Death penalty discussion

[Dr.Who]

No wonder I couldn't figure out what you were talking about! You're digging up a dead subject. In McClesky, SCOTUS ruled that the Baldus study failed to present any factual basis for concluding that race was a factor in sentencing, which is why McClesky was executed in 1991.

The McCleskey case is precisely why the Baldus Study isn't used by anyone in a serious discussion about the death penalty, it's FLAWED.

I didn't know.

I'll see if ther are any others.

 

[Dr.Who]

While lookin for data on the "race gap" I found that the McKlesky case was thrown out for a different reason - moot.

Anyway, the justice department collected data and found that for every kind of offense blacks receive harsher sentences than whites.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/scscf04/tables/scs04205tab.htm

The quote:

"Data collected from state courts by the Justice Department also shows that a higher percentage of black felons than white felons receive prison sentences for nearly all offenses, and also that blacks receive longer maximum sentences for most offenses. "

Here is another. Bear in mind that the death penalty should be given solely on the basis of what the crime was and not based at all on how savvy the perpertrator is. If smart criminals (or rich or whatever) can get away with lighter sentences then that is not fair.

Among federal cases in which the Justice Department decided to pursue the death penalty and that reached a courtroom on the issue, 60 percent of white defendants have avoided capital punishment through a negotiated settlement. Typically, those plea bargains result in either life sentences or long prison terms but spare the life of the defendant.

By contrast, 41 percent of black defendants in those cases have reached such an agreement with prosecutors, according to an analysis of data collected by the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project, which tracks federal capital cases for federal public defender organizations.

http://www.jessejacksonjr.org/query/creadpr.cgi?id=1489

 

[Federal Farmer]

While lookin for data on the "race gap" I found that the McKlesky case was thrown out for a different reason - moot.

Anyway, the justice department collected data and found that for every kind of offense blacks receive harsher sentences than whites.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/scscf04/tables/scs04205tab.htm

The quote:

"Data collected from state courts by the Justice Department also shows that a higher percentage of black felons than white felons receive prison sentences for nearly all offenses, and also that blacks receive longer maximum sentences for most offenses. "

Here is another. Bear in mind that the death penalty should be given solely on the basis of what the crime was and not based at all on how savvy the perpetrator is. If smart criminals (or rich or whatever) can get away with lighter sentences then that is not fair.

Among federal cases in which the Justice Department decided to pursue the death penalty and that reached a courtroom on the issue, 60 percent of white defendants have avoided capital punishment through a negotiated settlement. Typically, those plea bargains result in either life sentences or long prison terms but spare the life of the defendant.

By contrast, 41 percent of black defendants in those cases have reached such an agreement with prosecutors, according to an analysis of data collected by the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project, which tracks federal capital cases for federal public defender organizations.

http://www.jessejacksonjr.org/query/creadpr.cgi?id=1489

OK, I'm going to call a partial BS on this post, and I'll tell you why; you first presented a statement invoking the Justice Department (with a link, thank you very much), but then you followed it up with a quote, that the casual observer would tend to believe was from your Justice Department link IF THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY CLICK ON IT, which is turns out to ACTUALLY be from Jesse Jackson Jr., one of the most renowned RACE BAITERS in the country! I realize you included a link to the article by Jackson (again, thank you), but as you failed to directly attribute the quote to Jackson, one might have tended to believe that his words were those of a Justice Department official.

Now, I'm going to assume that there was no conscious intention on your part to deceive, so if I may be so bold as to offer a suggestion, it would be better in the future if you were to be clearer in your postings and to be sure to separate quotes from different sources in order to avoid any possible confusion.

Now, on to the context of your post. As you can see by the Justice Department numbers you provided, they're talking about percentages and not raw numbers. Nor did they delve into the specifics of the crimes committed, so it's impossible to properly derive any conclusion since we don't know if the percent of blacks who received harsher sentences than their white contemporaries had other mitigating factors tied to their primary offense (murder AND drug dealing, murder AND rape, murder by a repeat offender, etc.). Statistical analysis is all well and good IF you have ALL of the facts, but lacking the specifics, it's very easy to draw the WRONG conclusion.

A couple of interesting charts for comparison would be THIS one, which details the length of sentencing for various crimes.

In looking at the TOTAL category, in cases of sexual assault, including rape, black defendants were sentenced to LESSER time than their white contemporaries, for drug offenses the sentences were the same, for trafficking blacks received lesser sentences than whites, and for "other offenses" the sentencing was the same, so where is the "racism" in these sentences?

If you look at THIS table, we find that among the percent of convicted felons, murderers are at 1% regardless of race, while on violent offenses whites are 17%, blacks 18% and "other" 22% (I don't know who this "other" is, but they're awfully violent, aren't they?). For sexual assault, whites are at 4%, blacks at 2%, and "other" 3%. On Property Offenses, whites led the pack with 31%, blacks 26% and "other" at 27%. For "Other Offenses", whites are at 19%, with blacks at 12%, and "other" at 23%, so again, where is the "racism"?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Scotsman

Here is the evidence that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

In the UK in 1965 the death penalty was abolished.

If you are right that the death penalty is a deterrent it is logical that the murder rate would have risen significantly in the following year when the 'deterrent' was removed.

It didn't and it hasn't in any country or state where the death penalty has been abolished and other factors have remained largely unchanged.

I am afraid that that is incontravertible evidence my friend but unfortunately most people in favour of the death penlaty don't let facts get in the way of their vicious and often religious inspired pious need for revenge.

 

[Dr.Who]

I apologise for the quotes that appeared to come from the same source but did not. It was just an artifact of the one leading me to the other. It was JJ's site that linked the Justice dept.

I don't like JJ's politics and he is a race baiter but if he posted facts and links then I don't care. What I do care about is if his facts were right or wrong.

Now, on to the context of your post. As you can see by the Justice Department numbers you provided, they're talking about percentages and not raw numbers. Nor did they delve into the specifics of the crimes committed, so it's impossible to properly derive any conclusion since we don't know if the percent of blacks who received harsher sentences than their white contemporaries had other mitigating factors tied to their primary offense (murder AND drug dealing, murder AND rape, murder by a repeat offender, etc.). Statistical analysis is all well and good IF you have ALL of the facts, but lacking the specifics, it's very easy to draw the WRONG conclusion.

percentages would be a better way to look at it than it raw numbers.

It is possible that all the blacks committing crimes always did so while doing other things to incur harsher sentences - but I doubt it.

If you wan to believe that the statistical difference are all due the qualities of the person and not to the qualities of our justice system then I haven't disproven that but you haven't proven it either.

It just seems improbable that all the bias is due to the people and none is due to the system.


Our country has a history of being unfair to blacks in many ways including the legal system. We have made great strides and improvements. Is it easier to believe that we have solved all the inequalities in sentencing or that at least some of it still exists?

 

[Federal Farmer]

I apologise for the quotes that appeared to come from the same source but did not. It was just an artifact of the one leading me to the other. It was JJ's site that linked the Justice dept.

No problem. As I said, I don't think it was anything intentional, I just wanted to take the opportunity to point out that it very easily could have been misconstrued that way.

I don't like JJ's politics and he is a race baiter but if he posted facts and links then I don't care. What I do care about is if his facts were right or wrong.

They're both. The numbers may very well be correct, but the CONTEXT is skewed to support his race baiting agenda (otherwise, he'd have to get out there and get a REAL job).

percentages would be a better way to look at it than it raw numbers.

But they are meaningless without the context of the actual numbers.

It is possible that all the blacks committing crimes always did so while doing other things to incur harsher sentences - but I doubt it.

If you wan to believe that the statistical difference are all due the qualities of the person and not to the qualities of our justice system then I haven't disproven that but you haven't proven it either.

It just seems improbable that all the bias is due to the people and none is due to the system.


Our country has a history of being unfair to blacks in many ways including the legal system. We have made great strides and improvements. Is it easier to believe that we have solved all the inequalities in sentencing or that at least some of it still exists?

OK, the "sin of slavery" aside, and acknowledging that blacks enjoy ALL of the same Rights and privileges that everyone else enjoys (despite their blatant refusal to take advantage of the opportunities that have been GIVEN to them by their "white masters") the very present fact is that the majority of blacks, especially urban blacks, are vastly CULTURALLY different than every other race in America, and in the last 20 years they've done almost everything they can to RE-segregate themselves. Given that very high percentage of urban blacks that CHOOSE to reside in government housing, and subsist on government handouts, who are involved in gangs, drugs, and almost every other nefarious means of "entertaining" themselves, it's little wonder that they are representative of a vastly inequitable number of crimes.

From the BJS:

In 2005 black homicide victims tended to be younger than white victims with about half being between the ages of 17 and 29, compared to about 37 percent of white victims. About half of homicides against blacks occurred in cities with a population of at least 250,000 people. Among single victim-single offender homicides, about 93 percent of black victims were murdered by black offenders. About 77 percent of black homicide victims were killed with a firearm.

When we study THIS table from the DJS, we see that since 1976, blacks were between 2 and 3 times more likely to kill a white person than a white was to kill a black person. For example, in 2005, blacks killed 934 white people, while whites killed 337 black people.

Simply said, if there IS any "racism" in the interpretation of the data, it's in giving black defendants the "benefit of the doubt" far and above what the sheer statistics would direct.

 

[Dr.Who]

Simply said, if there IS any "racism" in the interpretation of the data, it's in giving black defendants the "benefit of the doubt" far and above what the sheer statistics would direct.

And yet we have gotten a little off course. I don't really mean to base a whole arguement on the existence of discrimination against blacks. (after all at many other times I would be arguing that discrimination as largely been solved and is not a factor in certain instances) I was just trying to post an example that the justice system is not as blind as it should be, that it is not based solely on the rule of law, that prosecutions are not without cultural and politcal influences, etc. I clearly did not "win" my case that racism is a reason to suspend the death penalty but I hope that I have given people pause for thought and at least raised some red flags not just about racism as it relates but about any factor at all that could impede blind justice. I think you already agree that it is not perfect I just hope we at least both question if it is fair enough. At this point I doubt it but you have caused me to question my doubt.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Scotsman

Here is the evidence that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

In the UK in 1965 the death penalty was abolished.

If you are right that the death penalty is a deterrent it is logical that the murder rate would have risen significantly in the following year when the 'deterrent' was removed.

It didn't and it hasn't in any country or state where the death penalty has been abolished and other factors have remained largely unchanged.

I am afraid that that is incontravertible evidence my friend but unfortunately most people in favour of the death penlaty don't let facts get in the way of their vicious and often religious inspired pious need for revenge.

Comparing UK homicide rates and US homicide rates is specious on it's face. To begin with, the UK has a population of only 60.6 million while the US has a population of 300 million. Even if we look strictly at the per capita rate, that's not giving an accurate portrayal of the facts.

The UK has a per capita homicide rate of 2.03 per 100,000.
The US has a per capita homicide rate of 5.50 per 100,000.

Yet when we look at the highest homicide rate in the US, Washington DC, which has (until the recent Heller decision) gun laws on par with the UK, we find that they have a homicide rate of 80 per 100,000, while Arlington VA (right across the Potomac River) which has no such restrictions has a homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000, which is lower than the UK average. Further, when one looks at some of the cities in the UK we find that they have much higher homicide rates than the US in general, and in some cases, even higher than Washington DC.

Glasgow Scotland has a homicide rate of 5.9 per 100,000.
Manchester (metro area) has a homicide rate of 10 per 100,000
If you look at Moss Side, Longsight, and Hulme in the Manchester area, we find a homicide rate of 140 per 100,000, almost TWICE that of the "murder capital of the US". What's really amazing is that in 2000, of all of these homicides in Manchester, and including their vaunted 1997 firearms ban, 3.7 per 100,000 of these homicides were committed with HANDGUNS. I guess, like here, the criminals didn't get the memo that they weren't supposed to have guns.

Prior to the 1997 ban on handguns until 2003, crimes committed with a firearm rose from 13,874 to 24,070, a 73% increase!

In 1965, when the death penalty was abolished in Great Britain, England and Wales had 0.68 homicides per 100,000, but by 2004 (the latest information available), England and Wales are up to 1.62 per 100,000, a 238% INCREASE in homicides. In Scotland, homicides over the same period have risen from 1.21 per 100,000 in 1965, to 2.56 per 100,000 today, more than DOUBLE the previous rate. In Northern Ireland, which had a homicide rate of 0.27 per 100,000 in 1965, the rate has risen to 2.48 per 100,000 today, more than 900% higher than in 1965!!

It would appear that your assertion that the death penalty has "no deterrent effect" is as specious as most Liberal assertions, essentially because you consistently fail to look at FACTS, preferring instead to rely on emotion and "feelings".

Beginning in 1966, the homicide rate in your country has STEADILY increased. Looking strictly at England and Wales, in 1965, the Homicide rate was 0.68 per 100,000. In '66, it was 0.76, by 1974 it was up to 1.06, by 1979 it was 1.10, by 1987 it was up to 1.19, by 1995 it was up to 1.28, in 1999 it was up to 1.45, until finally in 2003 it was up to it's current level of 1.62 per 100,000.

In the US, prior to the 1972 decision by SCOTUS to suspend the death penalty, the homicide rate was 8.6 per 100,000. After the suspension, by 1974 it had jumped to 9.8 per 100,000 until it's high in 1980 of 10.2 per 100,000. Following the reversal of their decision in 1976, and with more and more States re-allowing the death penalty (most hadn't by the high in 1980), the homicide rates have DROPPED. By 1984 the rate had dropped to 7.9 per 100,000, before rising again to 8.7 per 100,000 in 1989, and modestly increasing through 1991 to 9.8 per 100,000 (by which time most States had finally re-adopted their death penalty laws), at which time it began a sharp decrease in homicides, falling to 5.7 per 100,000 by 1999 where it is today.

Simply put, and contrary to your specious claims to the contrary, without the death penalty, YOUR homicide rates have increased (as did ours when we were dumb enough to follow your silly example), while in America, since we abandoned the folly of the 1970's "Kumbya" non-sense, our homicide rates have been cut by almost 50%, and that IS incontrovertible proof.
SOURCE

 

[Federal Farmer]

And yet we have gotten a little off course. I don't really mean to base a whole arguement on the existence of discrimination against blacks. (after all at many other times I would be arguing that discrimination as largely been solved and is not a factor in certain instances) I was just trying to post an example that the justice system is not as blind as it should be, that it is not based solely on the rule of law, that prosecutions are not without cultural and politcal influences, etc. I clearly did not "win" my case that racism is a reason to suspend the death penalty but I hope that I have given people pause for thought and at least raised some red flags not just about racism as it relates but about any factor at all that could impede blind justice. I think you already agree that it is not perfect I just hope we at least both question if it is fair enough. At this point I doubt it but you have caused me to question my doubt.

My friend, I would first like to thank you for a well thought out response. CUDO'S!!

As to your observation that Justice may not be as blind as we would prefer, nobody can argue that point. As long as human beings are involved in the process, there WILL be errors, of that we can be 100% certain. The question then becomes, are we to totally abandon something that, at least according to the raw data, has been shown to be an effective tool in deterring crime simply because it's not 100% effective, for a system that has been shown to only exacerbate the problem?

I'm reminded of the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic here in America, when it was still called "GRID" (Gay Related Immune Deficiency). The CDC in Atlanta determined that the test for Hepatitis B was something like 85% effective in weeding out "GRID" infected blood donations (I'm shooting from memory here, so if the percentage is off, I respectfully ask for your indulgence), yet because the test wasn't 100% effective, the American Red Cross wouldn't use it to screen all of their blood donations, which led to many hundreds of thousands of transfusion transmitted cases of HIV/AIDS, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Hemophiliacs, heart patients, and many many others who went into the hospital for surgery, only later to discover that the system they had trusted and depended upon to save them had actually KILLED them.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The death penlaty is not a deterrent.

In 1965 the UK abolished the death penalty.

If your argument is right then there would have been a big increase in murders in 1966 when the 'deterrent' was taken away.

There wasn't and the same stats appy everywhere, other things being equal.

That is proof.

Most murders are committed in the heat of argument, often fuelled by alcohol when reason (and consideration of the consequences) flies out of the window,

The death penalty is not a deterrent but it does ensure that the state murders people.

Are you prepared to be executed for a crime you did not commit?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Come on Federal farmer

Are you prepared to be executed for a crime you didn't commit?

 

[honeybunny]

Given the recent SCOTUS decision concerning the overturning of Louisiana's death penalty for child rape, I was hoping that one or more of the members of the Left, or even on the Right, could explain the rationale for NOT executing someone who commits such a heinous crime. I want to be clear here, I am NOT talking about cases where the evidence is even remotely sketchy, I'm only talking about cases where there is no doubt in anyones mind as to whether or not the perpetrator did in fact commit the crime.

I look forward to reading your responses, thank you in advance.

Well, there have been many people that were very, very convicingly guilty.....even with eye witness testimony, and yet...were found through DNA evidence to actually be innocent....and I would rather see someone get away with it, or just go to jail, than the wrong person get executed....I personally have always been in favor of the death penalty, especially with repeat sex offenders, but murderers can usually do about 7 years, and get out on good behavior.

I believe that DNA evidence should be the determining factor with reguards to whether someone is "really" guilty, but then with some of these crooked cops, you could actually have DNA "planting" going on, and even then, they may be innocent.
It is so tough for me...because on the one hand, if someone harmed my child, I would personally kill them myself, yet, if my son was wrongfully convicted of hurting someone's child, I would at least want to be able to visit him in prison.

What if your son was executed for something you KNEW he didn't do...what if an eye witness described him, and pulled him out of the line-up, and somehow DNA ended up in his house, but you KNEW he didn't do it? That is partly why so many people are torn, plus with DNA, they have proven that sooooo many times they convicted the WRONG PERSON, how is that fair? I say, if they are repeat sex offenders, at some point either the 2nd. or 3rd. time, they should be castrated. If it's a woman, she should just be away for good.... I say, why don't we have 1 great big prison, strictly for sex offenders, let them all offend each other, LOL
All murderers should be together, all robbers should be together, that is how prisons should be operated....and I think one of the best things we ever did was the "3 strikes your out"

I believe that even if someone is not judged in life, they will eventually be judged.

 

[honeybunny]

1)There is no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent.
2)Heinous punishment brutalises society and makes it worse for everyone
3)Locking someone up for ever solves the problem in a way with the option for release in the event of a miscarriage of justice
4)The only thing missing is that none of these points above satisfy the emotional desire for revenge and regarding your point about 'sketchy' evidence... are you saying that people should be locked up for life on the basis of 'sketchy' evidence but executed when the evidence is stronger or have you just not thought the logic through?
If you are black and poor in the US there is a significant chance that you will be convicted whatever the facts when on trial. The evidence will be 'sketched' with darker crayons

I had read that black people were 20% more likely to be murderers, and that 90% of the time, the victims were other black people...I don't know if that's true...But, if they are killing more, that is probably why they are convicted more....do you think? Although I am the first person to say that our judicial system NEEDS HELP!! It is totally messed up!! My aunt was a judge for years...I just think that more specific crimes need more specific punishment, less time should be spent on the "hows" and "whys"...I don't care WHY you did it, or HOW you did it, you did it, and the punishment is "this" no matter your race, sex, or whatever! Although I do believe that age should be considered....and that children should be dealt wth differently.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You racist

Poor people are more likely to be murderers and most black people are poor because up until 40 years ago the US operated a system of apartheid and the institutional racism in the US that facilltated that ensures that black people are impoverished and treated unjustly.

You are several times more likley to be convicted if you are black but that does not mean you committed the offence.

You should be ashamed of yourself

 

[dahermit]

You racist

You are several times more likley to be convicted if you are black but that does not mean you committed the offence.

Please cite your source where you get this information. Specifically, that Blacks are more likely to be convicted of a crime they did not commit that Whites.