Death Penalty gone in Illinois

http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-death-row-officially-shuts-down-130702311.html

Great as far as I'm concerened, it cost 10 times as much to execute a prisoner as opposed to just keeping them in jail.

Good news!

I'm not a big proponent of the death penalty, so this is good to hear.

Meh. I don't have a deep opposition to the death penalty so whatever. DroidPhysX

Yeah the more i think about the death penalty the less i like it

I could see an argument for the death penalty if you implemented it the way China does it, but for us the costs are just way too high to justify it (not to mention the chance of someone being innocent being executed), so this is a good thing.

The only reason the death penalty costs so much is because of the appeals.

Get rid of the appeal system (or limit it to one or two appeals max) and it won't cost as much.

The death penalty is a deterrent if it's quick. I mean some people have been on death row since the early 1980s!!!!!

The only reason the death penalty costs so much is because of the appeals.

Get rid of the appeal system (or limit it to one or two appeals max) and it won't cost as much.

The death penalty is a deterrent if it's quick. I mean some people have been on death row since the early 1980s!!!!!

AHUGECAT

And have you got a source to back up your claim about it being a deterrent?

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

The only reason the death penalty costs so much is because of the appeals.

Get rid of the appeal system (or limit it to one or two appeals max) and it won't cost as much.

The death penalty is a deterrent if it's quick. I mean some people have been on death row since the early 1980s!!!!!

BuryMe

And have you got a source to back up your claim about it being a deterrent?

Yeah but after one or two appeals that should be enough.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml An Emory University study shows that "each execution deters an average of 18 murders." Makes sense - people don't want to die. If the death penalty wasn't a deterrent then why do so many convicted murderers want to avoid it by plea bargaining or appeals? In prison, murderers are hailed as heroes and celebrities. They fear death. Death is their worst punishment.

Expect violent crimes in Illinois to increase by 10%.

I don't know how I feel about this. Some criminals deserve to die for their crimes...yet I can't help feeling its an easy way out. Then again, there are plenty of statistics saying that somehow an execution is more expensive then a jail term.majoras_wrath

It's not an easy way out if you think about it, because if it was, then more criminals would want the death penalty. In fact it's the opposite - they do what they can to avoid it (by plea bargaining or appeals for example).

Your 5 mounths late to the party ot.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]I don't know how I feel about this. Some criminals deserve to die for their crimes...yet I can't help feeling its an easy way out. Then again, there are plenty of statistics saying that somehow an execution is more expensive then a jail term.AHUGECAT

It's not an easy way out if you think about it, because if it was, then more criminals would want the death penalty. In fact it's the opposite - they do what they can to avoid it (by plea bargaining or appeals for example).

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

The only reason the death penalty costs so much is because of the appeals.

Get rid of the appeal system (or limit it to one or two appeals max) and it won't cost as much.

The death penalty is a deterrent if it's quick. I mean some people have been on death row since the early 1980s!!!!!

AHUGECAT

And have you got a source to back up your claim about it being a deterrent?

Yeah but after one or two appeals that should be enough.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml An Emory University study shows that "each execution deters an average of 18 murders." Makes sense - people don't want to die. If the death penalty wasn't a deterrent then why do so many convicted murderers want to avoid it by plea bargaining or appeals? In prison, murderers are hailed as heroes and celebrities. They fear death. Death is their worst punishment.

Actually, a broader review of the death penalty literature shows that the results are very inconclusive regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty. While some studies find a small deterrence effect, others find no deterrence effect, while some even find a small increase in crime in response to the death penalty (which are generally not to imply that the death penalty actually encourages crime, but rather to question the results of studies that do find a deterrence effect).

But I think Levitt provides one of the better arguments against a deterrence effect:

Given the rarity with which executions are carried out in
this country and the long delays in doing so, a rational criminal should not be
deterred by the threat of execution. Despite increases in capital punishment in
recent years, the likelihood of being executed conditional on committing murder
is still less than 1 in 200. Even among those on death row, the annual execution rate
is only 2 percent, or twice the death rate from accidents and violence among all
American men. Among the subsample of individuals engaged in illegal activities,
the death rates are likely to be much higher. Levitt and Venkatesh (2000) report a
death rate of 7 percent annually for street-level drug sellers in the gang they
analyze. Kennedy, Piehl and Braga (1996) estimate violent death rates to be
1–2 percent annually among all gang members in Boston. It is hard to believe the
fear of execution would be a driving force in a rational criminal's calculus in
modern America.

(Source: Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, Levitt (2004))

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]When some one's life is on the line, they have every right to appeal, and make sure that things went properly at every level.

And have you got a source to back up your claim about it being a deterrent?

chessmaster1989

Yeah but after one or two appeals that should be enough.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml An Emory University study shows that "each execution deters an average of 18 murders." Makes sense - people don't want to die. If the death penalty wasn't a deterrent then why do so many convicted murderers want to avoid it by plea bargaining or appeals? In prison, murderers are hailed as heroes and celebrities. They fear death. Death is their worst punishment.

Actually, a broader review of the death penalty literature shows that the results are very inconclusive regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty. While some studies find a small deterrence effect, others find no deterrence effect, while some even find a small increase in crime in response to the death penalty (which are generally not to imply that the death penalty actually encourages crime, but rather to question the results of studies that do find a deterrence effect).

But I think Levitt provides one of the better arguments against a deterrence effect:

Given the rarity with which executions are carried out in
this country and the long delays in doing so, a rational criminal should not be
deterred by the threat of execution. Despite increases in capital punishment in
recent years, the likelihood of being executed conditional on committing murder
is still less than 1 in 200. Even among those on death row, the annual execution rate
is only 2 percent, or twice the death rate from accidents and violence among all
American men. Among the subsample of individuals engaged in illegal activities,
the death rates are likely to be much higher. Levitt and Venkatesh (2000) report a
death rate of 7 percent annually for street-level drug sellers in the gang they
analyze. Kennedy, Piehl and Braga (1996) estimate violent death rates to be
1–2 percent annually among all gang members in Boston. It is hard to believe the
fear of execution would be a driving force in a rational criminal's calculus in
modern America.

(Source: Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, Levitt (2004))

Exactly why we need a more efficient death penalty system. It shouldn't take 25 years for someone to finally be executed. Do it in 25 months and you will see a deterrent.

Also, AHUGECAT, you may want to read Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate, Donohue and Wolfers (2006). It points out flaws in several recent studies that found deterrence effects.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Yeah but after one or two appeals that should be enough.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml An Emory University study shows that "each execution deters an average of 18 murders." Makes sense - people don't want to die. If the death penalty wasn't a deterrent then why do so many convicted murderers want to avoid it by plea bargaining or appeals? In prison, murderers are hailed as heroes and celebrities. They fear death. Death is their worst punishment.

AHUGECAT

Actually, a broader review of the death penalty literature shows that the results are very inconclusive regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty. While some studies find a small deterrence effect, others find no deterrence effect, while some even find a small increase in crime in response to the death penalty (which are generally not to imply that the death penalty actually encourages crime, but rather to question the results of studies that do find a deterrence effect).

But I think Levitt provides one of the better arguments against a deterrence effect:

Given the rarity with which executions are carried out in
this country and the long delays in doing so, a rational criminal should not be
deterred by the threat of execution. Despite increases in capital punishment in
recent years, the likelihood of being executed conditional on committing murder
is still less than 1 in 200. Even among those on death row, the annual execution rate
is only 2 percent, or twice the death rate from accidents and violence among all
American men. Among the subsample of individuals engaged in illegal activities,
the death rates are likely to be much higher. Levitt and Venkatesh (2000) report a
death rate of 7 percent annually for street-level drug sellers in the gang they
analyze. Kennedy, Piehl and Braga (1996) estimate violent death rates to be
1–2 percent annually among all gang members in Boston. It is hard to believe the
fear of execution would be a driving force in a rational criminal's calculus in
modern America.

(Source: Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, Levitt (2004))

Exactly why we need a more efficient death penalty system. It shouldn't take 25 years for someone to finally be executed. Do it in 25 months and you will see a deterrent.

But that brings a tradeoff, that as soon as we start reducing the appeals process, we'll inevitably start executing more innocents.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Actually, a broader review of the death penalty literature shows that the results are very inconclusive regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty. While some studies find a small deterrence effect, others find no deterrence effect, while some even find a small increase in crime in response to the death penalty (which are generally not to imply that the death penalty actually encourages crime, but rather to question the results of studies that do find a deterrence effect).

But I think Levitt provides one of the better arguments against a deterrence effect:

Given the rarity with which executions are carried out in
this country and the long delays in doing so, a rational criminal should not be
deterred by the threat of execution. Despite increases in capital punishment in
recent years, the likelihood of being executed conditional on committing murder
is still less than 1 in 200. Even among those on death row, the annual execution rate
is only 2 percent, or twice the death rate from accidents and violence among all
American men. Among the subsample of individuals engaged in illegal activities,
the death rates are likely to be much higher. Levitt and Venkatesh (2000) report a
death rate of 7 percent annually for street-level drug sellers in the gang they
analyze. Kennedy, Piehl and Braga (1996) estimate violent death rates to be
1–2 percent annually among all gang members in Boston. It is hard to believe the
fear of execution would be a driving force in a rational criminal's calculus in
modern America.

(Source: Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, Levitt (2004))

chessmaster1989

Exactly why we need a more efficient death penalty system. It shouldn't take 25 years for someone to finally be executed. Do it in 25 months and you will see a deterrent.

But that brings a tradeoff, that as soon as we start reducing the appeals process, we'll inevitably start executing more innocents.

But how many are actually innocent? Somehow I feel that is a lower numbe then is typically portrayed. (again, still undecided but would like to see a proper study)majoras_wrath

http://www.stopcapitalpunishment.org/coverage/106.html

I believe about 84% of those freed from the death penalty weren't actually innocent, but were released because of legal stuff.

The legal system is very good at weeding out the innocents. Only 0.2% of people are actually exonerated from death row.

While i'm pro-death penalty because i do believe some crimes should come with the possible punishment of death.

It is not to the degree that i am abhorrently against getting rid of the Death Penalty either.

but i do feel - admittadly limited knowledge - that the US way dealing with criminals is rather weak.

Also, AHUGECAT, you may want to read Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate, Donohue and Wolfers (2006). It points out flaws in several recent studies that found deterrence effects.

chessmaster1989

we can see the deterrence effects in countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. No, we shouldn't be as extreme as them lol (I wouldn't support death penalty for narcotic distribution for example), but if we executed faster and more efficiently instead of letting them live on death row for 20 years while they spend thousands if not millions on appeals then we would see a deterrence.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Exactly why we need a more efficient death penalty system. It shouldn't take 25 years for someone to finally be executed. Do it in 25 months and you will see a deterrent.

majoras_wrath

But that brings a tradeoff, that as soon as we start reducing the appeals process, we'll inevitably start executing more innocents.

Hard to say, but given the evidence for a deterrence effect currently is questionable at best, and we don't know how strong the deterrence effect would be if we reduced the time of the appeals process (and how many lives it would save relative to how many innocents would be executed), I don't think it sound policy to reduce the time of the appeals process.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Also, AHUGECAT, you may want to read Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate, Donohue and Wolfers (2006). It points out flaws in several recent studies that found deterrence effects.

AHUGECAT

we can see the deterrence effects in countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. No, we shouldn't be as extreme as them lol (I wouldn't support death penalty for narcotic distribution for example), but if we executed faster and more efficiently instead of letting them live on death row for 20 years while they spend thousands if not millions on appeals then we would see a deterrence.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Also, AHUGECAT, you may want to read Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate, Donohue and Wolfers (2006). It points out flaws in several recent studies that found deterrence effects.

AHUGECAT

we can see the deterrence effects in countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. No, we shouldn't be as extreme as them lol (I wouldn't support death penalty for narcotic distribution for example), but if we executed faster and more efficiently instead of letting them live on death row for 20 years while they spend thousands if not millions on appeals then we would see a deterrence.

Perhaps, but what level of deterrence and how would it compare to the increased number of innocents executed? Until you can provide a reasonable empirical answer to both those questions, I will not support "speeding up" the death penalty.

The empirical evidence I've seen for a current deterrence effect has been very shaky at best, whereas the costs to the death penalty are real. Hence, I support abolishing it (also support abolishing it on moral grounds but that's a different issue).

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Also, AHUGECAT, you may want to read Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate, Donohue and Wolfers (2006). It points out flaws in several recent studies that found deterrence effects.

chessmaster1989

we can see the deterrence effects in countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. No, we shouldn't be as extreme as them lol (I wouldn't support death penalty for narcotic distribution for example), but if we executed faster and more efficiently instead of letting them live on death row for 20 years while they spend thousands if not millions on appeals then we would see a deterrence.

Perhaps, but what level of deterrence and how would it compare to the increased number of innocents executed? Until you can provide a reasonable empirical answer to both those questions, I will not support "speeding up" the death penalty.

The empirical evidence I've seen for a current deterrence effect has been very shaky at best, whereas the costs to the death penalty are real. Hence, I support abolishing it (also support abolishing it on moral grounds but that's a different issue).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml

"speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented"

We can see the effects in countries such as Saudi Arabia, China, and Singapore all of which have swift death penalty systems. Yeah, they are a little extreme, but the effects on the crime rates cannot be ignored. Remember that only 1 out of 300 murderers are actually given the death penalty, and when they are, they usually stretch it out to about 15-20 years before they are finally executed. It can't be a deterrent if it never happens.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

we can see the deterrence effects in countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. No, we shouldn't be as extreme as them lol (I wouldn't support death penalty for narcotic distribution for example), but if we executed faster and more efficiently instead of letting them live on death row for 20 years while they spend thousands if not millions on appeals then we would see a deterrence.

AHUGECAT

Perhaps, but what level of deterrence and how would it compare to the increased number of innocents executed? Until you can provide a reasonable empirical answer to both those questions, I will not support "speeding up" the death penalty.

The empirical evidence I've seen for a current deterrence effect has been very shaky at best, whereas the costs to the death penalty are real. Hence, I support abolishing it (also support abolishing it on moral grounds but that's a different issue).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml

"speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented"

We can see the effects in countries such as Saudi Arabia, China, and Singapore all of which have swift death penalty systems. Yeah, they are a little extreme, but the effects on the crime rates cannot be ignored. Remember that only 1 out of 300 murderers are actually given the death penalty, and when they are, they usually stretch it out to about 15-20 years before they are finally executed. It can't be a deterrent if it never happens.

So, reducing the average death row time from, say, 20 years to 2 years will reduce the number of murders by 6.5? No offense, but I find it very hard to believe that that result is robust. The number is just so small that it seems ridiculous.

Now if only Texas could get rid ot it, but who am I kidding. As much as I love this state, it has some hardcore republicans that think killing is going to solve problems. :roll:

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Yeah but after one or two appeals that should be enough.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml An Emory University study shows that "each execution deters an average of 18 murders." Makes sense - people don't want to die. If the death penalty wasn't a deterrent then why do so many convicted murderers want to avoid it by plea bargaining or appeals? In prison, murderers are hailed as heroes and celebrities. They fear death. Death is their worst punishment.

AHUGECAT

Actually, a broader review of the death penalty literature shows that the results are very inconclusive regarding the deterrence effect of the death penalty. While some studies find a small deterrence effect, others find no deterrence effect, while some even find a small increase in crime in response to the death penalty (which are generally not to imply that the death penalty actually encourages crime, but rather to question the results of studies that do find a deterrence effect).

But I think Levitt provides one of the better arguments against a deterrence effect:

Given the rarity with which executions are carried out in
this country and the long delays in doing so, a rational criminal should not be
deterred by the threat of execution. Despite increases in capital punishment in
recent years, the likelihood of being executed conditional on committing murder
is still less than 1 in 200. Even among those on death row, the annual execution rate
is only 2 percent, or twice the death rate from accidents and violence among all
American men. Among the subsample of individuals engaged in illegal activities,
the death rates are likely to be much higher. Levitt and Venkatesh (2000) report a
death rate of 7 percent annually for street-level drug sellers in the gang they
analyze. Kennedy, Piehl and Braga (1996) estimate violent death rates to be
1–2 percent annually among all gang members in Boston. It is hard to believe the
fear of execution would be a driving force in a rational criminal's calculus in
modern America.

(Source: Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not, Levitt (2004))

Exactly why we need a more efficient death penalty system. It shouldn't take 25 years for someone to finally be executed. Do it in 25 months and you will see a deterrent.

I don't care if people who are no use get killed. I guess if it costs a lot fo money to kill them (for some reason), then it's better to keep them alive.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Exactly why we need a more efficient death penalty system. It shouldn't take 25 years for someone to finally be executed. Do it in 25 months and you will see a deterrent.

majoras_wrath

But that brings a tradeoff, that as soon as we start reducing the appeals process, we'll inevitably start executing more innocents.

Well in the case of Illinois we've actually freed more men that were wrongly convicted and sent to death row than we've executed.

I wonder if people would still be against the death penalty if a particularly abhorrent crime were to happen to someone they cared about. Huh?Good-Apollo

Yes, I would. But even if I wanted the person executed in such a case my emotions are irrelevant.

I wonder if people would still be against the death penalty if a particularly abhorrent crime were to happen to someone they cared about. Huh?Good-Apollo

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]I don't know how I feel about this. Some criminals deserve to die for their crimes...yet I can't help feeling its an easy way out. Then again, there are plenty of statistics saying that somehow an execution is more expensive then a jail term.AHUGECAT

It's not an easy way out if you think about it, because if it was, then more criminals would want the death penalty. In fact it's the opposite - they do what they can to avoid it (by plea bargaining or appeals for example).

I wonder if people would still be against the death penalty if a particularly abhorrent crime were to happen to someone they cared about. Huh?Good-Apollo