"And they still say the death penalty isn't a deterrent"
Yes, well, it is just stunning what the Left will say. And that means they will say anything they damn well please, all they have to do is like what they're saying.
I think it is accurate. Fines will deter me from speeding or driving in the Diamond Lane. The threat of doing jail time keeps me from stealing from the till at work. The threat of having a record as a violent domestic abuser keeps me from showing up at the ex's door and breaking his face. And the threat of possibly getting executed for killing that s.o.b. keeps me from killing him. The threat of doing twenty years in jail does, too, but why would anyone be so lunatic as to assert that while doing time is a deterrent, getting executed is not?
Thirty years ago some badly done study was used to support the idea that execution is not a deterrent. The studier(s) plotted numbers of murders against the numbers of executions and asserted there was no relationship. An op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal demonstrated how this was patently untrue, that the original study merely failed to take into account a time lag of five years.
Given that the two lines are inverted from one another and offset by several years, it was easy for the original studiers to "put one over" on a credulous public. I would submit that the error was as obvious to the original studiers as it was to everyone in general, and that they falsely quoted what they didn't want to see.
America is full of good-hearted, well-meaning people who merely need to be told that the "good" or "kind" position is such and so, and they will happily jump on the bandwagon of goodness and kindness just because goodness and kindness are to us so self-rewarding.
I am not, as Mike Farrel accused Prager, slavering and drooling to see people die on the gallows. Nor is Prager. But I have long felt that letting some human debris continue living in prison, even if it be for the rest of his life, is not just. We impose sanctions on a child who has put spiders in his uncle's birthday cake, as a just consequence to his actions. But "you torture three children to death and you will spend the rest of your life in prison" just isn't justice and I really feel quite a bit of anger toward those who want to pervert the word that way.
Let me add, I am fully aware of the many studies showing the death penalty is not a deterrent. The methodology of all these studies is unconvincing. For instance, comparing the murder rates in non-dp states against the murder rates in dp states (as one study did, and completely ignored every other factor in these states) says absolutely nothing about causes, and thus to conclude that because the non-dp states were lower than the dp states is to practice research fraud.
I have not said, though, that I consider deterrence to be a major reason for my cautious support of the death penalty. For me it's all about justice and I don't care about the deterrence.
I'm curious, what is your opinion of Dennis's death penalty commentary?
ReplyDeleteI think it is accurate. Fines will deter me from speeding or driving in the Diamond Lane. The threat of doing jail time keeps me from stealing from the till at work. The threat of having a record as a violent domestic abuser keeps me from showing up at the ex's door and breaking his face. And the threat of possibly getting executed for killing that s.o.b. keeps me from killing him. The threat of doing twenty years in jail does, too, but why would anyone be so lunatic as to assert that while doing time is a deterrent, getting executed is not?
ReplyDeleteThirty years ago some badly done study was used to support the idea that execution is not a deterrent. The studier(s) plotted numbers of murders against the numbers of executions and asserted there was no relationship. An op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal demonstrated how this was patently untrue, that the original study merely failed to take into account a time lag of five years.
Given that the two lines are inverted from one another and offset by several years, it was easy for the original studiers to "put one over" on a credulous public. I would submit that the error was as obvious to the original studiers as it was to everyone in general, and that they falsely quoted what they didn't want to see.
America is full of good-hearted, well-meaning people who merely need to be told that the "good" or "kind" position is such and so, and they will happily jump on the bandwagon of goodness and kindness just because goodness and kindness are to us so self-rewarding.
I am not, as Mike Farrel accused Prager, slavering and drooling to see people die on the gallows. Nor is Prager. But I have long felt that letting some human debris continue living in prison, even if it be for the rest of his life, is not just. We impose sanctions on a child who has put spiders in his uncle's birthday cake, as a just consequence to his actions. But "you torture three children to death and you will spend the rest of your life in prison" just isn't justice and I really feel quite a bit of anger toward those who want to pervert the word that way.
Let me add, I am fully aware of the many studies showing the death penalty is not a deterrent. The methodology of all these studies is unconvincing. For instance, comparing the murder rates in non-dp states against the murder rates in dp states (as one study did, and completely ignored every other factor in these states) says absolutely nothing about causes, and thus to conclude that because the non-dp states were lower than the dp states is to practice research fraud.
ReplyDeleteI have not said, though, that I consider deterrence to be a major reason for my cautious support of the death penalty. For me it's all about justice and I don't care about the deterrence.
One more comment, quoting a political satirist who said, "If the death penalty isn't a deterrence, why is Al Gore still walking around?"
ReplyDeleteha ha.