Pretty simple argument, but if you insist:
An FBI study shows that states which have abolished the death penalty averaged lower murder rates than states which have not.
More executions, more murders
Texas moved from its first execution after Furman in 1982 to becoming the national leader in the use of the death penalty. During the same period, the state also experienced a tremendous growth in its violent crime rate. From 1982 to 1991, the national crime rate rose by 5%. In the same period, the Texas crime rate rose by 24%, and the violent crime rate in Texas rose by nearly 46%. In Texas, more people die from gunshot wounds than traffic accidents. A strong case can be made that, rather than decreasing murder, capital punishment actually has a brutalizing effect on society, contributing to an increase in murder.
Happy, wil.
An FBI study shows that states which have abolished the death penalty averaged lower murder rates than states which have not.
More executions, more murders
Texas moved from its first execution after Furman in 1982 to becoming the national leader in the use of the death penalty. During the same period, the state also experienced a tremendous growth in its violent crime rate. From 1982 to 1991, the national crime rate rose by 5%. In the same period, the Texas crime rate rose by 24%, and the violent crime rate in Texas rose by nearly 46%. In Texas, more people die from gunshot wounds than traffic accidents. A strong case can be made that, rather than decreasing murder, capital punishment actually has a brutalizing effect on society, contributing to an increase in murder.
Happy, wil.
The study you cite is not relevant to singular deterrence.
These facts are:
#1. No executed murderer has EVER killed another person.
#2. Many non-executed murderers have killed AGAIN (whether it be fellow inmates, prison guards or civilians upon release or escape).
Singular deterrence works.
These facts are:
#1. No executed murderer has EVER killed another person.
#2. Many non-executed murderers have killed AGAIN (whether it be fellow inmates, prison guards or civilians upon release or escape).
Singular deterrence works.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
No..Felony lover Kerry will try to make it unconstitutional to have the death penalty...their will be an abortion clinic at every corner..but no death penalty.
The biggest block of voters will be from convicted felons for Kerry.
Another reason not to vote for Kerry he will nominate every judge named "Moon Unit" on the Supreme court.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Found this while doing a Google search on the voting rights of convicted felons:
How the Democratic Party plans to win in 2004
Phyllis Schlafly (back to web version) | Send
January 26, 2004
Despite President George W. Bush's high poll numbers, the Democrats think they have the key to winning the 2004 elections. Get the votes of convicted felons. Don't laugh; the Democrats are deadly serious.
The nation's 4 million convicted felons could be enough to swing the November election. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority would vote Democratic if they could, so felons are a voting bloc that Democrats are just itching to harvest.
In addition to providing the magic bullet to elect their candidates in November, this issue reprises all the sour grapes whining by Democrats about the president winning Florida in 2000. The Democrats know that if felons had been allowed to vote in Florida, Al Gore would have won Florida and be president today.
The laws of 48 states restrict the ability of convicted felons to vote, and those state laws vary widely.
State laws may distinguish between those who are now behind bars and those who have been released, or whether they are repeat offenders, or whether they are violent or nonviolent offenders, or whether they are parolees or probationers. Maine and Vermont allow convicts to vote even when they are in prison.
Allowing felons to vote is highly unpopular with Americans, but laws are amended from time to time. Since 1996, nine states have repealed a few of their voting barriers for convicted felons, while three states made their laws tougher.
These changes don't appear to have anything to do with partisanship or geography. The states easing their bans were Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming. The states that toughened their policies were Massachusetts (by constitutional amendment), Utah and Kansas.
The Democrats haven't a chance for wholesale repeal of these laws. So the are doing what liberals always do: They line up the American Civil Liberties Union and other left-wing lawyers and seek out activist judges to issue rulings that elected legislators will not make.
Democrats are using a study made by two sociologists, one at the University of Minnesota and the other at Northwestern University, suggesting that, since 1978, seven U.S. Senate races plus the 2000 presidential election would have turned out differently if felons had been allowed to vote. The professors estimate that Florida felons would have given Al Gore an additional 60,000 votes, more than enough to wipe out Bush's narrow margin of victory.
To try to give convicted felons the franchise, Democrats are playing the race card, asserting that state laws have a "disparate impact" on blacks and Hispanics and therefore violate equal-protection guarantees. The laws, of course, are colorblind.
Furthermore, it is no more discriminatory to deny felons their franchise than to deny them certain categories of employment, child custody or gun ownership.
Lawsuits have been filed to overturn the laws that bar felons from voting in the states of Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Washington.
Florida's law permits felons to regain their voting rights by executive clemency and Florida's department of corrections has agreed to assist felons navigate the restoration process. Officials estimate that 130,000 Florida felons will soon be empowered to vote, but Democrats are still going forward with their lawsuit.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta by a 2-1 vote reversed a District Court ruling in December and ordered a trial on the race allegations in Florida, even though the plaintiffs presented no evidence of racial animus. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court decision was written by one of Clinton's most controversial nominees, Judge Rosemary Barkett.
The dissenting opinion in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court case pointed out that the 14th Amendment, Section 2, "explicitly allows states to disenfranchise convicted felons." Furthermore, the dissent explained, in the time when Florida adopted the rule against voting by felons, no "disparate impact" on minorities existed, so there could not have been bias in the adoption of the rule.
A U.S. District Court in Spokane, Wash., dismissed a case brought by prison inmates, but the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court sent Farrakhan vs. State of Washington back for trial. The felons want the law overturned because blacks make up 37 percent of the felons denied the franchise.
New Jersey allows felons to vote after they complete their incarceration, parole or probation, but that doesn't please Democrats. Ten ex-convicts, including a convicted killer, are suing to void the state law, because 81 percent of the prison population, 75 percent of parolees and 52 percent of probationers are black or Hispanic.
These plaintiffs are backed by the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at the Rutgers University School of Law, the New Jersey State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey and the ACLU.
The U.S. Constitution reserves the matter of voting regulations to state legislatures and specifically authorizes the disenfranchisement of felons. We should not permit activist judges to change the laws.
©2003 Copley News Service
Contact Phyllis Schlafly | Read Schlafly's biography
townhall.com
No..Felony lover Kerry will try to make it unconstitutional to have the death penalty...their will be an abortion clinic at every corner..but no death penalty.
The biggest block of voters will be from convicted felons for Kerry.
Another reason not to vote for Kerry he will nominate every judge named "Moon Unit" on the Supreme court.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Found this while doing a Google search on the voting rights of convicted felons:
How the Democratic Party plans to win in 2004
Phyllis Schlafly (back to web version) | Send
January 26, 2004
Despite President George W. Bush's high poll numbers, the Democrats think they have the key to winning the 2004 elections. Get the votes of convicted felons. Don't laugh; the Democrats are deadly serious.
The nation's 4 million convicted felons could be enough to swing the November election. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority would vote Democratic if they could, so felons are a voting bloc that Democrats are just itching to harvest.
In addition to providing the magic bullet to elect their candidates in November, this issue reprises all the sour grapes whining by Democrats about the president winning Florida in 2000. The Democrats know that if felons had been allowed to vote in Florida, Al Gore would have won Florida and be president today.
The laws of 48 states restrict the ability of convicted felons to vote, and those state laws vary widely.
State laws may distinguish between those who are now behind bars and those who have been released, or whether they are repeat offenders, or whether they are violent or nonviolent offenders, or whether they are parolees or probationers. Maine and Vermont allow convicts to vote even when they are in prison.
Allowing felons to vote is highly unpopular with Americans, but laws are amended from time to time. Since 1996, nine states have repealed a few of their voting barriers for convicted felons, while three states made their laws tougher.
These changes don't appear to have anything to do with partisanship or geography. The states easing their bans were Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming. The states that toughened their policies were Massachusetts (by constitutional amendment), Utah and Kansas.
The Democrats haven't a chance for wholesale repeal of these laws. So the are doing what liberals always do: They line up the American Civil Liberties Union and other left-wing lawyers and seek out activist judges to issue rulings that elected legislators will not make.
Democrats are using a study made by two sociologists, one at the University of Minnesota and the other at Northwestern University, suggesting that, since 1978, seven U.S. Senate races plus the 2000 presidential election would have turned out differently if felons had been allowed to vote. The professors estimate that Florida felons would have given Al Gore an additional 60,000 votes, more than enough to wipe out Bush's narrow margin of victory.
To try to give convicted felons the franchise, Democrats are playing the race card, asserting that state laws have a "disparate impact" on blacks and Hispanics and therefore violate equal-protection guarantees. The laws, of course, are colorblind.
Furthermore, it is no more discriminatory to deny felons their franchise than to deny them certain categories of employment, child custody or gun ownership.
Lawsuits have been filed to overturn the laws that bar felons from voting in the states of Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Washington.
Florida's law permits felons to regain their voting rights by executive clemency and Florida's department of corrections has agreed to assist felons navigate the restoration process. Officials estimate that 130,000 Florida felons will soon be empowered to vote, but Democrats are still going forward with their lawsuit.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta by a 2-1 vote reversed a District Court ruling in December and ordered a trial on the race allegations in Florida, even though the plaintiffs presented no evidence of racial animus. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court decision was written by one of Clinton's most controversial nominees, Judge Rosemary Barkett.
The dissenting opinion in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court case pointed out that the 14th Amendment, Section 2, "explicitly allows states to disenfranchise convicted felons." Furthermore, the dissent explained, in the time when Florida adopted the rule against voting by felons, no "disparate impact" on minorities existed, so there could not have been bias in the adoption of the rule.
A U.S. District Court in Spokane, Wash., dismissed a case brought by prison inmates, but the liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court sent Farrakhan vs. State of Washington back for trial. The felons want the law overturned because blacks make up 37 percent of the felons denied the franchise.
New Jersey allows felons to vote after they complete their incarceration, parole or probation, but that doesn't please Democrats. Ten ex-convicts, including a convicted killer, are suing to void the state law, because 81 percent of the prison population, 75 percent of parolees and 52 percent of probationers are black or Hispanic.
These plaintiffs are backed by the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at the Rutgers University School of Law, the New Jersey State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey and the ACLU.
The U.S. Constitution reserves the matter of voting regulations to state legislatures and specifically authorizes the disenfranchisement of felons. We should not permit activist judges to change the laws.
©2003 Copley News Service
Contact Phyllis Schlafly | Read Schlafly's biography
townhall.com
None of my arguments have anything to do with the death penalty. I am purely pissed off that someone could take a national tragedy and not two sentences in try to turn it into a ranting political statement. Then later he turns it into a vote for Kerry somehow means you are for a continuation fo such heinous acts. That is ludicrous. Whatever your views on the death penalty. Myself I am fairly ambivalent as I think both sides are wrong. I don't think the death penalty brings any kind of deterrance to the crime, but then again I think it says volumes about some people that could find some sort of comfort in the retribution, one that is often handed down 10 to 15 years later. Not to mention how TV makes this such a sensation. The killing of anyone is a horrible thing, but TV just loves to create such a scene out of these little blonde children and creates this hate and disgust among the populace. The man hasn't even had his day in court yet and millions don't even want to wait for justice to be served. It is Florida and as long as the evidence is as good as the authorities say it is, this man almost certainly will be sentenced to death. That isn't enough for some people, they want to lynch him before he even gets in a word in his own defense. That aspect bothers me more than anything else here. Same thing with the Peterson trial, everyone is entitled to a trial and competent defense. Judgements cannot, nor should they be decided in the court of public opinion.
Wild Bill...Nobody is saying this guy shouldn't have his day in court..this debate is based on the assumption he is guilty.
Let me tellya something...I live in Mass. now I hear on the TV that they are calling Mass. the "Gay" state...Poll after poll after poll show that the people are against gay marriage to the tune of 70-75% in Mass....But it is law now,based on the ruling of activist judges appointed by Mike Dukakis and John Kerry administration.
John Kerry is thee most Washington special intrest group politician running for pres.
He has been a whore for all of them.
John Kerry will appoint every touchy feely pablum pukin liberal to his cabinet and to the SJC...John Kerry will turn every common sense legistlation upside down in a typical Alice in Wonderland liberal fashion that special intrest will pay for....and if you don't think that this will happen you are already in wonderland.
Let me tellya something...I live in Mass. now I hear on the TV that they are calling Mass. the "Gay" state...Poll after poll after poll show that the people are against gay marriage to the tune of 70-75% in Mass....But it is law now,based on the ruling of activist judges appointed by Mike Dukakis and John Kerry administration.
John Kerry is thee most Washington special intrest group politician running for pres.
He has been a whore for all of them.
John Kerry will appoint every touchy feely pablum pukin liberal to his cabinet and to the SJC...John Kerry will turn every common sense legistlation upside down in a typical Alice in Wonderland liberal fashion that special intrest will pay for....and if you don't think that this will happen you are already in wonderland.
Judges are not supposed to make up law. For a judge to say gay marriages are not allowed because of public opinion would be an outright travesty. Judges are supposed to rule based on the laws on the book and the constitution of the state. They have found with good reason, that there is nothing that blocks gay marriage. If the state is that overwhelmingly in favor of that then I am sure they will pass a constitutional amendment. Judges aren't as liberal or conservative in the ways people think. Sure they have personal values, but generally it is a weak arguement to say that if so and so would have put their judges on the bench, this judiciary would have followed public opinion. In fact that is dangerous. Legislators are supposed to follow the public opinion, judges are supposed to shield themselves from it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
Wild Bill...Nobody is saying this guy shouldn't have his day in court..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, jointpleasure did ... he has said that a public hanging should precede the burial of this girl.
Must be a world of fun living in his head.
Wild Bill...Nobody is saying this guy shouldn't have his day in court..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, jointpleasure did ... he has said that a public hanging should precede the burial of this girl.
Must be a world of fun living in his head.
