Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What myself and, I think Viper are saying is that it isn't a game where you let someone have a turn or "fighting chance". It's about preventing people getting killed and saving lives by taking a certain difficult course.
I agree,there is something emotional about a child being raped and murdered by someone who should have been executed.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.

The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.

One of those things is worth more than the other.

Those on trial for murder also have a fighting chance, with a very high burden of proof required for conviction and several rounds of appeals court after that... They sure as hell have a much better "fighting chance" than someone that is jumped on by surprise in their own home and stabbed 17 times in front of 2 children!

Really? You're going to bring the discussion this far down into the mud?

The OP is about someone who was sentenced to death because he was convicted of murdering a person by stabbing them 17 times in their own home in front of two small children.

Your reply to his was supposedly that if the victim had a gun, this wouldn't have happened and I'm the one dragging down the level of the thread?

The "funny" thing is, if the victim had a gun ready and had managed to successfully defend herself, then the criminal would be just as dead as if the sentence had been carried out...

Relapse wrote:
What myself and, I think Viper are saying is that it isn't a game where you let someone have a turn or "fighting chance". It's about preventing people getting killed and saving lives by taking a certain difficult course.
I agree,there is something emotional about a child being raped and murdered by someone who should have been executed.

Yeah see? It's posts like this right here that make it impossible to have a real discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.

The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.

One of those things is worth more than the other.

Those on trial for murder also have a fighting chance, with a very high burden of proof required for conviction and several rounds of appeals court after that... They sure as hell have a much better "fighting chance" than someone that is jumped on by surprise in their own home and stabbed 17 times in front of 2 children!

Really? You're going to bring the discussion this far down into the mud?

The OP is about someone who was sentenced to death because he was convicted of murdering a person by stabbing them 17 times in their own home in front of two small children.

Your reply to his was supposedly that if the victim had a gun, this wouldn't have happened and I'm the one dragging down the level of the thread?

The "funny" thing is, if the victim had a gun ready and had managed to successfully defend herself, then the criminal would be just as dead as if the sentence had been carried out...

We stopped talking about the OP pages ago and you know it.

The emotional thing about these two cases are that they really happened. Would you like to pretend otherwise?

Relapse wrote:
The emotional thing about these two cases are that they really happened. Would you like to pretend otherwise?

We were having a normal abstract policy discussion a few pages ago before you decided to turn to "if you don't support my position, you support child rape" nonsense. You 100% turned away from having actual reasonable discussion this topic and now both of you are twisting 2 pages of posts to be about the OP which we stopped discussing almost IMMEDIATELY.

You're arguing in bad faith, you're being intellectually dishonest and purposefully obtuse. We're done talking. Other people argued for the death penalty in this thread in a reasonable and friendly way and you're making them look horrible. Enjoy my ignore list.

 Rented Tritium wrote:

We stopped talking about the OP pages ago and you know it.

Maybe.

But my point is that these are the type of people that we are talking about, we are talking about scum that go after the weakest members of society, people that can't defend themselves. There are no "fighting chances" here!

If eradicating them will sometimes catches someone that isn't as guilty in the net... I'm sorry, but at the end of the day we are still saving more innocent lives.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:

We stopped talking about the OP pages ago and you know it.

Maybe.

But my point is that these are the type of people that we are talking about, we are talking about scum that go after the weakest members of society, people that can't defend themselves. There are no "fighting chances" here!

If eradicating them will sometimes catches someone that isn't as guilty in the net... I'm sorry, but at the end of the day we are still saving more innocent lives.

Couldn't have said it better. It's not like these are paragons from the honor role we are talking about. I'm sorry Rented took it as though I was condemning those against the death penalty, I definitely didn't mean it that way, but I laid out the cases and numbers for both sides and it appears he didn't like what he saw.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.

The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.

One of those things is worth more than the other.

^This^

I just like to argue both sides of this issue.

I'm in favor of abolishing the death penalty for hard manual labor.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
@Dreadclaw: chongara seems to have ninja's my response. I still await your explanation as to what an acceptable standard is.

What an acceptable standard of proof is? The same as it is already - beyond a reasonable doubt, and with the jury reaching a sentence having the proper attention to the law, and any aggravating/mitigating factors.

And please don't try and use an appeal to emotion either. I'd hate for you to be forced to use another fallacy.

I have not yet made any illogical statements and you know it. And you have tried to dodge my question like you're in a Matrix movie:

The acceptable standard I want from you is the number, or ratio, of innocent people executed by the state that you are willing to tolerate. And you know that is the standard I was asking for, because it is the only quesiton I have asked you for several posts now.

I want you to tell me what your number is. What is the maximum number of innocent people the state could execute for you to still simply write them off as collateral damage?


There is no appeal to emotion here. The only thing close to an appeal to emotion was a satirical response to Whembly's silly position of "I think everyone should just try their best", and even then it wasn't an appeal to emotion, it was an attempt to get Whembly to try and see things from the perspective of not someone who is currently immune from the issue.

And on that note...




@Whembly: you do understand that there is a massive difference between an offender not being convicted at trial and killing your wife, and the state executing your wife due to an error, right? Attempting to compare those two is like trying to compare apples to cars.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I have not yet made any illogical statements and you know it. And you have tried to dodge my question like you're in a Matrix movie:

The acceptable standard I want from you is the number, or ratio, of innocent people executed by the state that you are willing to tolerate. And you know that is the standard I was asking for, because it is the only quesiton I have asked you for several posts now.

I want you to tell me what your number is. What is the maximum number of innocent people the state could execute for you to still simply write them off as collateral damage?


There is no appeal to emotion here. The only thing close to an appeal to emotion was a satirical response to Whembly's silly position of "I think everyone should just try their best", and even then it wasn't an appeal to emotion, it was an attempt to get Whembly to try and see things from the perspective of not someone who is currently immune from the issue.

So framing loaded questions, and appeals to emotion dressed up as satire are not fallacies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
You, and others, had your answer to that question before. You have an absolutist position which you have attempted to cover with a veneer of being reasonable and permitting the death penalty in circumstances so narrow as to de facto ban it. Had similar restrictions been placed on the availability of abortion people here would be outraged.

You want me to give you an arbitrary number, ask me how I came to that figure, argue the point as to whether it is reasonable given that for you any death of an innocent is intolerable, and all the while knowing that it is a loaded question designed to show that I am prepared to sanction the execution of innocent people. Let me make this clear in case you may have missed it the past several times - I am in favour of guilty people being executed. When you stop attempting to misrepresent my argument and have a less absolute position then perhaps we can have a discussion.
You are continually asking a tawdry and patently loaded question in an obvious attempt to discredit people disagreeing with your position. Again, you are showing very clearly that you are not interested in a debate you just want to rehash your talking points and lecture others. This is itself is treading the road of the fallacy of repetition.

 azazel the cat wrote:

@Whembly: you do understand that there is a massive difference between an offender not being convicted at trial and killing your wife, and the state executing your wife due to an error, right? Attempting to compare those two is like trying to compare apples to cars.

Hey... dude... just so that you know, I'm actually on your side here.

But, in response to your question... no, I don't believe it's that much of a stretch to compare to the two. We live in a society, for all of it's flaws, presumes innocents and strictly adhere to judicial constraints/laws. We hear numerous cases where the killer is set free due to improper investigation, incompetent prosecutors, or whatever legal jujitsu to that let's the killer go... who may kill again.

Since we don't have perfect omnission, it is impossibel to ensure only "guilty" people are executed. Therefore, no one should be executed as we can not be sure only "guilty" people are being executed.

We can make a distinction between execution and othe rprison sentences/punishments as an execution can not be undone as other punishments can be undone.


****Added to appeal to your "Libertarian" beliefs******
Plus, how can we trust the "big" Government to get such matters of life and death correct?

 Easy E wrote:

****Added to appeal to your "Libertarian" beliefs******
Plus, how can we trust the "big" Government to get such matters of life and death correct?

Yeah... it's not like big government is all trust worthy and competent... amirite?

Otherwise, we have nothing to hide, eh?

Relapse wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.

The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.

One of those things is worth more than the other.

You should look at that link I provided about repeat murderers. You would see how wrong you are.

You have yet to provide a shred of proof that what we are doing, right now with the death penalty, makes our numbers lower than those countries that don't have the death penalty.

If you can't show that we have less killers that escape and kill than "Canada/Germany/France/UK/Norway/etc" because we kill some of them, then you haven't actually made an argument.

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The people killed by murderers have a fighting chance. We can let them have guns, we can have more cops. There are things we can do to save them.

The innocent who are wrongly executed are being killed by their own government.

One of those things is worth more than the other.

You should look at that link I provided about repeat murderers. You would see how wrong you are.

You have yet to provide a shred of proof that what we are doing, right now with the death penalty, makes our numbers lower than those countries that don't have the death penalty.

If you can't show that we have less killers that escape and kill than "Canada/Germany/France/UK/Norway/etc" because we kill some of them, then you haven't actually made an argument.

The fact that all those deaths could have been prevented if the convicted killers were executed is enough. I'm not talking about statistics between countries. I am stating the established fact that more people have been murdered by convicted killers who were not executed than there were innocent people executed.
You can no more bring those murder victims back to life then you could someone wrongly executed.

So you make it pretty clear that you are basing this entirely on emotion and not any kind of factual basis.

Because if you cannot even show that we have less people getting killed by felons when we execute some of them, then you are talking out your rear when you say crap like "if we executed more then even less people would die".

You have not produced one shred of evidence that we have less people getting killed by executing some of them, but we should execute more because it works.

Your repeated mantra of "murderers kill, kill more murderers" is just stupid if you can't even show that killing them has made any mind of difference.

Show that killing some has produced better results than nations that kill none.

 d-usa wrote:
So you make it pretty clear that you are basing this entirely on emotion and not any kind of factual basis.

Because if you cannot even show that we have less people getting killed by felons when we execute some of them, then you are talking out your rear when you say crap like "if we executed more then even less people would die".

You have not produced one shred of evidence that we have less people getting killed by executing some of them, but we should execute more because it works.

Your repeated mantra of "murderers kill, kill more murderers" is just stupid if you can't even show that killing them has made any mind of difference.

Show that killing some has produced better results than nations that kill none.

No, I've given numbers. According to the DOJ, there is a 1.2% recidivism rate of convicted killers who murder again after conviction. There are roughly 9,000 - 11,000 murder convictions a year depending on the year sampled. Taking into account the fact that some of those murders commited are multiple, it comes out to more people murdered than wrongfuly executed.
I'm just going off established statistics for the U.S. using DOJ findings when I say there would have been less dead people if those murderers had been executed since the numbers are there to prove me right.
In other words, not killing those convicted murderers have cost lives, not saved them. It can't be much clearer than that.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So you make it pretty clear that you are basing this entirely on emotion and not any kind of factual basis.

Because if you cannot even show that we have less people getting killed by felons when we execute some of them, then you are talking out your rear when you say crap like "if we executed more then even less people would die".

You have not produced one shred of evidence that we have less people getting killed by executing some of them, but we should execute more because it works.

Your repeated mantra of "murderers kill, kill more murderers" is just stupid if you can't even show that killing them has made any mind of difference.

Show that killing some has produced better results than nations that kill none.

No, I've given numbers. According to the DOJ, there is a 1.2% recidivism rate of convicted killers who murder again after conviction. There are roughly 9,000 - 11,000 murder convictions a year depending on the year sampled. Taking into account the fact that some of those murders commited are multiple, it comes out to more people murdered than wrongfuly executed.
I'm just going off established statistics for the U.S. using DOJ findings when I say there would have been less dead people if those murderers had been executed since the numbers are there to prove me right.

You are posting a statistic in a complete vacuum and are just making useless post after useless post.

You have not shown that our system results in less people getting killed from repeat murderers because we kill people compared to countries that don't kill people. You haven't even shown that executions result in less people getting killed by repeat murders in states that execute more people than others.

But let's work with your useless numbers:

So let's ignore the facts that there are a giant pile of things that influence recidivism rates other than "just kill them", let's go with the 1.2% recidivism rate based on a 19 year old study conducted in 15 states.

First thing we need to do is to take a couple of facts into consideration: It doesn't matter how many people a year get convicted of murder when we look at the 1.2% recidivism rate of people who were initially convicted of homicide and then were rearrested for homicide after release. We need to look at the number of people executed instead. It doesn't matter wether or not 1.2% of all people convicted for homicide might commit another homicide later. What matters is what the number of people executed for murder might have done.

So last wear we executed 43 people. At 1.2% we might have prevented 0.5 murders.
Over the last two years we have executed 86 people, at a 1.2% rate we might have prevented 1 murder.

So two years of executions might have possibly prevented one death. And you need to be pretty certain that out of those 86 people you didn't execute anybody that was innocent or the whole process was just a waste of time.

So now we know that at a recidivism rate of 1.2% you need to execute 86 people to possibly prevent one murder from somebody that has been convicted and released from prison only to kill again. So we are ignoring the effects of Life in Prison on murder rates as well and pretent that the only two options are "kill them" or "release them to kill again". Because your statistic only looks at murder after release from prison.

So lets look at what statistics we have for people that were wrongfully executed or have a very high likelyhood that they were wrongfully executed:

Since the Death Penalty has been reinstated we have had, depending on sources, 39 people that have a very high likelyhood of being wrongfully executed (as of 2010).

So if we consider your statistics as "Very high likelyhood that they would have murdered again" and compare them to the "very high likelyhood that they were innocent" we get:

Number of people executed: 1233
Number of murder convictions possibly prevented based on a statistical rate of 1.2%: 15
Number of people possibly wrongfully executed: 39
Homicide recidivism rate: 1.2%
Wrongful execution rate: 3.2%

So there is a high likelyhood that we killed 39 innocent people to prevent 15 innocent victims.
There is a high likelyhood that our justice system resulted in 24 additional deaths that would not have happened without it.

Let's revisit this. At an average of 9000 convictions with a recidivsm of 1.2% equals roughly 108 murders that happen if we go with a lowball figure of only 9,000 convictions and if we say each murder only involves one murder being commited, although in several case it involves more than one person being killed.
We have the data points to extrapolate how these figures run, so it's hardly the vacumn you claim it is.

From 1973 to 2012, there have been 142 people exonerated of murder charges.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row

The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.

You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.

It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.

There are only three numbers that matter:

The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.

And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.

And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.

So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.

There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.

 d-usa wrote:
The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.

You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.

It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.

There are only three numbers that matter:

The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.

And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.

And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.

So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.

There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.

It's actually far more deaths prevented than you say. 1.2 % of 9000 is 108, and as I said that is using low numbers for convictions and recidivsm.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.

You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.

It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.

There are only three numbers that matter:

The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.

And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.

And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.

So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.

There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.

It's actually far more deaths prevented than you say. 1.2 % of 9000 is 108, and as I said that is using low numbers for convictions and recidivsm.

Please explain how executing 43 people in 2012 prevented 108 people from killing?

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.

You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.

It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.

There are only three numbers that matter:

The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.

And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.

And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.

So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.

There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.

It's actually far more deaths prevented than you say. 1.2 % of 9000 is 108, and as I said that is using low numbers for convictions and recidivsm.

Please explain how executing 43 people in 2012 prevented 108 people from killing?

As I said, we have enough data points to extrapolate. Six Sigma uses a similar type of calculation to predict trends for industry quality and prevention of rejects through problem solving.

Guys...

Jeeze, all this Math hurts.

Just say:
A) I'm for death penalty because it'll prevent future possible murders if killer is release back into the wild...
B) I'm against death penalty because the chance of killing a wrongly convicted person is too high...

And leave it at that...

or C) Let's go over Frazzled house for beer and queso! I call shotgun!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

What an acceptable standard of proof is? The same as it is already - beyond a reasonable doubt, and with the jury reaching a sentence having the proper attention to the law, and any aggravating/mitigating factors.

I don't think anyone has argued the standard of proof should be anything other than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Rather it seems that the dispute is over what sort of proof should be required to convict a person of a crime given that they might face the death penalty (in areas where there is no, or limited, jury sentencing) or sentence someone to death (in areas where there is jury sentencing). In other words: what would it take to prove that X is guilty of Y, beyond a reasonable doubt?

In such a light, claiming that the standard of proof should be "beyond a reasonable doubt" is minimally a misunderstanding regarding Azazel's question*, and maximally an attempt to dodge it.



*Which seems to be: "What would you, as a juror or judge, require as proof in order to sentence someone to death?"

 whembly wrote:

A) I'm for death penalty because it'll prevent future possible murders if killer is release back into the wild...

That isn't really an issue with the death penalty. It is an issue with sentencing, but not one specifically regarding the death penalty.

 azazel the cat wrote:

The acceptable standard I want from you is the number, or ratio, of innocent people executed by the state that you are willing to tolerate.

Or maybe I was wrong. That's what I get from posting on the basis of an aesthetic assessment of a thread.

 dogma wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

What an acceptable standard of proof is? The same as it is already - beyond a reasonable doubt, and with the jury reaching a sentence having the proper attention to the law, and any aggravating/mitigating factors.

I don't think anyone has argued the standard of proof should be anything other than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Rather it seems that the dispute is over what sort of proof should be required to convict a person of a crime given that they might face the death penalty (in areas where there is no, or limited, jury sentencing) or sentence someone to death (in areas where there is jury sentencing). In other words: what would it take to prove that X is guilty of Y, beyond a reasonable doubt?

In such a light, claiming that the standard of proof should be "beyond a reasonable doubt" is minimally a misunderstanding regarding Azazel's question, and maximally an attempt to dodge it.

Are you surmising that the burden of proof for capital offense be higher than what we have now?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You want me to give you an arbitrary number, ask me how I came to that figure, argue the point as to whether it is reasonable given that for you any death of an innocent is intolerable, and all the while knowing that it is a loaded question designed to show that I am prepared to sanction the execution of innocent people.

That's what arguing for the death penalty entails.

Supporting the death penalty does not mean that you support the execution of innocents, but it does mean that you accept (sanction) it. Because it will happen regardless of how hard you try to avoid it.

 whembly wrote:
Guys...

Jeeze, all this Math hurts.

Just say:
A) I'm for death penalty because it'll prevent future possible murders if killer is release back into the wild...
B) I'm against death penalty because the chance of killing a wrongly convicted person is too high...

And leave it at that...

or C) Let's go over Frazzled house for beer and queso! I call shotgun!

A wise man speaks. Rather than beat our heads together over positions we are convinced of, it's off to Frazz's.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The 9000 convictions don't matter when you talk about the death penalty preventing murders.

You can't talk about how the death penalty is effective by talking about murders that were commited by people that didn't receive the death penalty and were released from prison instead.

It doesn't matter one single bit if 9,000 people a year are convicted of murder.
It doesn't matter one bit if 142 people are exonerated of murder charges since 1973.

There are only three numbers that matter:

The number of people that were actually executed.
The statistical number that those people might have killed if they were released from prison.
The likely number of people that were wrongly executed.

And we know, from your data, that execution might have prevented 15 deaths.

And we know, from separate data, that there is a high likelyhood that we might have executed 39 people that were innocent.

So while you throw out statistics that are, once again, based on a 19 year old 15 state study and also pretent that the only options are execution or release from prison (because your date does not address murderers that were never released and how many people were/were not killed because of life in prison) we do have a simple fact.

There is a high possibility that we killed 39 innocent people to fight the possibility that 15 other innocent people might have been killed.

It's actually far more deaths prevented than you say. 1.2 % of 9000 is 108, and as I said that is using low numbers for convictions and recidivsm.

Please explain how executing 43 people in 2012 prevented 108 people from killing?

As I said, we have enough data points to extrapolate. Six Sigma uses a similar type of calculation to predict trends for industry quality and prevention of rejects through problem solving.

We do have the data points, you are just either ignoring them or not using them correctly.

You cannot say "we prevented [9000 convictions * 1.2% recivitism rate] of murders because that is not the number we work with. We have to work with the actual numbers. If 43 people were executed last year, than that is the number you use when determining what number you might have been prevented.

In 2011 and 2012 we executed 86 people, so we may have prevented one statistical death (if we pretent that they would have been released if they were not executed). We do know that there is a very high likelyhood that we executed an innocent man in 2011. So during the last two years we executed an innocent man to prevent the hypothetical murder of an innocent man.

Now if you want to make some sort of stupid argument that killing all 9000 murderers we convict each year would prevent an additional 1.2% of murders down the line, then you also have consider the statistical rate of wrongful executions. If you say "in the past, 1.2% of murderers released from prison kill again" then you also have to accept the statistics of "in the past, 3.2% of people we executed were likely innocent".

So if you want to use the 9000 (lowball number) of convicted murderers each year and pretend that the only two options are "kill them or release them" then we get the following numbers.

Murders after release statistically prevented by executing every murderer: 108
Number of innocent people statistically executed by executing every murderer: 288

So if you want to say that killing 288 innocent people a year is okay if it prevents the death of 108 other innocent people, then that is just stupid.

But let's just consider the alternative that you have not provided statistics for:

9000 people a year in jail for life without parole:

"People kill and get killed in prison all the time" is the mantra that has been voiced here. Well, thankfully we have a law that required the report of every death of every person in custody in the USA. And the average homicide rate in prison is a whooping 0.004%. 4 out of 100,000 inmates are killed in prison each year.

So now we have three options to figure out a number each year for those 9000 people, let's make a fancy table:

Option | Number of Innocent people killed (per year)
Kill everyone | 288
Release everyone | 108
Life without Parole | 0.36

I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. So this is probably my last post on this subject.

I support the Death Penalty. Granted I also accept the.01% "Oh Frack" factor. I just have my view point a bit skewered/different from the major line of views. I have squeezed the trigger quite a few times.