Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/07/2003 5:44:53 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: bruinbirdman
Almost the entire increase in murder from 1966 to the mid-1900s was an increase in felony or "stranger" murders

That's a strange sentence. I didn't know time travel had been perfected.

3 posted on 05/07/2003 5:47:47 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bruinbirdman
Common sense. Criminals are godless and fear nothing but a ticket to hell. Personally, I think we should bring back public hangings on the court house square. There is nothing like the site of a suspended corpse twisting in the wind to make a would-be killer think twice.
4 posted on 05/07/2003 5:49:11 PM PDT by Vigilanteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bruinbirdman
BOOKMARKED
BUMP
5 posted on 05/07/2003 5:50:17 PM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bruinbirdman
Correlation is NOT causation. It may well be a deterrent but this study proves nothing because it ignores several confounders including the intensification of the drug war since the 60s, urban renewal, and the aging population of the 90s.
6 posted on 05/07/2003 5:52:02 PM PDT by Squawk 8888 (Everyone knows you can't have a successful conspiracy without a Rockefeller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bruinbirdman
Thanks for posting this.

Unfortunately, the way the appeals system is set up, most death-rowers will die of old age rather than execution. Their VICTIMS pleading may not have stopped the murderer from murdering them, but the MURDERERS know THEIR pleading WILL buy them as much time as they want.

11 posted on 05/07/2003 6:02:11 PM PDT by cake_crumb (UN Resolutions=Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bruinbirdman
Most criminologists will dispute the notion that the death penalty serves as a deterrent. The data to support that simply isn't there.

What does serve as a deterrent is the expectation of getting apprehended. Most criminals either do not expect to be apprehended or they do not take the possible consequences of their crimes into account at the the time they commit them.
12 posted on 05/07/2003 6:03:26 PM PDT by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: bruinbirdman
The death penalty is not deterrent to other would-be murderers. How can it deter when most people don't even know which offenses are death penalty eligible? In addition, the death penalty was not abolished in the early 60s. IT WAS ABOLISHED IN 1972 AND RETURNED IN 1976. Before it was abolished, death penalty cases were already rare. After it was reinstated,however, states (primarily southern) pursued it with a vengeance. Could this possibly have anything to do with the southern states being pissed just because the supreme court had told them in 1972 that they could not carry the death penalty out anymore. By the way, the case which resulted in the abolition of the death penalty was Furman v. Georgia. First, educate yourself, then if you still have the same opinion more people will probably take you seriously.
19 posted on 01/13/2004 1:13:05 PM PST by heidispring (wake up and join the educated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson