You know it's a page from the recent administration's playbook. If you just say it, that makes it so.
Fred Thompson is a good actor. I'd like to try to find the AP news release he cites.
 

http://digg.com/politics/Fred_Thompson_to_answer_5_questions_written_by_the_internet/
 

I think it hilarious when some ill-informed do-gooder infused with a puffed sense of his own morality tries to deal in the cold hard world of logic.

Travelingjesuit writes that if the death penalty deterred murder, there would be no murder in Texas. TJ, are you really that stupid, or has self-righteousness clouded your thinking ability. The issue is not whether the death penalty deters all murders (no one thinks it does) or some murders. If a swift and sure capital punishment deters some murders, then it is difficult to argue against it. (That's why abolitionists feel this huge need to discredit these studies.) The other fallacy in TJ's argument is to point to point to a murder rate in a death jurisdiction and compare it to a murder rate in a non-death jurisdiction. While that could have validity if other variables were similar, such a comparison has little validity if the variable vary widely.

Remember, "a little learning is a dangerous thing".
 

What did this fellow just say? Now that made no sense. "Variable vary widely"?
TJ's arguement is very valid and backed up with facts whereas anon has nothing to back up his claims.
Hopefully your trolling will be more valuable, now it's just tiring.
 

oh, gee, I should have said "variables differ" instead.

The issue, Augie, is whether capital punishment deters some murders. Certainly, it is possible that Texas would have a higher murder rate but for capital punishment. Therefore, it is simply no answer to say that Texas' death penalty doesn't work because there are murders in Texas.

I believe that a swift and certain death penalty deters some murders. That would mean that innocent lives have been saved, and that allows one to justify capital punishment on a utilitarian basis. And conversely, it would put you guys on the wrong side.

Enjoy your ignorance folks, and keep chanting "Mumia is innocent. Mumia is innocent."
 

As usual, TCASK welcomes all comments as long as they are delivered without recourse to offensive language and in a respectful tone (well, OK, our anonymous friend above kind of pushes the envelope here, but we'll try to keep it clean on our side).

Everyone is also entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. These studies that Thompson points to are seriously flawed and are asking us to go against common sense and the vast majority of social science research. Also, we should point out that we don't have a "swift and certain" death penalty. With the serious problems in the death penalty system (consider 1 exoneration for every 9 executions) the U.S. Supreme Court has mandated a series of appeals. Of course this hasn't stopped the execution of some defendants who were very likely innocent (Check out: www.innocentandexecuted.org), but it does guarantee that executions are not going to be carried out "swiftly and certainly." Which is exactly why the death penalty doesn't act as a deterrent. Of course, some people out there are now shouting, cut the appeals process short. But doing that means that a lot of innocent people would have been executed. Like Juan Melendez, who spent almost 18 years on Florida's death row for a crime that he did not commit! And wasn't this all supposed to be about protecting innocent lives?

"Anonymous's" response, typically, avoids answering any of the questions posed in my original post, but instead simply state's his/her own belief. Belief is fine, but Fred Thompson and others are talking about scientific fact, and there is a tremendous difference. And would someone please tell me how Mumia's guilt or innocence (and I don't think any post on this blog has ever mentioned Mumia, by the way) has anything to do with the death penalty's utility as a deterrent?
 

http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/2007/06/more_hysteria_on_deterrence_1.html#more
 

Wow! That's one of the most ignorant websites I have ever seen. The article referenced is in there along with one about how "eas" life on death row is. Can't we find some real sources instead of conservative foundations with axes to grind?
 

TJ, you show your ignorance. The folks who run C & C are very well-regarded. They have numerous posts about the deterrence issue. Perhaps, you might take a look at what they have to say.
 

I think that the only ignorance shown was in that article post to which you refer. Anyone who thinks that time in a maximum security or super max prison is easy is invited to try it.
 

Uh, TJ, what, C & C cannot link an AP article wherein a death row inmate talks about his life? Come on. Pathetic argument.

Seems to me that you guys are deathly afraid of the possibility that the death penalty may deter murder, so you'll close your eyes to peer-reviewed studies that say that it does. Like I said, peopple who run C & C are very highly regarded, even by people on your side (e.g., Karl Keys who knows that Scheidegger knows his stuff).

I know it's hard guys, but try to open your minds.
 

I'm going to attempt to respectfully reply (despite the clear lack of any real interest in respectful dialogue by our anonymous friend) and then finally move on from this post. There are an overwhelming number of peer reviewed studies that demonstrate that the death penalty is not a deterrent in any way. You can read about the flaws in these recent studies in the article that is linked in the original post. So, we are clearly not "closing our eyes" to peer-reviewed studies. And no matter how well thought of you may think that your link is, the argument put forward was nothing less than pathetic. Maximum security and super max prisons are by no means easy or gentle. But thank you for reading and informing me what people on "my side" think.
 

TJ, the link I provided goes straight to a post on death and deterrence; it says nothing about supermax

And your dismissal of C & C simply because they linked to an AP article is beyond silly.