Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Totally Not OEP]

As I said, I'm well aware of the modern consensus but, as I already said, these opinions are qualified on the fact that the death penalty is rarely applied in the modern day. When your typical inmate on death row is more likely to die of natural causes than the actual procedure, any deterrence value is lost.

The last source I gave negates that. It compared death states, transitional states, and no death states and watched them over time. That's an immense amount of data.

It doesn't though, as the first line reveals:

A Death Penalty Information Center analysis of U.S. murder data from 1987 through 2015

It's a cherry pick.

[Totally Not OEP]

> Liking Canadian cities at all

Calgary is pretty great. It's like a very high class version of Denver.

Vancouver is a hellscape.

Toronto is basically Chicago without its South Side

Montreal is just chill

A weird thought, but if Global Warming ends up as bad as some think it will, most of those cities will end up like New York City.

[VoVoDoCo]

The last source I gave negates that. It compared death states, transitional states, and no death states and watched them over time. That's an immense amount of data.

It doesn't though, as the first line reveals:

A Death Penalty Information Center analysis of U.S. murder data from 1987 through 2015

It's a cherry pick.

All good research has a point of reference for simplicity and context. They start and stop. Almost 20 years straight of research doesn't come close to being a cherry pick.

[VoVoDoCo]

And even if it is a cherry pick:

Cherry Picked data>No data provided

[Camelone]

As I said, I'm well aware of the modern consensus but, as I already said, these opinions are qualified on the fact that the death penalty is rarely applied in the modern day. When your typical inmate on death row is more likely to die of natural causes than the actual procedure, any deterrence value is lost.

The last source I gave negates that. It compared death states, transitional states, and no death states and watched them over time. That's an immense amount of data.

I do not know much about the utilization of the death penalty but Not OEP's argument rests on the fact that in the states that have the death penalty its usage has been effectively neutered with inmates on death row more likely to die in prison then execution. Is there anything about that in the study that relates back to 1987, as in what was the usage like, how restricted was it, and the like? This is honest curiosity because that can change the outcome of the study if it was something the researchers did not account for. I will concede that if that information was provided I missed it because I quickly skimmed the sources provided.

[Bear Stearns]

There used to be a geographic, cultural, and economic hierarchy in the US that was dominated, in order, by New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Boston.

This is something that I wish could be revived, but it would require us to overhaul the Rust Belt.

[Totally Not OEP]

It doesn't though, as the first line reveals:


It's a cherry pick.

All good research has a point of reference for simplicity and context. They start and stop. Almost 20 years straight of research doesn't come close to being a cherry pick.

Actually it is the definition of a cherry pick. As I said, you need a larger time frame to get a valid assessment because just using the timeframe of 1987 to 2015 is an era in which the Death penalty wasn't used much. If you really want to see if it's effective, you don't just look at when it isn't used but also when it was frequently.

[VoVoDoCo]

The last source I gave negates that. It compared death states, transitional states, and no death states and watched them over time. That's an immense amount of data.

I do not know much about the utilization of the death penalty but Not OEP's argument rests on the fact that in the states that have the death penalty its usage has been effectively neutered with inmates on death row more likely to die in prison then execution. Is there anything about that in the study that relates back to 1987, as in what was the usage like, how restricted was it, and the like? This is honest curiosity because that can change the outcome of the study if it was something the researchers did not account for. I will concede that if that information was provided I missed it because I quickly skimmed the sources provided.

Instead of going down that path, let's assume that IS the case. People are just dying on death row rather than via execution. A few things:

Prison death cause statistics, I assume, are not widely known to most murderers. So even if most people on death row don't live to face judgement by the hands of the state, most people won't know the specifics. They'll just know their state has the death penalty. So reality shouldn't interfere too much with the hypothetical fear that the death penalty can instill in the populace.

According to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1 in 25 people sentenced to death are innocent. I bring this up because many people will say, "The death penalty CAN work, we just need to use it more." But too many of the convicted are innocent. Killing them prematurely denies them the ability to gather MORE evidence and prove later that their conviction was unjust. You can undo a life sentence for the innocent. You can't undo an execution.

[Cappuccina]

I do not know much about the utilization of the death penalty but Not OEP's argument rests on the fact that in the states that have the death penalty its usage has been effectively neutered with inmates on death row more likely to die in prison then execution. Is there anything about that in the study that relates back to 1987, as in what was the usage like, how restricted was it, and the like? This is honest curiosity because that can change the outcome of the study if it was something the researchers did not account for. I will concede that if that information was provided I missed it because I quickly skimmed the sources provided.

Instead of going down that path, let's assume that IS the case. People are just dying on death row rather than via execution. A few things:

Prison death cause statistics, I assume, are not widely known to most murderers. So even if most people on death row don't live to face judgement by the hands of the state, most people won't know the specifics. They'll just know their state has the death penalty. So reality shouldn't interfere too much with the hypothetical fear that the death penalty can instill in the populace.

According to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1 in 25 people sentenced to death are innocent. I bring this up because many people will say, "The death penalty CAN work, we just need to use it more." But too many of the convicted are innocent. Killing them prematurely denies them the ability to gather MORE evidence and prove later that their conviction was unjust. You can undo a life sentence for the innocent. You can't undo an execution.

1 in 25 is very reasonable, tbh.

[VoVoDoCo]

All good research has a point of reference for simplicity and context. They start and stop. Almost 20 years straight of research doesn't come close to being a cherry pick.

Actually it is the definition of a cherry pick. As I said, you need a larger time frame to get a valid assessment because just using the timeframe of 1987 to 2015 is an era in which the Death penalty wasn't used much. If you really want to see if it's effective, you don't just look at when it isn't used but also when it was frequently.

Four things:

1. Providing the definition of a cherry pick doesn't mean you're using the phrase correctly and in good faith. You can't just say it's a cherry pick. You have to provide evidence it is. You have to prove why a 25 or 30 study provides so much more depth that the 20 year study couldn't.
2. The reason? I can just as easily say you're cherry picking, provide no data, and feel that I've made a valid argument. I can say, "You're not looking at the data past the 90's. You're only looking at the data that fits a bias." I would need to provide source sort of statistic that would allow me to make that argument. It's hard for me to make that argument as again, you've provided no data of your own.
3. I provided more than just one source. I can't tell if you've attacked more than one yet.
4. I used to believe in the death penalty before I looked at the data. So the data shaped my bias, rather than the other way around. So no, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy does not apply here.

[Camelone]

I do not know much about the utilization of the death penalty but Not OEP's argument rests on the fact that in the states that have the death penalty its usage has been effectively neutered with inmates on death row more likely to die in prison then execution. Is there anything about that in the study that relates back to 1987, as in what was the usage like, how restricted was it, and the like? This is honest curiosity because that can change the outcome of the study if it was something the researchers did not account for. I will concede that if that information was provided I missed it because I quickly skimmed the sources provided.

Instead of going down that path, let's assume that IS the case. People are just dying on death row rather than via execution. A few things:

Prison death cause statistics, I assume, are not widely known to most murderers. So even if most people on death row don't live to face judgement by the hands of the state, most people won't know the specifics. They'll just know their state has the death penalty. So reality shouldn't interfere too much with the hypothetical fear that the death penalty can instill in the populace.

According to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1 in 25 people sentenced to death are innocent. I bring this up because many people will say, "The death penalty CAN work, we just need to use it more." But too many of the convicted are innocent. Killing them prematurely denies them the ability to gather MORE evidence and prove later that their conviction was unjust. You can undo a life sentence for the innocent. You can't undo an execution.

I was more trying to prevent a talking past between you and Not OEP then engaging in the argument. Though I must admit I wonder if there is an impact of death penalty deterrence depending on if it is public or private? I wonder how the data would be gathered for that, and how to take into account changing economic and social conditions to get an accurate reading of the situation?

My opinion on the death penalty is more along the lines of reserved for high crimes, such as treason, terrorism, and the like. Not for use among the common criminal population.

[VoVoDoCo]

Instead of going down that path, let's assume that IS the case. People are just dying on death row rather than via execution. A few things:

Prison death cause statistics, I assume, are not widely known to most murderers. So even if most people on death row don't live to face judgement by the hands of the state, most people won't know the specifics. They'll just know their state has the death penalty. So reality shouldn't interfere too much with the hypothetical fear that the death penalty can instill in the populace.

According to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1 in 25 people sentenced to death are innocent. I bring this up because many people will say, "The death penalty CAN work, we just need to use it more." But too many of the convicted are innocent. Killing them prematurely denies them the ability to gather MORE evidence and prove later that their conviction was unjust. You can undo a life sentence for the innocent. You can't undo an execution.

1 in 25 is very reasonable, tbh.

Even if doesn't lead to a lower crime rate? smh fren

[Bear Stearns]

Calgary is pretty great. It's like a very high class version of Denver.

Vancouver is a hellscape.

Toronto is basically Chicago without its South Side

Montreal is just chill

A weird thought, but if Global Warming ends up as bad as some think it will, most of those cities will end up like New York City.

>tfw rising sea levels leads to a revival of the Rust Belt

[VoVoDoCo]

Instead of going down that path, let's assume that IS the case. People are just dying on death row rather than via execution. A few things:

Prison death cause statistics, I assume, are not widely known to most murderers. So even if most people on death row don't live to face judgement by the hands of the state, most people won't know the specifics. They'll just know their state has the death penalty. So reality shouldn't interfere too much with the hypothetical fear that the death penalty can instill in the populace.

According to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1 in 25 people sentenced to death are innocent. I bring this up because many people will say, "The death penalty CAN work, we just need to use it more." But too many of the convicted are innocent. Killing them prematurely denies them the ability to gather MORE evidence and prove later that their conviction was unjust. You can undo a life sentence for the innocent. You can't undo an execution.

I was more trying to prevent a talking past between you and Not OEP then engaging in the argument. Though I must admit I wonder if there is an impact of death penalty deterrence depending on if it is public or private? I wonder how the data would be gathered for that, and how to take into account changing economic and social conditions to get an accurate reading of the situation?

My opinion on the death penalty is more along the lines of reserved for high crimes, such as treason, terrorism, and the like. Not for use among the common criminal population.

Well, most criminology specialists don't seem to believe that would have an impact.

[Totally Not OEP]

Actually it is the definition of a cherry pick. As I said, you need a larger time frame to get a valid assessment because just using the timeframe of 1987 to 2015 is an era in which the Death penalty wasn't used much. If you really want to see if it's effective, you don't just look at when it isn't used but also when it was frequently.

Four things:

1. Providing the definition of a cherry pick doesn't mean you're using the phrase correctly and in good faith. You can't just say it's a cherry pick. You have to provide evidence it is. You have to prove why a 25 or 30 study provides so much more depth that the 20 year study couldn't.
2. The reason? I can just as easily say you're cherry picking, provide no data, and feel that I've made a valid argument. I can say, "You're not looking at the data past the 90's. You're only looking at the data that fits a bias." I would need to provide source sort of statistic that would allow me to make that argument. It's hard for me to make that argument as again, you've provided no data of your own.
3. I provided more than just one source. I can't tell if you've attacked more than one yet.
4. I used to believe in the death penalty before I looked at the data. So the data shaped my bias, rather than the other way around. So no, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy does not apply here.

If you're only using a very particular and short cluster, then yeah that's a cherry pick as I noted in the link. It doesn't matter if the study was 20 years or 30 years; it's automatically in bad faith because it's engaging in using limited data to attempt to make its argument. The Death Penalty for the overwhelming majority of the study's research period was already in steep decline in usage. If you want to see whether it has merit, you also need to examine when it was also in great use.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

OEP, provide your sources. I just read a 1983 study condemning the death penalty, and I see no evidence that an overwhelming majority of studies pre-1990s supported capital punishment.

[Totally Not OEP]

A weird thought, but if Global Warming ends up as bad as some think it will, most of those cities will end up like New York City.

>tfw rising sea levels leads to a revival of the Rust Belt

Very possible, particularly with the increase in temperatures and mosquito borne illnesses in the Sun Belt.

[Totally Not OEP]

OEP, provide your sources. I just read a 1983 study condemning the death penalty, and I see no evidence that an overwhelming majority of studies pre-1990s supported capital punishment.

For one, I'd point you to the Isaac Ehrlich study back in the early 1970s. I'll have to go digging for more otherwise.

[VoVoDoCo]

If you're only using a very particular and short cluster, then yeah that's a cherry pick as I noted in the link. It doesn't matter if the study was 20 years or 30 years; it's automatically in bad faith because it's engaging in using limited data to attempt to make its argument;

Few things wrong with this.
1. You're using the "particular" and "short" strangely. I'd hardly call it particular as it's results were duplicated in 10 European countries. I'd hardly call it short as it lasted 20 years.

2. Most research doesn't feel the need to dig up the entire history of data on the subject and include it. Let's say I'm doing an experiment on how water temperature affects the growth rate of bamboo. I create a start time and a stop time before I begin so that readers of my data would have confidence that I didn't start and stop at opportune times to affirm my bias. Would I then HAVE to provide the all available research before my experiment took place in the name of completeness and transparency? No of course not. Because A.) That's a lot of work copying and pasting old data that takes time away from my experiment and B.) The reader can look up that research themselves.

So no, research does not have to include the history of available data before the experiment.

as I've already noted, the Death Penalty for the overwhelming majority of the study's research period was already in steep decline in usage. If you want to see whether it has merit, you also need to examine when it was also in great use.

You've brought up multiple times how data after the 90's is inaccurate due to a decrease in capital punishment. 3 things:

1. Can you provide the data of deterrence before the 90's?
2. Is there a consensus among professionals that there isn't enough data to judge the effectiveness of the death penalty post 90's?
3. If the evidence was very much in favor of the death penalty, why did the amount of executions drop? We know that there doesn't need to be some bureaucracy, to try to prevent the already too high number of innocent people from being executed.

[Bear Stearns]

So I just found out that one of my closest mentors throughout my career is a member of the Bush-Walker family. I've known this guy for 5+ years and I never pieced it together, even though it should have been obvious.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

OEP, provide your sources. I just read a 1983 study condemning the death penalty, and I see no evidence that an overwhelming majority of studies pre-1990s supported capital punishment.

For one, I'd point you to the Isaac Ehrlich study back in the early 1970s. I'll have to go digging for more otherwise.

I've read about that one. I didn't read the actual study itself, but I just read another paper that mentioned it. That study's research methods were criticized by many it seems. Either way, if you cannot link to the other studies that support your position, post the article's information instead. With luck I can find them, assuming my college has access to the correct databases.

[Hanafuridake]

My favorite shōgun in history is Tokugawa Tsunayoshi, who is most famously known as the Dog Shōgun.

Owing to religious fundamentalism, Tsunayoshi sought protection for living beings in the later parts of his rule. In the 1690s and first decade of the 18th century, Tsunayoshi, who was born in the Year of the Dog, thought he should take several measures concerning dogs. A collection of edicts released daily, known as the Edicts on Compassion for Living Things (生類憐みの令 Shōruiawareminorei) told the populace, inter alia, to protect dogs, since in Edo there were many stray and diseased dogs walking around the city. Therefore, he earned the pejorative title Inu-Kubō (犬公方:Inu=Dog, Kubō=formal title of Shōgun).

[VoVoDoCo]

OEP, provide your sources. I just read a 1983 study condemning the death penalty, and I see no evidence that an overwhelming majority of studies pre-1990s supported capital punishment.

For one, I'd point you to the Isaac Ehrlich study back in the early 1970s. I'll have to go digging for more otherwise.

The Ehrlich study has been peer reviewed to death. While it had some insights and the research is politely respected, it has largely been discredited by at least two different groups of researchers mere years after it was published.

https://math.dartmouth.edu/~lamperti/my ... 20edit.htm

"Ehrlich's data were soon studied by other investigators and his results reconsidered. Peter Passell and John Taylor focused on Ehrlich's observed negative relation between executions and homicide rates, and asked what happens when the time period chosen for the model is changed. They also experimented with varying his assumptions as to the model's functional form. In both cases they found that some broad aspects of the model were unchanged, but the indication of a special deterrent effect from executions disappeared completely. Passell and Taylor concluded that whatever the other virtues of Ehrlich's work, no valid inference about deterrence could be drawn from it.[13] Another research team, William Bowers and Glen Pierce, found much the same thing.[14] Others have experimented with their own regression models for both time-series and cross-sectional (interstate) studies. The results are mixed, but most of the researchers failed to find any evidence for deterrence.



I have had some personal experience with this issue. Students in a statistics class I taught at Dartmouth experimented with Ehrlich's model and data during our study of regression analysis. We confirmed Passell and Taylor's finding that the indication of deterrence was extremely unstable when small changes were made in Ehrlich's assumptions. My own conclusion is that regression on nationally aggregated data can never yield reliable evidence on deterrence, pro or con. The signal, if any, is hopelessly buried in the noise.



In the final section of his paper, Ehrlich interpreted the negative correlation he found as suggesting a "tradeoff between executions and murders," and he estimated that over the period 1935-1969, "an additional execution per year ... may have resulted, on average, in 7 or 8 fewer murders." This dramatic statement was only slightly softened by his qualification that "the expected trade-offs ... mainly serve a methodological purpose."



The idea that one execution might prevent 7 or 8 murders is easily grasped and remembered. This is unfortunate, because no such conclusion is justified by Ehrlich's research. We have seen that the negative correlation between murders and executions in his model disappears when minor changes are made in certain assumptions. But even if the model were much more accurate and stable, the "trade-off" idea would still be invalid. It requires the doubtful assumption that all other factors could remain constant while the execution rate alone was increased. Worse yet, it confounds association and causation.



Ehrlich himself surely understood this; that is presumably what he meant when he spoke of a “methodological purpose." But he did not stress or explain the need for caution, and predictably some of his readers did not get the point. They were, in effect, ready to buy their children larger shoes to improve their reading scores; that is, to step up executions in order to prevent homicides. But the hope of saving seven, or any number, of lives by one additional execution cannot be defended by Ehrlich's work. The earlier conclusion, that U.S. murder statistics give no evidence for an additional deterrent effect of capital punishment, still held."

[VoVoDoCo]

For one, I'd point you to the Isaac Ehrlich study back in the early 1970s. I'll have to go digging for more otherwise.

I've read about that one. I didn't read the actual study itself, but I just read another paper that mentioned it. That study's research methods were criticized by many it seems. Either way, if you cannot link to the other studies that support your position, post the article's information instead. With luck I can find them, assuming my college has access to the correct databases.

If your college has JSTOR, here's a link:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/724188?seq ... b_contents

Otherwise I can't find it.

EDIT: I can't find a free version anywhere. You're our last hope lol

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I've read about that one. I didn't read the actual study itself, but I just read another paper that mentioned it. That study's research methods were criticized by many it seems. Either way, if you cannot link to the other studies that support your position, post the article's information instead. With luck I can find them, assuming my college has access to the correct databases.

If your college has JSTOR, here's a link:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/724188?seq ... b_contents

Otherwise I can't find it.

EDIT: I can't find a free version anywhere. You're our last hope lol

My college has EBSCO Information Services. I will see if they have the same article.
Edit: Actually, my college has jstor as well. I have the article.