Over here we have been following recent death row cases with some curiosity. (The death penalty was abolished in Europe quite a while back, by international agreement. Belarus, on the fringes of Europe, still has it but did declare a moratorium )
What is of interest is not that the two thirds of Americans are in favour of it; you have a different culture ; but the procedure.
One of the subjects is now 24 years in custody since conviction. We gather that there is, on average, one execution every ten days in the USA.
So: 1)(a) Is a delay of years unusual ? (b) What is the normal delay between conviction and execution ?
2) what is it that results in any convict being alive for so long before execution ?
3) If it is argued that execution for murder is a deterrent,how is it a deterrent if a) not all murderers are executed and b) if every potential murderer knows that , even if caught, convicted and sentenced, he or she may yet live many years thereafter ? (I don't take sides on whether the death penalty is ever a deterrent I just want to know how it can be effective as one in these circumstances)
I took the 'two thirds in favour' from a BBC reporter summarising polls. Has there been any breakdown of reasons given e.g X per cent say 'deterrent' Y per cent say 'punishment must fit the crime, so that means an "eye for an eye"', and so on ?
I would like anyone who says it is a deterrent explain to me why Texas has executed so many people. Are Texans slow learners, or just maybe it isn't such a deterrent after all. It seems to me that is must be one or the other. I do not think it is a deterrent, but some do. So what's wrong with Texans? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12-02-05, 08:39 PM aminator2002 So: 1)(a) Is a delay of years unusual ?
What is the normal delay between conviction and execution ?
[b]I believe it to be 11 years on a National average.
2) what is it that results in any convict being alive for so long before execution ?
Unlimited appeals for capital cases.
3) If it is argued that execution for murder is a deterrent,how is it a deterrent if a) not all murderers are executed and b) if every potential murderer knows that , even if caught, convicted and sentenced, he or she may yet live many years thereafter ? (I don't take sides on whether the death penalty is ever a deterrent I just want to know how it can be effective as one in these circumstances)
It can't be a deterrent because it is rarely used in murder cases - 0.6% of murder cases (from 1967-2000) according to the sources I'm finding. It is typically reserved for the most heinous crimes which typically involve children. A person that commits a crime of the nature that is punished by capital punishment is clearly not the type that weigh the possible disadvantages to their crime.
I took the 'two thirds in favour' from a BBC reporter summarising polls. Has there been any breakdown of reasons given e.g X per cent say 'deterrent' Y per cent say 'punishment must fit the crime, so that means an "eye for an eye"', and so on ?[/QUOTE]
"Opinion polls consistently show a majority of the American public support the death penalty. A May 2005 Gallup poll had 74% of respondees in "favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder". In the same Gallup poll, when life imprisonment without parole was given as an option as a punishment for murder, 56% supported the death penalty and 39% supported life imprisonment, with 5% offering no opinion.[15]"
I think people are in favor of the death penalty because of "eye for an eye" ideology. I seriously don't think it has anything to do with deterrence... this from my informal survey of people who support the death penalty.
African Americans make up 42% of death row inmates while making up only 12% of the general population.
According to a 2003 Amnesty International report, blacks and whites were the victims of murder in almost equal numbers, yet 80 % of the people executed since 1977 were convicted of murders involving white victims.
My personal opinion... murder rates have dropped because of better law enforcement not because of anything to do with punishment unless there is none at all. A person who commits a murder does not think about the consequences because either a) they think they will get away with it or b) they are obsessed, enraged, or just plain crazy.
12-02-05, 09:50 PM DorianGreyed By Peter Slevin The Washington Post Updated: 11:03 p.m. ET Dec. 1, 2005
AUSTIN, Dec. 1 - Ruben Cantu is long gone, executed by Texas authorities in 1993 after he was convicted of murdering a man during a San Antonio robbery when he was 17 years old. To the end, Cantu insisted he had been framed, and now his co-defendant and the sole surviving witness both say he was telling the truth.
A state legislator called for an investigation this week as prosecutors moved to study the 20-year-old case. Opponents of the death penalty suspect that Cantu may represent what they have long expected to find: an innocent person put to death. Houston law professor David Dow said the case shows that "we make mistakes in death penalty cases, too."
Public opinion polls show that nearly two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty, but that is a significant drop from the peak, in 1994, when 80 percent of respondents told Gallup pollsters they were in favor of capital punishment. When asked if they would endorse executions if the alternative sentence of life without parole were available, support fell to 50 percent.
Texas has executed more than one-third of the men and women put to death since 1976, as well as 19 of the 55 inmates executed this year. With no more executions scheduled there this month, the state's total this year will fall well below its eight-year average of 28.
Life without parole Jordan M. Steiker, a death penalty expert at the University of Texas, attributes the slowdown largely to federal court concerns, notably the 2002 Supreme Court decision to bar the execution of the mentally retarded and this year's ruling prohibiting the execution of juveniles.
A poll conducted by Rice University sociologist Stephen L. Klineberg found that even in Harris County, where more defendants are sentenced to die than anywhere else in the country, support for the death penalty fell from 68 percent in 1999 to 60 percent this year. In response to a separate question, 53 percent favored life without parole as an alternative.
The latest survey was conducted before last month's Houston Chronicle series on Ruben Cantu.
Prosecutors presented no physical evidence linking Cantu to the 1984 nighttime attack in San Antonio. Nor did they call the 15-year-old co-defendant, who had pleaded guilty to the lesser crime of robbery and identified Cantu, an admitted thief, as his partner. The principal witness was Juan Moreno, the wounded worker.
The jury did not believe Cantu, who said he had been in another city that night, and ordered him to die. He was executed on Aug. 24, 1993.
The Chronicle found numerous gaps and flaws in the investigation. Further, Moreno told the newspaper that he had accused Cantu under police pressure.
Code of silence Cantu's co-defendant, David Garza, signed a sworn statement saying he lied when he told police that Cantu was with him that night, the newspaper reported. He now says he knew who the true killer was, but honored a neighborhood code of silence in not naming him.
"You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he didn't do," Garza said, adding that he was speaking now because of a guilty conscience. He said that as Cantu's execution date neared, he wrote Cantu's unpaid appellate lawyer from prison to say the case was "real messed up" and added: "Hope to hear from you real soon." - MSNBC.com
-------- 12-02-05, 10:10 PM coldfuse The death penalty can only be a deterrent if the accused are given a fair and speedy trial, followed immediately by execution.
These aren't my words, but a paraphrase of a the consensus of a panel of hard criminals. The show was on the tube in 1973 - I remember it well because of other circumstances - and it has stuck with me since. The convicts had a very simple reasoning: because it's what they understand and it's how they treat those that cross their paths.
10 years, 15 years, 20 years down the road is completely meaningless as a deterrent. Imagine a promise to ground your teenager next month, let alone next year, for something he did today!
It'll never work here, of course. Too many lawyers, too much money at stake, and the natural concern over even one wrong execution. A swifter justice would serve us well.
12-02-05, 10:47 PM Kelleygirl I was watching CNN news this morning; they were presenting the story of the 1,000 execution that took place today since the death penalty resumed in the U.S. The news anchor went on to say to the U.S. has not used the death penalty to the same degree as other countries who maintain it and went ont to list some of those countries: China, Iran, and Vietnam. I am appalled that we, the United States, are alined with these countries due to their records on human rights.
12-02-05, 11:06 PM DorianGreyed Was it our buddies in Saudi Arabia that beheaded a princess and her commoner lover for adultry a few years back?
12-02-05, 11:11 PM DorianGreyed Yep.
Saudi Arabia uses public beheading as the punishment for murder, rape, drug trafficking, sodomy and armed robbery, apostasy and certain other offences such as homosexuality illicit love affairs of Saudi girls (one Saudi princess was beheaded for illicit love). 45 men and 2 women were beheaded in 2002 and a further 52 men and 1 woman in 2003. The condemned of both sexes are given tranquillisers and then taken by police van to a public square or a car park after midday Friday prayers. Their eyes are covered and they are blindfolded. The police clear the square of traffic and a sheet of blue plastic sheet about 16 feet square is laid out on the ground. Dressed in their own clothes, barefoot, with shackled feet and hands cuffed behind their back, the prisoner is led by a police officer to the centre of the sheet where they are made to kneel facing Mecca. An Interior Ministry official reads out the prisoner's name and crime to the crowd of witnesses. Saudi Arabia also cut (Chopping) hands and feet of the thieves. And Saudi does this as per Islamic code and tradition.
The Saudi government says the punishment (Qisas) is sanctioned by Islamic tradition. State-ordered beheadings are performed in courtyards outside crowded mosques in major cities after weekly Friday prayer services. A condemned convict is brought into the courtyard; hands tied, and forced to bow before an executioner, who swings a huge sword amid cries from onlookers of "Allahu Akbar!" Arabic for "God is great." - http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SKM40715.htm --------
I cannot swear to the accuracy of those figures, but I definitely remember the princess being beaded. -------- INTERNATIONAL NEWS #325 - Jul 17, 2000 = = (c) Rex Wockner = ==============================================
--> SAUDI GAYS BEHEADED
Six men were executed in Saudi Arabia in mid-July for crimes related to homosexuality. Three men were beheaded in Abha July 11 for engaging in sodomy, transvestism and "homosexual marriage," and for allegedly raping youths after drugging them with sleeping pills.
An Islamic court found Attiya bin Ubaid Attiya, Rajeh bin Ibrahim Issa and Rajhi bin Hamad bin Ali guilty of "committing the extreme obscenity of homosexuality and imitating women." They were decapitated with a sword.
On July 14, three men from neighboring Yemen were beheaded in Jizan on charges of homosexuality, transvestism, same-sex marriage and luring boys into sexual activity. Abdullah Jabli, Yehya Faraj and Faraj Hajuri also were decapitated with a sword. - qrd.org/qrd/world/wockner/news.briefs
12-03-05, 09:33 AM aminator2002 I don't think it has anything to do with deterrence but people still want to talk about it. Two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty because they feel a murderer should be killed for their crime. It's an opinion of passion rather than reason. There is almost no point in discussing deterrence because it's been shown by almost every study that there is no deterrent value to execution rather than life in prison. Nobody cares about deterrence. It boils down to Americans feeling that someone who kills children or multiple people should be killed in return.
"That guy deserves worse than death" I guarantee everyone has heard someone say this.
It takes a politician with absolutely no future to do the right thing in regards to the death penalty. Doing the right thing is political suicide in this country. I am glad that the governor of Illinois, George Ryan, was a crooked son of a gun because it gave him the ability to do the right thing.
What happened to the governor in the same time frame that had the most executions? He became President.
12-03-05, 11:08 AM Professor I've heard that the cost to the U.S. taxpayer (legal/penal systems) is higher for those sentenced to death than it is for those sentenced to life in prison, contrary to the common sense notion that it would cost more to house & feed someone for life than to execute them.
Is this true, and if so, why? Is it the high cost of the seemingly endless, byzantine process of legal appeals?
12-03-05, 02:31 PM Ogi it is true, it has to do partly with the loads of extra court time that they would get, also has to do with the fact that they get a completely different prison conditions, so there are special prisons for people on death row (or at least special sections of prisons for them), and also people who are in prison for life, also do some manual labor, earning money (not for themselves but preventing money that tax payers would normally be spending).
also prisoners on death row average out to be there for over 11 years the last time I checked.
Ogi
12-03-05, 05:49 PM babthrower Kind of an aside:
Most teen-aged criminals have a deficit: they can't seem to associate consequences with their impulsive acts. So I don't see how the death penalty could be a deterrent for them.
And since many of them are pretty stupid, to expect them to take an UNLOADED gun with them just in case the robbery goes sideways, so the weapon is a way to intimidate the victim but won't be used to kill him/her, is asking a lot.
What you want to do is make it hard for them to get handguns and ammunition.
What you have now is an undeclared war between those who live by violence and the average citizen.
But those cold killings where the killer hires someone or disguises a murder as a suicide or some such, there I am in favor of the supreme penalty (even though I am a Canadian!)
As for the cost of maintaining adult prisoners, why not outsource lifers? They could do their time in, say, Brazil or Thailand. Particularly this would be good for repeat sex offenders.
1. It would reduce the crowding in North American prisons so that some with a good chance of reforming can get more attention 2. If the prisoners escape, they can be easily identified 3. It would reduce the cost of maintaining the system overall.
We have a 'dangerous offenders' category where criminals, typically child-rapers, can be sentenced to indefinite terms. It's a virtual life. 12-03-05, 06:48 PM bik74
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: I would like anyone who says it is a deterrent explain to me why Texas has executed so many people. Are Texans slow learners, or just maybe it isn't such a deterrent after all. It seems to me that is must be one or the other. I do not think it is a deterrent, but some do. So what's wrong with Texans?
I personally believe it is a deterrent but its not that effective because it gets too much media attention. Some crazy people i think would even do crimes just to get attention.
The question to ask is if such a law was not there... will the incidents that resulted in capital punishment would go up or down ?
Further forget 2 third americans. Would it not be best that the relatives of the victims decide if its ok to give death penalty or not ?
12-03-05, 08:39 PM FredPuli Just a few random British cases of murder;the first I 'googled' which gave dates of crime or trial and execution; to show the delay in Britain: I would expect there to have been an appeal in all cases, that being an apparent convention.
Tried December 20th 1920 hanged Feb 21st 1921; murder in April 1935, hanged June 30th 1935; trial 12th March 1930, hanged 8th April 1930; murder October 1922, trial December 1922, hanged January 1923. This last was famous, the Edith Thompson and Freddie Bywaters' case.A million people signed a petition for clemency and there was certainly a full appeal .Both were hanged. ( Her lover killed her husband but she was generally thought innocent of complicity). Finally a murder in June 1960,accused hanged November 1960: this certainly went to full appeal and also a claim for clemency because there was a question of age ;one of the accused was only just 18 and was the youngest man executed for many years and also one of the last in the UK.
So execution followed soon after conviction and appeal. There cannot possibly be any reason for a simple question, as here, to take long to answer. What is simpler than the Court of Appeal ruling whether the trial was properly conducted and the correct directions on law given and applied ? Murder trials are peculiarly simple matters, as seen from a lawyer's viewpoint, and the law well established . After that it was a question of petitioning the Home Secretary (Interior Minister) for clemency.He was taken to advise and , in effect, act for, the Queen. Clemency denied with the words "The Law must take its course" , the execution would follow swiftly thereafter.
In its own way it is inhumane to keep a man alive, not knowing from day to day or week to week whether he is to be put to death, and to keep him in this state for year after year.For this reason it was always thought right to carry out the sentence expeditiously.
Is it a deterrent? It depends on the crime and the possible criminal. Years ago there was research done here which showed that the death penalty would certainly stop crime. Provided that is, if the crime was illegal parking or dropping litter in the street ! That's because normal people are deterred by condign punishments for trivial matters. They think ahead of acting and no drive is so strong as to drive them to drop litter if they are to die for it Smile
Murder? Murder is an exceptional crime and such law abiding rules and thinking as would apply to trivial failings, like parking in a restricted bay, do not apply to it .
Of course if you think that it is morally right to execute all murderers because they have themselves taken a life then that's a matter of faith rather than expediency. Nobody can argue with that any more than they can over other basic matters of faith . The problem in Britain always was that whether the convicted person died or not depended on the personal views of the Home Secretary, his feelings about the case at that moment. This is no basis for justice or fairness.
12-04-05, 09:50 AM aminator2002
quote: Further forget 2 third americans. Would it not be best that the relatives of the victims decide if its ok to give death penalty or not ?
Personally, having watched the victims of several crimes interviewed about the death penalty, I think people who have just lost a loved one should not be put in the position to decide about whether the convicted be put to death. I think our current system is somewhat cruel because it puts the victim's family in a position in which everyone is curious how they feel about it. Furthermore, it opens the door for those people to feel that they are making a politically charged statement. I don't know about the rest of you but if someone in my family was killed I wouldn't want to have to deal with media vultures, political interest groups or anything of the sort. I would hope that whatever justice the state determined appropriate would be dispensed quickly and with the least trouble to me and my family.
I know there are people who suffered a loss that have been grateful for the death penalty, but I've also heard of many who end up feeling compassion and sympathy for the convict. The last thing I would want if something horrible happened to my family is to have to even feel for the person that committed the crime. I certainly wouldn't want that person to get fame or attention.... I can't fully understand every victim's thoughts on the matter but I can feel sympathy for the parents of a murdered child that then decide they should plead for the death penalty NOT to be used. How mixed up would that make someone feel?
The truth is that if we just put people in prison without parole then we wouldn't have to hear from them again and victims would be able to start healing immediately.
12-04-05, 10:50 AM babthrower Splendid answer, Aminator. Wish everyone were as sensitive and responsible.
12-04-05, 12:31 PM Sherasi I actually agree with you also Amy.
I think that murderers and rapists and persons of violent crimes should never get parole.
12-04-05, 04:47 PM SeattleRon how is the death penalty a deterrent. obviously if someone kills another person they have no disregard for anybody's life let alone themselves. They don't care. So there is really no point. People are going to do what they do regardless.
12-04-05, 08:03 PM Scotty
quote: how is the death penalty a deterrent
When he is put to death.....he ain't gonna kill again,is he?
12-04-05, 10:49 PM Ogi 2 wrongs make a right?
Ogi
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 17024 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
When he is put to death.....he ain't gonna kill again,is he?
Yeah, right! And if we later find out he was innocent, well - mistakes happen. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12-05-05, 09:33 AM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by Ogi: 2 wrongs make a right?
Ogi
That's begging the question.
If a serial killer is put to death and that act saves innocent lives, how it it wrong ?
There are people so savage that even while serving life sentences they kill guards or other prisoners. The only recourse then is to put them in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. This would be worse than death, IMO.
12-05-05, 01:33 PM FredPuli
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: how is the death penalty a deterrent
When he is put to death.....he ain't gonna kill again,is he?
So why do you Americans give him an average of 11 years , and as much as 24 years, of life before killing him? What's wrong with executing him within 11 weeks of conviction, as happened to such criminals in Britain ?
12-05-05, 01:52 PM juanruiz
quote: There are people so savage that even while serving life sentences they kill guards or other prisoners.
And sometimes they cop a plea and are out, speaking a different language.
12-05-05, 03:28 PM Scotty
quote: So why do you Americans give him an average of 11 years , and as much as 24 years, of life before killing him? What's wrong with executing him within 11 weeks of conviction, as happened to such criminals in Britain ?
That is a very good question Fred. I do not know the answer,but eleven weeks would be fine with me.
12-05-05, 03:33 PM Scotty
quote: Originally posted by Ogi: 2 wrongs make a right
Where is the second wrong? Some people do not deserve to be among us.
12-05-05, 05:11 PM Professor
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: how is the death penalty a deterrent
When he is put to death.....he ain't gonna kill again,is he?
That's not what is meant by "deterrent." Obviously once incarcerated, whether he lives or dies, a murderer cannot murder again (not free citizens, at any rate). The deterrent effect -- if any -- refers to the death penalty inhibiting other would-be murderers because they fear the consequences. This is what I presume is under debate, as originally set forth in FredPuli's first post. I still haven't seen enough evidence to support or refute the notion of deterrence, but let's be clear about what we're talking about.
12-05-05, 06:59 PM frankvan I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent, and I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point. -- Attorney General Janet Reno, January 20, 2000
All of the scientifically valid statistical studies—those that examine a period of years, and control for national trends—consistently show that capital punishment is a substantial deterrent. -- Senator Orrin Hatch, October 16, 2002
So who is right, Janet Reno or Orrin Hatch? And why can they not at least agree on what the data show? The problem is that each of them refers to bodies of research using different research methods. Janet Reno’s statement correctly describes the results of studies that compare homicide trends in states and countries that practice capital punishment with those that do not. These studies consistently show that capital punishment has no effect on homicide rates.
Orrin Hatch refers to studies that use econometric modeling. He is wrong, however, in stating that these studies all find that capital punishment deters homicide. In fact, some of them find a deterrent effect and some do not.
The first of the comparative studies of capital punishment was done by Thorsten Sellin in 1959. Sellin was a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the pioneers of scientific criminology Sellin applied his combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in an exhaustive study of capital punishment in American states. He used every scrap of data that was available, together with his knowledge of the history, economy, and social structure of each state. He compared states to other states and examined changes in states over time. Every comparison he made led him to the “inevitable conclusion . . . that executions have no discernable effect on homicide rates” (Sellin 1959, 34).
The studies that Orrin Hatch referred to use a very different methodology: econometrics, also known as multiple regression modeling, structural equation modeling, or path analysis. This involves constructing complex mathematical models on the assumption that the models mirror what happens in the real world. The econometric literature on capital punishment has been carefully reviewed by several prominent economists and found wanting. There is simply too little data and too many ways to manipulate it. In one careful review, McManus (1985, 417) found that: “there is much uncertainty as to the ‘correct’ empirical model that should be used to draw inferences, and each researcher typically tries dozens, perhaps hundreds, of specifications before selecting one or a few to report. Usually, and understandably, the ones selected for publication are those that make the strongest case for the researcher’s prior hypothesis.”
Reference: Skeptical Enquirer Magazine, July 2004
12-05-05, 08:47 PM aminator2002 It's very easy to disqualify most deterrence studies with the idea that you can't prove how many homicides were not committed. This idea rests on the idea that there are a bunch of wannabe murderers that sit back and think about the punishment.
The studies that destroy this thinking are the ones that show that normal rational humans are just as deterred by the idea of life in prison as the death penalty.
Most murderers are high on drugs or drug dealers. The rest are either nuts or crimes of passion. Who commits murder in a state where rational thinking comes into play?
Has anyone been deterred by the death penalty? I know someone who had to stand accused of a capital offense... defending his home from a neighbor's son that was high, very violent and trying to break down the door. This guy thought he was firing warning shots but ended up killing the kid then had to stand up and wait to hear if he'd be tried for his life. He had a heart attack while waiting to hear and nearly died anyway. The great part of the story is that he wouldn't have had to stand trial at all if he let the guy, who he thought was trying to kill him, get in the door before he shot him (he didn't intend to shoot the guy at all). Then it wouldn't have been a crime at all, but nonetheless he had to stand there and wait to hear if he'd face capital charges. And he had a heart attack from that stress.
It's sad that people think it's so simple. Until you know someone who gets falsely accused or simply makes a horrible mistake, you can go on thinking it's really simple. Or I guess you can think that our system is so good that horrible mistakes don't get made.
12-05-05, 09:09 PM Scotty
quote: That's not what is meant by "deterrent." Obviously once incarcerated, whether he lives or dies, a murderer cannot murder again (not free citizens, at any rate).
Tell that to the Cops family that was murdered by the escaped convicts in Texas. How about the recent escaped convicts from death row on two occasions recently? They had the opportunity to kill again. Being behind bars does not keep them from killing again.
BTW, what about him killing all of the other innocent people on death row? Wink
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty, 12-05-05 10:03 PM
12-05-05, 11:45 PM coldfuse You ever wonder about the "flip side" of American executions?
We are a murderous nation. The number of persons killed by the executed murderers tops 1500 (plus some others that they were likely not charged with - Ted Bundy was only charged with 3 of his 28+ for example).
Over half a million people have been murdered in the USA since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty. We seemed to pass over that milestone, as we did 100,000 and 250,000, with no news coverage.
Should the news really be that out execution numbers are way too low?
12-06-05, 12:00 AM DorianGreyed Has the murder rate increased in that time?
12-06-05, 07:48 AM frankvan Since one can only be executed once, mightn't that serve as an incentive to commit additional murders in order to avoid apprehension? Confused
12-06-05, 07:54 AM Koz I really don’t know if the death penalty is a deterrent or not. I do believe if you commit a crime, you should be penalized for that crime, sometimes with your life. I do not believe in the wide spread use of the death penalty but in certain cases it is appropriate. (In my opinion)
Ami, people do commit murder in a rational state of mind. These particular murderers as the worst of the worst. Cold, calculating, and lethal. There was a case around here in 2000 that even made New Yorkers who are used to hearing about crime unsettled.
Five workers in a Flushing Queens Wendy’s restaurant in a very busy area were slaughtered. Two men (one who previously worked there, the other was labeled as “slow”) walked in just prior to closing time. They took all the employees downstairs, bound them and then placed a bag over their heads and lead each one into the walk in refrigerator single file, put a gun to the back of their heads and fired. One young man survived as he must have turned his head just prior to being shot and the bullet went through his cheeks. They left him for dead.
These two criminals had planned all along to leave no witnesses to their crime and murder everyone in the store. The evidence against them is undeniable. The survivor identified them, there was the store’s video surveillance tape, the murder weapon complete with palm print was found at one of the criminal’s home. When arrested they both admitted the crime, but pointed fingers as to who actually did the shooting.
In my book that does not matter, they both went there to rob the store and murder anyone in it. They both deserve to be executed for their crimes. (IMHO)
About the person you mentioned Ami, they did commit a crime but I don’t believe it to be a capitol offence. A firearm is not a deterrent either it is a weapon that is made to kill. If the man did not fully intend on shooting the young man who was high he should have never drawn the weapon in the first place, no less fired a “warning shot”.
If the firearm was illegal he should be charged for that. The only other thing I would charge him (According to what you said) for would be unlawful discharge of a firearm. I would even go as far to waive the fine and release him to his own custody. (I can’t spell the word I want Razz )
Every case is different and should be treated as such. Horrible mistakes are made that is why I believe in using the death penalty in limited cases where there is no doubt.
12-06-05, 07:57 AM coldfuse
quote: Originally posted by DorianGreyed: Has the murder rate increased in that time?
I don't know if it has increased or decreased. My best usual online source, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, only go back to 1995.
With less than 1 execution for every 500 murders, I expect that the correlation is very low.
Just thought I'd share this discovery found here :
"The chance of being murdered in Washington,DC in 1990 was 3 times greater than the chance of an American soldier being killed in the Gulf War. The average American city with a population of 250,000 or greater has a murder rate of about 20, whereas cities in the 100,000 to 250,000 range have a rate of about 12. About as many Americans were killed (over 54,000) in New York City between 1962 and 2002 as died in the Vietnam War, but the murder rate in 2002 was only about a quarter what it was in 1990, when there were a record 2,245 murders. Mayor Giuliani is credited with the transformation."
12-06-05, 08:04 AM Koz Frankvan
quote: “Since one can only be executed once, mightn't that serve as an incentive to commit additional murders in order to avoid apprehension? Confused “
It would serve as the same incentive (murder) as the risk of spending life in jail to some people too.
I wrote this yesterday, but posted it someplace else.
quote: Allan Cameron shot Officer Dillon Stewart in New York City last week. Both men are natives of Jamaica whose lives took different paths. Officer Stewart got married, had a couple of kids, and joined the New York City Police Department. Allan Cameron described himself as a longtime drug user, a man with multiple girlfriends and someone with an appetite for hard partying.
"I smoke weed morning till night, like everyone in the ghetto," Mr. Cameron said. "I'm Jamaican. We don't use those other fancy drugs."
Nine days prior to shooting Officer Stewart he mugged a man and shot him. He was an off duty New York City Officer. Granted Mr. Cameron did not know his “perp” was a cop, but once he found out he also stole his badge.
When Mr. Cameron went through a red light at 3:00AM last week and a patrol car pulled along side with two officers inside he unloaded five shots into the car with a stolen handgun. (Not to mention the car was stolen too) Officer Stewart was hit, and proceeded to chase Mr. Cameron a few blocks but he could not continue. He died a few hours later in the hospital with a bullet lodged in his heart. (He was wearing a vest, but the bullet entered from under the armpit)
Mr. Cameron knowingly fired on police officers in order to save his own hide and escape arrest. There is no longer a death penalty in New York State so he shot and killed a cop to avoid jail.
Officer Dillon Stewart will be buried today.
12-06-05, 08:21 AM frankvan The use of anecdotal evidence in the case of murderer's apparent motivations seems especially unreliable. Some murders appear to be planned and calculated, others the result of drug induced irrational behavior, some crimes of almost justifiable retaliation, some from insanity. Is it not reasonable to conclude that there can not be one single, simplistic penalty available??
12-06-05, 08:37 AM FredPuli One British citizen did try to get us up the international league table of murder rates. Dr Harold Shipman murdered 215 patients between 1975 and 1998 and there is "real suspicion" that he murdered a further 15, according to the official inquiry.
Now, would hanging Dr Shipman have helped? Well, put it this way, he was sentenced to full life imprisonment i.e. to die in jail , but the spoilsport hanged himself in his cell soon after his conviction. Cynics suggested that he did so as a favour to his wife, to enable her to claim a full pension forthwith.
Shipman is far from alone in committing suicide after the crime. Many of our killers commit suicide 'then and there' or within a short time.This is a particular feature of domestic murders but it is quite common with sex offenders in cases where the crimes they commit get progressively worse until the final act, one of of murder, at which point they soon kill themselves.
The real way to stop crime is to get a 100% detection rate. People who commit crime regularly soon switch specialty when the chance of conviction for that type of crime rockets; even affrays and lesser 'punch ups' move to a different town or area as soon as there is full CCTV coverage in the places where the fights are common. They move to somewhere less observed. Among the pros the one common theme is that such and such a crime is now no longer 'worth the candle'. The punishment is really immaterial to such people, only the detection .Publicly hanging pickpockets in the (18 and C19 is often cited as an amusing example. Their fellow pickpockets would work the crowds whilst the condemned men were being hanged.The chance of being apprehended there was nil though the consequences were before their very eyes. Teams of pickpockets work best in crowds of people who are distracted; it is why tourists and 'out of towners' are so often victims when locals rarely are. (The locals don't look lost or uncertain and are not looking for, say, the right address,shop, escalator or tube line; that very behaviour of strangers advertises them to the thieves)
Unfortunately this does not apply to murder, which is a crime apart. The detection rate in murder cases in Britain is very high compared to that for other crimes. One reason nowadays is DNA and other forensic science testing but another, and one true here for all time, has been that most murderers are 'ordinary' people killing close acquaintances, friends and relations and their only thought to evade detection occurs, if it ever occurs at all, after the crime . They are suspected and found within hours or days. None gives a thought to the consequences of conviction. Their best chance of acquittal of murder lies in the hope that they can get themselves a conviction for the lesser crime of manslaughter on the grounds of 'diminished responsibility' but this thought will only occur to them after they've met their lawyers Wink Wink ( 'Diminished responsibility' is a statutory defence , a kind of temporary insanity, arising from the extreme provocation of a normal person e.g. a long suffering battered wife might plead it having killed her violent husband when technically the defence of self-defence at the particular instant of killing has failed or would fail)
12-06-05, 08:40 AM Koz I don’t think it is reasonable for one simplistic penalty as to each case is different.
The Wendy’s massacre I mentioned above was not a drug induced frenzy. It was done for money alone. (Five people executed for a little over $2,000) The ex-employee got a friend who was labeled “borderline mentally retarded” and planned to rob the store at closing time and murder those in it so they could not identify them. They even took the store’s video surveillance tape with them. (It was found with one of the murders along with the gun and money from the robbery)
This case is not the same thing as someone getting into a bar fight and punching someone that falls down, hits their head and dies. Did the one who threw the punch intend to kill the victim? Debatable as he assuredly meant him physical harm but in that case I don’t believe he deserves to die for it.
Lining up people, putting a bag over their heads so they can’t see their faces and then shooting them in the back of the head one by one, yup that is a case that they deserve the death penalty.
12-06-05, 09:14 AM FredPuli Yes Koz. Our senior judges have often said that murders vary so much that even 'life imprisonment' should not be the automatic penalty. (You can imagine the reaction of some politicians to that Big Grin ). In practice a full life term is very rare anyway. At present they can direct, or not as they think fit, that the convicted person serve a minimumm number of years , and the minimum they would otherwise set is doubled if the murder is held by them to have been racially motivated.They can also say that the sentence should be for a full life term. Otherwise the term is set by a parole board which reviews each case from time to time and what they decide may mean a sentence of only ten years, or even a bit less, being served.
In the old days when we last had capital punishment for murder the law, rather absurdly in practice, held that certain murders carried the death penalty but not others. These were shooting or by explosion; murder in the course of theft; murder of a prison officer or police officer; committing a second murder on a different occasion from the first; murder in the course of escaping from jail. So battering someone to death did not but shooting them did and murdering someone being raped did not but murdering the shopkeeper during a theft of a packet of cigarettes did and killing two people at the same time did not but doing it on different dates did etc etc Roll Eyes.
As most British murders involved 'blunt instruments' and very few involved guns these provisions affected hardly anyone.
What you propose suggests an attempt to legislate as we once did, in 1957. It would certainly have resulted in the sentence of the death being passed in the case you cite.
It is all an improvement on our much older law. That included the death penalty for 'consorting with gypsies for more than a month' amongst other heinous crimes such as vagrancy by ex-soldiers.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Originally posted by frankvan: The use of anecdotal evidence in the case of murderer's apparent motivations seems especially unreliable. Some murders appear to be planned and calculated, others the result of drug induced irrational behavior, some crimes of almost justifiable retaliation, some from insanity. Is it not reasonable to conclude that there can not be one single, simplistic penalty available??
Right. So why not use the principle of public safety instead of punishment?
I'll readily grant that many if not most murderers don't intend to commit murder when they wake up in the morning. They intend, rather, to intimidate someone with a weapon in order to attain some (usually trivial) goal.
But people who use a weapon or even unarmed force to get sex, money, drugs, revenge, to avoid paying alimony or child support, or to gain any other end, need to be controlled. These aggressive behaviors can end in death for the victim and too often for innocent bystanders.
There is something missing in such people, clearly a sense of empathy. Their need for what-they-think-they-need is all-important; the right of their parent, spouse, child, neighbor or innocent stranger is of less importance. If such a one gets his/her demand today without killing, then the behavior will be repeated tomorrow. Sooner or later someone will die.
Public safety is the issue. So based on that premise, it does not matter whether the murderer is executed, jailed until he/she can be safely released, outsourced to a foreign prison, or surgically/chemically altered so that he/she can be set free and remain harmless.
I suppose then economics would be the deciding factor. It might be cheaper to blind a murderer and then set him/her free (mark of Cain?) than to incarcerate him/her for life.
I wonder if seeing a blind murderer on the streets would act as a deterrent? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12-06-05, 03:30 PM frankvan The trouble I have with all of the possible ways available for protecting the public from its enemies is the damage that is done to the society as a whole. Chemically and/or surgically altering the offender has been tried in the past and found to be counter productive. The castrated rapist has become more agressive and vicious, the pickpockets in Fred's example have produced more one-handed pickpockets, etc. Blinding murderers and turning them loose might, indeed, be cheaper than lifelong incarceration, but so would life sentence without parole if it did not result in endless appeals.
As far as public safety is concerned, I see nothing wrong with indeterminate sentences left to the judgement of the court. At least when we protect society by removing the offender from its midst, what purpose is there in killing, branding, mutilating the convicted person other than a barbaric descent to the criminal's level, a thirst for revenge. The occasional mistake that results in an unjust conviction should, in a civilized world, always be reversible. I see nothing wrong with a life sentence without parole and the murderer given the choice between solitary confinement and assisted suicide at any given time.
12-06-05, 03:58 PM Ogi look at australia, they don't have the death penalty and hell they don't even have guns legal for citizens, and their murder numbers are WAY below what ours are, even if you consider the population difference and do a ratio/percentage.
Ogi
12-06-05, 04:01 PM before you all shout out "reference! reference!"
australia homicide rate per 100,000 poppulation is 1.5
USA homicide rate per 100,000 poppulation is 6.1
we are committing homicide *4* times more than australia is, does this prove that the death penalty is worthless or does this prove that guns kill people, not people kill people, or both?
Ogi
12-06-05, 04:04 PM Ogi in the defense of the death penalty though, sinapore, a country that doesn't hesitate to execute anyone, has a homicide rate of 1.71, however that is still above australia, i'm not sure about their laws regarding gun control.
Ogi
12-06-05, 04:11 PM Ogi posted the info wrong, ... in 2000 here were the homicide rates per 100,000
It has also tried to rehabilitate terror suspects, an avenue not available to executed Melbourne man Nguyen Tuong Van, because Singapore law demands the mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking.
Some of Singapore's terror suspects have been released back into society, including one who allegedly helped plan an attack on US aircraft. The plan was not put into effect.
Among those being held without trial are several dozen alleged members of the Islamic extremist organisation, Jemaah Islamiah.
Members of the al-Qaida-linked group had planned to bomb several targets in Singapore, including the Australian High Commission, officials in Singapore said.
JI has also been blamed for the 2002 nightclub bombings in Bali that killed 202 people -- including 88 Australians -- as well as the triple suicide bombings in October that killed 20, among them four Australians. - HeraldSun.com
About ten years ago, Singapore caned (6 lashes with a ratan cane) an American convicted of two charges of vandalism involving spray-painting cars, two of mischief for throwing eggs at cars, and one of retaining stolen property (Street signs). According to USAToday, caning is administered by an official trained in martial arts, breaks the skin and leaves permanent scars on the buttocks. Healing takes months. Singapore strictly enforces laws that prohibit pornography and ban smoking, eating, chewing gum or drinking in designated public places. It's even illegal to fail to flush a toilet. (I saw nothing about leaving the seat up, however.)
12-06-05, 05:00 PM Koz Quote by frankvan:
quote: “The occasional mistake that results in an unjust conviction should, in a civilized world, always be reversible. I see nothing wrong with a life sentence without parole and the murderer given the choice between solitary confinement and assisted suicide at any given time.”
I agree 100% That statement and suggestion makes perfect sense. (Probably why it will never happen) I would gladly forgo the death penalty in all capital offense(Wink) cases if this ever is the alternative.
12-06-05, 05:22 PM DorianGreyed Since I think suicide can be the choice of a rational mind, I agree as well.
12-06-05, 06:12 PM DorianGreyed I wonder how close the convicted man came to being sentenced to death.
Cop: Bloody footprint might be mine
Tuesday, December 6, 2005; Posted: 6:38 a.m. EST (11:38 GMT) LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A former police officer testified that he might have left the bloody footprint that was used as key evidence in convicting a man of killing his mother 20 years ago.
"I don't know for sure that I did, but it's possible that I may have" left the print, George Prado testified Monday. He has since left the Los Angeles Police Department and is now a sheriff's deputy.
On Friday, police Sgt. Jim Gavin said he recently had a bloody footprint found at the murder scene analyzed -- something that had not been done 22 years ago -- and experts determined it didn't match Lisker's shoe.
The prosecutor at the time told jurors the print came from Lisker's shoe. - CNN.com
I don't know who the prosecutor was, but it certainly appears that he lied, doesn't it? Isn't that a crime in California?
12-07-05, 05:30 PM FredPuli Protection? We have no death penalty in Britain. The population of England and Wales is 53 million.In 2003/4 there were 834 homicides i.e unlawful killings, whether murder or not ( 'homicide' includes murder and killing by criminal negligence but excludes deaths by reckless driving) of which, incidentally, 68 (8%) involved a firearm. The homicide rate is around 1,7 per 100,000 population. Typically we get between 210 and 250 murders a year ;the numbers vary quite a lot from year to year.
It seems very doubtful whether executing all our murderers each year would reduce the rate and so protect the public. Trouble is that we can never tell since we never, in all our history, did execute them all.What is more we cannot get figures from people saying they were certainly going to kill someone but didn't because they thought they'd be convicted and hanged, whereas had it been life imprisonment they would have faced they would have gone ahead.( Nor do we have figures for those who actually did go ahead because of thinking like that ) None of the murderers we did hang thought that way, anyhow , including those who murdered for gain Wink
The one sure way to reduce the rate would be to remove young men from the country , but short of starting another Great War it is not easy to see how that could be achieved. All major participants 1914 to 1918 got reduced homicide rates at home in that period but maybe our losing a million men killed abroad, as Britain did, is not quite the answer .Young men are the biggest contributors to the homicide statistics.
12-07-05, 11:07 PM babthrower Well, yes, there's always that. We could look upon homicide and the consequent death penalty for the killer as a crude form of birth control. It's likely that
-- as populations increase, and -- there are no new empty continents to conquer, and -- since mankind continues to believe that it is its duty to increase and multiply, regardless of resourses
then something must be done.
War, famine and disease were always the great controllers. Control the natural controllers, and we get the scenario we see in Australia with rabbit populations: rapid increase until they outstrip the food supply; resulting starvation, death for some and weakness for others; disease for the weak. The remainders return to square 1 and start all over again.
But people are burdened with this mysterious thing, a 'sense of justice'. That is merely the principle of karma codified into 'law'.
From an evolutionary point of view, the sense of justice would nullify the effect of the ultimate survival of only the most savage.
By that I mean, if we ignored murder, and simply said, as some death penalty opponents say, 'It would be wrong and evil to kill the offender, it would make us no better than him/her,' the survivors in only a few generations would be the most ruthless and the least empathetic of mankind. *see footnote* This would not bode well for the survival of the species.
But the death penalty system creates a level playing field: for every victim lost, we lose a murderer.
Problem: with the conjugal visit system, a murderer serving a life sentence can reproduce; the victim cannot.
* Footnote: I suppose it would also follow that we ought not to lock up murderers, since that would make us no better than kidnappers.
12-08-05, 12:38 AM Ogi i never said we are murderes when we execute people, i'm saying there is no benefits for the system. people are talking about the escaped convicts, well what about innocents that are getting executed?
there is no benefit for the death penalty other than to make people feel better, and i don't want to execute someone because of someone else's feelings.
Ogi
12-08-05, 04:10 PM Scotty
quote:
In its latest roundup of death penalty statistics, ''Capital Punishment, 2004," the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that at least 101 murderers now on death row were already in prison when they murdered their victims; at least 44 others were prison escapees.Lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key may sound appealing. But some murderers will always escape and murder again. Others will kill in prison
quote:
Opponents of capital punishment make much of the theoretical possibility that an innocent defendant might be killed. What they never acknowledge is that the abolition of capital punishment guarantees that innocent victims will die. That isn't only because executing murderers has a powerful deterrent effect, as a number of recent studies confirm.
It is also because prison bars can't keep some killers from killing again
quote: well what about innocents that are getting executed?
Are you able to cite some cases where innocent people have been executed?
How many? How often does it occur?
12-08-05, 04:46 PM FredPuli "Tookie" Williams should be spared because 1)he has reformed 2) he has proved , by his words and actions, a positively beneficial member of society. 3) it is barbaric to kill him now having kept him alive for twenty four years and for no valid reason whatsoever
Of those only (3) is truly compelling. If he had been put to death within a year of conviction , as he should have been, he would not now be in the position to argue grounds (1) and (2) Roll Eyes
12-08-05, 06:42 PM Scotty
quote: Of those only (3) is truly compelling. If he had been put to death within a year of conviction , as he should have been, he would not now be in the position to argue grounds (1) and (
Exactly Fred,IMO he's twenty-three years late for his journey.
12-08-05, 07:22 PM frankvan
quote: But the death penalty system creates a level playing field: for every victim lost, we lose a murderer.
If we are to achieve anything resembling a level playing field by that method we would have to execute not only the murderer but all of his family and friends. We average one murder a day in Baltimore and very few of the murderers are even caught, let alone executed. Seems we need to find some more efficient methods.IMHO.
12-08-05, 07:35 PM DorianGreyed
quote: Are you able to cite some cases where innocent people have been executed?
How many? How often does it occur?
Since no trial can take place after after the man is executed, there can't be any legal proof of any innocent victims being executed, However, many convicted people have been proven innocent years after the trial. It seems to me that all it takes is one innocent man be executed to be too much.
I am aware of one case, in Indiana or Ohio, I believe, in which a man was convicted of murder, and missed by two weeks of being sentenced to die. He was later found to be innocent, after having served 7 years in prison. At least he was able to be freed. What does the state say to the family of someone executed who is later found to be not guilty? "Oops! Sorry, Lady. Apologize to your kids for us, too."
12-08-05, 09:13 PM Ogi
quote: Originally posted by Scotty:
quote: In its latest roundup of death penalty statistics, ''Capital Punishment, 2004," the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that at least 101 murderers now on death row were already in prison when they murdered their victims; at least 44 others were prison escapees. Lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key may sound appealing. But some murderers will always escape and murder again. Others will kill in prison
quote: Opponents of capital punishment make much of the theoretical possibility that an innocent defendant might be killed. What they never acknowledge is that the abolition of capital punishment guarantees that innocent victims will die. That isn't only because executing murderers has a powerful deterrent effect, as a number of recent studies confirm.
It is also because prison bars can't keep some killers from killing again
Reference.
Scotty, you have showed here that killers can kill while in jail, but you still have not said anything regarding the murder rates of countries that DON'T use the death penalty, I think that statistic is far more applicable.
Ogi
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6257 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
If you were sentenced to death, what would stop you from committing a horrible crime while in prison? The thought process is probably something like "What are they going to do, kill me twice?".
Ogi +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 12-09-05, 08:45 AM frankvan If I have resorted to murder for whatever reason and know that I will face execution, why wouldn't I commit half a dozen murders - to avoid capture, or simply because I have the urge and don't expect to be caught?
The inescapable fact concerning capital punishment is that it is not a solution, a deterrent, or a panacea. Some crimes are more heinous than murder; do we choose more punitive penalties? How? Do we execute serial killers multiple times?
Let's face facts. Capital punishment is a barbaric act of desperation and vengeance, better suited to a primitive society. Why do we recoil from the guillotine, hanging, the headsman's axe or public stoning? What is the reason for the more humane lethal injection method? Precisely because putting fellow humans to death is repugnant to most enlightened people.
I submit that there is only one deterrent to murder and similar crimes: sure and dependable apprehension. Once caught, offenders need to be deprived of their freedom to circulate among the law-abiding citizenry. Sure it's not easily accomplished, but it has been, in other countries, with greater success. When, if ever, will we learn to imitate the methods of those societies which enjoy greatly reduced crime rates?
12-09-05, 12:22 PM babthrower I have always been a strong opponent to the death penalty. My reason: as stated above by others, the irreversibility of the penalty if the convicted person is later found innocent.
What we are seeing now, though, is causing me to wonder if there are other ways of handling convicted murders and convicted child predators (whose recidivism is practically guaranteed).
What we are seeing is the early release of people who should not be walking free among us, for reasons of economy. When the prisons get full, parole boards are told to let a bunch out.
That is why we need to look at options including a prompt death penalty. A death penalty deferred for twenty years is simply torture.
By the way, a footnote regarding Ogi's question:
"Scotty, you have showed here that killers can kill while in jail, but you still have not said anything regarding the murder rates of countries that DON'T use the death penalty, I think that statistic is far more applicable."
Canada stopped sentencing murderers to death in 1976. (Actually no one has been executed since 1962.)
Capital punishment was replaced with a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole for 25 years for first-degree murder.
The Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year, 1987, (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.
In 2004 it climbed to 1.95 per 100,000.
In the year 2,000, Florida, a death-penalty state, had 5.6 murders per 100,000 people. Texas' rate for 2004 was 6.1 per 100,000. I picked these two examples at random because I don't have time to look at the rates for all the death-penalty states right now.
12-09-05, 12:29 PM juanruiz babs,
I'm not sure it's fair to compare a whole country with individual states. Certain parts of Canada have had some violent times; Quebec and its motorcycle gangs, for example. I have no doubt that Canada's murder rate is, overall, lower. But this is due to many factors beyond the death penalty.
12-09-05, 12:52 PM babthrower Actually, JR, I agree with you, but since all Canada's provinces are without the death penalty, I found it simplest to use the national average.
Quebec, actually, has a low murder rate, in spite of motorcycle gangs. In 2003 it was 1.6 per 100,000. Manitoba had the highest rate, 3.1 per 100,000.
Still, we are a relatively murderous people. We're in the top ten, worldwide.
12-09-05, 01:03 PM juanruiz I'd be interested in comparisons US/Canada in terms of cities with similar socio-economic data, for example. How do essentially homogeneous communities compare with multicultural communities? And by multicultural I am not exclusively referring to "race."
12-09-05, 01:07 PM coldfuse Babs, thanks for the murder rates for Florida and Texas. I'm not going to check all of the stats now, either, but my recollection is that the American South as a whole has very high murder rates.
12-09-05, 01:09 PM frankvan In my town, Baltimore. We just executed a murderer a couple of days ago, complete with demonstrations on both sides of the controversy. We also average 300 murders every year for as far back as I can recall. Of course, statistics alone don't mean a great deal. Perhaps the fact that median annual income in the city is dangerously close to the official poverty level while in the surrounding county and the entire state of Maryland it is about 56K. Not only do I think there might be a correlation, but it frightens me that so many of my fellow citizens not only demonstrate in favor of an execution, they seem to salivate at the prospect. I have great-grandchildren who will have to live in this world long after I have gone to the happy hunting grounds. Can't we find better ways? Amen.
12-09-05, 01:42 PM babthrower Originally posted by coldfuse: "... my recollection is that the American South as a whole has very high murder rates."
With us it's east to west. Newfoundland has a ridiculously low rate, B.C. has 3 per 100,000. I guess there was a westward migration of crazies in the early days, they just kept going west until the worst of them drowned and the rest just settled down and replaced the activity of migrating with that of killing each other. Eek
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 153 | Location: Fremont, CA | Registered: 09-29-05
