Another Rudy Scandal

Hey Elephant-

What do you think about the recent Rudy Shag Fund Scandal? When is this stuff going to start sticking to him? How can he still be the GOP front runner? Hopefully Democrats can do a better job than his current Republican rivals are at holding him accountable. This guy would be a mess as a President.

Donkey

Reply to City upon a Hill

Aw Donkey, protection, reformation, and deterrence; the post reminds me of late nights, pizza, and flow charts in the good ol' days studying criminal law. 

Instead of telling you why the death penalty protects society better than life in prison (no parol and no prison escapes from the death penalty; essentially, no chance of recidivism plaguing society again), why it reforms perpetrators better than life in prison (somebody facing death is forced to think long term--I mean, really long term), and why it deters murder more than life in prison (frankly, death scares most people more than blank prison walls), let me just say that the majority of your post fails to consider another equally important rationale for how we administer justice--proportionality.

In law, proportionality is what we refer to when we say, "Let the punishment fit the crime." So when you ask why immigrants shouldn't face the death penalty, my reply is that illegal immigration is not commensurate with the punishment of death. But death does fit the crime of death, especially since a murderer facing the death penalty often has killed many people or has committed the most egregious type of murder, like that of Baby Jane.

Returning to forgiveness, in my mind that argument just doesn't fly when we're talking about a justice system. As a society, we are not asked to forgive murderers. We are not asked to forget the grotesque circumstances surrounding a loved one's death at the hands of a murderer. We are not asked to turn the other cheek when our child washes ashore in a cardboard box in Galveston Bay. As I said in my last post, God intends that we as a society administer justice. And for many Americans, the proper combination of protectionism, reformation, deterrence, and proportionality only comes in the form of the death penalty when dealing with murder; that is, we "affirm the right to life by punishing those who violate it in the most strict form."

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

--Sir Elephant, the perhaps not-so-gifted Master of the Scientific Method

A City Upon A Hill

Sir Elephant-

I apologize if I misstated your previous argument. As to your brilliant hypothetical, I have no doubt that the death penalty deters murder, but does it deter more murder than life in prison? I am not convinced that the answer to that question is yes, even in your hypothetical. And statistical analysis on that very question is at best inconclusive. Moreover there are many other cases or hypotheticals where the answer is most likely no. Such as the story of Baby Jane.

Second, if in fact the death penalty does have a greater deterrent effect, shouldn't we apply that punishment to criminals convicted of other crimes? Child Molesters, rapists? What about non-sexual child abuse or kidnapping? Aren't we equally concerned with obtaining additional deterrence of those crimes? Now that I think about it, you have found the perfect Republican solution to the immigration problem. You should run on this Elephant, I really think you could win the nomination. If you think the Republican base gets excited about building a wall, wait until they hear this. After all, the immigrants are here ILLEGALLY.

But I digress. The reason why the death penalty is more vengeful and unforgiving than life in prison is because justice is the primary rationale for choosing to execute prisoners. As you state in your previous post, "that's the punishment that we as a society have determined that justice demands." But other punishments such as life in prison have different primary rationales behind them, such as protection, reformation, and deterrence. That is why the penalty of life in prison is not necessarily more vengeful than the penalty of 6 months in prison. We lock people away for life because they are dangerous, and because a penalty of 6 months in prison would not achieve the goals of protection and deterrence. But we execute people because they deserve it, not because life in prison does not deter murder or protect society from the murderer.

Now you can point to studies that may show the death penalty deters more murder, but at bottom that is not the reason why you or anyone else supports capital punishment. You support it because you feel justice demands it. You are outraged when you hear stories like that of Baby Jane. Those murderers do not deserve to live. I understand that position as I have often had similar feelings myself. But I do not see that position as consistent with the spirit of forgiveness. A spirit exemplified by the good people of this country, and a spirit that should be embodied in the policies of this great nation. We should set an example for the rest of the world. We should be "a city upon a hill" or "a model of christian charity." As Winthrop said in that famous speech, we should "love mercy." By doing so we light a higher path, affirming the morals and faith which make up the fabric of our country.

Peace, Love, & Life,

Donkey

Response to the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty

Donkey,

Evidently I need to reread my posts before publishing them. I didn't mean to imply the debate about the deterrent effects of the death penalty are no longer contested. The debate definitely continues. My point was that in the past several years more conclusive studies have emerged suggesting that the death penalty does in fact deter murder. And I don't think anybody reading those studies should be surprised that people criticize the studies' methodologies, as you pointed out. After all, there's a lot at stake here. But remember, for every person who criticizes the study, there's also somebody who supports it--often an academic just like the critics you pointed to.

But since we're on the subject of flawed studies, let me put forth one of my own. Let's say John Doe is premeditating the murder of his wife. According to Doe, she's a mean, nasty ol' lady and he's tired of her constant nagging. John Doe is a lawyer and he plans to commit the perfect crime (yes, we've heard this story before). He obviously understands the law, and he knows the repercussions of his pre-meditated actions. After all, they are PRE-MEDITATED; he has lots and lots of time to think about it. Can you tell me than under no circumstance will the thought of the death penalty deter Mr. Doe from preceding with his plan? Because if you can't, then there's a CHANCE that the death penalty may deter a murder. And in my mind, if there's a chance we can save one innocent child, one innocent mother, one innocent bystander, then that chance, combined with several other reasons (some of which we have already discussed), is enough for me to support the death penalty.

And quite frankly, I think there's much more than a chance that the death penalty deters murder; in fact, I think the death penalty does deter murder, just like a ticket deters speeding and the threat of jail time deters drug dealing, perhaps not in all instances but in many and that's all that matters.

--Sir Elephant, Master of the Scientific Method

Deterrent Effect of Death Penalty

Elephant-

The debate about the deterrent effects of the death penalty continues today, and the statistical research is far from conclusive as you suggest. Indeed the studies you cite have been criticized by many in academics as unsound and statistically flawed. Check out the following link which provides further links to the studies you cite and to the critiques of those studies. The following are representative examples:

Public Policy Choices on Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence: In testimony before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary regarding proposed legislation to initiate a "foolproof" death penalty, Columbia Law School Professor Jeffrey Fagan analyzed recent studies that claimed that capital punishment deters murders. He stated that the studies "fall apart under close scrutiny." Fagan noted that the studies are fraught with technical and conceptual errors, including inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failures to consider all relevant factors that drive murder rates, missing data on key variables in key states, weak to non-existent tests of concurrent effects of incarceration, and other deficiencies. "A close reading of the new deterrence studies shows quite clearly that they fail to touch this scientific bar, let alone cross it," Fagan said as he told members of the committee that the recent deterrence studies fell well short of the demanding standards of social science research. (J. Fagan, Public Policy Choices on Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence, testimony before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary of the Massachusetts Legislature on House Bill 3934, July 14, 2005).

The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence: In an article entitled The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence, John Donnohue and Justin Wolfers examined recent statistical studies that claimed to show a deterrent effect from the death penalty. The authors conclude that the estimates claiming that the death penalty saves numerous lives "are simply not credible." In fact, the authors state that using the same data and proper methodology could lead to the exact opposite conclusion: that is, that the death penalty actually increases the number of murders. The authors state: "We show that with the most minor tweaking of the [research] instruments, one can get estimates ranging from 429 lives saved per execution to 86 lives lost. These numbers are outside the bounds of credibility." (The Economists' Voice, April 2006).

New Claims about Executions and General Deterrence: Deja Vu All Over Again?: A study conducted by Professor Richard Berk of the UCLA Department of Statistics has identified significant statistical problems with the data analysis used to support recent studies claiming to show that executions deter crime in the United States. In "New Claims about Executions and General Deterrence: Deja Vu All Over Again?," Professor Berk addresses the problem of "influence," which occurs when a very small and atypical fraction of the available data dominates the statistical results of a study. He found that this statistical problem is found in a number of recent studies claiming to show that capital punishment deters violent crime. The UCLA study conducted by Berk found that in many instances the number of executions by state and year is the key explanatory variable used by researchers, despite the fact that many states in most years execute no one and few states in particular years execute more than five individuals. These values represent about 1% of the available observations that could have been used by researchers to draw conclusions for earlier studies claiming to find that capital punishment is a deterrent. In Professor Berk's study, a re-analysis of the existing data shows that claims of deterrence are a statistical artifact of this anomalous 1%. (Published on UCLA's Web site, July 19, 2004).

Donkey

Republicans Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others

I find the results of this poll conducted by the Gallup organization very  interesting. Can we attribute the disparity to the perception that Republicans are generally more religious than their Democrat peers? Or is it perhaps that Republicans are generally more wealthy? It would be interesting to see what factors contribute to these numbers.

Reply to Reply to "Death Penalty Vindicated"

Donkey,

I too believe that we're held to the higher law of forgiveness, but what God requires of us as individuals is not equivalent to what he requires of our society's system for administering justice. Certainly God intends that we as a society administer justice, and our system of justice is not unlike His system insomuch that "mercy cannot rob justice," with only one single exception. That exception is when a person exercises faith unto repentance. In that instance, mercy can satisfy the demands of justice. This exception for repentance is evident in our system of pardons, parole, and limitations of state sentencing laws.

Having said that, there are extreme instances of crime--specifically, murder--when our system of justice must demand the most sacred of a person's liberty--that is, life itself. But, how does demanding life as justice for murder make a society more vengeful or unforgiving than demanding life in prison, as you suggested? The only logical answer to this question is that it's a question of the degree of the punishment, the death penalty being more extreme than life in prison. But under that reasoning, wouldn't life in prison as justice for murder make us more vengeful and unforgiving than, say, 6 months in prison? Yet certainly you wouldn't claim that our society would be less vengeful and unforgiving if we limited the prison term of a vicious killer to 6 months. Consequently, imposing a life sentence does not make us more vengeful or unforgiving than imposing a 6-month prison term. Simply put, we impose a life sentence (or the death penalty) because that's the punishment that we as a society have determined that justice demands, not because we are being more vindictive or unforgiving.

Indeed, in many cases where the death penalty is warranted, I do not think the death penalty satisfies all that justice demands, but it's the only tool we have at our earthly disposal which comes close. We leave the rest to God.

On a more secular note, you may want to read some interesting research from the past six years that indicates the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.

--Elephant