Is Mise,

I have already mentioned some methods of measuring the deterrent effect of the death penalty and indeed, a couple that have actually been used to measure it. I suspect that your request for links is just the goal-post-shifting fallacy. If you really were interested in knowing, then you would do the research yourself, like I did (granted mine was for a criminology degree). Instead, I suspect you are simply requesting links in the hope that there are none so you can save face in what must have been an embarrassing discussion for you.

I’m usually reluctant to do the research for others, particularly when they don’t really care to know, but here’s some articles with studies on the deterrent effect of the death penalty (you may need to pay for them if you don’t have free university access or, alternatively, your state library might have them): -

Statistical Variability and the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty (2009): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1228227?uid=3737496&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106734667723
The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty: Facts v. Faiths (1976): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3108765?uid=3737496&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106734667723
The Deterrent Influence of the Death Penalty (1952): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1029443?uid=3737496&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106734667723

And here’s a couple of textbooks that you may be able to find at your state library that explain the data/statistic-gathering methods that are capable of measuring deterrent effects: -

Basics of research methods (Maxfield & Babbie);
Statistics for Criminal Justice and Criminology in Practice and Research (Fitzgerald & Fitzgerald).

"I suspect you are simply requesting links in the hope that there are none so you can save face in what must have been an embarrassing discussion for you."

Then you suspect wrongly.

Professor Charles Lund Black among others stated that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is inconclusive, and you said that it had some positive effect, "....that it's not so much that the death penalty isn't a deterrent at all; more that it appears to be no more of a deterrent than LWOP."

Now if LWOP is a deterrent then so must the death penalty be.

I have asked a number of people if the possibility of the death penalty would deter them from committing a crime, and they all answered 'Yes' and this has been my experience over the many years that I've pursued the subject.

Is Mise,

<<Professor Charles Lund Black among others stated that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is inconclusive...>>

Yes, and I agree with them (although Charles Black was a lawyer, not a criminologist, so citing him as an authority doesn't help your argument much). You'll notice, in discussions on this topic, that I often (and deliberately) include the words "most likely" and "probably" when mentioning that the death penalty is no more of a deterrent than LWOP.

But "inconclusive" doesn't necessarily mean that it's 'anyone's game'. The evidence is still very heavily weighted in the 'no more of a deterrent than LWOP' side of the argument. It would be unscientific to say that anything much is actually "conclusive" in the social sciences.

Even if the death penalty were more of a deterrent than LWOP, though, I'd like to see someone still justify it given the extensive list of social and justice problems that accompany it.

<<Now if LWOP is a deterrent then so must the death penalty be.>>

How does this contradict anything I've said?

<<I have asked a number of people if the possibility of the death penalty would deter them from committing a crime, and they all answered 'Yes' and this has been my experience over the many years that I've pursued the subject.>>

or this, for that matter?

I will note, though, that this is not very scientific. So if you think you've just debunked decades of criminological research, then think again.

What was your sample size and sampling method? What were the demographics you surveyed? Did they include people serving LWOP in a jurisdiction that doesn't have the death penalty? Were there any variables you controlled for? Because these will all have an effect on the extent to which your findings suggest a deterrent effect.

AJP: Even if the death penalty were more of a deterrent than LWOP, though, I'd like to see someone still justify it given the extensive list of social and justice problems that accompany it.

What list of Social & Justice Problems? Once the offender is dead that's it. The family of the offender just have to put up with the fact.

"Justice problems" are just a way of the Law fraternity to keep sucking money out of people. Justice is directly proportional to the amount of money you can pay. As long as you can put up the cash Lawyers will appeal, appeal, appeal or come up with some 16th. Century Precedent no one has ever heard of. The Judiciary know this & are in at the fat end of the table. When the cash runs out there suddenly nothing more that can be done. Strange that.

Previously I asked if the Law fraternity can be sued. Say someone is in jail for 10 years for violent Rape. After 5 years some board declares he is rehabilitated & ready for release back into Society. With-in a week he rapes my daughter. Can I sue the parole boars, The phyco & the Judge who declared him rehabilitated & signed him out? AJP the ball is in your court, seeing you are up with this stuff.

Jayb,

<<What list of Social & Justice Problems?>>

I already gave a quick rundown of a few in a post to Is Mise and alluded to some in the link I provided you. If you have data that discredits any of that, or suggests that they are not problems all, them please provide it. But I'm not going to attempt to expand on all of that in just a few hundred words for someone who is not really interested, would never change their mind anyway, and has demonstrated a penchant for requiring others to repeat themselves continuously in their past discussions.

No offence or anything.

<<"Justice problems" are just a way of the Law fraternity to keep sucking money out of people.>>

Do you have an example of that?

<<Justice is directly proportional to the amount of money you can pay.>>

Very much so, yes. And the types of systems that you conservatives so often call for would only exacerbate this (e.g. the electing of judges, 'user pays' systems).

<<As long as you can put up the cash Lawyers will appeal, appeal, appeal or come up with some 16th. Century Precedent no one has ever heard of.>>

Sometimes, but if they’re not valid concerns/appeals, then they’re thrown out. Can you list a 16th century bit of precedent that has been responsible for wasting the court’s time? Can you think of ANY 16th century legal precedent, for that matter? I can, and it prevents people committing fraud.

It just so happens, Jayb, that I’m studying law now. So leading the discussion down this path is probably not going to bail the ignorant conservatives on this thread out by confusing me, or distract from their failure to argue in favour of the death penalty. I don't say this to brag; more just to save us both time. Or perhaps you weren't aware that criminology and law were two different disciplines? Is Mise didn't seem to.

Continued…

...Continued

<<The Judiciary know this & are in at the fat end of the table. When the cash runs out there suddenly nothing more that can be done. Strange that.>>

It’s private defence lawyers that do this, not the judiciary. Judges are paid a set salary to avoid such corruption. And do you know who the biggest victims of this are? It’s members of organised crime. I bet you’re not so sympathetic now.

<<Previously I asked if the Law fraternity can be sued.>>

No, you asked if you asked if the parole board could be sued, but anyway...

<<Say someone is in jail for 10 years for violent Rape. After 5 years some board declares he is rehabilitated & ready for release back into Society. With-in a week he rapes my daughter. Can I sue the parole boars, The phyco & the Judge who declared him rehabilitated & signed him out?>>

No, you can’t. If you could, then we would be living in a society in which no-one was released out of fear of that happening and there'd be no point in parole boards. There’s no justice in that either.

Fortunately mistakes like this are rare; which is one of the reasons they make the news. Can you cite a case like this for me? I mean with the exact details of what the judgement was and what the reasons for release were. Because the chances are, you’re either making this up completely, or you’re thinking of a case in which the details weren’t reported accurately by the media. Again, too, you spare no thought for the poor souls who were deemed to be unfit for release or were executed despite the fact that they never would have committed a crime had they been released.

Finally, need I mention, yet again, the studies that show that when provided with the same facts, members of the general public estimate sentences equal to or lower than what the judges handed down in real life?