Leicestershire Police Authority duo call for capital punishment

[Zingari]

The first thing I learnt in my stats degree was that correlation doesn't imply causation. A prime example being the episode of South Park episode where they think KFC prevents cancer

Just out of curiosity have you got a link to these figures?

I just like bring stats into things

page 6

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

Since the early 1960s the number

of homicides per million

population has more than doubled.

edit;

take a look at the graph next to the figures .

[Daggers]

If this killing people is reintroduced can I send my in-laws to the chamber?

Please?

[Zingari]

If this killing people is reintroduced can I send my in-laws to the chamber?

Please?

yes , so long as mine can go too

but i'm not sure i want to spend an awful lot on gas , or electric chairs etc . etc is there a more economical solution that won't endanger the planet's fragile resources ?

[Alexikokopops]

page 6

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

Since the early 1960s the number

of homicides per million

population has more than doubled.

edit;

take a look at the graph next to the figures .

Interesting figures. If you look in section 4 you can see that the number of 1st degrees awarded has increased dramatically since the 1960s after remaining relatively stable, so you could argue that improving education is causing an increase in murders

[ajthefox]

yes , so long as mine can go too

but i'm not sure i want to spend an awful lot on gas , or electric chairs etc . etc is there a more economical solution that won't endanger the planet's fragile resources ?

lethal injection..?

[The Doctor]

yes , so long as mine can go too

but i'm not sure i want to spend an awful lot on gas , or electric chairs etc . etc is there a more economical solution that won't endanger the planet's fragile resources ?

listening to Andy Murray and being bored to death?

[Zingari]

Interesting figures. If you look in section 4 you can see that the number of 1st degrees awarded has increased dramatically since the 1960s after remaining relatively stable, so you could argue that improving education is causing an increase in murders

yes , you could do that if you associate improved education with murders ( thats the point i was trying to make )

which event that happened in the early 60's was more likely to affect the murder rate ?

improved education ?

or the abolition of the death sentence ?

i'll continue to believe the latter is more likely , but i'm not so intransigent that i cannot be convinced otherwise

so please give an explanation as to how improved education , health services etc may give rise to an increase in the the murder rate , but the end of the death penalty has no significant effect

and i would like figures to prove your point

[Charl91]

Though not particularlly detailed, guy here comes up with an analysis which suggests that the Death Penalty does deters criminals

http://www.johansens.us/sane/law/capdeter.htm

Logically, I would assume it would anyway. I know on a personal level, if I had to choose one, I would much rather life imprisonment then the Death Penalty. I can imagine some people thinking twice about committing a crime if it meant the Death Penalty instead of prison, 'cus while it's tough for many, some people just seem to thrive in prison or just don't seem that bothered by it. However I can't imagine anyone ever thinking "I don't mind committing crime "x" because luckily for me the punishment is only the Death penalty, instead of life imprisonment". Maybe it's just me, but i'd say the Death Penalty is not only more of a deterrent, but gives the families more peace of mind, which I think is important, and I'm sure anyone else would if they were on the receiving end of such an atrocity.

We put down dangerous animals after all. To me, the life of a mass-murderer is worth less then that.

[Webbo]

Imo most people wouldn't commit a premeditated crime if they thought they were going to get caught.

Why has the murder rate gone up? Could a lessening respect for the police and authority in general, maybe the massive increase in drug use. I don't really know, I agree it's not a cut and dried issue.

[Alexikokopops]

yes , you could do that if you associate improved education with murders ( thats the point i was trying to make )

which event that happened in the early 60's was more likely to affect the murder rate ?

improved education ?

or the abolition of the death sentence ?

i'll continue to believe the latter is more likely , but i'm not so intransigent that i cannot be convinced otherwise

so please give an explanation as to how improved education , health services etc may give rise to an increase in the the murder rate , but the end of the death penalty has no significant effect

and i would like figures to prove your point

I'm just a statistician who has had it drilled into him day in, day out, for the past seven years that correlation doesn't mean causation I don't think the increase in firsts degrees awarded has lead to an increase in murders, it was just something else in that same document that was also very highly correlated, and and I was just using it as a point that you could argue anything is a cause of the increase in homicides if they're correlated. Obviously the link between capital punishment and death is going to be more likely than firsts awarded, but I was just adding an extra argument to the "correlation not causation" statement.

Ultimately the statistician in me is uncomfortable comparing pre-60s to post 60s because they're different times with different cultural views, and there have been millions of things that have changed since then (some of which may have affected homicide rates, some of which may not). It's the same as I don't necessarily think it's right to compare America to the UK. You can't use America as a control group again because of the inherent differences.

As for your question of what these things are, I don't know. I think that would be a whole massive research project in itself, and that ultimately you still probably wouldn't be able to prove either way. Just like when I'm analysing something at work I wouldn't compare the "before" picture of a, say, marketing campaign to the "after" picture because there are environmental differences that change over time. Again, it's probably years of doing statistics, but I'm working on the null hypothesis that there is no relationship (standard statistical method, haha), and I want strong evidence to prove otherwise (not the other way round which looks to be your angle). Such is the fun of things like this.

Basically, I need control and target groups, underlying statistical assumptions, and some good ol' fashioned hypothesis testing. Lets bring the death penalty back in Nottingham, Derby, and Cov and use Leicester as the control. Then we can determine this once and for all. I'm such a nerd.

Oh, and even if the cause was proven, there's a whole new argument on top of that. Hooray. This is why I usually just ignore things

[Alexikokopops]

Though not particularlly detailed, guy here comes up with an analysis which suggests that the Death Penalty does deters criminals

http://www.johansens.us/sane/law/capdeter.htm

Logically, I would assume it would anyway. I know on a personal level, if I had to choose one, I would much rather life imprisonment then the Death Penalty. I can imagine some people thinking twice about committing a crime if it meant the Death Penalty instead of prison, 'cus while it's tough for many, some people just seem to thrive in prison or just don't seem that bothered by it. However I can't imagine anyone ever thinking "I don't mind committing crime "x" because luckily for me the punishment is only the Death penalty, instead of life imprisonment". Maybe it's just me, but i'd say the Death Penalty is not only more of a deterrent, but gives the families more peace of mind, which I think is important, and I'm sure anyone else would if they were on the receiving end of such an atrocity.

We put down dangerous animals after all. To me, the life of a mass-murderer is worth less then that.

That man has sullied the good name of statistics. This upsets me.

[Nick]

I'm just a statistician who has had it drilled into him day in, day out, for the past seven years that correlation doesn't mean causation I don't think the increase in firsts degrees awarded has lead to an increase in murders, it was just something else in that same document that was also very highly correlated, and and I was just using it as a point that you could argue anything is a cause of the increase in homicides if they're correlated. Obviously the link between capital punishment and death is going to be more likely than firsts awarded, but I was just adding an extra argument to the "correlation not causation" statement.

Ultimately the statistician in me is uncomfortable comparing pre-60s to post 60s because they're different times with different cultural views, and there have been millions of things that have changed since then (some of which may have affected homicide rates, some of which may not). It's the same as I don't necessarily think it's right to compare America to the UK. You can't use America as a control group again because of the inherent differences.

As for your question of what these things are, I don't know. I think that would be a whole massive research project in itself, and that ultimately you still probably wouldn't be able to prove either way. Just like when I'm analysing something at work I wouldn't compare the "before" picture of a, say, marketing campaign to the "after" picture because there are environmental differences that change over time. Again, it's probably years of doing statistics, but I'm working on the null hypothesis that there is no relationship (standard statistical method, haha), and I want strong evidence to prove otherwise (not the other way round which looks to be your angle). Such is the fun of things like this.

Basically, I need control and target groups, underlying statistical assumptions, and some good ol' fashioned hypothesis testing. Lets bring the death penalty back in Nottingham, Derby, and Cov and use Leicester as the control. Then we can determine this once and for all. I'm such a nerd.

Oh, and even if the cause was proven, there's a whole new argument on top of that. Hooray. This is why I usually just ignore things

Then you have variables regarding pre-meditated crimes - one might find that most are professional or performed by people who could be labelled as mentally disordered. It is unlikely that any deterrent would change the behaviour of such a group.

The whole argument for the death penalty is nonsense. It serves only the interests of punishment and retribution and serves only to promote state control through fear rather than respect.

I would leave the UK and hand in my British passport to any government that wavered to pressure from an unschooled demographic and brought this law back.

It's the responsibility of government to educate people why this would be a backward step - they are clearly failing.

[Webbo]

I would leave the UK and hand in my British passport to any government that wavered to pressure from an unschooled demographic and brought this law back.

It's the responsibility of government to educate people why this would be a backward step - they are clearly failing.

i.e Anyone who doesn't agree with me is thick.

Do you really not realise just how condescending and smug you sound or are you just on a wind up?

[Nick]

Then you have variables regarding pre-meditated crimes - one might find that most are professional or performed by people who could be labelled as mentally disordered. It is unlikely that any deterrent would change the behaviour of such a group.

The whole argument for the death penalty is nonsense. It serves only the interests of punishment and retribution and serves only to promote state control through fear rather than respect.

I would leave the UK and hand in my British passport to any government that wavered to pressure from an unschooled demographic and brought this law back.

It's the responsibility of government to educate people why this would be a backward step - they are clearly failing.

It's ironic you didn't quote any of the information in the post or actually provide any sourced or academic retort - just blindly re-argued your position.

Sorry Webbo, but the thought of re-introducing this is like going back 100 years and makes me feel sick to even consider it, our views differ massively and many of the views on here I think if they had a wider understanding of the complexities of the justice system might be diferent - I work in it for a living and just find some of the views on here a little offensive and and a tad abhorrent.

Genuinely mate, no offence meant - like your change under your avatar

[Webbo]

It's ironic you didn't quote any of the information in the post or actually provide any sourced or academic retort - just blindly re-argued your position.

Nothing ironic about it, I was just highlighting the offensive part. On balance I'm against capital punishment but I accept that others , equally as moral and intelligent as me, have a different view. I'm sure there differing academic views but since when did academics have the monopoly on common sense anyway?

Your idea that the govt should educate us to think the same thing is far more frightening to me than capital punishment.

[Nick]

Nothing ironic about it, I was just highlighting the offensive part. On balance I'm against capital punishment but I accept that others , equally as moral and intelligent as me, have a different view. I'm sure there differing academic views but since when did academics have the monopoly on common sense anyway?

Your idea that the govt should educate us to think the same thing is far more frightening to me than capital punishment.

I accept people have a different view - it doesn't prevent me being abhorred by it.

I've never argued academics have a monopoly on common sense though as you agree that firstly you are against capital punishment on balance and secondly that in your earlier post you acknowledged you 'didn't know' as you did not have the information to make an informed decision, you actually have underlined my point.

I certainly did not say or do not think we should be taught to think the same thing. I think we should be taught to think critically and reflectively and a judgement made on the balance of information available - it's simply hard for me to respect opinion where this process has clearly not taken place, it's no different to dancing round a bonfire chanting, "Burn the heretic" - apologies for not respecting that.

[Daggers]

Your idea that the govt should educate us to think the same thing is far more frightening to me than capital punishment.

His idea is more frightening than capital punishment itself?

Fvck me - that's one powerful mind.

[Zingari]

I'm just a statistician who has had it drilled into him day in, day out, for the past seven years that correlation doesn't mean causation I don't think the increase in firsts degrees awarded has lead to an increase in murders, it was just something else in that same document that was also very highly correlated, and and I was just using it as a point that you could argue anything is a cause of the increase in homicides if they're correlated. Obviously the link between capital punishment and death is going to be more likely than firsts awarded, but I was just adding an extra argument to the "correlation not causation" statement.

Ultimately the statistician in me is uncomfortable comparing pre-60s to post 60s because they're different times with different cultural views, and there have been millions of things that have changed since then (some of which may have affected homicide rates, some of which may not). It's the same as I don't necessarily think it's right to compare America to the UK. You can't use America as a control group again because of the inherent differences.

As for your question of what these things are, I don't know. I think that would be a whole massive research project in itself, and that ultimately you still probably wouldn't be able to prove either way. Just like when I'm analysing something at work I wouldn't compare the "before" picture of a, say, marketing campaign to the "after" picture because there are environmental differences that change over time. Again, it's probably years of doing statistics, but I'm working on the null hypothesis that there is no relationship (standard statistical method, haha), and I want strong evidence to prove otherwise (not the other way round which looks to be your angle). Such is the fun of things like this.

Basically, I need control and target groups, underlying statistical assumptions, and some good ol' fashioned hypothesis testing. Lets bring the death penalty back in Nottingham, Derby, and Cov and use Leicester as the control. Then we can determine this once and for all. I'm such a nerd.

Oh, and even if the cause was proven, there's a whole new argument on top of that. Hooray. This is why I usually just ignore things

thanks , I think I see what you are getting at

So basically , if a statistic backs up an assertion , then use it , but if it seems to contradict , then claim that it’s not necessarily the cause and effect , and that a million other unspecified factors that have simultaneously happened in the intervening years are the real culprits .

So it seems if someone has a predetermined unshakable opinion then statistics mean nothing

Say for instance , if a long stretch of road is a well known accident black spot , there may be those that recommend reducing the speed limit and those that are against

If the speed limit is reduced with the result being a 20% reduction in accidents over 10 years the pro reduction may claim it as a success .

But the anti reduction can still state the it could be down to other factors such as better braking on cars , better awareness of drivers , less severe winters , and or many other unspecified changes that have occurred during that time.

They may of course be right , but to dismiss the possibility of the reduction in speed as a contributing factor would of course be ludicrous , and I believe this to be the case with the death penalty

It is a fact that the murder rate has doubled in the intervening years , it is a fact that there have been many changes in the UK in that time , but most of the changes seem to be improvements that should have had the effect of reducing violent crime and murder .

We now have much better social security , health education systems , much less poverty and depravation , the result should have been a nett fall in murder and violence , surely these should have counter balanced all the unspecified factors that keep being rolled out those who are totally against the death penalty

I understand if someone is against it on moral grounds , but as a deterrent surely it must be considered as a possibility that it is indeed effective.

I’m not saying that I’m sure that the murder rate would be any lower ( although I believe it would ), but it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that it definitely would not.

edit;

ps its good to see Webbo back from his hols and ready to take on all comers

[nothin2seehere]

I do realise you've put want in italic however. A person being in prison now days hardly suffer. They have TVs, playstations, xbox, snooker tables etc.

Our punishment system is great

And only get to see their family for minute amounts of time. THAT's the real punishment. Imagine not seeing your wife/children for a week at a time, and then only for an hour in a room full of other inmates. TVs, snooker tables etc can only keep you entertained for so long.

[nothin2seehere]

Imo most people wouldn't commit a premeditated crime if they thought they were going to get caught.

Why has the murder rate gone up? Could a lessening respect for the police and authority in general, maybe the massive increase in drug use. I don't really know, I agree it's not a cut and dried issue.

This. Society in general changes so much with every passing generation that it's impossible to say that an event which happened over 40 years ago is responsible for an increase in x, where in this case x is the increase in murders in the UK.

People who kill may do so because they're probably a bit messed up in the head (and no, I don't mean a mental illness) and whatever the punishment, be it death row for xx years followed by death, or prison, I personally don't believe that enters their head at any point.

Oh, and it's obviously because there are more people to kill now that the murder rate has gone up. There's no other possible explanation. Oh, wait, there is...

[Webbo]

His idea is more frightening than capital punishment itself?

Fvck me - that's one powerful mind.

The idea that the govt should decide what we should all think and then instruct us to think it, yes that does frighten me.

[broughtonblue]

If it's proved without doubt the offender is guilty, for murder rape paedo etc, I will gladly be the one to pull the trigger. Eye for an eye

[Daggers]

And only get to see their family for minute amounts of time. THAT's the real punishment. Imagine not seeing your wife/children for a week at a time, and then only for an hour in a room full of other inmates. TVs, snooker tables etc can only keep you entertained for so long.

Punishment?

I'd pay for that as long as I could take my dog & chickens with me. And my motorbikes.

And my iPhone.

The idea that the govt should decide what we should all think and then instruct us to think it, yes that does frighten me.

I wasn't being serious, I was playing with words...I thought that was obvious

[Webbo]

I wasn't being serious, I was playing with words...I thought that was obvious

Fair enough I probably need to lighten up a bit anyway.

[Daggers]

The only thing I've ever been serious about was my adoration of all things Anna Friel.