Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Texas, death penalty - sharing interesting things I found.
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
Texas, death penalty - sharing interesting things I found.  Reply with quote  

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/28/executions.study.ap/index.html

I read this and decided to do a little bit of number crunching.

The article states that Texas resumed executions 20 years ago, so I rounded down to 2000 and 1980. 1980 is a year where there WEREN'T executions and 2000 represents a year in which there WERE.

So, proponents of the death penalty will argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to violent crime (the only type of crime, I beleive, that can warrant the death penalty in Texas - however, that's fairly irrelevant as you'll see).

1980
Violent crime: 77,978
Population: 14,169,829


2000
Violent crime: 113,653
Population: 20,851,820

Data Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

So...what if the violent crimes are tied to the population increase? I'm no statistician, but I'm pretty sure that if I simply divide the population by the violent crimes I'll get a number that I can compare with a reasonable amount of certainty (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong).

Pre-death penalty (1980): 181
Post-death penalty (2000): 183

So...while there was actually an INCREASE in the amount of violent crime after a little more than 15 years of the death penalty (is this long enough for said deterrent to "set in"?!?) it would do little good to note that. What is of NO little note however, is that the death penalty - numerically speaking at least - has NOT acted as a deterrent.

Discuss.

Peace,
Shane
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 9:24 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

WOAH...holy shit.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Arrgh.

Massachusetts (has no death penalty):

1980: 166
2000: 210

Is this telling me that, in Texas, it DID act as a deterrent? Was the trend for states that had no death penalty all had an increase and those who have the death penalty do not? That would support the claim that it IS a deterrent. On my way to find another state with the death penalty and another without...
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 9:34 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Micranot



Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 134
i think  Reply with quote  

wether it works as a deterrant or not is irrelevant really, i think the more important benifit we gain from it is not having to spend rediculous sums of government money to house these violent criminals and their life sentances in already severely over-populated jails and prisons. 1 less wretch of society to worry about, the better.
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 9:55 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Please ignore my first and second post, as it was pure idiocy. The HIGHER the number the better.

Okay...so...I picked Minnesota as the 4th selection.

I have two states with death penalties and recent executions (both started actively pursuing executions in 1982 according to www.deathpenaltyinfo.org).

The final results are:

Texas

1980 Pop/VC = 181
Violent crime: 77,978
Population: 14,169,829

2000 Pop/VC = 183
Violent crime: 113,653
Population: 20,851,820


Massachusetts

1980 Pop/VC = 166
Violent crime: 34,444
Population: 5,728,288

2000 Pop/VC = 210
Violent crime: 30,230
Population: 6,349,097


Virginia

1980 Pop/VC = 325
Violent crime: 16,355
Population: 5,323,412

2000 Pop/VC = 354
Violent crime: 19,943
Population: 7,078,515


Minnesota

1980 Pop/VC = 439
Violent crime: 9,250
Population: 4,061,235

2000 Pop/VC = 356
Violent crime: 13,813
Population: 4,919,479

So...the result is not very convincing.

In Massachusetts we've had good results with no death penalty.

Minnesota on the other hand has not fared so well, they have had a stark increase in the violent crime rate.

Texas and Virginia have had reasonably steady violent crime rates - AND they are our death-penalty candidates.

Very interesting.

At the very least this will prove that the death penalty does NOT work as a deterrent, but there are many other conditions that affect crime directly.

Of course, this is ONLY 4 states and there are about 46 others...this proves nothing but does supply food for thought - if you cared to watch me think out loud. Ha.

- Shane
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:05 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
Re: i think  Reply with quote  

Micranot wrote:
wether it works as a deterrant or not is irrelevant really, i think the more important benifit we gain from it is not having to spend rediculous sums of government money to house these violent criminals and their life sentances in already severely over-populated jails and prisons. 1 less wretch of society to worry about, the better.


You obviously make the assumption that our criminal justice system is perfect.

A HUGE leap.

- Shane
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:24 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MrHourGlass



Joined: 13 Jul 2002
Posts: 384
Location: buddy cianci land
hmmmmmmm  Reply with quote  

It is interesting, to see the correlations between violent crimes within states of death penalties vs states without....I don't know if it acts as a detterant, It's difficult to assume the psychology behind violent crimes....I think I this point your post simply support the assumption that there are more violent crimes per capita. Mass. seems to go against the grain, but it would be interesting to see the findings of the other 46, I'm sure states with less populations have less violent crimes vs. those with a large Metropolis IE Texas, Nueva York, Illonois Etc....as population increases I think all you will see is a violent crime increase...but it's difficult to assume why....

I hope my ramblings contributed to this

Peace

HourGlass[/u]
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 11:24 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Petrouchka Rasputin



Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 852
 Reply with quote  

Capital punishment doesn't work, because it means wrongful convictions can't be overturned because the convicts are fucking DEAD. And also it doesn't really matter that it saves some room in prisons / the cost of keeping someone in prison for life, etc, because the legal costs of executing someone are just as high as housing/feeding them in prison.
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 2:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
weedy420
Guest




Re: i think  Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:
Micranot wrote:
wether it works as a deterrant or not is irrelevant really, i think the more important benifit we gain from it is not having to spend rediculous sums of government money to house these violent criminals and their life sentances in already severely over-populated jails and prisons. 1 less wretch of society to worry about, the better.


You obviously make the assumption that our criminal justice system is perfect.

A HUGE leap.

- Shane



dont forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you must think statistics are never altered, just like ballots

LAUGHABLE
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 2:30 pm
 
prolifik



Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 488
 Reply with quote  

Deterrence isn't the only argument for the death penalty. Retributivists argue that capital punishment is simply justice served, and they could care less about the deterrence factor. But like it was already mentioned above, jury convictions are not always correct, so I don't think that there is any possible way that I could support the killing of people without 100% verifiable evidence that they are indeed guilty.
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 2:34 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
tim



Joined: 28 Jul 2002
Posts: 891
Location: la, ca
 Reply with quote  

fun fact: it costs considerably more tax payer money to send someone to death then let them rot in the slammer.
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:18 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Micranot



Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 134
fun fact  Reply with quote  

youre all fairly wrong about the "costing more to kill someone than to imprison them", especially when you consider that the VAST majority of the costs associated with the execution come from the legal dilemma and battle wether to in fact convict him, and the immense barriers we have in place to allowing it to happen. Any of you all wanna link some statistics backing up your claims, because I have yet to find ones that taking what I just said into account, actually prove that to be the case.
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 4:06 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
duke_city



Joined: 05 Jul 2002
Posts: 3208
Location: San Diego,CA
 Reply with quote  

timtablist wrote:
fun fact: it costs considerably more tax payer money to send someone to death then let them rot in the slammer.


Sorry thats simply not true. A life sentence in jail is about 60 years on average. Each year thats about 30K US dollars to support them. Compared with the cost of a lethal injection which is about 85 US dollars.

1.8 million < 85 ???

When there is overwhleming evidence of serial crimes commited capital punishment is a good solution. States like California have more repeat offendors who go on to repeat the same crimes they supposedly were abolished from.

The US legal system isn't perfect but under certain circumstances criminals are less af a threat to society deceased.

Brian
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 4:21 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tim



Joined: 28 Jul 2002
Posts: 891
Location: la, ca
 Reply with quote  

do you think trials are free? i certainly don't. take that $85 and add it to the court fees, death row, etc. c'mon man, you live in dallas. you should know this.
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 4:34 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
Re: i think  Reply with quote  

Micranot wrote:
wether it works as a deterrant or not is irrelevant really, i think the more important benifit we gain from it is not having to spend rediculous sums of government money to house these violent criminals and their life sentances in already severely over-populated jails and prisons. 1 less wretch of society to worry about, the better.


Do you know how many people are in jail right now? I don't remember the number but 33 people ain't shit compared to how many are in there. Plus those who are executed do live in deathrow for quite a few years.

My point is, there are other ways of reducing the cost of the 'justice' system then killing off a few dozen every year.
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 6:06 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Soul Khansenses



Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 2110
 Reply with quote  

The Death Penalty could never be a deterrent because it, thankfully, isn't put into effect as an immediate response to an offense. This is also why punitive measures will never work to prevent crime in a remotely sensible society. Try China, where they have no appeals process and little in the way of a solid public defense, but a 12th of the crime rate of the U.S.

Yet, they still have no appeals process and almost no public defense.
Post Sat Dec 28, 2002 6:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:18 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon