Death Penalty and Stanley Tookie Williams

The following is a graph made by me using data I got from the federal vital statistics site. I merged the two data together. Very self explanatory.
Click here to enlargeNow, don't get me wrong. I am only posting this for us to think about.The reason we shouldn't use this data as a definitive "proof" of the deterent concept is the same reason why we shouldn't use the ice cream sale in comparason to crime rate in the summer. However, the fact that this data was taken over a period of 50 years should be enough to indicate that it is too good to be a coincidence.As to whether I support CP or not is still a toss up. I really don't know which way to lean because both arguments have their strengths and weaknesses.This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-13-2005 09:44 PMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 12-13-2005 09:45 PMAbE: Changed image width to restore page sizing (AdminBen)This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/12/13 09:04 PM

If you don't see a downside, I feel sorry for you.As for justice, well reparation is a good start. In legalese 'Making good'.As for Court TV, you are advocating the system being televised, what I was suggesting was the end result being televised. We could even dispense with the trial bit and round up the usual suspects and the one who performs (televisually) the best will be innocent.

A couple years back, I was involved with a project for an ethics class about history of capital punishment and the current situation. I do not have the sources with me right now, but you can take my word for it that it costs about 2 million dollars more per person to go with the execution than life imprisonment.

That is one hell of a graph!!I do have a few problems with it. Could we put a few other statistics on there as well. Economic growth rate. Gap between top 20% and bottom 20% economically. General crime rate. Capital crime as a proportion of crime rate. Price of oil. Price of a colour TV. As a statistician in a former life I can see that the the graph is supposed to be incendiary and I will dismiss it as such.Perhaps if I saw lag times leading to a general overall fall in capital crimes or that the vertical axis reflected accurately the same proportions. Absolute numbers and nos. per million on the same axis, shame on you!

It wasn't meant as anything. I do admit that at the time, I set out to show that CP was not a good method for deterant. You can call me a liar if you wish, but I honestly did not intend to make the graph incendiary. I simply plotted the two data on the same graph. You really think I'm stupid? Look again at what you are asking for. It'd be hard to show number of executions in the millions, don't you think?But anyway, here are some more graphs. These ones were from another project. I am not a statitician by any mean. I can only interpret these graphs based on my very limited knowledge of statistics.What do you think?By the way, you really need to read people's posts more carefully. You saw the graph and you automatically assumed that I'm a pro-CP person without reading a single word I wrote.

graphs mean nothing. you might as well look at crosstabs. insert the data, run a regression, difference of means, etc. on top of that. you'll have to look at intervening factors such as crime prevention spending, educational success, general feeling of quality of life, and so forth.but then i'm just a poli sci major. it's not what i will prolly do for a living or anything. ask pink sas. prolly knows better than i.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 12-13-2005 11:20 PM

---

“I asked for the vegetarian.""Ah, yes, the vegetarian, yes! There we go, Mr. Hitler. There we go... Like a bit of wine? Thank you very much...you Nazi shithead!"

I did not assume diddly squat - I just accused use of wilful misuse of numbers.Graphs!! More graphs!!! I am beaten into a corner with visual depictions of reality - help me!!!What do the greyed out parts of the graph mean? What does adjusted mean in adjusted figure?As an example graph 2 - does this indicate that 3/5 of all households in the mid-70s were victimised each year? Wow - were you ever in trouble. You obviously are a great place to be now, only 1 in 5 properties are victimised every year.Graph 3 - violent crime isn't recorded crime - is it hearsay crime?Anyway - time for bed - but a quick note - the stats in the graphs, what are the criteria, what is the data collection method, who asked the questions, who answered them? - I only ask because I would never, ever use a graph unless I had compiled the data myself, and my intention was never to call you a liar, a proponent of anything, other than random drive-by graphics.

Then you said Earlier, you said Which indicate to me that you didn't really read my posts. Take a deep breath and read them again.Heck, a website was even provided on one of the graphs and you somehow missed it.So far, I have provided probably the most reliable source online (government source!)I have treated this conversation more seriously than you have. So far, you have only waved your hands at my posts and continued to acuse me of several things, including lying.Are you going to start treating me seriously or not? Do you even know where I stand on the issue?Before you answer, take a deep breath and say 10 prayers of hail mary. Then, pray to Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jerry Falwell. Then, reply with a little more seriousness.

Thread moved here from the In The News forum.

i think i remember hearing that, so i guess i stand corrected.

---

אָרַח

you know, in my mind, i don't really see death as such a bad thing, certainly not bad enough to constitute a punishment.i would think tho', that those who believe in hell, or some extreme form of metaphysical retribution, would definitely regard the death of a person who has grieviously sinned as a strong punishment for that person.if we assume that the death penalty is a form of punishment (and maybe i'm being a bit incendiary here) could it be that the US is pandering to religious ideology by instituting it?

---

So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand,
so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close.
- Pablo Neruda

I'm not advocating it in the case of all crime, just murder. And yes that is sometimes the only way, at least the only practical way to prevent a person from commiting another murder. You don't like it. That's fine. But you cannot simply reassert that it is only revenge. I have given another reason and it is valid.There really are people commited to violence and murder. Morrissey had it right when he said:"If you think peace is a common goal
that goes to show
how little you know."

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

oh god, morrisey.ok sure. killing someone prevents them from doing a lot of things. but i don't think it's the only way, nor do i find it an acceptable solution.

I think they'd be another interesting thread topic. I cannot give a simple up/down on that idea. What I will say is this: our current justice system is flawed and we should be seriously investigating alternatives, including such things as expert juries. Vocabulary does not make you right. I am unimpressed with terms. Indeed what you just said I was suggesting indicates you were not following my argument.There were two critical flaws in your argument. I had them listed. First you never answered my criticism, now you just asserted they were prima fascie ridiculous. I take it that means you still cannot deal with them. If they were that easy you could hae simply dealt with them the first time. That would make my claim that your position exhibited arbitrary application justified. That inherently removes your claim of prima fascie ridiculousness to at least one of my charges. That's not what I said. You are building strawmen. I most certainly believe executions can and should be done, and with proper rules would still be done. There really are murders where absolute practical certainty exists. You are arguing against practical certainty by appealing to theoretical certainty. That is circular. I do not believe that a nation nor any individual should live according to concepts of theoretical certainty. It is absurd.If a nation invades and we see planes dropping bombs, it does not make sense to think it is possible that the easter bunny has employed fairy wagons and is dropping treats for all the children. That is a possible theoretical absurdity, and you'd be a fool to follow it. That's something nice to mull over in the protective cover of an air raid shelter. I just went through this in my argument. Am I to assume you are not reading my posts completely?What you have just argued is that a person who wants to die might be able to create evidence, or have others create evidence to convict themself (its the plot of the movie ZigZag by the way). As I have already said such a move is itself complicity in a murder, they would be helping the real murderer get away, and so what the hell do I care in a practical sense if they then get nailed for that murder?If you are trying to suggest that we cannot create rules of evidence, particularly with regard to overlapping nature and discovery, such as to preclude forgery by others to frame someone, then I think you are simply wrong. It would make cap cases harder to initiate but not impossible.Lets give an example of the killer (I think it was in australia) who went on a shooting spree with at least a dozen separate witnesses and different cameras filming him in the act. I believe he was shot down on the scene or killed himself, but lets say he was knocked out and captured. How on earth could that practically be considered a case where evidence could have been forged against that man? As a nonphilosopher you are showing why you shouldn't be trying to pull this on me. You will please show me what body of philosophers directly assert that no technique of empiricism can eliminate practical doubt. The best you will find is an assertion of no elimination of theoretical doubt. I'm on board with that.If you want to continue with this one, open a different thread. It will end up getting long. I can tell you right now I'll be impressed if you can make your case. That was one of my focuses within philosophy.You really appear to be conflating science with all knowledge and that is a fatal flaw.And just to let you know, even if all philosophers asserted such a thing that would not be evidence of absence of a thing, only evidence of absence of their discovery of such a thing. All ID theorists assert that mechanisms of certain biological phenomena cannot be explained through natural mechanisms. Evo theorists thoroughly agree that they have not, but that does not mean cannot.For a guy who believes theoretically anything can happen, its amazing for you to accept that as criticial evidence for something. That's why my example didn't involve single survivor accounts. Why are you avoiding my example. Let me make it more specific, you are the captain in charge of a unit which has overtaken a camp. Within the camp you find dead people, dying people, and a group of guards. The dying people (who you revive) tell you these guards beat and starved and in many other ways killed the dead ones, and within camp records you have documents reporting the deaths of captives at the hands of these guards, and indeed orders to do so. Documents from other locations outside the camp verify that those guards are who they are (pictures and id numbers) as well as that those dying and dead were prisoners.Are you seriously going to suggest that there is some plausible practical doubt about what went on here? That is theoretical, not practical. If we are all brains in jars with false memories then not only would we be wrong about the holocaust, we'd also be incapable of killing others. It would take other mechanisms. And if you want to build a causal chain of action such that a brain's decision to kill will actually result in the death of another brain, then there is no knowing whether the choice to NOT kill actually results in the deaths of the brain one intended to save as well as three other brains, and all memories adjusted so that replacement brains are not noticed. That is an honest question, but not pertinent to the discussion at hand. Consistent MO is clearly not enough, but that does not suggest none can be arrived at for a practical purpose.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It is for some, that was my point. Unless you are planning on turning people who are bent on violence and murder into "brains in vats" and so incapable of such conduct... maybe paralyzing them... execution is about the only way. That's fine. I have no argument with anyone that does not like it and would like to do something else. That is a taste and nonarguable.It is all the false justification around it that I am arguing with. I DO find it acceptable and in your rantings have essentially called me uncivilized, illogical, and devoid of facts. The fact of the matter is I am on the money on facts and logic.We can still have two different opinions on what we want to do. Since it is a govt by us, our tastes will be taken into consideration.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)