It wasn’t surprising that the Kansas Senate decided Monday to send back for more study a bill to repeal the state’s death penalty law, given that lawmakers had questions about its possible impact. But what was surprising was the goofy argument put forward by Sen. Susan Wagle (in photo), R-Wichita, in opposing the bill. Wagle said that abolishing the death penalty would send the message that it is OK to take an innocent human life. “This step we are taking towards repealing the death penalty is just another step toward the devaluation of the unique significance of human life that our culture is driving towards,” she said. Huh? It devalues life to not execute someone? And sentencing someone to life in prison without the possibility of parole sends the message that it is OK to kill?
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
87 Comments
The state killing people obviously is not “unusual.”
But there’s no way it’s not “cruel.”
That’s what it’s for: “an eye for an eye,” and lowering the people to the level of the common murderer.
No question there are a lot of people who deserve death as a penalty. But do the people deserve to have their government empowered to commit the same crime?
Put convicted murderers in a cel by themselves for life. And put a cyanide capsule in the cell with them.
There are no “goofy” arguments that support abolishing the death penalty.
Only goofy people…………
It’s only goofy in BrownLib world.
Well, what does Mickey have to say about it?
One hundred and thirty plus two.
It’s a typical Wagleism; a running off at the mouth that occurs when the brain has frozen up. Sorta like speaking in tongues without the religious significance.
Would any of the detractors here explain how Wagle’s argument is logical. I will be waiting… patiently, of course.
“This step we are taking towards repealing the death penalty is just another step toward the devaluation of the unique significance of human life that our culture is driving towards.”
Please defend the logic of this statement. References to “Phillip Brownlib” or generic defenses of the death penalty will be dismissed as the red herrings that they are.
This is a comment worthy of Yogi Berra, with the difference being that Yogi intentionally cultivated the internal irony of his statments.
I wanna make sure I have this right because it just doesn’t seem possible. Rep. Wagle believes that we have to kill people in order to show that we value life…wtf?
I’ve heard lots of arguments in favor of the death penalty, many of them solid and well structured, but this really doesn’t make any sense to me.
I believe the people who commit capital crimes are despicable, horrifying individuals, no doubt about it. And they deserve to be incarcerated for the rest of their lives. I’ve just never been convinced that killing these people does anything of value. It’s state sponsored vengeance. Why is that a desired outcome?
…What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument _ whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analysis say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html
You kill you die. Court ruling should be quick. Say 30 days. Lawyers are the ones running up the court costs.
Folks, keep in mind, this is Susan Wagle. If she wasn’t saying something goofy, that’d be a surprise.
BTW, I highly recommend reading Reg’s link–the whole thing–as even the headline creates a false impression of the facts.
The upshot: A handful of professors have produced a handful of statistical correlations. They are vague, not causative, and use questionable methodology. It’s not good science.
They also ignore a trend that has a clear causative component–the number of death-row inmates exonerated by DNA evidence.
“You kill you die. Court ruling should be quick. Say 30 days. Lawyers are the ones running up the court costs.” So were going to get rid of Laura Bush, Bill Janklow and Ted Kennedy? and lawyers run up the cost because the state messes up sometimes ask Rubin Carter about how that works.
Evidently, Rage has to be taught a lesson in humility, when a peer-reviewed scientific study by a credible scientist pops up in opposition to Rage’s conceptualization of ‘l.a.l.a’ land.
From an earlier post I made (earlier than this week)
The scientist and his paper.
================================================
On the other hand, here are the credentials of the distinguished scientist doing the study I referenced.
NACI MOCAN
Ourso Distinguished Chair of Economics
Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Research Interests
Labor Economics, Health Economics, Applied Econometrics,Economics of Crime
Ph.D. in Economics; October, 1989; City University of New York Graduate Center.
B.A. in Economics; Bo?aziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey; 1984.
Here is Dr. Mocan’s C.V.
http://www.bus.lsu.edu/mocan/mocan.Dec2008.pdf
Here is the full, peer-reviewed paper as it was published.
http://www.bus.lsu.edu/mocan/Getting%20off%20Death%20Row.pdf
er abstract I do believe…
Make em’ listen to Barry Manilow for their life sentence.
Maybe they will off themselves, problem solved.
Please do read Reg’s PDF link, as it merely bolsters what I have already said.
Actually, if you are really serious about preventing “future” murders, you should advocate the Death Penalty for small-time muggers and robbers.
Ready to go there, CONs?
Most convicted murderers have a long rap sheet and previous imprisonments.
There’s a pretty good chance that 14-year-old kid who took your car and went joyriding is a psychopath in the making. If you really want to prevent his future capital crime, you’ll execute him today. For shoplifting a pack of cigarettes or something.
Step up and own your rhetoric, Deathies!
We could probably “prevent” a lot of future murders if we’d simply executed the Carr brothers for holding up a liquor store years ago. That kid selling weed should be hanged, just to protect us from future crimes she’s likely to commit in the future.
Do you routinely go out in public with a handgun? Most future murderers do that, too. So if you’re really interested in “Regular’s” approach to preventing murders, you really should stick a needle in “Nathaniel” to prevent future murders.
The states that routinely execute murderers have higher-than-average murder rates. Obviously their approach isn’t achieving what they think it will.
So we’re left with the Death Penalty debate –
It’s more expensive than life imprisonment.
There’s no way to rectify unjust convictions.
It doesn’t deter heinous crimes.
It institutionalizes the worst human behavior by lowering The People to the level of murder; a crime we declare to be reprehensible.
Hey ANTI…knock that off!!! My wife likes Barry Manilow, ha.
#
Rage
Posted March 17, 2009 at 3:29 pm | Permalink
Please do read Reg’s PDF link, as it merely bolsters what I have already said.
———————–
Rage does not understand the purpose of focusing on the hypothesis, in scientific studies.
Because something is not mentioned, Rage believed the study is bad.
Perhaps Rage should return to school to learn how to properly apply a hypothesis by scientific study.
‘Kitchen Sink’ methods are best left to arm-flailing liberals.
#
Boxlock20
Posted March 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Hey ANTI…knock that off!!! My wife likes Barry Manilow, ha.
——————————-
Oh Bro! We’re truly dismayed by your situation. :D
I say, Give em’ the Barry!
They’ll be swinging by the sheets in days.
Anti…dat’s funny.
May I add one particularly cruel touch to the Manilow torture?
Give them a TV that they cannot change the channel,
and play only C-SPAN 24/7-365.
Give them a TV that they cannot change the channel,
and play only C-SPAN 24/7-365.
====================
I believe that would drop them in hours….watching the idiocy of our lawmakers….
You cruel bastid.
I like it.
I resent that. I love Barry Manilow as long as I don’t have to watch him.
———————–
“And sentencing someone to life in prison without the possibility of parole sends the message that it is OK to kill?”
———————-
No Phillip it tells thugs that it is ok to kill and then you can go to prison for life. Have the best lawyers the state can buy to handle appeals after appeals. They will access to law library just in case they want to make a career change and become lawyers.
I am not an advocate of the death penalty. Not because I don’t think some such as the Carr Bros, the BTK killer, etc… After reading Grishams only non-fiction novel about death row at McAllister, OK I realize that mistakes can and do happen.
I remembered that case because it was very big in Okla when I live there. I thought they got the right men. They didn’t.
Easy to see why saving the state the money to house and feed killers would look good.
“It’s more expensive than life imprisonment.”
Only because you people make it so.
“There’s no way to rectify unjust convictions”.
Name one person on Kansas’ Death Row where there is any question. Just one.
“It doesn’t deter heinous crimes”.
Who cares.
I think TARKUS and I have come to a reasonable bi-partisan solution that:
1. Eliminates the ‘Death Penalty’.
2. Quickly frees up tax payer money due to increased inmate ’suicides’.
3. Acts as one hell of a deterrent.
Sheriff Joe Aripao(not sure about spelling) has his jail TVs set to only show Cspan, Discovery or the Disney Channel
and thiers a Judge in Colorado who uses Manilow and Barney the Dinosaur as punishment for noise ord. offenses and the military blasts prisoners with death metal music
Naturally pro-abortion Wagle would come up with something this stupid. Maybe she thinking finding a cure for cancer would send the message it’s okay not to get exposed to harmful radiation?
Maggotpunk
Posted March 17, 2009 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
Naturally pro-abortion Wagle would come up with something this stupid.
=======================
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey Cuz,
How is O’Bama’s new carbon taxes gonna affect Tiller’s baby ovens?
I mean – is this gonna drive him out of business?
Or will uncle Mengele just charge more per (cough) visit?
Monkeyhawk
Posted March 17, 2009 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
The state killing people obviously is not “unusual.”
But there’s no way it’s not “cruel.”
>>>>>Oh no another victim of global warming.
Is CSPAN Ok’ed in the Army manual?
Hurray for Sherrif Joe.
That’s one snarky sherrif.
Speaking of snarky.
Jack Cafferty is good.
I gotta get his his books.
Remind me later.
Jed
Posted March 17, 2009 at 1:01 pm | \l “comment-538725″
It’s a typical Wagleism; a running off at the mouth that occurs when the brain has frozen up. Sorta like speaking in tongues without the religious significance.
OMG Wangle seems to have a future in national politics! I hear such arguments on CSPAN all the time and every day. Don’t try to make sense out it as sense was not the foundation she was using.
The best I can come up with as to what I think she was trying to say is. There are some crimes and more important some criminals that there is no redemption for or from. To imprison them for life is to suffer many to their continued sickness. It also means that in time they will become eligible for release. Yes life in Prison does not mean life in Prison. The standard is between 7 and 15 years unless there is a rider of extra time. Such as life and fifteen years, that means that if there is a point where the board is incline to release them they will still have to serve fifteen years after that.
It does not make sense to allow some criminals to continue to live as there is no redemption for them no matter how long they live.
But yes it is odd she was in a left handed way bring in the issue of abortion. Saying we already are moving toward a devaluing of life and to stop the death sentence is another form of it.
Oh Bro! We’re truly dismayed by your situation. :D —Regular
Now Reg., she is quite normal and wonderful in ever other way.
Sherriff Joe is first a showman and second a menace to sociery. He’s cost Maricopa County hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil liability by his reckless approach to the law, and the innocent lives destroyed.
But he does it with style!
Rage, if that’s the case he should be voted out.
I guess we hafta let his constituents decide.
Rage I have never seen a sherriff given more exposure. If what he is doing is so wrong why hasn’t he been arrested? What is wrong with tent cities? Nothing wrong with bologna sandwiches and what could be wrong with pink jail jamies for all?
People get upset that the state would execute a convicted 1st. degree murderer who has shown no regard for human life, yet they and the state endorses the killing of innocent babies.
Tiller kills them at this age, only 21 weeks gestation, yet you tell me this is not a living human being deserving of the protection of the state.
Just 21 week gestation:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/fetaldevelopment/samuel.html
Rage
Posted March 17, 2009 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
Sherriff Joe is first a showman and second a menace to sociery. He’s cost Maricopa County hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil liability by his reckless approach to the law, and the innocent lives destroyed.
=============================================
So Rage, I see you’re continuing with the arm flailing.
BTW, did you come to the conclusion that the study I quoted did not stick to its hypothesis?
In this paper, we investigate whether the death penalty is a deterrent for homicide.
So, in your invalid approach to science, you wanted to throw in how ‘DNA analysis set some free’ rather than sticking to the hypothesis of the professional scientist’s peer reviewed paper?
You do understand what a hypothesis is don’t you?
Should the good Economics Scientist who studies Crime economics divert his attention away from the methodology of science just because you want to throw in your red (perhaps slightly pink) herring to satisfy your Liberal thirst for feeling good?
LOL.. All pro-lifers in favor of using our tax money to inject poison into a person’s veins, please raise your hypocritical hands!!!
A person when born, before being born.. not so much…
21 weeks is too developed? How about 20 weeks? Or 20 weeks and 6 days?? Is that okay??
Or is it when one cell is fertilized…
Maybe this is best decided by the woman…
You want photos?
tinyurl.com/4h3l38
tinyurl.com/3g6f79
Gimme a break. There are MANY legitimate reasons….
BTW, did you come to the conclusion that the study I quoted did not stick to its hypothesis?
If “sticking to the hypothesis” is the hallmark of good science, than it’s possible to support any conclusion, no matter how ludicrous. Nice red herring, by the way.
I simple maintain that correlation is not causation, and that the paper in question appears to strain even the correlation.
Okay, I thought civil judgments against Arpaio had exceeded $200 million, but I may be in error.
Inmate deaths and injuries
Family members of inmates who have died or been injured in jail custody have filed lawsuits against the sheriff’s office. Maricopa County has paid more than $43 million in settlement claims during Arpaio’s tenure. [49] [54]
Charles Agster
In August 2001, Charles Agster, a 33-year-old mentally handicapped man, died in the county jail three days after being forced by sheriff’s officers into a restraint chair used for controlling combative arrestees. Agster’s parents had been taking him to a psychiatric hospital because he was exhibiting paranoia, then called police when he refused to leave a convenience store where they had stopped enroute. Officers took Agster to the Madison Street jail, placed a “spit hood” over his face and strapped him to the chair, where he had an apparent seizure and lost consciousness. He was declared brain dead three days later. A medical examiner later concluded that Agster died of complications of methamphetamine intoxication. In a subsequent lawsuit, an attorney for the sheriff’s office described the amount of methamphetamine in Agster’s system as 17 times the known lethal dose. The lawsuit resulted in a $9 million jury verdict against the county, the sheriff’s office, and Correctional Health Services.[55]
[edit] Scott Norberg
One major controversy includes the 1996 death of inmate Scott Norberg, a former Brigham Young University football wide receiver, who died while in custody of the Sheriff’s office.[56] Norberg was arrested for assaulting a police officer in Mesa, Arizona, after neighbors in a residential area had reported a delirious man walking in their neighborhood.[57] Arpaio’s office repeatedly claimed Norberg was also high on methamphetamine, but a blood toxicology performed post-mortem was inconclusive. Norberg did, however, have methamphetamine in his urine, proving that he had used the drug at some point fairly recently before his death. During his internment, evidence suggests detention officers shocked Norberg several times with a stun-gun. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, Norberg was already handcuffed and face down when officers dragged him from his cell and placed him in a restraint chair with a towel covering his face. After Norberg’s corpse was discovered, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them as they were trying to restrain him. The cause of his death, according to the Maricopa County medical examiner, was due to “positional asphyxia”. Sheriff Arpaio investigated and subsequently cleared detention officers of any criminal wrongdoing.[58]
Norberg’s parents filed a lawsuit against Arpaio and his office. The lawsuit was settled for $8.25 million (USD).[59]
[edit] Brian Crenshaw
Brian Crenshaw was a legally blind and mentally disabled inmate who suffered fatal injuries while being held in Maricopa Country Jail.
Crenshaw’s family filed a lawsuit against Arpaio and his office, which resulted in an award of $2 million.[60] As in the Scott Norberg case, it was alleged that Arpaio’s office destroyed evidence in the case. In the Crenshaw case, the attorney who represented the case before a jury alleged digital video evidence was destroyed.[61]
[edit] Richard Post
Richard Post was a paraplegic inmate arrested in 1996 for possession of marijuana and criminal trespass. Post was placed in a restraint chair by guards and his neck was broken in the process. The event, caught on video, shows guards smiling and laughing while Post is being injured. Because of his injuries, Post has lost much of the use of his arms.[62] Post settled his claims against the Sheriff’s office for $800,000.[63]
[edit] Jeremy Flanders
In 1996, Jeremy Flanders was attacked by inmates at Tent City who used rebar tent stakes, which were not concreted into the ground. Although these stakes had been used as weapons in a previous riot at the facility, the Sheriff’s office chose not to secure them properly. During the trial, the plaintiff “presented evidence that, among other things, the Sheriff and his deputies had actual knowledge that prisoners used rebar tent stakes and tent poles as weapons and did nothing to prevent it.” Furthermore, “the Sheriff admitted knowing about, and in fact intentionally designing, some conditions at Tent City that created a substantial risk of inmate violence.” After the attack: “another inmate entered the tent and found Flanders unconscious, gasping for air, and spewing blood out of his mouth, nose and ears. Flanders had been bloodied and beaten so badly that the other inmate initially did not recognize Flanders.” Flanders suffered permanent brain damage as a result of the attack. On appeal, Flanders was awarded $635,532, of which Arpaio was personally responsible for thirty-five percent.[20]
[edit] Ambria Renee Spencer
In 2006, inmate Ambrett Spencer, who was incarcerated for drunk driving and was nine months pregnant with a baby girl, complained of severe stomach pains and asked for medical attention. The infirmary nurse, who had no prenatal training, believed the pain was not an emergency. It was two hours before an ambulance was called for Spencer, who in the meantime had passed out from severely low blood pressure and lost so much color that the EMT who arrived at the scene said he knew she was “not getting enough blood to [her] organs and skin.” At the hospital — four hours after first reporting pain — Spencer gave birth to a dead daughter, Ambria Renee. It was determined that Spencer’s pain had been caused by placental abruption, internal bleeding resulting in loss of blood to the baby, which babies can usually survive if the mother is taken to the hospital and labor is quickly induced.
Ambrett Spencer has filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County, which as of November 2008 has not yet gone to trial. The county claims that the ambulance service is at fault for not transporting Spencer to the hospital fast enough.
Other female inmates have had miscarriages while incarcerated in Arpaio’s jail and have reported physical abuse or neglect which they believe contributed to the loss of their pregnancies. [64]
[edit] Jose Rodriguez
On March 26, 1996, Jose Rodriquez, 39, died in a pool of his own vomit on a jail floor. His cries for help went ignored by Arpaio’s jail employees. Rodriquez’s dehydration, fever and twitching ultimately led to his death, even while inmates shouted for help.[64]
[edit] Phillip Wilson
In 2003, Phillip Wilson was serving two months in Tent City for a nonviolent offense. Wilson was attacked by the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang and bludgeoned into a coma. He never recovered.[64]
[edit] Deborah Braillard
Deborah Braillard, 46, was documented as a diabetic in the jail’s health records. Her cellmates say a nurse did not give Braillard insulin, and then detention officers ignored her when she went into diabetic shock. Braillard died on January 23, 2005, ultimately from lack of insulin.[64]
[edit] Clint Yarbrough
In December 2005, Clint Yarbrough suffocated in a jail restraint chair. On April 18, 2007, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved an undisclosed settlement payout to Yarbrough’s family in excess of $1 million.[64]
[edit] Thomas Bruce Cooley
Months before Thomas Bruce Cooley, 44, was found hanging by the bed sheets in his jail cell, a federal inspector had warned Arpaio that the jail psych ward was a suicide waiting to happen. A 1996 Department of Justice report specifically cautioned that inmates could use “overhanging structures” to hang themselves. Three more inmates died in the same way as Thomas Cooley while in Arpaio’s custody: Kevin Holschlag, Michael Sanderson, and Juan Vasquez.[64]
_____________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
That’s just a small part of Arpaio’s foul legacy.
The man should be behind bars and nearly anywhere but Phoenix he would be.
A Harlequin fetus may be one reason, but a lack of responsibility and simple convenience on one persons part is no reason to kill another.
Or if left to you DavidB, maybe when labor starts, or as the child emerges from the womb? How about up to a year after birth, I mean it’s up to the woman…right?
“A medical examiner later concluded that Agster died of complications of methamphetamine intoxication. In a subsequent lawsuit, an attorney for the sheriff’s office described the amount of methamphetamine in Agster’s system as 17 times the known lethal dose.”
The guy committed suicide, intended or not. That guy would have died regardless, and should not be the responsibility of the Sheriff or the county.
Another stupid jury.
You can’t save idiot from themselves as is evident on this blog.
#
Rage
Posted March 17, 2009 at 6:04 pm | Permalink
BTW, did you come to the conclusion that the study I quoted did not stick to its hypothesis?
If “sticking to the hypothesis” is the hallmark of good science, than it’s possible to support any conclusion, no matter how ludicrous. Nice red herring, by the way.
I simple maintain that correlation is not causation, and that the paper in question appears to strain even the correlation.
==============================
How sophomoric and simplistic!
The hypothesis being tested was as stated before. The good professor did answer that hypothesis by proving its assertion and concluded the results.
Again, with the correlation mantra. You haven’t read the study have you?
How about anytime before voting age? silly
Who would expect different?
Brenda is the same mental midget that concluded that because someone has a cell phone, they can easily afford health care.
The death penalty should be shelved until we fix our Justice system.
Again, with the correlation mantra. You haven’t read the study have you?
Here is what the abstract says:
Controlling for a variety of state characteristics, the paper investigates the impact of the impact of the execution rate, commutation and removal rates, homicide arrest rate, sentencing rate, imprisonment rate, and prison death rate on rate of homicide.
It doesn’t matter how many supposedly “controlling” factors they enter into it. It’s still nothing more than comparing two numbers, and declaring a connection by fiat. You can “prove” that eating tomatoes produces serial killers that way. And it also ignores a more compelling correlation–the counterexample–that Monkeyhawk noted above, mainly that states which lack the death penalty have lower homicide rates.
I think it’s probably unlikely that the death penalty has a measureable effect on that statistic either way (and how would we know if it did?). But it’s clear at least that the counterexample–non-death states with fewer murders–casts doubt on the deterrent hypothesis.
Oh, I see Rage – you depend on MonkeyHawk to draw conclusions on what is or isn’t a scientific study, by using statistics gotten from someplace compiled with unknown methods.
…I gotcha…
“Huh? It devalues life to not execute someone? And sentencing someone to life in prison without the possibility of parole sends the message that it is OK to kill?”
In defense of Wagle – placing the ultimate penalty on killing shows the gravity of the crime. Also, for the ‘really dangerous’ removing them from existence protects those (guards for example) who might be exposed to them in the future.
Monkeyhawk merely stated a well-known statistic. It wasn’t the first time I’d heard it, and it’s based on empirical data.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
#
Rage
Posted March 17, 2009 at 8:00 pm | Permalink
Monkeyhawk merely stated a well-known statistic. It wasn’t the first time I’d heard it, and it’s based on empirical data.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
===================================
You’re kidding me right?
This is the one that Steven Davis put up as well.
I will tell you what I told him. This is not empirical data, nor was it peer reviewed, nor was it published in any respected science magazine.
The study you reference is pure Web Site hokum and bee ess.
So why isn’t anyone trying to bring George W to trial?
Bugliosi layed out the entire prosecution step by step.
He lied. He conspired. People died.
#
TARKUS
Posted March 17, 2009 at 8:04 pm | Permalink
So why isn’t anyone trying to bring George W to trial?
Bugliosi layed out the entire prosecution step by step.
He lied. He conspired. People died.
====================
Nice try at re-direction Tracy.
Irrelevant flim-flam doesn’t exactly forward the discussion under the current topic.
just a question.
if you don’t wanna answer don’t!
The conclusions are based on the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
But, as I previously noted, there may be other explanations for the disparity (e.g. perhaps it’s the opposite: states that typically have higher murders are more like to adopt the death penalty). That’s the whole problem with drawing firm conclusions from correlations absent a causative mechanism.
However, if the effect was significant–to point of compelling public policy–one might expect at least to see the murder rates substantially falling in a direct correlation in each state after instituting the death penalty. But the cited paper makes no such claim, as it cannot, and also cautions about making decisions about death penalty based on their study alone.
#
TARKUS
Posted March 17, 2009 at 8:14 pm | Permalink
just a question.
if you don’t wanna answer don’t!
=================
Naw Trace,
You know it was a typical Lib smoke bomb trying to re-direct/obfuscate attention from the discussion.
Rage
Posted March 17, 2009 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
The conclusions are based on the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
——————–
There’s the rub.
Extrapolation of data from a government report is not science, especially if there is no peer review. Your referenced study is bogus eyewash – another typical Liberal gag.
So, if you are so convinced that this PhD’s study that was peer reviewed and publish is hogwash – why don’t your write him and tell him so. Be sure and include your reasoning that you stated here.
So, if you are so convinced that this PhD’s study that was peer reviewed and publish is hogwash – why don’t your write him and tell him so. Be sure and include your reasoning that you stated here.
I do think the authors reached a conclusion not entirely warranted by their own data. I did not say the study was “hogwash.”
#
Rage
Posted March 17, 2009 at 8:23 pm | Permalink
So, if you are so convinced that this PhD’s study that was peer reviewed and publish is hogwash – why don’t your write him and tell him so. Be sure and include your reasoning that you stated here.
I do think the authors reached a conclusion not entirely warranted by their own data. I did not say the study was “hogwash.”
======================
No guts, no glory…
Go for it, if you are confident that your conclusion is correct.
If not, then you have no confidence in your conclusions.
Go for it, if you are confident that your conclusion is correct.
Meaning that I’m supposed to parrot your parody of my position>? Hehe, no thanks!
#
Rage
Posted March 17, 2009 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
Go for it, if you are confident that your conclusion is correct.
Meaning that I’m supposed to parrot your parody of my position>? Hehe, no thanks!
===============================
Congratulations on winning today’s ‘Weasel Award.’
You may collect your prize just outside the back door, second alley over.
“Goofy” arguments from Wagle are a “surprise?” I guess I can’t blame the Eagle for not wanting to alienate the local Wingnut majority. But anybody who’s ever been in a room with Wagle knows that she’s as jaw-droppingly stupid as she is lacking in self-awareness. Not a great combination.
Brenda Landwehr, by comparison, may be a lying troll of a woman, but there’s no doubt that she’s savvy and is at least somewhat capable of editing herself.
Ok reggie, I’ll play.
No obbing, no redirecting, no hidden agenda.
It was just a question.
If you think I toe the line for anyone’s political ideology, you’re sorely mistaken.
I have dissapointed many liberals here with some of my views. Once I again, I must reiterate that I don’t fit you’re neat little categories.
Sorry.
S/B don’t fit your, not you’re.
Ok, discuss away.
I used to be totally against the death penalty. I’m not anymore. But I’m also not gung ho against killing even guilty people. I think that in order to use the death penalty, it should be the MOST HEINOUS of crimes. Very strict criteria. I also think they should be allowed any new evidence that surfaces to be heard. No more of this nonsense where the appeals court won’t hear.
I think the worst punishment still is imprisonment for a very long life.
The death penalty gets them off easy.
As for Wagle, we all knew she was crazy, but I’m surprised she isnt’ toeing the radical pro-life line.
“‘Meaning that I’m supposed to parrot your parody of my position>? Hehe, no thanks!
===============================
“Congratulations on winning today’s ‘Weasel Award.’
“You may collect your prize just outside the back door, second alley over.”
Translation: I will create a strawman of your position, and when you deny it, I will accuse you of being a weasel.
Classic Regular trolling. Create a parody of someone’s position and then run with it.
The confusion of correlation and causation is well known in the behavioral sciences. And peer reviewed does not mean universally accepted or established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Rage, he is stringing you along. At this point, he is pretty much done when it comes to dealing with content. He’s counting coup.
“In defense of Wagle – placing the ultimate penalty on killing shows the gravity of the crime. Also, for the ‘really dangerous’ removing them from existence protects those (guards for example) who might be exposed to them in the future.”
This is about the only possible defense of Wagle’s statement. However, it still won’t wash. The proof that a culture values the sanctity of life is to take it from a murderer? Nope. Doesn’t work. It may communicate that a culture considers murder heinous, but it still fundamentally contradicts the claim that a culture fundamentally values life.
Wíka Shonge
I think life in Solitary Confinement is better than the death penalty.
AS punishment. I’d rather be executed, than spend life in solitary confinement.
As I have proposed before:
Solitary confinement with easy access to a cyanide pill.
Having the Death Penalty on the books is not much different than to have a military arsenal. If you transgress and kill citizens of a country who are heavily armed, they will bomb you to avenge the loss of life. The threat of returned bloodshed is both a deterrent and a means to show that life is valued.
I’m assuming y’all noticed that Wagle’s remarks were called “confusing” in today’s paper, instead of “goofy.”
Hummmm….
Dennis
Does anyone trust human beings to be perfect in their judgments. I don’t because I know I make mistakes. When humans make a mistake in a death penalty case and the person is executed, that is murder, not justice.
I’ve read that since the advent of DNA testing, 130 death row inmates were found innocent and released from prison.
re: Senator Wagle. She is the delightful person who voted against poor children’s medical care legislation. Her reason: it would be like socialized medicine. So, you are a murderer if you have an abortion. But once a baby is born–he/she is on his/her own, health wise if the family is poor.
I’d like to hear her defend that position as pro-life.
Jane, you are correct.
I think it’s called THE INNOCENCE PROJECT.
Of, course it got labeled as ‘liberal’.
We should rethink the system that has been proven to convict the innocent to death.
On the other hand, I can think of a few who are guilty as hell, beyond a doubt, and I have no misgivings about their executions.
Let me take a moment to correct a misconception from up thread…………..
An inmate serving a life sentence is elgible for parole, usually after seven years. Most are not granted parole their first hearing. Many never are paroled.
An inmate serving a life sentence without the possibility is never elgible for a parole hearing. Once they enter prison, they are there until they die.
The “without the possibilty” sentence is a relatively new development – over the past twenty years or so.
Most term-lifers are confined for twenty-three hours per day, seven days a week, with only one hour per day for solitary exercise.
Given the errors of the judicial system, life without the possibility of parole seems to be the best alternative for the death penalty.
“WSClark” –
I, too, generally approve of “without the possibility of parole.” It still gives justice a chance to rectify mistakes in the original conviction, something execution cannot.
I’d also add a readily-available cyanide capsule in each lifer’s cell.
It always struck me odd that Göring was described as “cheating the hangman” when he offed himself after the Nuremberg trials. Sounds like a Pyrrhic “victory” to me.
The only thing lacking is the act of vengeance by the executioners.
“Suicide — The sincerest form of self-criticism.”
I’ll shock you all, the death penalty should be on the books, but hardly ever used. Multiple eye witnesses/video evidence. If anything it’s a great negotiating tool, life for the guarantee of no death penalty.
Let them live the rest of their lives in prison, make them work and charge them rent. Prisons should be huge profit centers for government, not liabilities. You put a dog collar on them, and if they get within so many feet of a guard, or another inmate, they get a jolt hard enough to knock them unconscious. The combination of motion and proximitity determins who gets zapped.
But if they act right, treat them right, give them decent food, TV, jack mags, who cares, as long as they are out of the public realm forever, keeping the public safe, then mission accomplished.
We need more prisons. The capability to jail 10% of the population is required in todays day and age, because 10% of the population should be behind bars. We need to quadruple our capacity, no parole, no probation, they should be outlawed. Repeat offenders who are bound for a life behind bars should be given the opportunity to renounce their US citizenship and be dropped off along the coast of cuba, or perhaps an African country could be bought cheap. Free unlimited Popeyes chicken and Burger King for life, and 50K in cash if you promise to just go away, and never come back.
I’m not entirely serious here, but it is a thought.