Re: NBC- Nifong's disbarred

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:47:25 -0700, "ManBearPig"
<yakzoomash@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Denise" <LuvTheBoss@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
You'd be amazed at the number of wrongful convictions being overturned
the last few years. Unfortunately for most, they've served years and
even decades before being released.

And that's why during the last few years I changed my mind on the death
penalty. As you know, I was always 100% for it. Now I'm mainly against it.
(Although I don't cry when it gets applied). The wrongful conviction rates
in IL and other states convinced me the system is too screwed up to
administer a death penalty responsibly.


I read the article that I'm pasting below was in the Baltimore Sun
last week. For years one of the controversies about the death penalty
was whether it deterred other murders. According to this article, it's
now been pretty convincingly established that it does, and that each
execution deters between 3 and 18 other murders.



Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime
By ROBERT TANNER
AP National Writer

June 11, 2007, 4:53 AM EDT

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years,
with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in
more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment
in New Jersey.

The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations -- pointing out flaws in the
justice system -- has weighed against capital punishment. The moral
opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the
industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions
years ago.

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over
the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated
argument -- whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder.
The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would
be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several
scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New
Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body
of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive."

But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread
to a wider audience, as it has in the past.

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question
about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University
of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent
effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the
data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and
commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are
robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death
penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) -- what
am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that
capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same
basic theory -- if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an
apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will
change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by
year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the
death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as
unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest
and conviction, and more.

Among the conclusions:

_ Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003
nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies
have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and
14).

_ The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional
homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by
professors at the University of Houston.

_ Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For
every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be
prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.

The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a
well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass
Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a
paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"

"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of
innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he
told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are
skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration
to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.

Critics of the findings have been vociferous.

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in
their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic
argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just
those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And
several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in
the United States to make a judgment.

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers,
an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year
co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were
"flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."

"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's
too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and
legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you
it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at
leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis,
the argument is finished."

Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome
criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being
attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not
their flaws.

"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data
shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is
wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory
University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some
of them have a position they would like to defend."

The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far
beyond academic circles.

Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions
deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream
news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the
U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972
suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death
penalty.)

Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences
which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed. But the new
pro-deterrent studies haven't gotten that kind of scrutiny.

At least not yet. The academic debate, and the larger national
argument about the death penalty itself -- with questions about racial
and economic disparities in its implementation -- shows no signs of
fading away.

Steven Shavell, a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School
and co-editor-in-chief of the American Law and Economics Review, said
in an e-mail exchange that his journal intends to publish several
articles on the statistical studies on deterrence in an upcoming
issue.
Copyright © 2007, The Associated Press

.