My argument for the death penalty...
- Thread starter prodigy
- Start date
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
This is the classic of all assumptions. Even though many states don't have the death penalty, and there is no link provided between having the death penalty and gaining plea bargains, the assumption is that the death penalty is very important to Prosecutors (and no doubt it is on the lower levels of the legal spectrum where almost all the money is spent anyway). Of course, very few cases every year, relative to all cases, are even death penalty cases. Many states get by fine without it and apparently don't see the plea value in having it. So what are we losing exactly by not having it? And how much is life without parole, which sounds pretty scary to me, crippling prosecutors in those states that don't offer that threat?
Please provide a link that shows where the presence of the death penalty in any given state helps prosecutors to obtain plea bargains. And don't give me those single examples of one prosecutor telling me how great it is. I want any comprehensive study that proves, or at least asserts, that the death penalty is an invaluable tool in prosecuting alleged murderers.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
I don't have to. You can refer to the study Peterzz provided. I've already provided the page number. Should I just post it so you'll be forced to look at it?
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Thanks for not trying to straighten me out. It would have been very embarrassing. It's so hard for me to argue with such a smart guy like you.
Hopper
Banned
"In a study we released today in working paper form, we track murder cases in a sample of 33 of the 75 largest counties in the country...Not surprisingly, guilty pleas in murder cases with sentences of life in prison or terms over 20 years are nearly four times as common in states with the death penalty as in those without it." https://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2009/02/murderers-plea-bargains-and-do.html
Hopper
Banned
As far as what you think any particular study "proves" goes, you need to look at more than just the conclusions presented by some abolitionist study. You need to analyze the underlying methods and assumptions.
"In a recent, widely cited study of death penalty costs in Maryland by the Urban Institute, one-third of the cases eligible for the death penalty were resolved by a guilty plea. Yet the study’s estimate of costs makes no allowance for the possibility that percentage would drop sharply if the death penalty were repealed. Study commission reports in New Jersey and California have similarly ignored the issue or made inadequate allowance for it.
“The fact that these studies have omitted an important and obvious factor raises serious questions about their credibility,” said CJLF’s Legal Director Kent Scheidegger, the author of the study. “What else did they leave out?” To take just one example, both the Maryland and California studies calculate death row imprisonment costs on the assumption that inmates sentenced to death will live out their natural lives in prison."
https://www.cjlf.org/releases/09-05.htm
"In a recent, widely cited study of death penalty costs in Maryland by the Urban Institute, one-third of the cases eligible for the death penalty were resolved by a guilty plea. Yet the study’s estimate of costs makes no allowance for the possibility that percentage would drop sharply if the death penalty were repealed. Study commission reports in New Jersey and California have similarly ignored the issue or made inadequate allowance for it.
“The fact that these studies have omitted an important and obvious factor raises serious questions about their credibility,” said CJLF’s Legal Director Kent Scheidegger, the author of the study. “What else did they leave out?” To take just one example, both the Maryland and California studies calculate death row imprisonment costs on the assumption that inmates sentenced to death will live out their natural lives in prison."
https://www.cjlf.org/releases/09-05.htm
Last edited:
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Let's forget how unconvincing that link is for a moment. Let's forget it comes from absolutely nobody. It tracked 33 'samples' of 75 'counties.' I can't even begin to appreciate this. But this is my favorite part. This is the conclusion of the study YOU just linked:
The widespread assumption that repeal of the death penalty would produce an
immediate and dramatic savings in trial costs is not justified on the information
currently available. If a state repeals the death penalty but is unwilling to accept a
greater number of murderers going free after relatively short sentences, then greater
number of life-sentence cases will probably have to go to trial rather than being resolved
by plea. Further research is needed before a reliable estimate of net costs or savings of
a state having the death penalty as an available sanction can be made.
So the conclusion has nothing to do with plea bargains. The conclusion has to do with a belief that costs will be greater if we repeal the death penalty. And far more credible sources have already rebutted that. Thanks for Cousin Judy's opinion of matters aint.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Have you calculated the ridicule you face when anyone clicks on these links? My uncle Freddy can start a website. And he can say anything he wants. I just never thought anyone would actually quote him as if it meant anything.
Let me amend my original request, not that I thought I would have to. I want CREDIBLE sources. Not somebody with a computer and an opinion. Find that. And hell, man, the crap you've found doesn't even really help your opinion anyway.
Hopper
Banned
There seem to be very few studies on this, but here's another excerpt from a study done by a Harvard Professor, Ilyana Kuziemko;
"This article investigates whether the death penalty encourages defendants charged with potentially capital crimes to plead guilty in exchange for lesser sentences. I exploit a natural experiment in New York State: the 1995 reinstatement of capital punishment, coupled with the public refusal of some prosecutors to pursue death sentences (N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25 [McKinney 1975]). Using individual-level data on all felony arrests in the state between 1985 and 1998, I find the death penalty leads defendants to accept plea bargains with harsher terms."
5. National Cross-Section of Murder Defendants in 1988: This section examines murder defendants across the country and exploits state-level variation in death penalty policy. I draw primarily upon one source of data: Murder Cases in 33 Large Urban Counties in the United States, a cross-section of about 3,000 murder cases processed in 33 counties in 1988, gathered by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
(1996)....The results in this section generally confirm those from the New York State analysis, although the national analysis suggests a stronger effect of the death penalty on charge bargaining."
https://www.princeton.edu/~kuziemko/deathpenalty_aler.pdf
"This article investigates whether the death penalty encourages defendants charged with potentially capital crimes to plead guilty in exchange for lesser sentences. I exploit a natural experiment in New York State: the 1995 reinstatement of capital punishment, coupled with the public refusal of some prosecutors to pursue death sentences (N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25 [McKinney 1975]). Using individual-level data on all felony arrests in the state between 1985 and 1998, I find the death penalty leads defendants to accept plea bargains with harsher terms."
5. National Cross-Section of Murder Defendants in 1988: This section examines murder defendants across the country and exploits state-level variation in death penalty policy. I draw primarily upon one source of data: Murder Cases in 33 Large Urban Counties in the United States, a cross-section of about 3,000 murder cases processed in 33 counties in 1988, gathered by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
(1996)....The results in this section generally confirm those from the New York State analysis, although the national analysis suggests a stronger effect of the death penalty on charge bargaining."
https://www.princeton.edu/~kuziemko/deathpenalty_aler.pdf
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
Before I head out for the night, I'm just wondering something. Aint, do you realize both your crappy links come from the same crappy source? It's par for the course for your crappy posts, but I just wanted to point that out in case you have a third crappy post from the same crappy source lined up to crap on your crappy argument again.
Hopper
Banned
I knew better than to think for one second that you would respond intelligently, but I still gave you the chance. Good-bye, Biley.
billyshelby
Well-Known Member
I can't resist. Intelligence is quoting Aunt Judy? I'll read over the Princeton link later, but that's a drop in the bucket relative to your mission. You needed to prove a lot more than that. And we're only gaming a tiny part of the entire issue on this. This is going to be a thread of endless joy for me. Good-Bye, aint.
Hopper
Banned
I was wrong before when I said I was wrong. Turns out I was right. Ya caint read so good.
Hopper
Banned
Don't git me wrong, Biley, I don't wanna discourage ya. I git as much amusment and entertainment from your over-wrought displays of malice, slander, insecurity, and mental incompetence as the next guy, I'm sure. But don't expect any serious response to it from my ***. It just don't merit it, eh?
That said, I will take a minute, for the benefit of anyone who may have been misled (not your benefit, you're beyond help, I figure), to correct your absurd mischaracterizations of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF).
"CJLF attorneys introduce scholarly friend of the court briefs in criminal cases before the state and federal courts of appeals to encourage precedent-setting decisions which recognize the constitutional rights of victims and law-abiding society... Since 1989, with a fraction of the annual operating funds spent by civil liberties groups, the Foundation has maintained the best win/loss record before the United States Supreme Court of any public interest law organization in America."
====
"CJLF does more for the sensible administration of our justice system per dollar of support than any other public interest group of which I am aware." (Retired CA Supreme Court Justice Marcus Kaufman)
Last edited:
then what would be the source of your response? there's not much else as I figure it.
Hopper
Banned
Say what, Mo? Not sure I git what you're gittin at. Ya tryin to say you're serious 24/7, that it?
Hopper
Banned
I guess mebbe some peoples aint heard, eh?:
"There are 4 kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy.” (Ambrose Bierce)
I had no idea, how could that be? 1 Bullet is cheap while life in prison you have to feed and house those demonpeople.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
I believe it's because of the appeals process which can take years and years.