Spark wrote:
Most excellent.
I can use this for my essay.
Here is one of Naci Mocan's papers:KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
From the article -
"Executions, commutations, and removals have no impact on robberies, burglaries, assaults, or motor-vehicle thefts."
Not crime, just homicides.
"Controlling for a variety of state characteristics, the paper investigates the impact of the execution rate, commutation and removal rates, homicide arrest rate, sentencing rate, imprisonment rate, and prison death rate on the rate of homicide."
It seems like the report compares the rates of deaths inside prisons/detention centers, not the outside society? So basically the report concludes that by killing the person that would otherwise sit in jail, you are stopping him from killing another inmate (average of 5 times a year for all inmates).
I need to read the whole report. What I found (the introduction) can be found here.
http://econ.cudenver.edu/mocan/papers/G … athRow.pdf (Skip to page 5, lol, to find the 5).
Here is a graph from that paper:
Since 1977 (and the death penalty was legal again, per Supreme Court Dec.), this plot (graph) shows the total US Homicides, & parallel to that are states that have a death penalty, there is very little difference in the plotted data (except that the states with a death penalty have a higher homicide rate than the US national average). But, the number of executions appears to be utterly uncorrelated with the 2 parallel to each other trends (data plots). This is from his own paper.
If anything this graph shows an inverse movement in trends (no casual relationship, but there are certainly two social trends happening) - as the homicide rate is going down, regardless of that - we simply are executing more people.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-11 13:01:49)
So it is the total homicide rate of the US. Data shows that in this time frame (20 years, 1977-1997) the average rate of homicides dropped during more executions, and rose during less executions. By an average of 5 per year?topal63 wrote:
Here is one of Naci Mocan's papers:KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
From the article -
"Executions, commutations, and removals have no impact on robberies, burglaries, assaults, or motor-vehicle thefts."
Not crime, just homicides.
"Controlling for a variety of state characteristics, the paper investigates the impact of the execution rate, commutation and removal rates, homicide arrest rate, sentencing rate, imprisonment rate, and prison death rate on the rate of homicide."
It seems like the report compares the rates of deaths inside prisons/detention centers, not the outside society? So basically the report concludes that by killing the person that would otherwise sit in jail, you are stopping him from killing another inmate (average of 5 times a year for all inmates).
I need to read the whole report. What I found (the introduction) can be found here.
http://econ.cudenver.edu/mocan/papers/G … athRow.pdf (Skip to page 5, lol, to find the 5).
Here is a graph from that paper:
http://i16.tinypic.com/4xxh7h3.png
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-06-11 13:11:12)
That's how I understood it - the execution rate is uncorrelated. So how can he come to the conclusion thattopal63 wrote:
Since 1977 (and the death penalty was legal again, per Supreme Court Dec.), this plot (graph) shows the total US Homicides, & parallel to that are states that have a death penalty, there is very little difference in the plotted data (except that the states with a death penalty have a higher homicide rate than the US national average). But, the number of executions appears to be utterly uncorrelated with the 2 parallel to each other trends (data plots). This is from his own paper.
If anything this graph shows an inverse movement in trends (no casual relationship, but there are certainly two social trends happening) - as the homicide rate is going down, regardless of that - we simply are executing more people.
"We find statistically significant relationships between homicide and executions,
commutations and removals. Specifically, each additional execution (commutation)
reduces (increases) homicides by about 5, while an additional removal from death row
generates about one additional murder."
Here is a critical review of the so-called "new evidence":
http://www.rochester.edu/College/PSC/cl … timony.pdf
http://www.rochester.edu/College/PSC/cl … timony.pdf
I already posted this in this thread (on another page). Mocan's paper, methods, data and conclusions are mentioned therein.... but like nearly all claims of strong causal effects from any social or legal intervention, the claims of a "new deterrence" fall apart under scrutiny. These new studies are fraught with technical and conceptual errors: inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failure to consider all relevant factors that drive murder rates, missing data on key variables in key states, the tyranny of a few outlier states and years, and the absence of any test for deterrence.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-06-11 13:43:12)
Sorry, should have checked..topal63 wrote:
Here is a critical review of the so-called "new evidence":
http://www.rochester.edu/College/PSC/cl … timony.pdfI already posted this in this thread (on another page). Mocan's paper, methods, data and conclusions are mentioned therein.... but like nearly all claims of strong causal effects from any social or legal intervention, the claims of a "new deterrence" fall apart under scrutiny. These new studies are fraught with technical and conceptual errors: inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failure to consider all relevant factors that drive murder rates, missing data on key variables in key states, the tyranny of a few outlier states and years, and the absence of any test for deterrence.
From that article:
All the studies fail to control for autoregression, which is the tendency of trends in
longitudinal or time series data to be heavily influenced by the trends in preceding
years.23 In other words, the thing that tells us most about what the murder rate
will be next year is what is was last year. Statistically and conceptually, it is
unlikely that effects of extremely rare events such as executions can influence
trends that are so heavily influenced by their own history
The studies avoid any direct tests of deterrence. They fail to show that murderers
are aware of executions in their own state, much less in far-away states, and that
they rationally decide to forego homicide and use less lethal forms of violence.
Mr_Mindless_Dribble_sarcastically wrote:
Honestly based upon this kind of logic, I should expect the (a, any) murder to rate to plummet - it we ramp up the execution rate. At 15,000 +/- murders per year / 5 saved per execution = 3000 executions per year, more or less, needed to end homicide all together. At about 75 per year at the end of the graph; that is about 2925 short. And, once we eradicate homicides all together; there will not be any one left to execute. But needing a deterrent, we will have to falsely convict other people for murder and execute them so that murder continues to be deterred.
Since 1973, in the US alone, there have been 48,589,993 executions of human beings who have not even been accused of a crime. Where's the outrage over that? Hmmm?
I imagine it's in the same place as the outrage over how a lot of them could have been prevented if the same people who lament those "murders" didn't also do their damndest to block availability of contraceptives and comprehensive sex education in schools. I guess all those sluts out there should either accept their punishment for having sex (pregnancy) or die bleeding out in an alley somewhere eh?Stingray24 wrote:
Since 1973, in the US alone, there have been 48,589,993 executions of human beings who have not even been accused of a crime. Where's the outrage over that? Hmmm?
Does that include what I rubbed out in the shower this morning?Stingray24 wrote:
Since 1973, in the US alone, there have been 48,589,993 executions of human beings who have not even been accused of a crime. Where's the outrage over that? Hmmm?
I don't think that study included those figures. Maybe they just figure abortion is a deterrent.
"Executions of human beings" is highly debatable.
edit: I am not pro-abortion either. I am prolife, and I agree with the idea that early-term abortions where the fetus is a parasite should be legal. I do not agree with late-term abortions where the fetus can survive outside of the womb.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-06-11 14:42:54)
Small price to pay to ensure an innocent person isn't electrocuted to death.M.O.A.B wrote:
But then you have to pay for them to be kept in a cell, fed, clothed and so forth, these are the major downsides to locking everyone up.CameronPoe wrote:
OK. For a second there I thought that read like the strangest Kmarion quote in my long history of reading your posts. Personally if that happened I'd be more content for them to rot in a shitty cell for their entire life as long as they were never guaranteed to see the light of day again. The whole concept of the death penalty just doesn't wash with me.Kmarion wrote:
Cam, there were two sentences in that quote.
But how safe does paying that price make you when you still have LIGHTNING!?!?!?CameronPoe wrote:
Small price to pay to ensure an innocent person isn't electrocuted to death.M.O.A.B wrote:
But then you have to pay for them to be kept in a cell, fed, clothed and so forth, these are the major downsides to locking everyone up.CameronPoe wrote:
OK. For a second there I thought that read like the strangest Kmarion quote in my long history of reading your posts. Personally if that happened I'd be more content for them to rot in a shitty cell for their entire life as long as they were never guaranteed to see the light of day again. The whole concept of the death penalty just doesn't wash with me.
Well, it puts a stop to habitual re-offenders....Studies say death penalty deters crime
Thank you for clarifying your position HunterofSkulls - keep criminals alive just in case, kill the babies for convenience. And more condoms, yes, that's the solution.
I know you don’t need to repeat health class, Ken-Jennings, but for those that do, your swimmers don’t create a new life until one of them meets up with the egg. "Execution of human beings" is only highly debatable with those who refuse to acknowledge the biological fact that a baby in utero is a new human being. Renaming the baby a fetus or calling it a parasite changes nothing about the fact that once an egg is fertilized, it will result in a new human being entering the world unless the process is interrupted by death.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Does that include what I rubbed out in the shower this morning?
I don't think that study included those figures. Maybe they just figure abortion is a deterrent.
"Executions of human beings" is highly debatable.
edit: I am not pro-abortion either. I am prolife, and I agree with the idea that early-term abortions where the fetus is a parasite should be legal. I do not agree with late-term abortions where the fetus can survive outside of the womb.
...or the host of the parasite decides to see whether the little 'human' can survive on its own in the outside world. If it can then fair play to it but otherwise adios amoeba.Stingray24 wrote:
Renaming the baby a fetus or calling it a parasite changes nothing about the fact that once an egg is fertilized, it will result in a new human being entering the world unless the process is interrupted by death.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-06-11 16:50:37)
This just is not factually correct! A pregnancy can terminate for numerious reasons with out the mother dieing or her willing it to happen. a Fetus is not a sentient human being in much the same way a Caterpillar is not a Butterfly..Stingray24 wrote:
it will result in a new human being entering the world unless the process is interrupted by death.
And thank you for clarifying your position - Kill them all, "God" will know His own.Stingray24 wrote:
Thank you for clarifying your position HunterofSkulls - keep criminals alive just in case, kill the babies for convenience. And more condoms, yes, that's the solution.
I see you like to use the inflammatory and visceral imagery too. "Babies", as if someone's going around offing toddlers in strollers. Oh I know, that kind of visual gets people a lot more incensed than actual medical and scientific reality does. But let's be honest here sport; calling it a baby doesn't make it one. That you would have actual real live walking talking human beings killed even though some of them might be totally innocent just to satisfy your desire for blood vengeance while you complain about a medical procedure that doesn't kill nearly as many "babies" as miscarriges do (might want to have a word with your god about that first) is mind-boggling. That you claim it all falls under the umbrella of "convenience" is just plain sickening. Yes, it might be "inconvenient" for a woman to give birth to her rapist's child. It might be "inconvenient" for a family of lesser means to end up with another mouth to feed on their same budget. It might be "inconvenient" for a woman to die in childbirth. It might be "inconvenient" for any woman to have to have a child because some moralizing fucktard sets himself up as the final arbiter of what happens and should happen to the bodies of other people.
Since we're apparently going to health class, maybe you can tell me how preventing those "swimmers" from meeting up with an egg doesn't alleviate the need for an abortion. Or did I miss another memo and not know that women are having their ovum aborted now, before they're even fertilized? You don't want abortions? Fine, I don't want 'em either. It's an invasive and risky surgical procedure. Comprehensive sex education and available contraception methods will decrease their necessity. This is a fact. It's also a fact that it means people will still be fucking outside of marriage. It means people will fuck for the sheer fun of it. Now I'm sorry if that kind of thing offends you or your misanthropic schzophrenic little sky god, but that's reality. Sex feels good. Human beings like to do things that feel good, especially if it's with someone they care about and there's no hazards or negative repercussions, like say unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. Wanting people to continue to be exposed to risk just to satisfy the moral strictures of your invisible friend? Well that strikes me as being just as twisted as any murderer on Death Row could be.
QFE.IG-Calibre wrote:
This just is not factually correct! A pregnancy can terminate for numerious reasons with out the mother dieing or her willing it to happen. a Fetus is not a sentient human being in much the same way a Caterpillar is not a Butterfly..Stingray24 wrote:
it will result in a new human being entering the world unless the process is interrupted by death.