To Those Who Wrongly Believe the Death Penalty is Arbitrarily Assigned

There's nothing arbitrary about it. A wealthy white woman who violently kills a poor black or hispanic man in the Northeast of the US stands virtually no chance that she will get the death penalty. A poor black or hispanic man who violently kills a wealthy white woman in Texas stands an excellent chance that he'll get the death penalty.

Some people oppose capital punishment because they believe it is randomly assigned. In truth, the extent to which you can predict the assignment of capital punishment is alarming.

The factors which are the main predictors of capital punishment assignment are geography, economic class of the accused, race of the accused, gender of the accused, gender of the victim, race of the victim, and economic class of the victim.

If the death penalty was randomly assigned (say we spin a roulette wheel at the conclusion of all murder convictions and we execute everyone who gets a lucky 13), that would be an improvement in terms of the equal administration of justice.

In addition to the bias with which the death penalty is assigned, please also bear in mind that capital punishment is neither an effective deterrent nor cost efficient (as some mistakenly believe).

The extent to which the death penalty fails as a deterrent is well illustrated by this graph which shows that the states which have the death penalty generally have much higher murder rates:



The South accounts for 82% of executions, yet the murder rate rises there; while the Northeast accounts for less than 1% of executions, and the murder rate falls there. If we have a societal need to have murderers (along with some wrongly accused) killed for the sake of our desire for retribution (and when a death penalty case is called "The Defendant vs. State" -- the "State" is "us" so the death penalty kill is explicitly done in our name and on our behalf), we should not kid ourselves with the false idea that capital punishment is a deterrent. That's just a myth some people tell themselves to assuage the guilt, and the studies bear that out. See <http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf>.

Moreover, those who believe that capital punishment is more cost efficient than life without parole are mistaken.

The pretrial investigation of a capital case is at least 3 times costlier, trial is at least 15 times costlier, appeals are at least 20 times costlier. Contrary to what some people might wrongly presume, the pretrial investigation and the trial are by far the costliest part of the process, not the appeals or the actual incarceration. See “Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections,” December 2003.

Even when you figure in the extra costs of a longer incarceration in a life without chance of parole conviction, capital cases are still much more expensive (nearly 150% as expensive on average) because of the much greater costs of pretrial investigation and trial associated with such extreme penalties. See Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002.

Finally, some might say that the costs of the death penalty are unnecessarily inflated because of the judicial system. The simple answer is that our justice system is already so pressed by the desire to cut costs that the system has already become haphazard to the degree that it has been responsible for the killing of several wrongfully accused on our behalf and in our names. Any debate about further streamlining and cost cutting for the capital punishment assignment system must begin with the question "how many of the wrongfully accused shall we tolerate as acceptable collateral damages to our justice system." Personally, I think our system already tolerates too many collateral kills of the wrongfully accused so I think the level of care (and therefore the cost) of the system should be improved and not cut, but if anyone wants to cut the cost and corresponding level of care we exercise in applying the death penalty, that's a public debate we should embrace, but the first question in that debate requires the identification of the proper threshold for the erroneous killing of innocents.

Perhaps we should start the debate by answering that question.

There is no reason for state sponsored murder.

This is another one of those things that civilized societies don't do.

It is barbaric.

convoluted logic

NOT!

That kind of logic is what has caused so many conflicts in this world from little Johnny taking little Tommy's toy to nations attacking one another.

The eye for an eye mentality.

I think that if a person is found guilty of murder, they should spend the rest of their natural life in jail. I think that 30, 40, 50 years of confinement is really one of the worst punishments one can have.

My husband disagrees, citing the "cost" of taking care of prisoners for life. I read somewhere that it's much more expensive to execute, due to legal costs of the many trials and appeals. I simply believe that in a civilized society, the cost of incarceration is a cost that we bear to remain civilized.

their last dying breath. No matter how many times it is demonstrated that it serves no purpose at all except to assuage our own blood lust, they will hear no argument against it. :banghead:

:kick:

I believe that residents of death penalty states are responsible for the wrongful executions committed on their behalf. Therefore, those residents are guilty of murder when an innocent person is killed via the death penalty.
I'd always heard that the skin color of the victim was the deciding factor. i.e. if the victim was white, the death penalty is much more likely, and if the victim was black, the death penalty is unlikely.

Right now I would make an exception for especially egregious cases, such as if someone deliberately lied in order to start a war of aggression that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Or maybe in the case of a corporate CEO who, on the basis of actuarial data, decided that it would be cheaper topay off a few wrongful death lawsuits than to recall a bunch of cars to fix a known and dangerous defect.

Williams, Dahmer, guys like that are all pikers compared to the real mass-murderers in our society.

executives should be tried as co-conspirators in the criminal acts of their corporations.

To prevent the execs from hiring high-dollar, high-powered lawyers and buying off judges and/or juries, the assets of these criminals should be frozen; if convicted, their assets should be forfeited; and only if acquitted should their assets be returned to them.

Notice that rich defendant without access to their wealth would have to resort to a public defender, just like a poor defendant would.

I have actually met someone who believes that the excecution of some innocents is acceptable in order to ensure that none of the guilty "get away with it" :wtf:

That being said, I believe that you are correct in identifying the question of innocents being excecuted as the starting point in the debate. There has been a steady decline in support for the dp in recent years, and that maybe directly corelated to the use of DNA proving the wrongful convictions of many Americans.

I believe that the dp is a barbaric pratice that should be federally & internationally outlawed.

other industrialized countries have either completely abolished the death penalty or reserve it only for the case of high treason. How then, do the loved ones of murder victims cope with their loss and get on with their lives? We are told so often that the death penalty is appropriate so the loved ones can feel a sense of closure. Why is it that we can't cope with the loss or get on with our lives without the death penalty?

society, where the death penalty has been abolished, get on with their lives? Can you explain this to me?

on with their lives any better because of the death penalty? It takes years for an execution to take place after the sentence. These people spend years in limbo then. I'd bet that these people don't get on with their lives even after the execution.

Obsessing on vengeance is harmful to any person's psyche. I think the victims get better help with counseling and support groups.


And if what you say is true then the lucky ones live in the south and are black or Hispanic.

I don't think I've seen the case made with all the key points answered, while in such a quick, readable format. Thanks so much. Bookmarking for future reference!

but have not demonstrated a correlation between your 'number of execution' figures and 'number of homicides' figures. You can't draw any inferences from the data you've provided. You're fallaciously suggesting that the lower average murder rate in non-DP states is caused by not having the DP. But if that were true, then all the non-DP states would have lower homicide rates than all the DP states. What is far more likely is that homicide rates are closely correlated to a population density factor. Notice that North and South Dakota have about the same homicide rates? Yet one is DP and the other non-DP. There are also surely other socio-economic factors in the mix.

Another disingenuous argument you've used that should be obvious: the wealthy white woman in the northeast who violently kills a poor black or hispanic man. Please cite a single example of this ever happening. If it never or almost never happens, and you're using the data to infer this conclusion somehow, you can be sure you're doing something wrong statistically. You can't create a category by inference for a virtually non-existant phenomenon. Doing so demonstrates a weakness in your argument. For example, you use 'homicide rates' and not raw numbers. My guess is that the disparity between the number of wealthy white women committing capital offenses and the number of poor black men committing capital offenses would make the numbers statistically incomparable.

For the record, I'm not pro-death penalty; I'm anti-fallacious argument.

correlation between the death penalty and the murder rate. If I was, you might have a point. What I'm suggesting is that the data shows no positive correlation between the death penalty and the murder rate. You prove my point when you say "Notice that North and South Dakota have about the same homicide rates? Yet one is DP and the other non-DP."

Moreover, you are surely correct when you say "There are also surely other socio-economic factors in the mix." Clearly, these criminals are committing murder based on some reason other than a well-reasoned evaluation of whether or not the state in which they reside has the death penalty. Thus, the death penalty is not a deterrent.

There is nothing disingenuous about the undeniable correlation between the death penalty and region, race, economic class, and gender. If you doubt this correlation, you are simply ignorant about the issue, and you should take this opportunity to educate yourself; consider it penance for wrongly suggesting that my argument was disingenuous.* Since you seem to enjoy logic, can you help me identify which logical fallacy underlies your implication that the absence (if any) of examples of wealthy Northeastern white women violently murdering poor black or hispanic men would somehow disprove the strong correlation between the death penalty and region, race, economic class, and gender?


*That sentence is intended as a joke, but there really is a wealth of evidence on these correlations if you are truly curious.

whatsoever. There's no "logical" (used obligingly) difference between your 'no positive correlation' POV and my 'no negative correlation' POV. It's exactly the same thing. You cannot tell from the information given whether there is a deterence effect, pro OR con.

Your argument was fallacious and disingenuous. Perhaps a better argument could prove your point without being so easily disproved. It is additionally disingenuous to suggest that I was addressing anything other than the manner in which you chose to make your point.

"Since you seem to enjoy logic, can you help me identify which logical fallacy underlies your implication that the absence (if any) of examples of wealthy Northeastern white women violently murdering poor black or hispanic men would somehow disprove the strong correlation between the death penalty and region, race, economic class, and gender?"

You are pointing to an "anecdotal fallacy", but I am not using such a fallacy. The anecdotal fallacy suggests that the existence of a single example proves a trend. What I am asking for is a single example to prove the existence of a category. That's the difference between "There are no blue bananas" and "blue bananas taste bad". I say show me a blue banana before I address whether they taste bad.

poor black or hispanic man?

How is what happened in Katrina, with the rich flying in and out of the Garden District in copters, not an example of homicide by malicious indifference? How about the cops who shot at people trying to get out on foot, or the contractors who went around taking potshots at survivors, and vice versa?

Seems to me you are suggesting that if such an act occurred by a wealthy white woman, the very rarity and unusualness of it would be considered by the sentencing judge to be a mitigating circumstance. Whereas the rarity of a wealthy white woman being "savagely" killed by a poor black male is invariably considered an aggravating circumstance. Interesting how those double standards work in our society, isn't it?

With special circumstances? I suppose if one of the NOLA residents tied someone to the propeller before they took off...

As for double standards, no. You're extrapoliting far too much. I have not mentioned anything about sentencing standards in this discussion. I have been addressing only the statistical methodology.

Assume that you and I studied a 2,500 bout representative sample of sanctioned heavyweight fights over the past thirty years. Assume further we found that among fighters with equal won-loss records, (1) the taller fighter won a great majority of the time, (2) the fighter whose age was nearest 28 years old won a great majority of times regardless of whether his opponent was older or younger, (3) the fighter whose residence was closer to the arena of the fight won most of the time, and (4) the fighter who had most time since his last bout won the great majority of the time.

Assume next that we had a mutual friend who asked if we had any predictions about the most likely outcome in a bout among fighters with equal won-loss records where the boxers were a tall, 28-year-old, hometown boy who had 6 months since his last fight versus a short, 34-year-old from a foreign country who'd last fought 2 months ago. We might fairly tell our mutual friend to put his money on the hometown boy.

If our mutual friend said, "but wait, can you show me where your data set included any examples of short, 34-year-olds from foreign countries who'd last fought 2 months ago?" How would you respond to our friend?

What would you conclude about our mutual friend if he suggested that our advice was disingenuous?

PS That's not an anecdotal fallacy.

it's obvious the polar bear would win, but it begs the question, what's the penguin doing the northern hemisphere (or the polar bear in the southern)? I can see the billing now: THE CATHARTIC IN THE ARCTIC.

Just kidding. On the square.

Are you using the boxing analogy to explain the unequal distribution of the DP problem, or the lack of deterrence problem? I don't think it works for either. Too many confounds in both. For unequal dist., perhaps the wealthy white women never have special circumstances, such as "in the commission of another crime". For the deterrence part, perhaps it does deter people of a certain socioeconomic group, which is why they have a lower murder rate.

Neither your state-by-state chart, nor your PDF file is really any good for proving anything in this discussion. Could you explain what the FBI chart is supposed to show? There's no population statistics, no race or gender categories, and on a city-by-city basis (assuming all cities are equally populated and have the same socioecomic make up, which is a huge flaw) it seems to contradict your argument. I've looked up the populations of two of the cities:

City
Population 2000: 114,024
Metro area: Ann Arbor, MI (no death penalty)
Murders in 2002: 5

City
Population 2000: 115,930
Metro area: Abilene, TX (death penalty)
Murders in 2002: 4

Seems like the death penalty prevented a murder in 2002 to me. But not really. It's too complex to come up with that conclusion, and the sample size is way too small.

My supporting point is that your statement from the OP, taken literally, invokes the fallacy of small numbers. You won't find enough examples of wealthy white women committing premeditated murder against poor black or hispanic men (or against anyone) to overcome the small sample size problem.

Woman generally commit a little over 10% of the solved murders, and interracial murders account for a little over 10% of solved murders. If you figure about 20,000 murders a year, what makes you think there are so few white women murdering black or hispanic men?

More to the point, there is a wealth or evidence that women are underprosecuted for capital punishment as compared to men, whites are underprosecuted for capital punishment as compared to blacks, murders of men are underprosecuted for capital punishment as compared to murders of women, murders of blacks are underprosecuted for capital punishment as compared to murders of whites, wealthy murderers are underprosecuted for capital punishment as compared to poor murderers. Do you dispute any of this?

If so, you just need to read up.

If not, what makes you think a wealthy white woman who murdered a poor black or hispanic man would suffer the same risk of capital prosecution as would be the case if poor black or hispanic man murdered a wealthy white woman?

If you're going to create "generalizations" from examples of potential confounds to your model of crime statistics in re: the DP. I would be raising the bar by doing the research you're unwilling to cite here yourself. That's your burden as the OP here. I've analyzed the only statistical models you've offered, found the data doesn't support your argument, and you've chosen not to amend that. That's your choice. Perhaps it's time to move on for both of us.

Criminal law would suggest flipping the burden of proof to the advocate of state executions would be more appropriate.

I said the burden of research/citing statistics goes to the OP, and I am not an advocate of executions. I've stated why below in this topic. This has been a debate not about "resisting or advocating", but about methodology and arguments provided.

What's next? Should I preemptively defend my soon-to-be-alleged hobby of drowning kittens?

to research and cite statistics or did I misunderstand you?

You are unhappy with the statistics provided, but they are not my statistics.

Moreover, you seem willing (even eager) to disregard the correlation between the death penalty and race (including the victim's race as well as the alleged murderer's race -- in fact, the correlation is more dramatic with respect to the victim's race) because you feel that the statical sample is too small for your taste. Would you have us wait a few years while we execute more people so you can more easily discern the trend? Of course not (you have said as much).

The statistics are what they are. There have only been about 1,000 executions since capital punishment was reinstated. That's too many deaths for me already, but it makes for a smaller-than-ideal statistical sample. If you would demand a broader statistical array before you can draw your conclusions, then I can only ask you to reevaluate the moral implications of your demand.

At what point would the numerical disparity compel you to conclude that the situation where we seek the death penalty against murderers of whites at a much higher rate than we prosecute murderers of black people is not a mere anomaly due to the sample size?

At what point do you begin to question the fact that women commit over 10% of the murders but account for 1% of executions?

Sounds like the LA cops' defense of beating Rodney King. "At what point, which specific swing of the baton, constituted 'the excessive use of force'?" The jurors could not, out of context, pick which baton swing was excessive, so the cops got off.

At what point will you admit you've not made a case for your argumentum ad nauseum and that you're using the 'selective reading' trick? At this point you're repeating yourself without supplying the requested support for your arguments, and asking me to repeat myself. AT THIS POINT.

Here are two statistics: I bet we agree on 90%+ of sociopolitical issues. Also, I bet we both have 0% chance of convincing the other, or even mounting a satisfactory challenge, in this discussion. So let's sail this ship 'round the tip of the iceberg.

Your posts are well-written. I hope you got as much from my objections as I got from your responses.

"Woman generally commit a little over 10% of the solved murders, and interracial murders account for a little over 10% of solved murders. If you figure about 20,000 murders a year, what makes you think there are so few white women murdering black or hispanic men?"

So that's 10% of 20,000, which is 2000 murders by women. 10% of that, or 200, are interracial murders by women. Now what percentage of murders by women are first-degree murders? What percentage of that number are capital murders? (I know that the victims of women convicted of murder were, by a much higher percentage, either intimate relations or blood relatives, which overall decreases the average degree of murder and the sentencing guidelines.) What percentage of that number are committed by wealthy women? And finally, what percentage of that number were white?

I honestly can't find those stats, but I am guessing the number is so extremely rare that no statistical trends could be formulated. My guess: less than 1 per year on average. But if someone comes up with some numbers we'll see.

the states with a death penalty statute on the books by haven't exercised, or less than (say) 5 times since the 1977 reinstatement, the picture is even more stark that lower murder rates correlate to abolition or non-exercise.

http://www.ncadp.org/facts_figures.html
Kansas (death penalty statutes were declared unconstitutional in 2004; have been no executions since 1976)
New Hampshire (have been no executions since 1976)
New Jersey (have been no executions since 1976)
New York (death penalty statutes declared unconstitutional in 2004; have been no executions since 1976)
South Dakota (have been no executions since 1976)
U.S. Military (have been no executions since 1976)

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state/
Delaware- 14 executions since 1977
Idaho- 1
Utah- 6
Nebraska- 3
Oregon- 2
Washington- 4
Ohio- 19
Montana- 2
Connecticut- 1
Colorado- 1
Kentucky- 2
Wyoming- 1
Pennsylvania- 3
Oklahoma- 79

I went to the legislature hearings when the morons tried to reinstate the death penalty in my state seven years ago, the time they got closest. (They keep on trying, losing more badly each time.) It's the same tired 'arguments', which are all slightly gussied up desire for revenge/retaliation and statistics that don't stand scrutiny, plus a claim to divine entitlement between the lines. They know it, of course.

As you can see from the executions put on a map, capital punishment is a religious-level belief system presently identified with The South. If you've ever watched an execution being carried out, it's in effect a well scripted ritual killing.

so in all fairness I should offer my own argument. Mine is simple and doesn't require a lot of statistical analysis. How many death row inmates have been cleared by scientific evidence not available at their trial? I don't know the number because I stopped counting after 1. How many death row inmates have been cleared because of proof of incompentent representation? I also stopped counting at 1. The death penalty issue is a case, imo, where even the possibility of misapplication represents a fatal flaw in the entire system. The death penalty can only be rationalized if it can be guaranteed that every recipient is guilty.

Honestly, I really don't care if it deters murderers. I'd just as soon kill a child-killer/rapist out of sheer revenge. But what is totally intolerable is killing an innocent person because of imperfections in the justice system. NEVER. EVER.

Just my POV.

Edit: To those who say "yeah, but what about the case where we KNOW the defendent is guilty? we should be able to execute THEM!", I would say that "knowing" they are guilty was already the standard by which those who were later released through DNA evidence were convicted in the first place. If you don't "know" you don't have a conviction.

Also, considering that the standards of evidence are apparently not up to par for death penalty cases, then the logical conclusion is for it to be used only in cases where someone is guilty beyond ALL doubt, rather than "reasonable" doubt. This would create a caste based justice system, and a violation of the equal protection under the law. Better to abolish the death penalty entirely, rather than risk a single innocent death.

is achieved in a confession. So why not allow the DP in cases of confession? My answer: don't ever expect another confession. The DP would have a definite deterrent effect against solving crimes if it were applied in such a manner. We can't have two standards of proving guilt in the same crime.

Plus, confessions have been known to be beaten out of suspects, leading to many false imprisonments and executions.

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report:

The "Crime Trends" section states: Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, white inmates have made up the majority of those under sentence of death. (Prisoners under sentence of death by race, Capital punishment, 1953-97)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/gbjsw.txt
__________________________________________________
EDIT/UPDATE:

EDIT:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

In 2004, 59 persons in 12 States were executed -- 23 in Texas; 7 in Ohio; 6 in Oklahoma; 5 in Virginia; 4 each in North Carolina and South Carolina, 2 each in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Nevada; and 1 each in Arkansas and Maryland.

Of persons executed in 2004:
-- 36 were white
-- 19 were black
-- 3 were Hispanic (all white)
-- 1 Asian

Of persons under sentence of death in 2004:
-- 1,851 were white
-- 1,390 were black
-- 28 were American Indian
-- 32 were Asian
-- 14 were of unknown race.

from the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. I've heard it's "racist" to consider this chart, so I'll await the convenient strawman rebuttal from someone.




And another, just for perspective:

outside the charts and statistical analysis and financial considerations we can then breathe a clear breath and see with clarity.

Most (All?) of life slops outside the effluence of statistical analysis.



The State will just keep creating new boogiemen to frighten us with. The sheep will anxiously anticipate the next fall guy the State offers up as a sacrifice for the war on whatever happens to be next. Be careful, the next pawn could be me or you.

equated the "plight" of Tookie Williams to that of the uninsured, the elderly, and the infirm?

What an insult to the innocent.

RACE AND THE DEATH PENALTY


NOTE: The victim was white in well over 80% of death penalty cases although whites make up only 50% of murder victims. Why?

GENDER AND THE DEATH PENALTY

"There is also overwhelming evidence that the death penalty is employed against men and not women. … It is difficult to understand why women have received such favored treatment since the purposes allegedly served by capital punishment seemingly are equally applicable to both sexes."

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 365 (1972).

the race of the assailants and the victims in these cases?

Does it not matter that blacks are more likely to commit murder but there are more whites on death row (and more whites are executed)? Does it not matter that blacks are more likely to be murdered than whites?

I'm pro-death penalty and I don't care what the race of the assailant is. White, black, Asian...doesn't matter.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers do not support the idea that this system is inherently racist. Your second chart is inaccurate, according to the justice dept. I'll stick with verifiable numbers, rather than propaganda from an organization that has an agenda.

Blacks may be more likely to be found guilty of murder as a higher rate than whites, but there are more whites so the numbers of blacks found guilty of murder and the numbers of whites found guilty of murder is much more equal.

You also need to figure in the race of the victim. People who kill whites are much more likely to be prosecuted under the death penalty. This factor brings the number of white murders proceduted for the death penalty closer to the number of blacks because whites mostly murder whites (just as blacks mostly murder blacks). The fact that blacks are overprosecuted when race of the victim is neutralized as a factor is somewhat offset by the facts that people of all races who murder black people are underprosecuted (and this affects the overall rate at which blacks are prosecuted for capital punishment because they most often kill other blacks). As a result, blacks who kill whites are prosecuted at the highest rate, whites who kill whites are prosecuted at the next highest rate, blacks who kill blacks are the next most prosecuted, and whites who kill blacks are the least prosecuted.

the Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers do not support the conclusions of the organization you cite as your source.

Do you have any credible statistics from credible organizations (i.e., without an agenda)?

If this system were inherently racist there would be more blacks on death row, and there aren't. If blacks were not seven times more likely to commit homicide, their representation on death row might be lower. Sorry if people don't like it, but these are facts.

The claim that the death penalty is inherently racist is an emotional, unsubstantiated argument by people who oppose the death penalty. I'm in support of the DP, but I have no problem with people opposing it on moral grounds. I just have a problem with people using race and other irrelevant factors in their misinformation campaign.

I'll check this thread in the morning to see your comments, but I'm off to bed for now.

keep on!


peace and solidarity!

DNA results have proved the vulnerability of our system to convictions based upon mistaken identities and overzealous police and prosecutors. In few cases can we be certain this person really did it. Certain enough to convict on something we can undo, but not to take their life.

I oppose capital punishment on those logical grounds, but also on humanitarian and world politics grounds.