yup, those authors sure were fanatical anti-death penalty types.. I don't really know where to go with a statement like that

(btw read the last link I posted if you missed the arguments in my first source )

 

[Volum]

Im for the death penalty. A life in prison is infinitely better then immediate death.

I think i would prefer death instead of having to rot in a prison for the rest of my life. Having to see the same walls each day for the rest of my life.

Death is an escape.

An eye for an eye, if you dont wanna die, dont put yourself in a situation where you COULD be wrongly convicted or dont kill people.

And im not advocating killing innocent people, most of em are guilty, or just stupid.

How do you avoid any situation where you could be wrongly convicted? Just going out could get you in a situation. Only way to guarantee that would be to never go outside. And then you would just end up being known as the crazy person who never goes outside and eats children, and as soon as a kid goes missing the villagers are gonna be at your stairs with torches and pitchforks.

 

[Dezzilisk]

Most of these people who get wrongly convicted arent saints, they dont just walk outside and arent just in the wrong place in the wrong time.

eg. "hey bro, hold this gun for me"
"sure man"
*guy runs off*
Later on the cops are at your door, and you are busted, they arent going to listen to your pleas of "Some guy gave it to me!"

 

[Volum]

Most of these people who get wrongly convicted arent saints, they dont just walk outside and arent just in the wrong place in the wrong time.

eg. "hey bro, hold this gun for me"
"sure man"
*guy runs off*
Later on the cops are at your door, and you are busted, they arent going to listen to your pleas of "Some guy gave it to me!"

So what if they arnt saints? They still didnt kill anyone, and they still are innocent.Theres no crime in being stupid.

And its perfectly possible to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Dezzilisk]

If theyre just in the wrong place at the wrong time its going to be obvious, these people always do SOMETHING incriminating, on purpose or otherwise.

I think to make people happy they should give one appeal and then get it over and done with. BANG

And if theyre innocent, hard cheese.

 

[Fëanor]

So what if they arnt saints? They still didnt kill anyone, and they still are innocent.Theres no crime in being stupid.

And its perfectly possible to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And lets not forget police planting evidence or poor defense for people that cant afford very good lawyers...

 

[Dezzilisk]

Its not about corruption in the police force or fat ass public defenders who sleep though trials its about the priciple of the death penalty, its a GOOD thing.

In theory. There will always be exeptions

 

[frob2900]

its about the priciple of the death penalty, its a GOOD thing.

Why is it a good thing?

 

[drachasor]

Its not about corruption in the police force or fat ass public defenders who sleep though trials its about the priciple of the death penalty, its a GOOD thing.

Letting innocent people die because YOU don't give a darn is NOT a good thing.

Why don't you go out and find where you left your humanity?

 

[emzie]

I think it's an okay idea in theory (for specific murders -- young child, premeditation, law enforcement, judge ect ect), but until I'm satisfied it's applied equally across race / economic lines, I'm against it.