Death Penalty Debate

[Minilad]

I would imagine a high proportion of murders are crimes of passion. The death penalty would do nothing to prevent these

 

[Kneedown]

If it's a deterrent, then why do states in the US with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without?

All US states have the death penalty for those convicted of Capital Federal offences, even those that have supposedly abolished it, the State just wouldn't carry out the execution, leaving that to the Federal prison at Terre Haute in Indiana, but i digress. Remember that not all US states that allow for the death penalty in State Law practise the sentence very often if at all, and even in those States that carry out the most executions the chances of being sentenced to death in the first place are very low, and of the sentence actually being carried out even lower.

Using the figures of murders per 100,000 people for 2009, the averages are;
4.76/100k in states with the death penalty, and
2.75/100k in states without.

Not sure where you got those statistics from but the Death Penalty Information website (Which is an abolitionist organisation) gives similar figures, however, if you look at the chart on the link below, you will see that Michigan, which is abolitionist, has a murder rate of 6.3 per 100,000 people, whereas Texas, which executes a lot, has a murder rate of 5.4 per 100,000 people.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

Looking at the chart it seems to indicate that since 1996, murders are reducing in every State, whether it has the Death Penalty or not, but look at South Carolina which executes a good few, 9 murders per 100,000 people in 1996, 6.3 in 2009, in Georgia it's 9.5 to 5.8. Look also at Rhode Island and West Virginia which are abolitionist and the rates have gone up.
What does all this prove? Not a lot really, apart from the fact that statistic's dont really mean one thing or another across the board.

But enough about America, lets have a look at the murder rate in Britain since hanging was watered down and gradually abolished........

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/abolish.html

Hmmmm......A steady increase.....?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would imagine a high proportion of murders are crimes of passion. The death penalty would do nothing to prevent these

Maybe not, you can never deter everyone but the punishment would be just.

Another thing, with the death penalty you can be 100% sure they won't do it again (Unless you believe in zombies)
The trouble with "Life Imprisonment" is that sooner or later, somewhere down the line, some joker thinks they've served long enough and paroles them, and then this happens.......

http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The trouble with "Life Imprisonment" is that sooner or later, somewhere down the line, some joker thinks they've served long enough and paroles them, and then this happens.......

http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

You have shown a very valid link to back up your contention, but I do note that they all refer to cases in the U.S.A.

 

[NSEFAN]

Looking at the chart it seems to indicate that since 1996, murders are reducing in every State, whether it has the Death Penalty or not, but look at South Carolina which executes a good few, 9 murders per 100,000 people in 1996, 6.3 in 2009, in Georgia it's 9.5 to 5.8. Look also at Rhode Island and West Virginia which are abolitionist and the rates have gone up.
What does all this prove? Not a lot really, apart from the fact that statistic's dont really mean one thing or another across the board.

In the book Freakonomics, the author speculates that the reduction in crime rate in general in the US is actually because of the legalisation of abortion more than anything else. A controversial viewpoint I'm sure, but an interesting take on the problem.

Looking at the graph you provide for Britain, is that figure the number of murders, or a murder rate? The latter would be more useful, as it would take into account an increasing population. More data for further years would also be good. Page 15 of this PDF indicates that homocide rates have increased since abolition, but this does include manslaughter as well as murder.

Maybe not, you can never deter everyone but the punishment would be just.

You are right about execution being a permanent solution to dealing with the criminals themselves, but that can never bring back who they took away. It teaches people that it is okay to kill someone because they killed someone else, which stinks of the eye for an eye attitude from the likes of the old testament. I would rather effort was put into reducing murders than just dealing with them as they happen. The question should be why some people feel that they need to kill someone in the first place.

Furthermore, re-introducing the death penalty doesn't automatically mean that murder rates will then start to fall.

 

[90019]

Not sure where you got those statistics from but the Death Penalty Information website (Which is an abolitionist organisation) gives similar figures

The figures are objective, the fact they're from an abolitionist website doesn't make any difference.

however, if you look at the chart on the link below, you will see that Michigan, which is abolitionist, has a murder rate of 6.3 per 100,000 people, whereas Texas, which executes a lot, has a murder rate of 5.4 per 100,000 people.

Well, if you're going to do it that way;
Texas has the rate of 5.4, on the other hand;
Alaska has 3.1
Hawaii has 1.7
Iowa has 1.1
Maine has 2.0
Massachusettes has 2.6
Minnesota has 1.4
New Jersey has 3.7
New York has 4.0
North Dakota has 1.5
Rhode Island has 2.9
Vermont has 1.1
West Virginia has 4.6 and
Wisconsin has 2.5

Michigan is the only abolitionist state to have a higher murder rate than Texas.

Looking at the chart it seems to indicate that since 1996, murders are reducing in every State, whether it has the Death Penalty or not

They are all steadily reducing in states both with and without, which makes it irrelevant to this debate.

Hmmmm......A steady increase.....?

Is that total or rate?

 

[Kneedown]

You have shown a very valid link to back up your contention, but I do note that they all refer to cases in the U.S.A.

Quite true, but it proves that a "Life" sentence doesn't mean they will come out as a reformed character.
Here's a couple of instances from Britain......

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/convicted-murderer-killed-again-after-release-706972.html

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/34706-probe-as-freed-murderer-kills-again

 

[SS4]

But enough about America, lets have a look at the murder rate in Britain since hanging was watered down and gradually abolished........

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/abolish.html

Hmmmm......A steady increase.....?

Just like the steady increase in population per chance?

 

[Kneedown]

Well, if you're going to do it that way;
Texas has the rate of 5.4, on the other hand;
Alaska has 3.1
Hawaii has 1.7
Iowa has 1.1
Maine has 2.0
Massachusettes has 2.6
Minnesota has 1.4
New Jersey has 3.7
New York has 4.0
North Dakota has 1.5
Rhode Island has 2.9
Vermont has 1.1
West Virginia has 4.6 and
Wisconsin has 2.5

Michigan is the only abolitionist state to have a higher murder rate than Texas.


They are all steadily reducing in states both with and without, which makes it irrelevant to this debate.

All of which just goes to show that there is no evidence that one punishment is any more effective than another.
Whilst i believe, personally, that the Death Penalty is a deterrent, my main argument for supporting it, it that it is the only just punishment for murder and the worst instances of certain other crimes. A grieving family suffer a whole life sentence without their loved one, while the perpetrator lives a relatively comfortable life in prison, in full knowledge of the fact that one day, after 30, 25 or even 15years, they will walk the streets again. Even those serving whole life tariff's must sleep safe in the knowledge that a few years down the line there will be some Liberal who thinks they have done long enough and champions their cause. Look at the efforts Lord Longford went to, to try and secure release for Myra Hindley. Fortunately he was unsuccessful but another time it could quite easily go the other way.

Is that total or rate?

Looking at the chart there were around 73 murders in Britain in 1965, when hanging was effectively abolished.
In 1965 the UK population was around 54,349,500.

There were 651 murders in Britain recorded from Nov 2008-Nov2009:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/21/murders-drop-home-office-figures

And that was the lowest recorded figure for 20years

In 2009 the population of Britain was around 61.4 million.

If i've got the maths right (i've divided the population by the number of murders, feel free to correct me if i've got the formula wrong!) there was one murder per 744,513.6 people in 1965.
In 2009 that figure had increased to one murder per 94,316.4 people.

That seems like one heck of an increase in the rate to me.
I'm afraid i can't testify as to the accuracy of the numbers i've presented, but nor can i testify to their inaccuracy either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just like the steady increase in population per chance?

A quick response sir!
I've done some googling and refer you to the above post where i think, if my maths is correct, if worked out the actual murder rates for the population of the times.