Death penalty

States with the death penalty have the highest rates of homicide.
States with no death penalty have the lowest rates of homicide.
Louisiana, with 10.3 homicides per 100,000 population has the highest homicide rate. Others are: Mississippi, 8.6, South Carolina, 6.4, Missouri, 6.6, Nevada 6.0, Delaware and Florida, 5.8, Georgia and Tennessee, 5.7, Alabama, 5.6; Arkansas, 5.6, Indiana 5.0. All have the death penalty.
The states with no death penalty have the lowest homicide rates: Vermont, Maine and Minnesota, 1.6, Iowa, 1.9, Hawaii, 1.8, Massachusetts, 2.0, Connecticut and Rhode Island, 2.4, Nebraska and Wisconsin, 2.9.
For 2013, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty states was 4.4, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.4
For 2012, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.7
For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1
For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9
For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8
For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty
If the death penalty is a deterrent to homicide, as claimed, why should death penalty states have higher homicide rates than those without the death penalty? Any ideas?

As they say, that’s an excellent question.

Or maybe this proves what I think is the case…the death penalty as currently implemented isn’t a deterent. If there was a means to determine guilt that was near 100% accurate and could be administered within hours, not years, then the death penalty would be a deterent. As it stands it’s just a big mess and for some maybe even a step up as far a getting three square meals a day, a warm bed, etc.

It was proven not to be a deterrent years ago.
At one time in Europe, the death penalty was imposed for petty theft, including picking pockets. Crowds would gather at public executions. Pickpockets were known to be very active in those crowds while one or more of their cohorts was being executed for picking pockets.
LL

Could be wrong. But I thought the idea of not having the death penalty was to save lives. If a murder knew he was going to be killed, then what is stopping him from taking more lives?

Apparently there is something else besides punishment. The data clearly shows the death penalty doesn’t work. I’d imagine it’s similar to spanking with children when they lie or misbehave. Severe punishment doesn’t stop it, all it does is make people look for ways to avoid getting caught.

Apparently there is something else besides punishment. The data clearly shows the death penalty doesn't work. I'd imagine it's similar to spanking with children when they lie or misbehave. Severe punishment doesn't stop it, all it does is make people look for ways to avoid getting caught.
Again, the data only applies to the current implementation, which is pretty bad. And the pickpocket case is no data at all, not the least since it referred to a completely different society and timeframe.
Could be wrong. But I thought the idea of not having the death penalty was to save lives. If a murder knew he was going to be killed, then what is stopping him from taking more lives?
No murderer "knows" he's going to be killed or even caught. I doubt there is a muderer in human history who thought about being caught or the the consequences at the moment of the murder (except maybe for mercy killings by a loved one.). Most murderers either don't think about it or don't think they'll be caught. Those who are caught usually figure they can avoid the death penalty, epecially of they have enough money for shrewd lawyers. Or they commit suicide. If anyone seriously thought he'd be caught breaking any law, he probably wouldn't do it. Lois
Apparently there is something else besides punishment. The data clearly shows the death penalty doesn't work. I'd imagine it's similar to spanking with children when they lie or misbehave. Severe punishment doesn't stop it, all it does is make people look for ways to avoid getting caught.
Again, the data only applies to the current implementation, which is pretty bad. And the pickpocket case is no data at all, not the least since it referred to a completely different society and timeframe. But human nature doesn't change. Humans are psychologically the same as they've ever been. Lois
Could be wrong. But I thought the idea of not having the death penalty was to save lives. If a murder knew he was going to be killed, then what is stopping him from taking more lives?
No murderer "knows" he's going to be killed or even caught. I doubt there is a muderer in human history who thought about being caught or the the consequences at the moment of the murder (except maybe for mercy killings by a loved one.). Most murderers either don't think about it or don't think they'll be caught. Those who are caught usually figure they can avoid the death penalty, epecially of they have enough money for shrewd lawyers. Or they commit suicide. If anyone seriously thought he'd be caught breaking any law, he probably wouldn't do it. LoisSay whaaa? Of course people think about being caught. Have you ever been stopped at a red light when no one is around for apparently miles? And yet you just sit there because you think as soon as you pull out there might be a cop hiding or something and he'll catch you. And really, more to the point, it's not necessarily the getting caught, but having to pay a huge fine. And in the case of killing and the death penalty, the calculation the would be killer makes is, I may get caught but I'm certainly not gonna die anytime soon.

[quote=“cuthbertj, post:10, topic:5221”]

Could be wrong. But I thought the idea of not having the death penalty was to save lives. If a murder knew he was going to be killed, then what is stopping him from taking more lives?

George Carlin had a remedy for that.

(warning crude language)

too funny… :flushed:

And what happens if you kill the wrong person? You can’t undo that wrong. Life in prison is better, because if you convict an innocent person, they can fight it and get justice for being wrongly convicted. Meanwhile, there’s still a chance to get the right person. That and as Loisl showed, the death penalty doesn’t work. States with the death penalty have more murder and mayhem.

[quote=“mikeyohe, post:5, topic:5221, full:true”]

Could be wrong. But I thought the idea of not having the death penalty was to save lives. If a murder knew he was going to be killed, then what is stopping him from taking more lives?

Obviously, you have not listened to Carlin. The death penalty is only effective on people who are afraid to die. Drugdealers aren’t afraid to die.

The bankers who handle the drug money are afraid to die. Those are the ones that need to be executed. It’ll stop the drug trade in a hurry. You won’t even be able to get drugs in schools and prisons anymore.

Capital Punishment is not a deterrent because it’s so rare. If we were executing criminals 24/7 it would have a much bigger effect. Of course some of the worst criminals simply have no fear of death but most of the worst are not like that.

Another big thing with capital punishment is the sense of retributive justice it provides which is attractive to a lot of people. It also guarantees the criminal will absolutely not be a repeat offender. :smirk:

[quote=“thatoneguy, post:14, topic:5221”]

If we were executing criminals 24/7 it would have a much bigger effect. Of course some of the worst criminals simply have no fear of death but most of the worst are not like that.

In fact you’re absolutely correct. But what’s more, we could use it to raise money to balance the national budget.

George Carlin explained this policy in detail.

See above post # 11

What about those who are imprisoned for a crime they did not commit? If we were executing criminals 24/7 then there’d be no chance to prove one’s innocence if they are really innocent.

[quote=“mriana, post:16, topic:5221”]

What about those who are imprisoned for a crime they did not commit? If we were executing criminals 24/7 then there’d be no chance to prove one’s innocence if they are really innocent.

But we would have a balanced budget! … :blush:… sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Missed you posting. Sorry.

There is no science to what you claim. The same states also have the highest number of illegal immigrations to the United States. And those same state also have the highest number of SNAP recipients (welfare).

And how many “innocent persons” get released because of finding a loophole in the case. If someone murders my family, I want them put to death. Not sitting around using my tax dollar to get out.

The way I see it is that when the death penalty is imposed it must be vetted which can take years. That vetting is to make sure an innocent person is not put to death.

And that’s worse than murder?

I’m the opposite way. I’d rather see them rot in prison than to be just as guilty as they are of murder if they did it. I see no reason to do what they did to them. Forcing to them to live with what they did in prison seems more punishing than killing them. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth makes us just as guilty of the same crime they committed. Locking them up for life is enough. Murder is murder no matter if it’s the criminal or the revengeful doing it. Thus, you’d be guilty of murder too, if you had them killed for killing your family. Let rot and suffer in prison for life if they are truly guilty. If they are not, then allow them to prove their innocence, because once they are dead, it’s too late to prove it, because they are dead and can no longer prove it.

The rot in prison use to be what I wanted. But then I realized these guys become idols to woman who want to marry them in prison. They work the system to find a loophole. We pay people to watch them, feed them and health care. Just the cost of running the system is over $300 Billion per year. Not counting all the hidden costs of incarceration. Washington University in St. Louis did some research and says the cost of incarceration is more than a trillion dollar per year. With the new Obama care said to cost a family of four from $7,000 to $30,000 per year. We need to start cutting the costs of other programs. Tax the people to much and people will just give up and let the government take care of them. Young people do not see working as a method to get ahead in life. You would be surprised by the number of people that see success as wining a lawsuit or getting a government check.

I also think that most of the cases of innocence people in prison are much older cases. And why does it take twenty to thirty years to DNA test evidence? I do feel that the amount paid by states to an innocence person is not enough. It should be at least 12 times the average income.