Originally Posted by StlngMyChps

Correlation not causation.

http://www.dnainfo.com/20120209/manh...spike-cops-say

According to NYPD, decreases in crime are due to diligent police work, but increases are due to it being warm out.

'serious crimes' reported in NYC so far in 2012 are at 9,902, up from 9,366 a year ago; the sole reason? not enough snow

 

Originally Posted by kellykip

http://www.dnainfo.com/20120209/manh...spike-cops-say

According to NYPD, decreases in crime are due to diligent police work, but increases are due to it being warm out.

'serious crimes' reported in NYC so far in 2012 are at 9,902, up from 9,366 a year ago; the sole reason? not enough snow

Who wants to murder when it's cold out?

 

Originally Posted by warden

no, but you can analyze the differences in murder rates between places that have the death penalty and those that don't

 

Originally Posted by warden

if my other option is, "ignore any evidence and just go by what i claim," i'll go with the imperfect evidence

By saying that a state that enjoys lower murder rates because of the lack of death penalties, is to say that murder rates increase because of death penalties. So people murder more is what you believe?

 

Originally Posted by StlngMyChps

Who wants to murder when it's cold out?

It's NYPD code for 'blacks don't like the cold'

 

Originally Posted by killingbird

what if the killer was 12 years old? How about 8?

I would say a teenager sure as hell knows murder is wrong. 11 12 I guess take it on a case by case basis. Any younger and I say no.

 

Originally Posted by warden

didn't say this. try again.

Yes you did and you don't even realize it. You stated that you can tell if the death penalty is a deterrent by comparing states without it to states with it. If you think this comparison would prove that the death penalty isn't a deterrent then you believe murder's chose not to murder because their state doesn't have capital punishment.
Which is just asinine.

The only comparison you can make about a states murder rate is to compare it to itself before and after the abolition of the penalty. That was my point. You cannot compare two states because they are different places, different people different attittudes and rules. FFS.

 

Originally Posted by warden

what it means is that the death penalty does not have a statistically significant effect on the murder rate.

Sigh..... You say "compare murder rates from state A to B... then say "the death penalty does not have a statistically significant effect on the murder rate." You defeat your own argument guy.

Comparing states murder rates has ZERO bearing on the deterrence effect. NONE ZIP ZILCH NADA. I bet you are a religious man too with your willingness to accept imperfect evidence.....

 

Originally Posted by Russell Crowe

Hahaaha gold!
Amslim asked if anyone would give their own life to prevent all future murders. I would snap give my life if it meant a guaranteed assurance of saftey for the rest of the world. It is also my stance that the world is grossly over populated and I would snap die if it meant the Earth would flourish and thrive. Doubt many people would agree but what makes any one of us so important that we should disregard the needs of so many over our one life? Sorry, I'm hella baked and my rant might not have come out clearly.
Also how the F does Kellykip win every thread?

If I had a choice between dying now or the Earth gets destroyed in 200 years, I choose Earth's destruction.

Why? Is that because of an ego driven motive? I doubt I'll ever have kids so my choice is not for my future offspring but merely a realization that I'm no more important than the rest of the world (trees, animals, humans etc). Respect your oppinions Dyz so jus askin

 

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Because I'm more important to me than anyone else. This doesn't mean I wouldn't give my life for someone else today (I would have given my life in a second to cure my mom's cancer when I learned of it for example) but I have no connection to anyone 200 years from now. And to be honest, in some ways I abhor humanity in general. I could do a lot more for the world today but the rest of the world is so intent on imposing their morals and rules upon me that it has made me quite jaded and disgusted in that regard. I have no interest in "saving" a race who's only goal seems to be power and domination over their fellow man.

That's pretty heavy.

People are selfish, narcissistic, and when assembled in a group hold others to standards that they themselves will shun in private. Overall I do not trust most people to have my best interests at heart. I have my 'tribe' of people, just like most people, and I'm good with that group of people in the flesh.

OT fills lots of other voids for me though, when it comes to discussion partners.

 

Originally Posted by StlngMyChps

Sigh..... You say "compare murder rates from state A to B... then say "the death penalty does not have a statistically significant effect on the murder rate." You defeat your own argument guy.

explain what you mean here

first, i said "analyze" and not "compare" for a reason. there are a ton of factors you have to control for before doing any sort of regression like this.

second, after that comparison, the result is that the death penalty does not have a statistically significant effect on the murder rate. i fail to see how that "defeats my own argument." i'm not saying that the existence of the death penalty encourages people to murder; all i'm saying is that there is no deterrent effect.

 

Originally Posted by StlngMyChps

Comparing states murder rates has ZERO bearing on the deterrence effect. NONE ZIP ZILCH NADA. I bet you are a religious man too with your willingness to accept imperfect evidence.....

you're relying on *no* evidence. what are you talking about?

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

Maybe they should kill her parents

probly

 

Originally Posted by AmSlim22

i think it basically comes down to the revenge mentality is not even close to a justification for the death penalty and that is its main purpose. there is no other compelling argument for why we should kill a murderer. it doesnt deter and it isn't cheaper if we want to give all people due process.

my main reason against the death penalty is that if u get it wrong, it is the worst thing u could do to somebody. there is no making up for it. and it has been gotten wrong. there are more than a few people who were on death row and if it was up to some itt, they would have been executed based on the evidence and later we would have found out they were innocent.

obv if we were 100% right on the ability to sort out the guilty from the innocent, i would be slightly less against the death penalty, but we aren't. there is way too much politics and a need to satisfy the public in some of these cases that police and prosecution do some really shady shit to get convictions.

this leads to my other problem with most people in this thread who are saying kill her. it is those types of people that the police and prosecution are trying to please when they tamper with evidence, coerce questionable witnesses and do all sorts of other things to get a conviction. the need for revenge and justice and someone to satisfy the mob becomes as important as finding the truth. (another discussion could be about what to do to shady police and prosecutors who do illegal stuff to get innocent people sent away for a long time)

there is always someone in a thread like this who says, well what if it happened to your daughter or whatever. that is the worst case to be made. u don't want a person who just lost a loved one in a tragic, brutal, awful way to be the one who is deciding policy on what to do in all cases. nobody ever asks the question, what if u were wrongly accused and strung up by a mob to quench their thirst for revenge.

we could also get more into the specifics of this case and the fact that it involves a 15yr old girl and talk about what should be done in that situation as well, but that prob wont happen. it is very likely that she should and needs to spend the rest of her life behind bars, but i have a prob with killing someone that young when she was prob failed in so many ways by a lot of people leading up to this event.

at this point to just say we need to kill her and be done with her is like wiping a problem under the rug. it does nothing to prevent a similar situation from happening, but some people will just think, "hey we caught her, tried her and killed her. a victory for us." and then go on whistling thru their day. this does nothing to address how a 15yr old girl became a killer and what if anything could be done to prevent it in future.



see u just lose all credibility. so u are going to kill innocent people, even tho using the death penalty shows to not be a deterrent to crime, but u think ur new super death penalty system will for sure be a deterrent so its ok to kill a few innocent people.

u also plan to review all the cases urself............................................ ....................

This is pretty well written post. I agree that killing her does not do justice for the family of the victim and shouldn't be done to appease the public. But if you decide to kill another person there is no place for you on this earth. Everyone should have the right to go through the appeal process to further reduce the chance of an innocent person being put to death. I also agree we need to look into preventing these things by figuring out why she made this choice.

Also it is my personal belief that when a police officer or judge or something commits a crime, they should be punished double what the common man would receive. They need to be held at a higher standard. too often officers are just slapped on the wrist and departments try to sweep it under the rug to prevent humiliation. If the penalties were carried out like this, I think you would get better quality people enforcing our laws.

 

Originally Posted by Willywoo

The benefit is that if we are wrong we can let them go free when and if the truth becomes known.

What is the detriment to keeping them in prison without parole?

keeping them in jail for life without parole will cause a threat to the rest of the prison population... some of which are in there from unfair laws.

 

Originally Posted by Hank H1LL

come on now... the human intellect is the best chance we have to reach out to the stars.

if you're lucky enough to have the ability, the vision, the humility... then you should be ashamed not to attempt pushing forward the boundaries of human knowledge. you can quickly become jaded as the people around you fall short, but in the end we have power over just one. it's a matter of perspective imo, don't get beat down by humanity...

the thread about evil finally came full circle

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000
wp HH