Carsten “The homicide rate in North Dakota, which does not have the death penalty, was lower than the homicide rate in South Dakota, which does have it, according to F.B.I. statistics for 1998. Massachusetts, which abolished capital punishment in 1984, has a lower rate than Connecticut, which has six people on death row; the homicide rate in West Virginia is 30 percent below that of Virginia”

So, have you eliminated the demographic differences of states? Like

Mix of ethnic origins
Percentage of active participants in religious observance
Differences in forms of religious observance
Economic performance
Agrarian or industrial economic base?
Education policy
Social welfare policy
Racial history, segregation / separation policy (government) and social influences (non-government)
Re-offender rates
Mass/multiple killings versus single killings
Nature of killing (spontaneous or anticipated)

The above are merely 11 of thousands of variables which may influence a homicide rate

Add that to statistical clustering and aberration and what do you have; something which says

“suggesting the absence or presence of the death penalty as an influence on homicide rates is at best coincidental since its singular influence has not been exacted separate to other influences.

Or simply put, carsten,
1 your “case” does not prove a thing and
2 as I said, previously “No statistical evidence to show that abolition of capital punishment reduces homicides.”

And

“As in most things from Abortion to Zoos, subjective values and not objective reasoning determines what people choose to believe.

When it comes to the death penalty, very few objective arguments ever come to bear”

SurVivor “" … continental USA has a history as fragmented as Europe."

That's grossly misleading,”

Segregation of the races was outlawed 200 years ago in the northern states and still official state policy in the south until the 1970’s (and likely unofficial state policy in some places today).
The original 13 states who signed the declaration of independence have a far longer post-native Indian history than the states of the North West or Alaska.

As to your comment “All rather beside the point.” Then why bother to make it?

Carl “Col Rouge, death penalty for second offence drug dealers? give me a break, I say release all political prisoners, aka drug dealers, today! And lock you up”

I would normally respond with good reason which compares the actions of drug dealers to those of psychopaths, sociopaths and contract killers.

As it is the final fourteen words in your post identify you as a cretinous moron who probably wears slip-on shoes because you are intellectually challenged by laces.

Don’t bother to challenge another post if all you can suggest is drug-dealers are political prisoners unless you can also produce evidence to support your notion that I should be locked up.

Now, return to the pond from whence you came and mix with the algae, the repartee of debate is better suited for you there than here.

Carsten “Is there anyone who has been close to a victim of murder (family, friend) who is still for the death penalty?”

My partners son was murdered in 2006 by someone turned schizophrenic from excessive and repeated cannabis consumption. I live with the effect on my partner of that tragedy daily. You know my view.

Logic “carsten - You are failing to understand the chasm of difference between a murderer and a murderous dictator.” Well Said.

Every bleeding heart ought to have a Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al- Tikriti for a life monitor. It wouldn't be long before the few remaining would be all for shooting the bastard. This guy was rogue from day one and found his niche in the secret police early on before using it to crowbar his way into national leadership. He had a simple philosophy. Kill any one who stands in your way. How he ever got to be 69 is a miracle and puzzlement to me.

carsten

You are failing to understand the chasm of difference between a murderer and a murderous dictator.
Posted by logic, Sunday, 7 January 2007 8:56:16 PM

Of course I recognise the difference between a murderer and a murderous dictator - the debate here just got a little sidetracked towards the murderer/capital punishment argument.

However, even if Saddam remained alive (and in prison), there is nothing for people to fear - he was never going to get back in power. They have more to fear with him dead and a martyr as he is now (an on-going lightning rod for militant Sunnis). Idi Amin is another example of a murderous dictator who was never even punished - he excaped, found asylum in Saudi Arabia and resided in Jedda, subsisting on a government stipend, for about 23 years until his death of natural causes in 2003. The new Ugandan government chose to keep him exiled, saying that Amin would face war crimes charges if he ever returned.

~
So, have you eliminated the demographic differences of states? Like

Mix of ethnic origins
Percentage of active participants in religious observance
Differences in forms of religious observance
Economic performance
Agrarian or industrial economic base?
Education policy
Social welfare policy
Racial history, segregation / separation policy (government) and social influences (non-government)
Re-offender rates
Mass/multiple killings versus single killings
Nature of killing (spontaneous or anticipated)

When it comes to the death penalty, very few objective arguments ever come to bear”

~
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 8 January 2007 12:30:37 AM

With the examples above, of similar adjacent states, I have largely eliminated the demographic factors you mention. The result still leans towards death penalty being no deterrant. And if you are correct that very few objective arguments can show that the death penalty is no deterrant, why not fall back on simple economics? That is is much cheaper to imprison a murderer for life than execute him. In the absence of positive evidence either way - why not choose the cheaper option?

Carsten,

Where is your evidence on costs?

In Australia, it costs in the order of $40,000 to $80,000 per year to to keep someone imprisoned. That's one or two million dollars or so, for a 20 year sentence. Surely it costs less to eliminate the miscreants and bunnies, early on.

In the US, appeals and the (in-principle)ability of prisoners to compel the courts to guarantee a fair trial, prior to execution of a death sentence, may make life imprisonment less expensive than execution.

My greatest concern is that SH did not receive a fair trial and is unlikely to receive any trial (even posthumously) over the matter of Kurdish atrocities, where there is evidence of American Government Agency complicity. SH's execution is very convenient for the current US Executive Branch folks such as GWB, Cheney, Rummy, and likely others.

See http://law.case.edu/saddamtrial/dujail/, where Kevin John Heller argues that:

"Iraq is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees ... [that] ... a defendant be provided, at a minimum, with the following rights:

• To be informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the charge against him;

• To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing…

• To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing…

• To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him."

An execution can be the outcome of a just process, but SH's execution was neither moral nor just; just the endpoint of another sleazy, hypocritical machination by the current US administration.

A shame Mr Bagaric does not condescend to join the commenting. Perhaps he could cite some social research and statistics which support his opinions about capital punishment, and torture to prevent moral outrage.

Col Rouge,

I am sorry the brashness of my post offended you so much, obviously I don't believe you should be locked up, but I, and many other pond dwelling life forms do find your views on drug dealers abhorrent.

I agree that large scale drug dealers (the CIA included, and yes there is plenty of evidence to support that claim) are self interested sociopaths. But the large majority of drug dealers, that are so unneccessarily clogging up our penal system generally do so to support their own habit, or through ignorance of how else to stay alive.

Most drug dealers are either poor, stupid or both. Drugs are a social and medical problem, jamming them in overcrowded prisons will, in the long run, do nothing to stop the problem.

You have been affected personally by drug use and I am sorry about that. I have witnessed the mental health of people closest to me deteriorate from drug use, it is not pretty, but I do not blame the dealers, users make the choice to put those drugs in their bodies, the question is, why, in these 'unprecedented times of economic growth' are so many people willing to infect their bodies with drugs? And does criminilisation of illicit drugs really make people stop taking them?