One more reason to abolish the death penalty.

[Taft]

Here's a Chicago Tribune story (free registration required) about Steve Manning, who was a Chicago cop accused of murder and kidnapping. At trial, he was convicted and sentenced to death.

After the trial, it was learned that the FBI used a paid jailhouse informant to try extract a confession from Manning. Further, the informant had a history of lying under oath after being paid by authorities. Further, the supposed confession entered into evidence was in the form of a audio tape. However, upon reviewing the tape, no confession existed, just two gaps where the confession was "supposed to be". The informant blamed the gaps on the audio recorder failing.

Basically this cop was sentenced to death with a complete lack of evidence. I'm making no comment about the character of this cop or whether he actually committed crimes; thats not the point. The point is that in many cases the cops or federal agents who are collecting evidence for cases are as sleazy as the criminals themselves. Can we really trust their evidence 100% and sentence people to death based on it?

The more cases such as these that come to light, the less we can trust the justice system to act justly in every case. And if we can't trust the system to provide justice, how can we possibly act on that supposed justice to kill a man? There is far too much uncertainty.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0402270182feb27,1,7627177.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Taft

[mactastic]

Oh but by all means, let's streamline the process. No appeals, just a 50¢ bullet with the word JUSTICE stamped on it in the back of the head. Who needs all these formalities when we_know_we're_right.

[zimv20]

why bother w/ a trial at all? i think simply being accused is reason enough. worked in Salem.

[Taft]

Originally posted by zimv20
why bother w/ a trial at all? i think simply being accused is reason enough. worked in Salem.

Why would the police accuse them if they weren't guilty in the first place, right?

Seriously, though. I think that someone is eventually going to have to be a martyr in order for change to occur. I think someone is going to have to be wrongly executed and their family will have to raise a big stink (ie. lawsuits against the government). If that makes national headlines, maybe people will start to think.

And of course, the more affluent the martyr (and the more white the martyr) the more people will listen. Its a sad fact, but people probably wouldn't care too much if a black man with a shady past were put to death wrongly. I can hear the, "He had it coming" from ignoramuses now. Now, if a white banker were wrongly put to death, that'd be a different story.

But would a white banker be put on death row to begin with...

Taft

[Sparky's]

Without wanting to go through all the "registration crap" for the Tribune, If what was said are the facts, it sounds like the cop was railroaded for some reason.
It also has the overtones of a TV episode of Law & Order or something.

If he is really innocent and his lawyers are worth anything, they'll probably get an aquital at some point in the appeal process. I'm no lawyer but I believe that in most states Illinois included the appeals are automatic in a death sentence.

Someone care to elaborate?

[zimv20]

illinois put a moritorium on executions a couple years ago

[SilvorX]

up here in canada, there was a ban on executions nation wide back in the '60s.

[revenuee]

thinks of film

"life of david Gale"

[Taft]

Without wanting to go through all the "registration crap" for the Tribune, If what was said are the facts, it sounds like the cop was railroaded for some reason.
It also has the overtones of a TV episode of Law & Order or something.

If he is really innocent and his lawyers are worth anything, they'll probably get an aquital at some point in the appeal process. I'm no lawyer but I believe that in most states Illinois included the appeals are automatic in a death sentence.

Someone care to elaborate?

The cop was already aquitted. And it does seem like this guy was railroaded. Thats kind of the point: how can you trust a system in which even those collecting and presenting evidence are corrupt?

The prosecution (and associated federal agents) used a jailhouse informant who had a past history of lying under oath. They also paid him for his testimony. THEN, they used a recording as evidence which didn't even contain a confession because the informant said there was a "recorder malfunction."

But all of these details are somewhat irrelevant to my point. In a system with such obvious possibilities of imperfections, how can you trust it to dole out the "ultimate justice." I mean, with a death sentence, its final. There is no turning back. Therefore, if you execute a person, you had better be 100% sure they are guilty because there is no going back. But, by the very nature of humans, the trial's judge, the prosecuting attorney and arresting/investigating officers are just as prone to corruption and misdeeds as anyone else. So given that we can't trust (at least implicitly) the people running and participating in our system of justice, how can we trust the outcome of that system? I challenge anyone to deny this logic.

I am willing to accept our system the way it is, complete with flaws. We need something to maintain justice and order in this country. But to end a person's life based on the imperfect justice that our system deals out is completely unacceptable.

Taft

[tomf87]

What if a murderer of a family of 5 pleads guilty to it, just for robbery purposes? I think the death penalty applies here.

However, I do believe there are many cases for uncertainty in our justice system.

[Neserk]

up here in canada, there was a ban on executions nation wide back in the '60s.


Canada has generally been ahead of the US on these things.

[wwworry]

and did you see that Canada's growth rate was 3.8 % last quarter and they are creating new jobs and they have universal health insurance and their deficit is not ballooning out of control. Seems like they know what they are doing up there.

[Naimfan]

The problem with capital punishment is procedural, not substantive. The subject of this thread is a perfect illustration. In states where capital punishment is used, dare I say, correctly, there simply aren't questions about whether someone is guilty or not. So the process is what is attacked, and what needs to be corrected.

Best,

Bob

[mactastic]

The problem with capital punishment is procedural, not substantive. The subject of this thread is a perfect illustration. In states where capital punishment is used, dare I say, correctly, there simply aren't questions about whether someone is guilty or not. So the process is what is attacked, and what needs to be corrected.

Best,

Bob

Maybe your problem with capital punishment is soley procedural, but others see it as both substantive (or moral) AND procedural (or capricious). Others see neither as an issue and have no problem with the state killing people to prove conclusively that killing people is wrong. Reform the system all you want, sooner or later someone will be executed on a provable lie, because of an incompetent attorney, an overzealous prosecutor on a high-profile trajectory to elected office, or a simple and honest mistake not found until too late. Capital punishment is neither a deterent, nor a time or money saver. It is a barbaric practice designed to exact vengance instead of provide justice. You may call eye-for-an-eye tactics justice, but we are supposed to be better than those who kill.

[Taft]

The problem with capital punishment is procedural, not substantive. The subject of this thread is a perfect illustration. In states where capital punishment is used, dare I say, correctly, there simply aren't questions about whether someone is guilty or not. So the process is what is attacked, and what needs to be corrected.

Best,

Bob

You can believe that if you like, but many people, myself included disagree. I do, however, agree that the only productive way to discuss the issue is by framing it in terms of procedure.

Where you and I disagree on procedure is that you think it can be perfected, while I think that human error will always render the procedure imperfect.

Taft

[Naimfan]

Perhaps I should have said the "legal" problem with capital punishment is procedural and not substantive. What I mean by that is that capital punishment is clearly legal in the formal sense of the word. The problem that I have with capital punishment is HOW it is used, not with the penalty itself. When Texas courts say that since someone's lawyer did not sleep through a critical witness and that therefore there is no harm, the court makes a mockery of the Texas legal system. However, it does NOT diminish the two valid (IMO) rationales for capital punishment--retribution and incapacitation. On the other hand, Colorado, where I live, has, at last check, only two people on death row. In neither case is there ANY question of guilt. There are also four people who were on death row but whose sentences were commuted to LWOP due to their being sentenced by a panel of judges instead of by jury.

Perfection will never exist in any legal system. That does not mean we do not punish those guilty of a crime, and it does not mean that we try to punish the innocent.

I completely respect others opinions on capital punishment, whether for or against it, provided they are based on actual knowledge and thought, as yours (Taft and Macstatic) clearly are. I simply believe it the only appropriate punishment in certain (very rare) cases, and that there is no legal or moral issue with it--provided it is used properly.

Best,

Bob

[mactastic]

I simply believe it the only appropriate punishment in certain (very rare) cases, and that there is no legal or moral issue with it--provided it is used properly.

Best,

Bob

So where would you put the line for the 'very rare' cases? Murder? Multiple murder? Murder during the commision of another felony? Mass murder? Genocide? All the above?

And what do you consider beyond any doubt? A confession? An airtight case? Is 'beyond reasonable doubt' good enough? Can't any of those be faked/lied about/screwed up?

Thanks for the civil discussion though, I fully respect your opinion on this, I'm just wondering these things.

[Naimfan]

I'd say any of the crimes you listed provided that the (required and legislatively defined) aggravating factors are present. There are probably others that would fit that I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Proof--BARD (Beyond A Reasonable Doubt) is the appropriate level of proof, to use any other would raise equal protection (and other) problems. While it's true that evidence can be faked, that's true in ANY criminal proceeding and is extremely rare. And in a properly tried capital case, I've not heard of evidence being faked, tampered with, etc.

And thank you back for the civil discussion--often these can bog down into ad hominem debates.....

Best,

Bob

[mactastic]

I'd say any of the crimes you listed provided that the (required and legislatively defined) aggravating factors are present. There are probably others that would fit that I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Proof--BARD (Beyond A Reasonable Doubt) is the appropriate level of proof, to use any other would raise equal protection (and other) problems. While it's true that evidence can be faked, that's true in ANY criminal proceeding and is extremely rare. And in a properly tried capital case, I've not heard of evidence being faked, tampered with, etc.

And thank you back for the civil discussion--often these can bog down into ad hominem debates.....

Best,

Bob

So how would you go about reforming the system to guarantee that we never execute an innocent person?

[Frohickey]

and did you see that Canada's growth rate was 3.8 % last quarter and they are creating new jobs and they have universal health insurance and their deficit is not ballooning out of control. Seems like they know what they are doing up there.

Maybe Canada should take care of its own defense then. Last I see, Canada has been sucking on the US teat for defense. Doesn't take a whole lot of treasure to fund two inflatable navy patrol boats. :p

[pseudobrit]

Maybe Canada should take care of its own defense then. Last I see, Canada has been sucking on the US teat for defense. Doesn't take a whole lot of treasure to fund two inflatable navy patrol boats. :p

Really? Canada's still under the protective arm of Great Britain.

I didn't know the US was so involved in keeping Canada free from those evil... wait... who are you trying to say Canada needs defended against, anyway?

[Frohickey]

I think that capital punishment is fine.

There are some people in society that are plain old predators. Society should not have to live with predators in its midst, or keep them alive when society (jury) has decided to put the predator to death. Prison funding should be only used for people that have a reasonable chance of being rehabilitated. Medication is not rehabilitation.

Maybe exile from society would be a more platable substitute for capital punishment detractors.

[IJ Reilly]

No, since Australia isn't available for this purpose any longer, and Elbe just isn't big enough, life imprisonment without parole would be fine with me.

[Frohickey]

No, since Australia isn't available for this purpose any longer, and Elbe just isn't big enough, life imprisonment without parole would be fine with me.

Siberia is still available.
Parachuting onto the Himalayas is fine too.

[Sayhey]

No, since Australia isn't available for this purpose any longer, and Elbe just isn't big enough, life imprisonment without parole would be fine with me.

IJ, isn't it Elba not Elbe? At least if you are referring to the island of Napoleon's exile and not the river in Germany.

[pseudobrit]

You know Frohickey, for someone who regards taxes as being the government stealing from its citizens, and welfare as being on par with killing someone, (by stealing their livelihood) your stance on the government actually killing someone is a little odd.

Siberia is still available.
Parachuting onto the Himalayas is fine too.

Oh, yeah. Once we label someone "criminal" they're no longer a human being. I see.

[Naimfan]

Pseudo--

Oh, I don't know--they might just be issue driven. I certainly am--I'm in favor of gay marriage but also support the death penalty. Etc.

Best,

Bob

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, isn't it Elba not Elbe? At least if you are referring to the island of Napoleon's exile and not the river in Germany.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you pick your exile and I'll pick mine. (The beer is better on Elbe.)

[Sayhey]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, you pick your exile and I'll pick mine. (The beer is better on Elbe.)

Hey, you never said I could pick my place of exile! If I get to choose, I'll stay with the island theme and pick Maui. The beer is not that good, but those island women... Napoleon would never have returned from Maui! :p

[Frohickey]

You know Frohickey, for someone who regards taxes as being the government stealing from its citizens, and welfare as being on par with killing someone, (by stealing their livelihood) your stance on the government actually killing someone is a little odd.

Oh, yeah. Once we label someone "criminal" they're no longer a human being. I see.

Govt stealing from citizens and welfare being theft is different from capital punishment.

In capital punishment, the criminal has taken something precious from member of society. In having the government put the criminal to death, it is society, or the citizens that are having the criminal put to death. We just have government do it. Besides, if a human being commits inhuman acts, I think even if they look human, they are NOT human.

Lets say that you have a neighbor, over the course of months, your pets and other neighbors pet start disappearing. Then later on, your older neighbors start disappearing. Someone then finds out that your neighbor has been killing and eating your neighbors. What do you do? Keep them around so that you can be lunch later on?

In welfare, you have government taking from society in order to give to a select few. How is that equitable? Its anathema to fairness, that I have to get what is mine, but others are given theirs by taking from me. I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM AT ALL IF OTHERS ARE GIVEN THEIRS BY ME GIVING TO THEM.

[IJ Reilly]

Oh, so now society's to blame. That sounds strangely like a lament of 1960s liberalism. Following on the welfare logic, I'd have no problem if the death penalty was implemented by capitol punishment advocates with their bare hands. Then we could see the death penalty for what it truly is.

[Frohickey]

Oh, so now society's to blame. That sounds strangely like a lament of 1960s liberalism. Following on the welfare logic, I'd have no problem if the death penalty was implemented by capitol punishment advocates with their bare hands. Then we could see the death penalty for what it truly is.

There is no blame, other than the blame on the criminal for doing the act. Society is the one putting the criminal to death, and thats after due process of law.

Bare hands, does that mean bare hands, or are swords, axes, guillotines, hanging rope and firing squad okay?
You know, rope, a block of concrete and a 10 foot tall tank of water is fine by me. And each one is cheap. Good hemp rope is available at Home Depot. Cinder blocks are only $2 a piece and 2000 gallons of water is cheap. It doesn't even have to be fresh water. I can be gutter water, or salt water.

[zimv20]

I can be gutter water, or salt water.

more power to you, then

:-)

[whocares]

This religion-savy country needs extra reasons to abolish death penalty? IIRC it's one of the 10 commandments "Thou shall not kill". :rolleyes:

But I gess human rights and ethics can't compete with the cost effectiveness of death penalty :rolleyes: :mad:

[whocares]

Really? Canada's still under the protective arm of Great Britain.

And you feel safe? :eek: <--humour, I'm British :p :p :p

[Frohickey]

This religion-savy country needs extra reasons to abolish death penalty? IIRC it's one of the 10 commandments "Thou shall not kill". :rolleyes:

But I gess human rights and ethics can't compete with the cost effectiveness of death penalty :rolleyes: :mad:

I think the correct wording is "Thou shalt not murder" (http://www.biblestudy.org/question/notkill.html)

[wwworry]

Maybe Canada should take care of its own defense then. Last I see, Canada has been sucking on the US teat for defense. Doesn't take a whole lot of treasure to fund two inflatable navy patrol boats. :p

They fund their own defence. You are just jealous that "socialist" canada seems to have good growth, smaller deficits, universal healthcare and less crime per person. What's a libertarian to do?

[IJ Reilly]

Bare hands, does that mean bare hands, or are swords, axes, guillotines, hanging rope and firing squad okay?
You know, rope, a block of concrete and a 10 foot tall tank of water is fine by me. And each one is cheap. Good hemp rope is available at Home Depot. Cinder blocks are only $2 a piece and 2000 gallons of water is cheap. It doesn't even have to be fresh water. I can be gutter water, or salt water.

Like I said, then we'd see the death penalty for what it is: a thirst for blood in the name of vengeance.

[Frohickey]

They fund their own defence. You are just jealous that "socialist" canada seems to have good growth, smaller deficits, universal healthcare and less crime per person. What's a libertarian to do?

Hmm... Socialist Canada, less crime per person.

The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf)
In the 1990s, sweeping changes were made to the firearms laws, first in 1991 and then again in 1995. Licensing and registration are still being phased in. The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.

The Canadian experiment with firearm regulation is moving to farce. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion.
The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion. Taxpayers would do well to ask for independent cost-benefit studies on registration to see how much the gun registry is already costing.


Hmm... Socialist Canada, good growth.

US Economy (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ) vs Canada (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#Econ)
US GDP per capita $36,300 (2002 est)
Canada GDP per capita $29,300 (2002 est)

Sounds like Canada better have faster growth than the US to catch up.

Remember, crime in the US is lower than Canada. We don't have laws saying what the press can cover, so domestic crime stories abound. Wasn't it in Canada where the press was muzzled as to the serial killer that killed multiple women? Must be someone doesn't want the locals knowing about crime, eh?

[zimv20]

Remember, crime in the US is lower than Canada.

the article you linked to mentions only rates of change, not absolute values. i don't think you can make your claim on that basis alone.

[whocares]

I think the correct wording is "Thou shalt not murder" (http://www.biblestudy.org/question/notkill.html)

<fly *********>
Define murder.
</fly *********>

From Dictionnary.com:
Murder = "The unlawful killing of someone".
I'm quite sure in God's law, death penalty would be considered murder. Ergo "Thou shall not murder" = "Thou shall not kill".
And just because people swear on the Bible in court, doesn't make the court law the same as God's law. Ergo they (the court, jurys and prisons) are still IMHO murdering people.

And know these are silly arguments, but I just find it silly that people actually need reasons to abolish death penalty. :rolleyes:

JUST DO IT ALREADY!

[Taft]

Hmm... Socialist Canada, less crime per person.

The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf)


Hmm... Socialist Canada, good growth.

US Economy (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ) vs Canada (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#Econ)
US GDP per capita $36,300 (2002 est)
Canada GDP per capita $29,300 (2002 est)

Sounds like Canada better have faster growth than the US to catch up.

Remember, crime in the US is lower than Canada. We don't have laws saying what the press can cover, so domestic crime stories abound. Wasn't it in Canada where the press was muzzled as to the serial killer that killed multiple women? Must be someone doesn't want the locals knowing about crime, eh?

I'd be very interested to see the data that shows the US violent crime rate "plummetting." It may have dropped off somewhat (as it usually does during a period of extreme economic growth like that of the 90's), but plummet is not the right word.

Further, your study does not say that the violent crime rate of Canada is higher than that of the US, just that there is a difference in accelleration (Canada is accelerating, the US is deccelerating). From the figures I've seen, Canada ends up looking far better than the US in terms of violent crime. This is especially true if you seperate out the types of crime. For instance the murder rate in the US is something like three times higher than Canada's.

Taft

[mactastic]

Govt stealing from citizens and welfare being theft is different from capital punishment.

In capital punishment, the criminal has taken something precious from member of society. In having the government put the criminal to death, it is society, or the citizens that are having the criminal put to death. We just have government do it. Besides, if a human being commits inhuman acts, I think even if they look human, they are NOT human.

Lets say that you have a neighbor, over the course of months, your pets and other neighbors pet start disappearing. Then later on, your older neighbors start disappearing. Someone then finds out that your neighbor has been killing and eating your neighbors. What do you do? Keep them around so that you can be lunch later on?

In welfare, you have government taking from society in order to give to a select few. How is that equitable? Its anathema to fairness, that I have to get what is mine, but others are given theirs by taking from me. I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM AT ALL IF OTHERS ARE GIVEN THEIRS BY ME GIVING TO THEM.

So when was the last time you donated to/volunteered for a charity? I bet you and your fellow libertarians are out there leading the charge to donate your time and money since you seem so willing to give it freely as long as no one asks you to do it.

Now as for you cannibal neighbor, I suppose you see things in binary terms, either alive and killing, or dead and not killing. I suppose you think those are the only possible scenarios huh?

And as to your 'cheap' solutions for executions, do you think electricity is terribly expensive? How about sodium cyanide? Expensive compared to 2000 gallons of water? You forget, the only way executions are done on the cheap is if we toss due process out the window. The cheap part is offing the offender. Are you suggesting we streamline the process to make it easier for the innocent to wind up in a tank of sewer water?

[Frohickey]

the article you linked to mentions only rates of change, not absolute values. i don't think you can make your claim on that basis alone.

In the 1990s, sweeping changes were made to the firearms laws, first in 1991 and then again in 1995. Licensing and registration are still being phased in. The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.

Rate of violent crime is how much crime there is per capita (usually mentioned this way)
Rate of change of violent crime is not what the article states.

If Canada had a rate of N%, and the rate increases, as the article says it did, then its current rate is (N+X)%, where N and X are both positive numbers.

If the US had a rate of M%, and the rate plummets, as the article says it did, then its current rate is (M-Y)%, where M and Y are both positive numbers.

Rate of increase(decrease) is inferred here. Canada has a positive rate of increase (bad) while the US has a negative rate of increase (good).

But, and here is the big but, rate of increase doesn't matter. That only matters if you are in a good situation and its getting worse, or you are in a bad situation and its getting better.

The absolute crime rates are what is being qualitatively compared.

So, the article says that Canada has N%, and US has M%, where N is greater than M, and bigger is worse here. So, Canada is worse now in violent crime than the US. Doesn't matter what the rate of change is. Clearly for Canada to have gotten bad from good, the rate of change had to be positive. And clearly, for the US to have gotten good from bad, the rate of change had to be negative.

Okay, here are the numbers, from the chart on page 16. Rates are the numbers you see on the left side of the chart. Rates of change are the slopes of the numbers, from one year to the next.

Year # US rate # US rate of change # Canada rate # Canada rate of change
1990 # 2.5 # unknown # 2.4ish # unknown (unknown because 1989 data is not available)
1991 # 2.6 # 0.1 # 2.7 # 0.3
1992 # 2.5 # -0.1 #2.6 # -0.1
1993 # 2.5 # 0 # 2.2 # -0.4
1994 # 2.4 # -0.1 # 2.0 # -0.2
1995 # 2.3 # -0.1 # 2.0 # 0
1996 # 2.0 # -0.3 # 2.2 # 0.2
1997 # 1.9 # -0.1 # 2.0 # -0.2
1998 # 1.7 # -0.2 # 1.8 # -0.2
1999 # 1.6 # -0.1 # 1.7 # -0.1
2000 # 1.5 # -0.1 # 1.7 # 0

Data is a bit crude since I had to get the numbers by eyeballing the chart, but as you can see from the numbers, or if you downloaded the pdf to see the chart, from 1996 on, its good to be in the USA with the lower homicide rates.

[Frohickey]

So when was the last time you donated to/volunteered for a charity? I bet you and your fellow libertarians are out there leading the charge to donate your time and money since you seem so willing to give it freely as long as no one asks you to do it.

Now as for you cannibal neighbor, I suppose you see things in binary terms, either alive and killing, or dead and not killing. I suppose you think those are the only possible scenarios huh?

And as to your 'cheap' solutions for executions, do you think electricity is terribly expensive? How about sodium cyanide? Expensive compared to 2000 gallons of water? You forget, the only way executions are done on the cheap is if we toss due process out the window. The cheap part is offing the offender. Are you suggesting we streamline the process to make it easier for the innocent to wind up in a tank of sewer water?

Actually, due process has to be done no matter what. Says so in the Constitution. Cost of due process is what it is. Cost of execution is the electricity, or cyanide, or sewer water. Due process still requires to be performed. If we say that executions can only happen by lobbing death row inmates to LEO, then the cost of executions would skyrocket to $44k a pound, if we use domestic launch vehicles, and $23k a pound if we use eastern european launch vehicles. :o

As to my personal charitable contributions, every year, I file via form 1040 and have a line item for this. :p

[Frohickey]

I'd be very interested to see the data that shows the US violent crime rate "plummetting." It may have dropped off somewhat (as it usually does during a period of extreme economic growth like that of the 90's), but plummet is not the right word.

Further, your study does not say that the violent crime rate of Canada is higher than that of the US, just that there is a difference in accelleration (Canada is accelerating, the US is deccelerating). From the figures I've seen, Canada ends up looking far better than the US in terms of violent crime. This is especially true if you seperate out the types of crime. For instance the murder rate in the US is something like three times higher than Canada's.

Taft

Hehehe...

I don't know why but a lot of people get confused when you start mentioning rates of a certain item, and they get that confused with rate of change. I guess after high school and college physics, you get that straightened out pretty quick after you miss a gimme question in an exam.

Rate of a certain item is velocity if position is the certain item.
Rate of change of a certain item is acceleration if position is the certain item.
Okay, you physics buffs, what is the term for the rate of change of the rate of change of position? :D


Back to topic though, with Canada being a 30million people country, and the US being a 280million people country, a lower rate in the US could produce a higher amount of crime victims, since the rate is normalized (in crime stats, its usually per 100K people). I contend that the rate is the correct measure for comparison instead of number of crime victims. Professional criminologists do the same, use rates for comparisons instead of absolute crime numbers when comparing different countries.

So, when you have a US news story of X number of murders or deaths a week, and you don't hear the same number of murders or deaths a week in Canadian news story, you tend to think that the US is more crime ridden than Canada is. There lies the misconception that US has higher crime.

[zimv20]

comparing violent crime statistics for the US and Canada for 2002

US data source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm)
Canadian data source (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm)
Canada's population (http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/clock/population.htm)

Canada
crimes of violence*: 965.5 per 100k
total population: 31.8 million
total violent crimes: approx. 307,000 (i calc'ed this)

US
crimes of violence**: 1,686,600 (total)
US population: approx. 291 million
per 100k: 579.6 (i calc'ed this)

according to those sites, the rates for both countries are decreasing.

* homicide, attempted murder, assaults (levels 1-3) [description on site], sexual assault, other sexual offenses, robbery, other [also on site]

** rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide

the per capita rates in canada are higher, but more crimes are counted. the absolute numbers in the US are higher.

note that the population data is more recent than the crime data, in both cases. someone should also check my math :-)

[Frohickey]

comparing violent crime statistics for the US and Canada for 2002

US data source (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm)
Canadian data source (http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/legal02.htm)
Canada's population (http://www.statcan.ca/english/edu/clock/population.htm)

Canada
crimes of violence*: 965.5 per 100k
total population: 31.8 million
total violent crimes: approx. 307,000 (i calc'ed this)

US
crimes of violence**: 1,686,600 (total)
US population: approx. 291 million
per 100k: 579.6 (i calc'ed this)

according to those sites, the rates for both countries are decreasing.

* homicide, attempted murder, assaults (levels 1-3) [description on site], sexual assault, other sexual offenses, robbery, other [also on site]

** rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide

the per capita rates in canada are higher, but more crimes are counted. the absolute numbers in the US are higher.

note that the population data is more recent than the crime data, in both cases. someone should also check my math :-)

The NCVS number is misleading, since its a survey of 80K people, then extrapolated to the population. I would take the UCR number instead, since that is the actual reported crime to FBI by police.

Hmm... looking at the data, arrests seem to lag behind in the reporting. I guess justice isn't that swift in the United States. Must be because of all the traffic tickets and possession of drugs that police need to contend with. :p

BTW, your calculation method looks correct to me. But use the UCR number instead of the NCVS number. Also, rate of change of the crime rates is only useful for gaging if the situation is getting better or getting worse in each respective country. Since this is usually caused by the amount of police resources, and laws in each country, and are usually different (the laws and police resources), you cannot compare rates of change of rates between different countries, at least not in detail.

You could compare them between different time periods for a particular country to see which laws and allocation of police resources helped the most.


Here are the numbers using US UCR data instead of NCVS. I also reordered the line items so comparison would be simpler, 1st line to 1st line, instead of 1st line to 3rd line.

Canada
crimes of violence*: 965.5 per 100k
total population: 31.8 million
total violent crimes: approx. 307,000 (i calc'ed this)

US
per 100k: 418.8 (i calc'ed this)
US population: approx. 291 million
crimes of violence**: 1,218,600 (total)

So, an ending question. If you have to play the crime victim lottery, where would you rather play in? Assuming, you want to lose, err win, err not be crimed. :p

[zimv20]

The NCVS number is misleading, since its a survey of 80K people, then extrapolated to the population.

wasn't aware of that, thanks

[Frohickey]

wasn't aware of that, thanks

Since we have started along this path of looking at crime statistics, I was thinking that we go and do more.
How about we do Illinois, and a neighboring state, Indiana?

To divvy it up, I'll take Indiana, and you take Illinois. Then we can pick apart the reason for the difference or similarities.

:)

[zimv20]

Since we have started along this path of looking at crime statistics, I was thinking that we go and do more.
How about we do Illinois, and a neighboring state, Indiana?

To divvy it up, I'll take Indiana, and you take Illinois. Then we can pick apart the reason for the difference or similarities.

:)

what's the purpose?

fwiw, you've picked the only two states i've resided in

[mactastic]

Actually, due process has to be done no matter what. Says so in the Constitution. Cost of due process is what it is. Cost of execution is the electricity, or cyanide, or sewer water. Due process still requires to be performed. If we say that executions can only happen by lobbing death row inmates to LEO, then the cost of executions would skyrocket to $44k a pound, if we use domestic launch vehicles, and $23k a pound if we use eastern european launch vehicles. :o

As to my personal charitable contributions, every year, I file via form 1040 and have a line item for this. :p

You'd make a decent polititian. You are wordy without saying a damn thing.

WTF does low earth orbit have to do with the death penalty? Are you in favor of actually wasting government money to execute people in a way benefiting your amusement? What does 'cost of due process is what it is' mean? Does that mean you think it's too much? I know you don't think it's too little.

As to your personal contributions, I file the same way. That doesn't answer my question though. If you are unwilling to volunteer how much you volunteer, just say so.

[Backtothemac]

My opinion on the death penalty is simple. You should have to have absolute proof that someone committed the crime. And it would have to be a very bad crime. Not just murder. But sick murder. Especially when it involved the death of a child. The guy who raped and murdered 11 year old Carly Brusha. Yep. Shoot the ****er in the head. 1 minute after the trial. No appeals. Those that are preditors on children should get no mercy from society.

And, frankly, many of these guys should not be out at all. Like the guy that killed Carly. He was a criminal all his life. Lock em up without parol. The reason the death penality is more expensive is because of the years of appeals. They should get a set solution down, and execute these loosers after say two years? But they can't because all of the politicians are playing with the judicial system. It is all a joke. And I say that as my brother sits on death row. BUt yes, he should die for what he did.

[mactastic]

My opinion on the death penalty is simple. You should have to have absolute proof that someone committed the crime. And it would have to be a very bad crime. Not just murder. But sick murder. Especially when it involved the death of a child. The guy who raped and murdered 11 year old Carly Brusha. Yep. Shoot the ****er in the head. 1 minute after the trial. No appeals. Those that are preditors on children should get no mercy from society.

And, frankly, many of these guys should not be out at all. Like the guy that killed Carly. He was a criminal all his life. Lock em up without parol. The reason the death penality is more expensive is because of the years of appeals. They should get a set solution down, and execute these loosers after say two years? But they can't because all of the politicians are playing with the judicial system. It is all a joke. And I say that as my brother sits on death row. BUt yes, he should die for what he did.

But what is absolute proof, short of catching the person in the act? Confessions have been faked for notereity or suicide, or coerced by angry or overzealous prosecutors/cops. Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable, they have been mistaken many times in the past. DNA evidence is pretty good, but it still doesn't guarantee anything.

And as for appeals, the only way we could possible get around those is if the defendants each have the very best defense possible. And that costs money. You think the trial is expensive now, wait until each defendant is guaranteed a Mark Geregos. Public defenders have actually slept through parts of their clients capital case. Pulling someone who just watched their attorney sleep through their trial outside to be shot isn't going to work if you want justice. Vengance maybe, but not justice.

You do make a good point about people that shouldn't be out of prison though. The thought that people like that are walking around makes me very angry. I would much rather free up some room in the prisons for them by releasing non-violent drug users who are there taking up space on long mandatory minimums.

[Backtothemac]

But what is absolute proof, short of catching the person in the act? Confessions have been faked for notereity or suicide, or coerced by angry or overzealous prosecutors/cops. Eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable, they have been mistaken many times in the past. DNA evidence is pretty good, but it still doesn't guarantee anything.

And as for appeals, the only way we could possible get around those is if the defendants each have the very best defense possible. And that costs money. You think the trial is expensive now, wait until each defendant is guaranteed a Mark Geregos. Public defenders have actually slept through parts of their clients capital case. Pulling someone who just watched their attorney sleep through their trial outside to be shot isn't going to work if you want justice. Vengance maybe, but not justice.

You do make a good point about people that shouldn't be out of prison though. The thought that people like that are walking around makes me very angry. I would much rather free up some room in the prisons for them by releasing non-violent drug users who are there taking up space on long mandatory minimums.

To me absolute proof is DNA, or several witnesses, video, etc. For example, we are 100% sure of who killed Carly. There should be no mercy for that guy at all. None.

[Taft]

Hehehe...

I don't know why but a lot of people get confused when you start mentioning rates of a certain item, and they get that confused with rate of change. I guess after high school and college physics, you get that straightened out pretty quick after you miss a gimme question in an exam.

Rate of a certain item is velocity if position is the certain item.
Rate of change of a certain item is acceleration if position is the certain item.
Okay, you physics buffs, what is the term for the rate of change of the rate of change of position? :D


Back to topic though, with Canada being a 30million people country, and the US being a 280million people country, a lower rate in the US could produce a higher amount of crime victims, since the rate is normalized (in crime stats, its usually per 100K people). I contend that the rate is the correct measure for comparison instead of number of crime victims. Professional criminologists do the same, use rates for comparisons instead of absolute crime numbers when comparing different countries.

So, when you have a US news story of X number of murders or deaths a week, and you don't hear the same number of murders or deaths a week in Canadian news story, you tend to think that the US is more crime ridden than Canada is. There lies the misconception that US has higher crime.


You're right, accellerating wasn't the right word. The article talks about the change of the rate of crime. That isn't acceleration. But that also doesn't mean that the crime rates in Canada are higher than the crime rates in the US.

If Canada's violent crime effects 15% of the population (ie. a crime rate of 15%) and the US's effects 30% of the population, then even if the crime rate rises 10% in Canada and drops 5% in the US, Canada still has the lower total rate. I think you mentioned this yourself actually. But this basically doesn't tell us anything about the relative crime rates of the two countries. It tells us which direction each country's rate has been moving, but that isn't necessarily an indicator of future trends and certainly isn't an indicator of which has the higher rate.

But you posted this article to refute someone's claim that Canada had less violent crime. That doesn't exactly do the job, does it?

Taft

[mactastic]

To me absolute proof is DNA, or several witnesses, video, etc. For example, we are 100% sure of who killed Carly. There should be no mercy for that guy at all. None.

And the guy who killed her is poor, so he probably will wind up on death row. Yet a scumbag like Scott Peterson will probably not. The difference? One has a high priced attorney, and the other won't. If you'd asked me right after Peterson was arrested, I would have said he was on the fast track to lethal injection. Since Gerragos has gotten involved that has changed. Peterson doesn't show up in court in shackles and an orange jumpsuit anymore. He arrives in a suit and tie, and no bonds. Gerragos claims the chains and jumpsuit were predjudicial, and I tend to agree with him. A guy in chains just looks more guilty. But is this benefit offered to all? Hell no, only if your well-connected lawyer can work it for you do you get that treatment. That's inherently unfair. And if you need further proof that a good attorney (read money to hire one or more) can benefit your position, all I need to say is OJ.

[Frohickey]

what's the purpose?

fwiw, you've picked the only two states i've resided in

The reason for the two states is that the two share a long common border, and the laws for the two states are different. So, it would make for an interesting case study.

Another would be California and Nevada.

[Frohickey]

You'd make a decent polititian. You are wordy without saying a damn thing.

WTF does low earth orbit have to do with the death penalty? Are you in favor of actually wasting government money to execute people in a way benefiting your amusement? What does 'cost of due process is what it is' mean? Does that mean you think it's too much? I know you don't think it's too little.

As to your personal contributions, I file the same way. That doesn't answer my question though. If you are unwilling to volunteer how much you volunteer, just say so.

And as to your 'cheap' solutions for executions, do you think electricity is terribly expensive? How about sodium cyanide? Expensive compared to 2000 gallons of water? You forget, the only way executions are done on the cheap is if we toss due process out the window. The cheap part is offing the offender. Are you suggesting we streamline the process to make it easier for the innocent to wind up in a tank of sewer water?

I mention LEO because you were going on about executions being done on the cheap. Due process is what costs the most in the criminal justice system. Next is the length of incarceration/housing. If we can have a streamlined but very good due process, that might cut down on the length of incarceration/housing. Of course, there would be a formula to how much added cost for the streamlined but very good due process before this actually is a win for the taxpayers.

[IJ Reilly]

Just so long as the math works out.

[Frohickey]

You're right, accellerating wasn't the right word. The article talks about the change of the rate of crime. That isn't acceleration. But that also doesn't mean that the crime rates in Canada are higher than the crime rates in the US.

<snip>

But you posted this article to refute someone's claim that Canada had less violent crime. That doesn't exactly do the job, does it?

Taft

The analysis zimv20 and I did said that crime rates in Canada ARE higher than in the United States.

[Frohickey]

And the guy who killed her is poor, so he probably will wind up on death row. Yet a scumbag like Scott Peterson will probably not. The difference? One has a high priced attorney, and the other won't. If you'd asked me right after Peterson was arrested, I would have said he was on the fast track to lethal injection. Since Gerragos has gotten involved that has changed. Peterson doesn't show up in court in shackles and an orange jumpsuit anymore. He arrives in a suit and tie, and no bonds. Gerragos claims the chains and jumpsuit were predjudicial, and I tend to agree with him. A guy in chains just looks more guilty. But is this benefit offered to all? Hell no, only if your well-connected lawyer can work it for you do you get that treatment. That's inherently unfair. And if you need further proof that a good attorney (read money to hire one or more) can benefit your position, all I need to say is OJ.

Could it be that high priced lawyers are high priced because of the results they have given to past clients?
Could it be that high priced lawyers would like to remain high priced, and that means they only take cases that they believe they can get the results that their clients want?

Maybe, losing lawyers, say ones that have lost 70% of their cases should be disbarred. ;)

[mactastic]

Could it be that high priced lawyers are high priced because of the results they have given to past clients?
Yes.

Could it be that high priced lawyers would like to remain high priced, and that means they only take cases that they believe they can get the results that their clients want?
Again, yes.

Could it be that this means that people without financial wherwithal or high noteriety will be treated differently by the justice system than a rich or famous/infamous person would? Does that bode well for justice? Oh that's right, if you don't have money you deserve_to_die.

[Backtothemac]

And the guy who killed her is poor, so he probably will wind up on death row. Yet a scumbag like Scott Peterson will probably not. The difference? One has a high priced attorney, and the other won't. If you'd asked me right after Peterson was arrested, I would have said he was on the fast track to lethal injection. Since Gerragos has gotten involved that has changed. Peterson doesn't show up in court in shackles and an orange jumpsuit anymore. He arrives in a suit and tie, and no bonds. Gerragos claims the chains and jumpsuit were predjudicial, and I tend to agree with him. A guy in chains just looks more guilty. But is this benefit offered to all? Hell no, only if your well-connected lawyer can work it for you do you get that treatment. That's inherently unfair. And if you need further proof that a good attorney (read money to hire one or more) can benefit your position, all I need to say is OJ.

Oh, I agree that money should have no place in justice. However, there wasn't a video tape of Scott dragging Lacy off behind a car wash. Get my point. The evidence against Scott is circumstancial. So, he should get life no parole if convicted. The guy that killed Carley should get death.

The bottom line is that no prison is perfect, and some people are too dangerous to risk them getting back into society. So, kill them for their crime.

[Frohickey]

Could it be that this means that people without financial wherwithal or high noteriety will be treated differently by the justice system than a rich or famous/infamous person would? Does that bode well for justice? Oh that's right, if you don't have money you deserve_to_die.

There is the public defender system, as well as lawyers taking cases pro-bono.

What do you consider a fair justice system? One where there are no winners and no losers? The victim has already lost something, and is the one seeking justice. Fortunately, the victim has a good advocate, in the form of the prosecutor, publically paid for by your taxes and mine. The hope is that the prosecutor is an honorable person, and only litigates good cases instead of marginal cases in order to pad his/her resume so he/she can go on to bigger and better things such as running for mayor of a big city, or other elected office.

If you don't work, you don't eat. If you want to, you are free to subsidize the ones that don't work. More power to you.

[mactastic]

Oh, I agree that money should have no place in justice. However, there wasn't a video tape of Scott dragging Lacy off behind a car wash. Get my point. The evidence against Scott is circumstancial. So, he should get life no parole if convicted. The guy that killed Carley should get death.

The bottom line is that no prison is perfect, and some people are too dangerous to risk them getting back into society. So, kill them for their crime.

Unfortunately the video doesn't show him actually killing her. So, as bad as it looks, from a dispassionate judicial standpoint that video has to be considered circumstantial as well. It doesn't help the guy that the girl he's seen leading off turns up dead, but I wouldn't call that iron-clad proof. Johnny Cochrane or Mark Gerragos, or somebody of that caliber, could probably poke enough holes in the prosecution's case that the death penalty would be a remote possibility at best. If the guy had enough money to hire the dream team OJ Simpson had, and he could go over the police department's procedures with a fine tooth comb I have no doubt there would be some doubt created. Sucks when that happens. It's just as much of a travesty of justice as an incompetent defense attorney. The inherent unfairness of that is what I object to.

The bottom line to me is that the judicial system is not perfect. Life sentences are an option, and while there is a remote possibility that one of these guys may escape, the risk is low. How many people escape from super-max facilities each year? Not many. Some people are too dangerous to put back into society? We're on the same page there. I don't want anyone sitting on death row to come out ever. Unless of course, they are able to prove their innocence.

[mactastic]

The hope is that the prosecutor is an honorable person, and only litigates good cases instead of marginal cases in order to pad his/her resume so he/she can go on to bigger and better things such as running for mayor of a big city, or other elected office.

Yeah, I've never heard of an overzealous or crooked presecutor either. Have you?

And that's the point Frohickey. The public defender pool is not as good as either the government prosecutors, nor the expensive lawyers. Now I don't mind people going to jail because of a lazy, incompetent or what have you attorney. They probably deserve jail. I do object to the death penalty because you could always let them out of jail later if you find out there was a screw up. You can't dig them up from the prison graveyard and make it right though.

[Backtothemac]

Unfortunately the video doesn't show him actually killing her. So, as bad as it looks, from a dispassionate judicial standpoint that video has to be considered circumstantial as well. It doesn't help the guy that the girl he's seen leading off turns up dead, but I wouldn't call that iron-clad proof. Johnny Cochrane or Mark Gerragos, or somebody of that caliber, could probably poke enough holes in the prosecution's case that the death penalty would be a remote possibility at best. If the guy had enough money to hire the dream team OJ Simpson had, and he could go over the police department's procedures with a fine tooth comb I have no doubt there would be some doubt created. Sucks when that happens. It's just as much of a travesty of justice as an incompetent defense attorney. The inherent unfairness of that is what I object to.

The bottom line to me is that the judicial system is not perfect. Life sentences are an option, and while there is a remote possibility that one of these guys may escape, the risk is low. How many people escape from super-max facilities each year? Not many. Some people are too dangerous to put back into society? We're on the same page there. I don't want anyone sitting on death row to come out ever. Unless of course, they are able to prove their innocence.

Except that, with her blood in his car, and his semen on, and in her body, and his DNA under her fingernails, etc makes it pretty clear cut what he did. I just personally, as a parent, think that murder of a child, or sexual molestation of a child should be death. Period. I personally think we should turn the bastards over to the parents and let them do what they will to the pieces of filth.

I know that personally, you would have to lock me up if anything like that ever happened to my daughter.

[IJ Reilly]

There is the public defender system, as well as lawyers taking cases pro-bono.

What do you consider a fair justice system? One where there are no winners and no losers? The victim has already lost something, and is the one seeking justice. Fortunately, the victim has a good advocate, in the form of the prosecutor, publically paid for by your taxes and mine. The hope is that the prosecutor is an honorable person, and only litigates good cases instead of marginal cases in order to pad his/her resume so he/she can go on to bigger and better things such as running for mayor of a big city, or other elected office.

This argument is such complete horse hockey. Not only does it assume the guilt of the accused, it also assumes that the affluent deserve more effective legal representation in court then the poor. As far as "winners and losers" are concerned, so long as the poor are the losers, I suppose you've got no problem with the justice system, even when the verdict is death. Just natural selection at work as far as you're concerned?

[mactastic]

Except that, with her blood in his car, and his semen on, and in her body, and his DNA under her fingernails, etc makes it pretty clear cut what he did. I just personally, as a parent, think that murder of a child, or sexual molestation of a child should be death. Period. I personally think we should turn the bastards over to the parents and let them do what they will to the pieces of filth.

I know that personally, you would have to lock me up if anything like that ever happened to my daughter.

I'm with you, I might be willing to risk a life sentence just to get my hands on the guy's neck if that was my kid. And I know there is all kinds of other evidence against him. But I still maintain that two different attorneys could get two different sentences for the guy and the only distinction would be if you have the money to hire the big guns. I'm not saying this guy isn't guilty, or that he doesn't deserve to be handed over to the parents, but that's not how our system is designed to work. I also think child molesters are among the worst of the worst. But murdering them doesn't solve anything. It hasn't prevented or lowered the incidence of molestation/murder. It doesn't bring the child back. It only assuages some peoples thirst for primal vengence. And it doesn't set a good example for others to follow.

As a side note, people are suddenly wishing they could ask Timothy McVeigh some questions, as there is some new information floating around about other people being involved with the OKC bombing. We'll likely never know now though. How is that justice for the families seeking the truth? What if there are others out there who share culpability and McVeigh was protecting them? God that would piss me off.