The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

[_JS]

Which I both conceded (your source) and my point is helped driven home that much more with the fact that those cities with the significantly higher murder rates in the U.S., are those with significantly stricter gun laws         oy

Gun laws are made at the state level, with some Federal exceptions. The point had nothing to do with firearm restrictions, which was in fact a negative factor introduced by you. The point was that you claimed the death penalty should be a deterrent to capital crimes, of which homicide is the most infamous. France does not have the death penalty. More precisely, Paris does not have the death penalty, but the state of New York does. Yet, under that parameter there were still far fewer homicides per capita in Paris than New York City.

Therefore the original question asked by me (not some tangent argument developed by you) is why do you advocate increasing the deaths by capital punishment when the data suggests that it does nothing to decrease homicides as in the comparison between NYC and Paris?

Just for interest, here are some other cities homicide statistics (note: these are from 2004):

Dallas, TX: 20.2
Houston, TX: 13.3
Chicago, IL: 15.5
New York City, NY: 7.0
San Antonio, TX: 7.6
Seattle, WA: 4.3
San Jose, CA: 2.6 (* Rated one of the safest cities in the United States)
San Diego, CA: 4.8
Phoenix, AZ: 14.1
Honolulu, HI: 2.9 (* Rated one of the safest cities in the United States)

[sirs]

Therefore the original question asked by me is why do you advocate increasing the deaths by capital punishment when the data suggests that it does nothing to decrease homicides as in the comparison between NYC and Paris?

I advocate such since it is been established that it is the worst punishment for the worst crime.  One last time, I don't see convicted murderers jumping up and down to get the Death Penalty.  What I do see are convicted murderers doing whatever they can to get themselves out of such a sentence.  That tells me plenty

[_JS]

Therefore the original question asked by me is why do you advocate increasing the deaths by capital punishment when the data suggests that it does nothing to decrease homicides as in the comparison between NYC and Paris?

I advocate such since it is been established that it is the worst punishment for the worst crime.  One last time, I don't see convicted murderers jumping up and down to get the Death Penalty.  What I do see are convicted murderers doing whatever they can to get themselves out of such a sentence.  That tells me plenty

Then why are Dallas and Houston amongst the worst in terms of homicide rates, when Texas is the state that uses capital punishment more than any other? Why is Paris so much lower than any of those cities, when France doesn't use capital punishment at all?

[gipper]

There is a danger, first of all, in cross-cultural comparisons. It may be safe to say that Texas has a violent culture indeed, which the death penalty merely reflects but does not create, while France is literally worlds away. Also, two factors have to be controlled when speaking of violent crime and homicide rates in particular before a rational-basis test can be applied. First, most homicides are crimes of passion, giving little time for reflection and rationcination. Second, many, if not most, criminals, rightly or wrongly, rationally or not, just don't think they'll be caught if they do think about it.

[_JS]

First, most homicides are crimes of passion, giving little time for reflection and rationcination. Second, many, if not most, criminals, rightly or wrongly, rationally or not, just don't think they'll be caught if they do think about it.

Which only lessens the likelihood that capital punishment would work as a deterrent, correct?

[gipper]

True. But see my first point: Texas is more interested in perpetuating its culture than in controlling crime the way you and I think it should be done.

[_JS]

True. But see my first point: Texas is more interested in perpetuating its culture than in controlling crime the way you and I think it should be done.

That is certainly possible. I think the same could be said about Sirs, which was the point I was trying to make using data.

[kimba1]

I advocate such since it is been established that it is the worst punishment for the worst crime.  One last time, I don't see convicted murderers jumping up and down to get the Death Penalty.  What I do see are convicted murderers doing whatever they can to get themselves out of such a sentence.  That tells me plenty

but that don`t say much
guilty or innocent the convicted tends to not want to die.
several times it`s been proven here that innocent people do get executed.
but no one anywhere ever talks about insuring such things never happen
in fact I hear as long some guilty get executed it`s worth killing the innocent.
my source radio and people in my jobs

[sirs]

guilty or innocent the convicted tends to not want to die.  several times it`s been proven here that innocent people do get executed.

Examples please, here in the U.S., if you don't mind, since that's the system we're talking about

[kimba1]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0408_050408_tv_dnadeath.html

not quite the right link
but the subject here is DNA test has shown quite alot of folks made it to deathrow for crimes they were not present to commit
also about not too long ago somebody confessed to a murder in texas which a 18 year old got executed for it already.
DNA only deals with specific situations.
in fact there talk about testing the bodies of executed to find out how many were wrongfully executed(depending on case)
that brought alot of negative responses .

[sirs]

I'm not referring to those on Death row who were found innocent by later DNA testing, then released, Kimba.  I'm refering to actual executions, you've claimed to have happened "several times", of folks who were found to be innocent.  Any of those examples? 

And someone confessing to a crime, doesn't automatically equate to have performed it.  Espeically after the sentence has been handed out.  Not saying that some folks don't get railroaded, or that some folks aren't wrongfully convicted of a crime.  What I am saying is whare are all these "several" folks we (the U.S.) supposedly executed, who were later proven to be innocent?

[Plane]

My Father used to tell me that it was no kindness to hang a man slowly.


Is the death penalty worse than life imprisonment?


I don't think much objection can be made to measures that determine to the most certainty availible whether the accused is really guilty or not.

But whether an innocent man were sentanced to die of a state inflicted injury or sentanced to wait for his natural death in a small box , his person is being severely injured.

[kimba1]

I went to google and tried to some data on it
way too many site on that subject for me to dig through.

so I`ll just give up on it
but I`d like to know how deathrow inmates in the recent past are different than those executed in the past
meaning if portion of them are found innocent now
how is it all excuted are all guilty
but those charged now are not all guilty

[sirs]

I went to google and tried to some data on it way too many site on that subject for me to dig through.  so I`ll just give up on it but I`d like to know how deathrow inmates in the recent past are different than those executed in the past

Because that currently, those on deathrow who are later found to be not guilty via DNA testing doesn't mean someone who was innocent was wrongly executed, since these folks are still breathing oxygen, like the rest of us.  That's how its different, so until you can cite me these "several times" a wrongfully convicted man/woman was executed, this is largely non-viable tangent you're trying to lead us down.

[Michael Tee]

I don't think it'll ever be possible to prove with DNA evidence that anyone was wrongfully executed because the case is closed out once the guy is executed for the crime.  If DNA evidence didn't surface in time to save the poor bugger on the day of his execution, nobody's gonna bother digging it up now.  Won't save his life anyway, and the point that DNA could have made in his case has already been made in others.   A later confession by someone else isn't proof of anything - - some of the guys wrongfully convicted were convicted because they themselves had falsely confessed.

The whole point of DNA testing is that juries can and do make big mistakes and that appeal courts don't always catch them.  Thus, of those executed prior to the widespread use of DNA testing, some must inevitably have been innocent.

For a wrongfully EXECUTED person who was truly innocent in all respects, there is the Timothy Evans case, which effectively led to the abolition of capital punishment in the U.K.  Evans was an unfortunate individual with a very low IQ who happened to room in the same house as John Christie, a notorious serial killer whom nobody ever suspected at the time.  Christie befriended Evans and his wife, killed the wife, advised the dim-witted Evans that he would naturally be suspected by the police, "counselled" Evans on how he could get out of this mess by lying to the police, testified at Evans' trial, got him convicted and hanged.  Years later, when Christie was finally exposed as a serial killer, it became obvious that the wrong man had been executed for the murder of Mrs. Evans.  The end result was the abolition of capital punishment.