Does the Death Penalty Save Lives? Apparently So
[Although legal in nature, this story is not typical ATL fare -- it's a bit too, well, substantive. But we suspect that some of you will have strong opinions on it. So we're tossing it out for discussion, in the hopes of inspiring a comment clusterf**k.]
Does the death penalty serve as an effective deterrent to murder? Up until now, we've generally subscribed to the liberal view that its deterrence value is questionable. But a fascinating article by one of our favorite legal reporters, Yale Law grad Adam Liptak -- who writes for the New York Times, no conservative hack publication -- raises some interesting questions:
For the first time in a generation, the question of whether the death penalty deters murders has captured the attention of scholars in law and economics, setting off an intense new debate about one of the central justifications for capital punishment.According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented.
The effect is most pronounced, according to some studies, in Texas and other states that execute condemned inmates relatively often and relatively quickly.
Check out this quote:
“I personally am opposed to the death penalty,” said H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study finding that each execution saves five lives. “But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect.”
More after the jump.
Professor Cass Sunstein, no John Yoo he, had this to say:
“The evidence on whether it has a significant deterrent effect seems sufficiently plausible that the moral issue becomes a difficult one,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has frequently taken liberal positions. “I did shift from being against the death penalty to thinking that if it has a significant deterrent effect it’s probably justified.”Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science.
“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”
Of course, for every study, there's an equal and opposite counter-study reaching the opposite conclusion. But this is worth noting:
The recent studies are, some independent observers say, of good quality, given the limitations of the available data.“These are sophisticated econometricians who know how to do multiple regression analysis at a pretty high level,” Professor Weisberg of Stanford said.
The economics studies are, moreover, typically published in peer-reviewed journals, while critiques tend to appear in law reviews edited by students.
For some interesting additional discussion, see Doug Berman (linkwrap at bottom) and Jack Balkin.
Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate [New York Times]All the capital deterrence that's fit to debate [Sentencing Law and Policy]
Does the Death Penalty Deter? Who Cares? [Balkinization]
(109) Comments
True.
There are other economists who point out that this study is methodologically flawed.
The only people who argue that it saves lives are people who have not done substantive research in the area. John Donahue is the world's expert in the field, and has definitively proven that the death penalty is not effective and is obscenely expensive. Steve Levitt and Justin Wolfers have also done credible research demonstrating that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. Anyone who argues to the contrary is just engaged in self-promotion.
This is so bogus. There are studies spanning back hundreds of years that all say it has no deterrent effect.
I dont care about deterence. Capital punishment is way too damn expensive.
Take that, death penalty abolitionists.
Even the New York Times doesn't agree with you!
If we put all muslims in camps i bet we can "save lives" too
If we send every muslim to Guantanamo i bet we can "save lives" too.
Since when is the death penalty debate solely about deterrence?
H. Naci Mocan = Kojak
"Anyone who argues to the contrary is just engaged in self-promotion."
So many open-minded critical thinkers on ATL.
If we send every muslim to Guantanamo i bet we can "save lives" too.
Since when is the death penalty debate solely about deterrence?
3:12: "If we put all muslims in camps i bet we can 'save lives' too"
Please don't give the Bushies any ideas.
Isn't all this premised on the notion that those most likely to engage in these offenses (which proportionally speaking are those who are impoverished and lacking in education) actually have some exposure (newspaper or TV news) to the fact of the executions? Isn't this a pretty major assumption?
"...and has definitively proven..."
If it is not mathematical theory, or the direct application thereof, it (whatever "it" is) has not been definitively proven.
No one said it's solely about deterrence. It's just another factor one should consider if the studies are accurate.
My $0.02
1. Take nonviolent criminals out of jail
2. Double jail time for violent criminals
3. Execution!!!!!!!!
Since criminal law in the U.S. does not have retribution as a goal, which means 1776.
I find it interesting that certain liberals claim exclusivity when it comes to speaking on behalf of science, (and who can blame them, especially when those who deny evolution very rarely are members of the liberal camp) yet so quickly act in an unscientific manner whenever their values are challenged.
It may very well be that a majority of scientific research finds that the death penalty has little or no deterrent effect. However, it is clear that there is research suggesting the contrary. It is hardly scientific to summarily discredit this research simply because it does not align with values that most liberals hold.
The same, of course, can be said of the issue that forces liberals to ignore science the most -- man made global warming. There is a tremendous amount of scientific research that suggests that man's influence on the climate is negligible as best ... yet many liberals deny the existence of validity of that research summarily in order to maintain the fictional "consensus" view.
"Isn't all this premised on the notion that..."
These studies don't look at the reasons people would or wouldn't commit capital crimes. It is just a straight numbers game. The number of executions is correlated to the number of murders eligible for the death sentence regardless of whether people are exposed through TV, newspapers, little fairies, a candygram, dreams, premonitions, George Bush, Hare Krishnas, Jehovah's Witnesses, smoke signals, or personally speaking with the deceased.
The sort of assumption you ask about is irrelevant for this study. Or for the studies that show there is no correlation.
I love how empirical, peer-reviewed economic analysis of national, county-by-county murder rates over a period of time is swept away with a couple of law professors citing Canada's national rate as comparable in decline to America's. Nice way to legitimize the characterizations about the legal profession.
I am personally opposed to the death penalty but I would hate to impose my views on the rest of society. See "abortion."
"Isn't all this premised on the notion that..."
These studies don't look at the reasons people would or wouldn't commit capital crimes. It is just a straight numbers game. The number of executions is correlated to the number of murders eligible for the death sentence regardless of whether people are exposed through TV, newspapers, little fairies, a candygram, dreams, premonitions, George Bush, Hare Krishnas, Jehovah's Witnesses, smoke signals, or personally speaking with the deceased.
The sort of assumption you ask about is irrelevant for this study. Or for the studies that show there is no correlation.
"Isn't all this premised on the notion that..."
These studies don't look at the reasons people would or wouldn't commit capital crimes. It is just a straight numbers game. The number of executions is correlated to the number of murders eligible for the death sentence regardless of whether people are exposed through TV, newspapers, little fairies, a candygram, dreams, premonitions, George Bush, Hare Krishnas, Jehovah's Witnesses, smoke signals, or personally speaking with the deceased.
The sort of assumption you ask about is irrelevant for this study. Or for the studies that show there is no correlation.
3:14 - No, the death penalty is not "all about" deterrence. But the debate alluded to IS all about deterrance. While I am against the death penalty on moral and cost grounds, my point of view would be harder to defend if credible studies demonstrate that the death penalty saves lives. That is, if you are a utilitarian. Otherwise, who gives a sh** - just stick to you moral guns.
"Isn't all this premised on the notion that..."
These studies don't look at the reasons people would or wouldn't commit capital crimes. It is just a straight numbers game. The number of executions is correlated to the number of murders eligible for the death sentence regardless of whether people are exposed through TV, newspapers, little fairies, a candygram, dreams, premonitions, George Bush, Hare Krishnas, Jehovah's Witnesses, smoke signals, or personally speaking with the deceased.
The sort of assumption you ask about is irrelevant for this study. Or for the studies that show there is no correlation.
Do defendants in jurisdictions that have the death penalty plead out more frequently than defendants in jurisdictions that do not have the death penalty? For example, assume my brother and I are both guilty of murder. I'm facing trial in a state with the death penalty, but my brother is being tried for murder in a state without the death penalty - I'd be more likely to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence (that keeps me from being executed) but my brother has no such incentive since the worst he faces is already a life sentence. If I take that plea bargain, that's an economic benefit to the state that has to be balanced against the costs and delay of prosecuting a capital case, right? If nine similarly situated defendants take that plea bargain to avoid capital charges relative to the one defendant who makes the state pursue the death penalty through all the appeals - doesn't that economic benefit outweigh the costs of the one defendant who exhausts his legal remedies?
The next question is out of the nine defendants pleading guilty, how many are really innocent (but too scared to risk trial) compared to how many would get off on technicalities (and be free to murder again).
Lastly, there was an awful home invasion in Cheshire, CT last summer. Assuming those defendants are found guilty after a fair trial, would it be cruel and unusual punishment to execute them in a football stadium and sell tickets (and sponsorships) to recover the expense of executing them?
3:07 & 3:09. How is the death penalty more expensive than keeping someone in jail for life? Are you talking about the administrative costs of numerous appeals and whatnot? It would seem to me that a charge through an electric chair, a rope, or a Dr.'s lethal cocktail would cost a lot less than feeding someone, hiring guards, etc... for their entire life.
I have no moral problem with the death penalty. My only reason for being against the death penalty is our imperfect jury system and the probability of over zealous prosecutors convicting an innocent person and them getting the death penalty. However, if this research is valid, and multiple innocent lives are saved for every innocent life taken because of a bad conviction, then I would have to reconsider my opposition.
By the way, I would describe myself as a strong conservative. I still support our President who, in my opinion, has done an overall great job in keeping our economy booming, cutting taxes, protecting us from terrorism, and appointing conservative judges to the federal courts. He has done a crappy job at keeping Congress' spending in check and has not handled the Iraq war very well, but overall I am pleased with his performance.
3:43 You would think that it would be cheaper to keep someone alive, but it isn't. I don't know the exact figures, and I think it is based on the appeals and administrative costs associated with segregated confinement etc. but the average cost per inmate for individuals sentenced to death exceeds that for individuals imprisoned for life.
I think that generally when people argue that the death penalty costs more than a life sentence, they are referring to the administrative costs of all of the appeals and other procedures required, not the actual cost of the execution itself.
I disagree. President Bush has done an excellent job in Iraq. The latest numbers show a decrease in sectarian violence. People are returning to their homes, and democracy is taking root. Can any of you liberal nuts actually say with a straight face that Iraq and the world would have been better off under Saddam? Get off your fricken high horses. Give the president for having the courage to attack terrorists where they are. We don't need permission to defend ourselves.
To me, the greatest reason in support of the death penalty is the need for deterrence among the prison population. For an inmate already serving out a life sentence, what further deterrence is there to not killing a guard or another inmate?
I guess that applies generally down the line. Everyone agrees that there are some crimes so dangerous, the perpetrators deserve a life sentence if for no other reason than permanent incapacitation. For those crimes, what's to stop an even more pronounced killing spree?
There should be three punishments for crime: manual labor, (for petty type crimes), torture (for horrid crimes ie. rape, sexual assault) and death (for when you kill other people)
What's amazing is that you don't have to be an economist who understands the regressions and the econometrics of this whole debate to see that the death penalty saves lives. All you need to realize is that a high percentage of murderers do so repeatedly until stopped, including once they get into prison. It is VERY hard to deter lifers in prison with anything but death. When applied correctly, the death penalty saves lives not merely because of its deterrence effect but because it incapacitates people - specifically lifers who are impossible to deter in prison.
Deterrence or not, executions as they're carried out now are unconstitutionally cruel & unusual.
3:54,
I agree that invading Iraq was not a bad decision. I also agree that the troop surge has been effective and things seem to be turning around, even if the liberal media won't cover it.
However, we were not as prepared for the aftermath of our invasion as we should have been. We weren't prepared for the level of insurgency we faced. If we had used more troops earlier and been ready for the sectarian violence and insurgency that occurred following our invasion, I believe things would have gone much smoother. Hindsight is 20/20, but the truth is things could have been handled better had we known then what we know now. Even Bush admits that.
Isn't one of the most deterrent aspects of prison the fact that one would have to spend time locked up with the worst of the worst?
Assuming, then, that the death penalty is reserved only for the worst of the worst, doesn't putting the death penalty into place decrease the "badness," if you will, of the overall prison population?
Therefore, by implementing the death penalty, the prison population overall becomes "less bad" (the worst are executed), and thus the deterrent aspect of having to be locked up with the general prison population for serious, but non-capital crimes, decreases with the implementation of the death penalty, correct?
Just thinking out loud.
"All you need to realize is that a high percentage of murderers do so repeatedly until stopped"
I'd like to some stats to back this up. As popular as it may be for Hollywood to paint all murderers as Hannibal Lecter types, it's simply not true. I've done work in this area and rarely is it the case that these individuals are serial killers. It is these wild assertions that allow for such misguided debate.
"It is VERY hard to deter lifers in prison with anything but death."
Again, please back this up with some evidence that murderers in non-death penalty states tend to kill while in prison more frequently than murderers in death penalty states.
In the future, Economist (4:03), please add something to the conversation in an informed and meaningful way rather than asking everyone to accept your baseless assertions as absolute fact.
The graphic on page 22 of the report shows that the homicide rate for states with the death penalty is higher than the US avg. Better stated, the murder rate is higher in states that have the death penalty than in those states that don't. This being the case, how is the death penalty a deterrent?
Invading Iraq was a horrible decision.
Before the invasion, Iraq was a happy place with smiling children and free health care for all. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a paradise for all of those who lived there.
Iraq had never attacked the United States before the invasion and never would have. Iraq was an ally in the war against our true enemy, al Qaeda, which I know because Saddam Hussein wasn't that religious, which means he must have hated al Qaeda.
4:10 - You're confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps states that choose to enact the death penalty do so precisely because the murder rate is so high. Following the enactment of the death penalty, it could very well be that the murder rate declines, while still being high when compared to other states.
The murder rate of a given state is influenced by many different factors, the death penalty is merely one of them.
Godwin's law is coming...
thirty-ninth!!!
Hey all you "invasion of Iraq was justified" posters - can anyone come up with a better reason than "Saddam was douchebag" to invade an independent country that did not attack us? Anyone? Bueller?
"I'd like to some stats to back this up. As popular as it may be for Hollywood to paint all murderers as Hannibal Lecter types, it's simply not true. I've done work in this area and rarely is it the case that these individuals are serial killers. It is these wild assertions that allow for such misguided debate."
You misunderstood me. What I said is almost tautologist - it is nearly self - evident. All I was saying is that 1) there exist SOME (at least 1) murders who keep killing in prison and 2) if they are in for life, there is nothing more the state can do to them other than death (especially in states which ban solitary confinement etc.) Or, to make it simpler, crazy people who just do not care that the guards are very harsh on them after they kill in prison, etc. 3) For at least THIS class of murders who we have a good reason to believe will keep killing, the only thing to prevent future murders is to incapacitate them permanently by killing them.
I was NOT making deterrence argument, nor making some broad policy claim. All I was saying is, manifestly, SOME murders exist who, absent extremely cruel total confinement and feeding through a hole in the door, death is the only way to incapacitate them.
4:11 - just a helpful hint, when you're trying to satarize something to demonstrate that it's wrong, you actually have to show that it's wrong to be effective.
Saddam was a horrible dictator, but we happened to invade the most progressive and secular nation in the middle east. As a whole, people had more access to education and women had more rights than most countries in the region. Now, they don't even have access to electricity.
Invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Quada. And, as you pointed out, Iraq had never attacked the US - it attacked and invaded Kuwait, which we responded to by using military force.
Since when was al qaeda in Iraq pre-U.S. invasion?
So is anyone going to make the argument that even if the use of the death penalty does correlate with fewer homicides, the state still shouldn't execute it's murderers?
Death Penalty: for it in theory, against it in practice
"Saddam was a horrible dictator, but we happened to invade the most progressive and secular nation in the middle east."
Isn't Israel in the middle east anymore?
There are several potential justifications for why we invaded Iraq other than Saddam being a D-bag (support for terrorism, particularly against Israel, consistent violations of cease fire agreement that ended the war following Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, potential that Iraq possessed deadly and destructive chemical and biological weapons, tactical decision to establish presence in the Middle East, desire to look tough, and dozens of others), just as there are tons of reasons why we should have continued to try to contain Saddam.
Absent the ability to travel through time, it is clear that we can't un-invade Iraq.
It is also pretty clear that militarily, the US has finally started to win in Iraq. That is partly attributable to the "surge," and also partly attributable to twin facts independent from the surge, (1) the fact that the Sunni in Anbar, Baghdad, and elsewhere have, at least for now, turned against al Qaeda aligned foreign fighters, and (2) the cease fire called by the Mahdi army in August of this year.
Whether the military success of the past couple of months will lead to political reconciliation and success remains to be seen, but I'll assume we're all hoping for the best.
I hate liberals...
4:34 - of course, people will. Even if deters, it still doesn't make it right. We could execute people for assaulting people or for simple robbery and under the same logic, it would reduce the number of crimes committed. In fact, if we made all offenses capital crimes, if you accept the deterrence argument, all crime would be reduced across the board. Thus, a deterrence argument is not in and of itself a sufficient basis for imposing a certain punishment.
4:42 - Even from a deterrence perspective, you would not want to have capital punishment for simple robbery because there would be no intermediate deterrence. If you get caught stealing, you might as well kill the cops and escape because it won't change your sentence.
lol at 4:37, israel is a secular country
ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ARGUING __________ ARE JUST LIKE HITLER!
4:33 -- for all the wild claims as to whether al Qaeda was or was not in Iraq before the invasion, the fact is that we simply do not know.
Saddam's Iraq was one of the most closed societies in the world. Before the invasion, only in North Korea could one find a state where the government monopolized information in such a way.
The fact is that we don't know all that much about what happened in Iraq before 2003. Very few people have full knowledge (Saddam, his sons, high level ministers), and most of those people are no longer with us.
There exist very few papers, records, etc. of the pre-invasion regime. There is very little to study. We can assume, for example, that Saddam did destroy the vast majority of his WMD program before the 2003 invasion. What we don't know, however, is when that took place, why it took place, and how it took place.
As for al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion, it certainly is true that there is no evidence of an al Qaeda presence before the invasion. That does not mean, however, that al Qaeda was not there. We simply don't know whether (1) al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq, (2) al Qaeda operated in Iraq, but effectively hid itself from Saddam's government, or (3) al Qaeda was in Iraq with the knowledge of Saddam.
Of those three options, it seems unlikely that (2) is the case. Although possible, it is doubtful that al Qaeda operated with the knowledge of Saddam's government, but without it's consent. Thus, we are left with (1) or (3). If option (1) is the case, then certainly it is not fair to use al Qaeda as a justification for the invasion. Conversely, however, if (3) is the case, then it would have been irresponsible for us NOT to invade.
We can speculate, however ... on one hand, Saddam and al Qaeda allying does not make any ideological sense. On the other hand, of course, we do know that al Qaeda was a large, important part of the insurgency very early on, and seemed to have good knowledge of the urban terrain and environment.
4:53 - there's no evidence that wild elephants didn't ship yellow cake into Iraq by the ton in support of their evil plan to take over the universe either. Is that proof that wild elephants didn't ship tons of yellow cake into Iraq?
5:04 - What a joke. Your argument ignores the fact that al Qaeda is very real, and very present inside Iraq, and has been since weeks after the invasion.
My point was only to point out what we don't know, and to use what we do know to try and infer. We know that al Qaeda is in Iraq now. We know that al Qaeda was in Iraq in the very early days post-invasion. We don't know whether al Qaeda was acting opportunistically, entering Iraq post-invasion in an attempt to thwart our early efforts to stabilize Iraq, or whether al Qaeda existed in Iraq before the invasion.
Your attempt at a point is misguided. The Wild Elephants theory is plausible, of course, but not seriously examined as there is absolutely no evidence supporting it. The al Qaeda theory, however, is plausible and supported by quite a bit of evidence post-invasion.
4:53:
"Al Qaeda in Iraq" is not the same group as "Al Qaeda". Experts agree that the former is inspired by the latter, and there may have perhaps been contacts between certain figures of the two groups, but it is by no means the same organization as the one that perpetrated 9/11. The membership of AQIA is significantly (but by far not exclusively) local, which explains their knowledge of the terrain.
Bin Laden once called Saddam a "socialist." Not exactly a compliment coming from him.
The death penalty deters at least one criminal per execution. If we eliminate the death penalty, pretty soon the idea of "super max" will become cruel and unusual. Then what do we do with these oxygen thieves.
I do think there needs to be great care in applying the death penalty. I certainly want us, as a society, to "fry the right guy."
Forgive me for not being so nuanced as I just learned to walk upright and I just discovered I have an opposible thumb. (Me now can hold beer).
I killed a man in Buffalo, just to watch him die...
AMK - al Qaeda, you must remember, is not a nation state, but a movement in itself. Technically speaking, those who perpetrated the Madrid and London bombings were not "al Qaeda" either, but simply were inspired by al Qaeda and led by individuals who were trained in the camps in Afghanistan.
Like al Qaeda in Europe, you are correct, al Qaeda in Iraq is a distinct entity from al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. And you certainly are correct that it's membership is largely local. Like al Qaeda in Europe, though, at least until June of 2006, al Qaeda in Iraq was led by a foreigner trained in the Afghanistan camps, Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
To only target al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan, however, would be a mistake. That al Qaeda is actually quite small, made up only of bin Laden and his closest advisors. They have trained thousands, however, and these individuals have set up loose organizations throughout the world, and they continue to plan and perpetrate acts of violence inspired by bin Laden, but not necessarily under any particular direction other than the broad fatwa-like pronouncements of bin Laden.
I find the fact that bin Laden and Saddam had a strained relationship, at best, irrelevant. It certainly would not be the first time in history that two ideologically opposed leaders worked together to fight a common enemy, would it?
I certainly agree that there is little evidence of an operational relationship between Saddam and bin Laden's al Qaeda. There is reason to believe, however, that Saddam , or more likely his sons, cultivated those who were trained in the camps while creating the guerrilla Saddam Fedayeen forces that instigated the initial insurgency, and whose tactics greatly resemble that of the Afghan Muhajadeen, who many believe to be the precursor of al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Thanks, 4:53. We needed that.
As for al Qaeda in Toledo, Ohio before the invasion, it certainly is true that there is no evidence of an al Qaeda presence before the invasion. That does not mean, however, that al Qaeda was not there. We simply don't know whether (1) al Qaeda did not exist in Toledo, Ohio, (2) al Qaeda operated in Toledo, Ohio, but effectively hid itself from Mayor Carty Finkbeiner's government, or (3) al Qaeda was in Toledo, Ohio with the knowledge of Mayor Finkbeiner.
5:44 - Wow. Today has been witness to some of the worst attempts at sarcasm that I've ever seen. Ever.
What are you trying to point out?? Is your premise that al Qaeda could just as easily be in Toledo as it was in pre-invasion Iraq? I don't get it.
I'd invite you to explain, but it might be easier to admit that it was a foolish attempt at sarcasm and that your point doesn't really make any sense.
Of course even if it saves lives, does that mean it's OK? I'm sure cutting people's hands off for theft would also prevent petty theft, but that doesn't mean it's constitutional...
My point was that 4:53 is stupid. I'm pretty happy with my effort. I'd explain it to you more, but it might just be easier for you to admit that it was a foolish attempt to call me out when my point actually does make sense.
From what I can tell the study didn't control for recidivism, which is one of the primary causes of violent crime in the US. If the study had compared, for instance, the death penalty with life imprisonment with parole on the one hand, and with less-than-life sentences on the other, I would not be surprised to see similar correlations.
Obviously someone can't kill someone else if he's dead. He's also significantly less likely to kill someone else (and even then, not someone in the general population) if he's in prison for life. If he's released before his death, however, he's significantly more likely to kill someone. How does this not explain a large percentage of the statistical correlation? If anything this demonstrates that we need to focus our efforts on rehabilitation.
First!
4:53 is a freaking idiot, as is anyone who believes or gives credence to the b.s. ex-post justifications for the war that the white house has been spewing out for the past six years. Bush started a war on false pretenses, knowing that the whole world was against him, and used 9/11 as a way to shut up critics in America. It was a bad idea from the get-go, and we've completely destroyed a country and killed a hundred thousand of its innocent people. All of this wouldn't have happened if we didn't have an arrogant retard as president.
Conservatives are such sh*tbags, it's unbelieveable.
6:13: In the interests of fairness, not all conservatives are "sh*tbags". That's a stereotype. Actually, if you get to know some of them, a select few can be pretty decent human beings. The hard part is finding the select few.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."
-Source: transcript of Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, October 10, 2002
"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.
The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people who's opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.
With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
March 6, 2003
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145
6:42, 6:46: Is the fact that Hillary Clinton voted for the war (and supported it in 2003) a justification for the war?
Just want to point this out too: "In the four years since the inspectors left, INTELLIGENCE REPORTS show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002
Why does a murderer deserve to live?
Logic,
No, Hillary's voting for the war was not justification for the war. The fact is that Hillary and most other Democrats came to the same conclusion that Saddam was too dangerous to leave in power and that removal by force was warranted given the information available. They all had the same information. They all came to the same conclusion (or at least most of them).
Did they all have the same information? Where did that information come from? Was that information crafted in any way? Who crafted it and for what purpose?
I'm sorry. I missed the part of the article where it discussed Iraq, the war, Saddam Hussein or al Qaeda. Is there any chance you people can stay on topic?
7:13. You're off topic. If you're going to get off topic, we'd appreciate if you focused on the stick up your a**.
6:13 - Is 4:53 an idiot just because you say he is? His/her post reflects quite a bit of substantive knowledge.
Why do liberals brand everyone who disagrees with them as idiots? Why do they insist that they hold a monopoly on intellectual ability?
What an insecure bunch.
Did they all have the same information? Where did that information come from? Was that information crafted in any way? Who crafted it and for what purpose?
=============================
Yes, they did all have the same information. The information came from years of dealing with Iraq and from the intelligence gathered under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Of course information was crafted. Information is always crafted. This is politics. The point is that the Democrats had the same raw information and crafted it the same way.
7:29: While I reject your simple view that "liberals" or "conservatives" have uniform characteristics, I will respond in terms you might be able to understand:
"Liberals" brand people as idiots because there already exists substantive evidence that they are idiots. Judging by the Iraq war debate, "conservatives" brand people as idiots and wait for a justification later.
However, you're an idiot for a different reason: You don't understand the easily understandable.
Conservative: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/
Conservative: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/
Conservative: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/
Conservative: You are breathtakingly mis-informed.
George Bush is a drunk idiot who thought Jesus told him to invade Iraq, so he did.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly an idiot.
In fact, all conservatives are idiots. They aren't intellectuals, they are just six-pack drinking rednecks who love the flag, beat their wives, and threaten schools for daring to teach their children evolution.
I learned, in COLLEGE, that everything these conservatives say is a lie to make Jesus happy and to give more money to Halliburton.
And you should just agree with me because I went to COLLEGE and I'm superior.
Oh, and I'm aware that some conservatives went to COLLEGE too.
But keep in mind, they are just the drunked frat boys who gang-raped sororiety sisters the entire time, and never went to class to get turned on by their noble professors as to the truth in the world.
My professors, who by the way are brave enough to teach for a living, and rejected working for the evil corporations, made me see what the world really is like. I had no idea that the United States was the source of all evil in the world, and that the corporations controlled the world until my professors informed me.
It's too bad there's enough redneck Nascar loving idiots in the world to elect a moron like George W Bush into office. Of course those macho guys who love drinkin a beer and watching shiny cars drive real fast in a circle crashing into each other will vote for another beer-loving frat boy. He'll even make them happy by dropping big bombs on innocent countries so the drunken Nascar dads can watch it on TEEVEE.
What idiotic fools this country is full of! I'm so much better than all of you!
Think about it, there must be higher love
Down in the heart or hidden in the stars above
Without it, life is a wasted time
Look inside your heart, Ill look inside mine
The death penalty needs to be re-evaluated and reformed, however, it is necessary to remove those from our society and expense that kill us, rape us, and do only those things we, as a society, have deemed to be the most egregious crimes in our communities. Liberal or conservative, crime affects us all, and those who visit the most vile crimes upon us should not be allowed to live amongst us.
10:14 - Not true. The only criminals are the corporations and those who support them. Everyone else is a freedom fighter. Viva la revolucion!
For those who support the death penalty through any argument, economic or social, well, your are entitled to your thoughts that "those who visit the most vile crimes upon us should not be allowed to live amongst us."
But you better be damn sure to pony up for a legal system that makes damn sure that the person who is convicted of the vile crime actually committed it....or the rich, pampered individual who could afford the very best in legal representation could plea bargain/get off for crimes that those who have to rely upon public defenders get the death penalty.
Interesting....are the economists ever going to study this phenomenon, given their "impartial" statistical analysis, of how those with few financial resources might actually be more likely to receive a death penalty than those with money who commit similarly "horrific" crimes?
The issues that are most important to me are lower taxes, a strong economy, and protection from terrorists. George Bush lowered my taxes. The economy has been rocking along as evidenced by the fact that my salary has tripled in that time and my 401(k) and brokerage accounts have given very strong performances. There hasn't been a single terrorist attack in the United States since 2001. Seems like I'm 3 for 3 on what I most want from my government. Guess I'll just have to stay a conservative and do everything I can to keep Democrats out of office who want to raise my taxes and give all my money to someone else.
10:56, yeah, it's not like the worst terrorist attack happened on the Republicans' watch, right? And it's not like it happened after a silly little report called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States", right?
And it's also not like Bill Clinton presided over eight of the strongest years the economy has ever seen, right?
Basically the only point you have is about taxes. And unless you earn over $500,000/year, it's not a very strong one.
The revived debate over the death penalty already seems destined to miss the mark. It is not a technical or empirical issue, but a moral one. As such, economists and other social scientists have little to tell us as empirical chroniclers about the death penalty’s continued use.
Although a demonstration that the death penalty has no deterrent effect would be morally significant in curbing its use, there is no particular or free-standing moral significance to the claim that it does have some deterrent effect.
There are all manner of punishments and innovations that might be introduced if deterrence were the only or main determinant of its social acceptability: chopping off limbs, stoning people and corporal punishment might be usefully retried.
The fact is that the death penalty, like limb-chopping or stoning, is a morally outrageous practice whatever its deterrent effect: it reduces society to the ethical level of the murderer. In a society that aspires to be moral and just, there is no room for such a state-sanctioned uncivilized practice.
Allan C. Hutchinson
Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 18, 2007
The writer is a visiting professor at Harvard Law School.
99...
100!
Yes!
10:56, yeah, it's not like the worst terrorist attack happened on the Republicans' watch, right? And it's not like it happened after a silly little report called "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States", right?
And it's also not like Bill Clinton presided over eight of the strongest years the economy has ever seen, right?
Basically the only point you have is about taxes. And unless you earn over $500,000/year, it's not a very strong one.
===========================
1. Lower taxes is my single most important issue, above all else. Bill Clinton didn't raise taxes. If you read his autobiography, like I did, you would know that he had a conservative philosophy when it came to taxes and fiscal responsibility. He and Newt Gingrich worked together to reform welfare as well.
2. None of the Democratic Presidential hopefuls have done anything but throw out entitlement plan after entitlement plan as their campaign issues, and none of them want to make Bush's tax cuts permanent (even though federal tax revenues have INCREASED as a result of the tax cuts and the economy has been kicking ass).
3. Bill Clinton had several opportunities to get Bin Laden while he was President and failed to do so. Syria actually had him and offered to turn him over to the US at one point, and Clinton turned them down. Clinton was the President when 9/11 was planned and when the terrorists that carried it out actually entered the United States. Bush was only in office for 9 months when it happened, and if you think that knowing Bin Laden wanted to attack the United States is enough information to have stopped 9/11, you are pretty naive. Everybody knew he wanted to attack the United States. That intelligence briefing didn't contain any information that everyone didn't already know.
As usual Lat skewed this with his extreme right wing bias. The following parts of the article clearly show that the conclusions are merely opinions with out significant factual basis. Funny how the Lat (a Federalist Society Member) didn't post these excerpts on his blog:
The studies have been the subject of sharp criticism, much of it from legal scholars who say that the theories of economists do not apply to the violent world of crime and punishment. Critics of the studies say they are based on faulty premises, insufficient data and flawed methodologies.
The death penalty “is applied so rarely that the number of homicides it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot reliably be disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors,” John J. Donohue III, a law professor at Yale with a doctorate in economics, and Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in the Stanford Law Review in 2005. “The existing evidence for deterrence,” they concluded, “is surprisingly fragile.”
Gary Becker, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1992 and has followed the debate, said the current empirical evidence was “certainly not decisive” because “we just don’t get enough variation to be confident we have isolated a deterrent effect.”
The available data is nevertheless thin, mostly because there are so few executions.
In 2003, for instance, there were more than 16,000 homicides but only 153 death sentences and 65 executions.
“It seems unlikely,” Professor Donohue and Professor Wolfers concluded in their Stanford article, “that any study based only on recent U.S. data can find a reliable link between homicide and execution rates.”
The two professors offered one particularly compelling comparison. Canada has executed no one since 1962. Yet the murder rates in the United States and Canada have moved in close parallel since then, including before, during and after the four-year death penalty moratorium in the United States in the 1970s.