Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
it's the truth, the states that have recently dropped the death penalty have seen their murder rates drop.
the ten states with the highest murder rates are all death penalty states with the exception of 1, maryland, which dropped their death penalty in 2012, and have seen less murders since they dropped it.
the ten states with the lowest murder rates are all states without the death penalty, but 1 state, and that state has not executed anyone in decades.
Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center
Those links tell me nothing other than DPIC is a pressure group. Nevertheless their figures are actual FBI figures whatever slant they want to put on them in their reports.If that is what you are basing your case on then I am left scratching my head.I go by the links in my link. Post # 32. Click the links. (#s 1 - 7). They're all there. No need to ask. Whatever DPIC "uses" hardly matters. They still abuse rather than use figures, and they're well known for their stretches of the truth, as I, and Wikipedia, already noted. They should be called Death Penalty MISinformation Center.Well they are using the FBI figures to compile their charts so I reckon that must be accurate.I have checked a few figures and it looks like they have copied them across. What figures are you using ?.
A patently stupid thing to say. The death penalty is the ultimate deterrent. Dead men do not commit crimes.The death penalty does not appear to be a deterrent at all.
so i guess you just keep creating new murderers to keep the death penalty states at the highest murder rates in the nation, year after year after year?A patently stupid thing to say. The death penalty is the ultimate deterrent. Dead men do not commit crimes.The death penalty does not appear to be a deterrent at all.
The figures do not support your argument. You do understand what deterrent means dont you ?A patently stupid thing to say. The death penalty is the ultimate deterrent. Dead men do not commit crimes.The death penalty does not appear to be a deterrent at all.
Give me the numbers of executed people who went on to commit other crimes, then go on and explain to me how the death penalty is not a deterrent.The figures do not support your argument. You do understand what deterrent means dont you ?A patently stupid thing to say. The death penalty is the ultimate deterrent. Dead men do not commit crimes.The death penalty does not appear to be a deterrent at all.
Ok so you dont understand.Give me the numbers of executed people who went on to commit other crimes, then go on and explain to me how the death penalty is not a deterrent.The figures do not support your argument. You do understand what deterrent means dont you ?A patently stupid thing to say. The death penalty is the ultimate deterrent. Dead men do not commit crimes.The death penalty does not appear to be a deterrent at all.
At least you now understand what a deterrent is, and that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent.A deterrent, by definition, is something that deters.
Having said that, and pointing out the obvious, I I don't suffer dingbats gladly nor do I feel compelled to consistently have to educate you.
I can see you are going to be stupid about this, with very weak debate ammunition. As the Rock of WWE fame would say >> "IT DOESN'T MATTER" what the FBI figures are. You're going nowhere with that. IF what you say is true about the numbers, that doesn't mean that any of that has or hasn't any influence from the death penalty, rather than other factors creating those numbers. But leave it to DPIC propagandizers, and suckers who fall for theirThose links tell me nothing other than DPIC is a pressure group. Nevertheless their figures are actual FBI figures whatever slant they want to put on them in their reports.If that is what you are basing your case on then I am left scratching my head.
You have to admit that they completely undermine any emotional argument that you want to make. The death penalty does not appear to be a deterrent at all.
A load of waffle. Facts are facts.You have no case.I can see you are going to be stupid about this, with very weak debate ammunition. As the Rock of WWE fame would say >> "IT DOESN'T MATTER" what the FBI figures are. You're going nowhere with that. IF what you say is true about the numbers, that doesn't mean that any of that has or hasn't any influence from the death penalty, rather than other factors creating those numbers. But leave it to DPIC propagandizers, and suckers who fall for theirThose links tell me nothing other than DPIC is a pressure group. Nevertheless their figures are actual FBI figures whatever slant they want to put on them in their reports.If that is what you are basing your case on then I am left scratching my head.
You have to admit that they completely undermine any emotional argument that you want to make. The death penalty does not appear to be a deterrent at all.to try to utilize whatever they can grasp, and then construe it has having some causation effect, (when there's not a shred of evidence to produce that).
You could also say that in states where the death penalty is not used, they have cleaner water. Wanna say it's because of no death penalty ?
Simple INESCAPABLE FACT is that you execute somebody, they don't kill again. If you don't execute them, sometimes THEY DO KILL AGAIN, and therefore you are irresponsibly RISKING the lives of all those who that killer may come in contact with, inside or outside the prison (as my link clearly showed)
And NO, the links don't only show that DPIC is a pressure group. They show that DPIC distorts truth, and is a laughingstock, which posters here run the risk of being themselves if/whenever using DPIC as a source.
A load of waffle. Facts are facts.You have no case.
).
Well my facts are taken from FBI data. Yours seem to come from a voice in your head.A load of waffle. Facts are facts.You have no case.
Oh yes, indeed, facts are facts. But there's 2 kind of facts. The ones that matter, and the ones that don't. Your problem is your facts (if they even are that) have no significance to this discussion. You haven't, in any way, shown that the lack of a death penalty has anything to do with crime rates (other than eliminating crimes by the executed killer, which is my point, not yours.
You don't HAVE ANY FACTS which counter the fact that the death penalty, OF COURSE IS A DETERRENT, as it deters killers from ever killing again, because they can't kill again, after they're executed, because THEY'RE DEAD. Get it ?
THAT is the case, and you have no case to counter it. And you never wiil, so you might as well give up this charade, and quit making fool out of yourself.
Its like tumbleweed blowing through the old town tonight.Well my facts are taken from FBI data. Yours seem to come from a voice in your head.A load of waffle. Facts are facts.You have no case.
Oh yes, indeed, facts are facts. But there's 2 kind of facts. The ones that matter, and the ones that don't. Your problem is your facts (if they even are that) have no significance to this discussion. You haven't, in any way, shown that the lack of a death penalty has anything to do with crime rates (other than eliminating crimes by the executed killer, which is my point, not yours.
You don't HAVE ANY FACTS which counter the fact that the death penalty, OF COURSE IS A DETERRENT, as it deters killers from ever killing again, because they can't kill again, after they're executed, because THEY'RE DEAD. Get it ?
THAT is the case, and you have no case to counter it. And you never wiil, so you might as well give up this charade, and quit making fool out of yourself.
You dont understand deterrent. If you look back on the thread then you will see where I have explained it. What you are talking about is vengeance. Its not the same thing.
Some people have to be told twice (or thrice...or more) Dude: It doesn't matter what the FBI data is. It isn't related to the subject. Get it ? Pheeeew!!Well my facts are taken from FBI data. Yours seem to come from a voice in your head.
You dont understand deterrent. If you look back on the thread then you will see where I have explained it. What you are talking about is vengeance. Its not the same thing.
1. It's more expensive (one bullet) to dust the killer, than to house and feed him, and medically care for him for 70 years ? Is there a doctor in the house ? Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn ?I'm against the death penalty for several reasons. First, its really expensive. It typically costs far more in appeals than it does to house and feed the prisoner for a life term. Second, its wrongly applied with disturbing regularity. Its estimated as many as 4% of death row inmates are actually innocent.
For example:
A former prosecutor who used false testimony and withheld evidence to send a now-exonerated man to Texas' death row has lost an appeal to overturn his disbarment. The Dallas Morning News reports that the Board of Disciplinary Appeals on Monday upheld the decision of the State Bar of Texas to disbar Charles Sebesta. The board's decision is final.
Prosecutor who sent innocent man to death row is disbarred | Fox News
Third, its not a deterrent.
If the arrest, trial, conviction, appeals and execution of a prisoner involved nothing more than 'one bullet', you might have a point. Alas, there's quite a bit more in the real world. Pretending otherwise changes nothing.
2. I ruled out cases of non-positive guilt.
Our justice system clearly didn't. As the litany of death row inmates exonerated and released demonstrate.
And that's the rub. If we knew that the convicted were guilty.....they'd be little controversy. But we have done a pretty piss poor job of determining it.
3. Of course it's a deterrent. The executed killed can't kill again. It is life imprisonment which is not the deterrent. Imprisoned prisoners can and do kill again.
The death penalty doesn't lower murder rates. Its expensive, imprecise, dangerously inaccurate, and has no particular law enforcement value.
1. Maybe YOU're "pretending". You're smart enough to know of course I mean after arrest, trial, conviction and appeals. But that need not take more than a year. 2 years tops. Then, it is NOT so expensive, and nowhere near as expensive as housing the killer in a prison for 50+ years. The only way it might be as expensive is if the killer is allowed to keep appealing for 20 or 30 years, like they ludicrously, unnecessarily do now (only to pad the pockets of those in the court "industry"). A scam, paid for with taxpayers $$, and putting people lives at risk, the whole time. Many have died already because of it (as my link showed).
2. I'm not talking about what "we have done" I'm talking about what we SHOULD DO depending on the circumstances.
3. Yes the death penalty certainly DOES lower murder rates.
Example one: before he was executed, Ted Bundy killed 30+ people. After execution, he killed ZERO.
Example 2: before he was executed, John Allen Muhammad killed 19 people. After execution, he killed ZERO.
Example 3: before he was executed, John Wayne Gacy killed 33 people. After execution, he killed ZERO.
This list could go into the thousands of killers, and much higher number of victims. But you can keep hugging your anti-death penalty propaganda, like the # 1 lobbyist of that, the Death Penalty Information Center, which I already showed (Post # 32) is a propaganda mill of dubious credibility.
And of course, it has law enforcement value. It saves the lives of all those who the killer would subsequently kill, after the time that he could have been executed.
It's not expensive, it's very INexpensive compared to prison, as long as you don't stupidly carry on years of appeals (just to enrich court personnel). And how can it be imprecise or dangerously inaccurate ? You kill somebody - they're DEAD. What else is there to it ?
Life sentences without the possibility of parole/release is what I am talking about. Problems with it are:What if, instead of the death penalty, convicted criminals in such capital crime cases received life sentences without the possibility of parole/release? While certainly the possibility of further murders exists within whatever prison houses them, the general public would remain safe from such criminals (barring the extremely rare successful escape).
As others have said, it isn't a question of whether certain individuals deserve execution. Rather, it is about the unfortunate problems with the justice system and the inherent fallibility of any system created and run by humans.
Some people have to be told twice (or thrice...or more) Dude: It doesn't matter what the FBI data is. It isn't related to the subject. Get it ? Pheeeew!!Well my facts are taken from FBI data. Yours seem to come from a voice in your head.
You dont understand deterrent. If you look back on the thread then you will see where I have explained it. What you are talking about is vengeance. Its not the same thing.
No, my facts don't come from a voice in my head. They come from the historical RECORD. No one executed has EVER come back from death and killed again. For them, the death penalty has had 100% success.
YOU are who is not understanding deterrent. All those people executed have been DETERRED from killing again. Many who were not executed DID kill again. If YOU look back on the thread, and read my link, then YOU will see where I have explained it. Got it now ?
A List of Murderers Released to Murder Again!
I am not talking about vengeance. That is your liberal, deflection propaganda, which YOU need to wrestle with, not me. What I AM talking about is the DETERRENT of the death penalty has has deterred ALL those who received it, and not deterred many who didn't. Nothing else is in this debate.
Note: My link is misnamed. While it does list murderers who were released, only to go out and murder again, it also lists many who being spared from the death penalty, killed again while inside the prison walls. All murders that could/should have been prevented by the death penalty.
Does WHAT happen ?And how often does that happen?
