|
|
Bring back capital punishment I CONCUR fully with QT journalist Andrew Korner about tougher laws for child killers - "Tough laws need to be backed up" (Q/T 16/10). Andrew is echoing what most people have been saying for what seems like an eternity. The recent case of Tyrell Cobb and Hemi Goodwin-Burke is just the tip of the iceberg of innocent children who have lost their lives through the action of depraved monsters. Even more frightening in the Q/T in recent days, people are far more concerned with bloody rights for battery hens, (QT 12/10 and 14/10). What about the rights of those murdered children? Capital punishment is the only way to stop these crimes perpetrated against the innocent; there have been far too many children taken before their time and it must stop! ROBERT McBEATH |
|
|
[bottom.htm] |
Join the discussion
Add Comment12 COMMENTS
'Capital punishment is the only way to stop these crimes perpetrated against the innocent...'
I wish it was so easy, all one does is permanently remove 'that' offender from our earthly sphere...which is a good thing, but...
According to Prof Jeffrey Fagan, of the Columbia University (US), there is no reliable scientific evidence the death penalty deters criminal behaviour.
Even when executions are frequent & well-publicised, there are no apparent changes in crime.
Executions serve only to satisfy the urge for vengeance, any punitive value is fleeting, lasting only until the next crime.
The majority of criminologists share his observations.
The consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any major deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment.
Prof Franklin Zimring of the University of California (US) argued that the evidence wasn't there to sustain the claim the death penalty acted as a deterrent to murder.
There will always be unstable, desperate & pathological people for whom the risk of arrest & imprisonment provides no deterrent, but there is nothing to show that a decision to carry out the death sentence would have any effect on the behaviour of such people, or that there will be more of them if imprisonment is the only sanction.
‘Even when executions are frequent & well-publicised, there are no apparent changes in crime.‘
Can you please provide the link to these STATISTICS?
Can you please supply those statistics that backup your claim? I’m just wondering if they are 100% accurate.
No statistical information in the article, however you have the authors' names, feel free to do your own research.
A little clue, even in countries where there is the death penalty, heinous crimes are still being committed.
I guess, the last sentence of my previous comment explains all.
That doesn’t explain all. Just because yo your one
Other author says so. You referred to statistics. You should be able to supply a link to backup your claims. I find it strange you are referring to statistics in relation to crime, given your previous comments that they are unreliable and can’t be used. ???
Can you please explain why crime statistics are relevant to support you theory above, yet cannot be used in other cases? I refer you to the article below where you repeatedly say crime statistics are unreliable an d cannot be used to support theories I relation to crime.
https://m.qt.com.au/news/no-room-stru...
Dear me.
There are different types of statistics and in my opinion, many are an 'indicator' only.
There is also evidence that some statistical research can be manipulated.
All this has been explained to you before, you really need to undertake your own research.
Commonsense would also tell you that if a nation has a multitude of hangings, shootings or other forms of capital punishment and the same crimes are still being committed, then capital punishment is really not working in terms of deterrence.
Are you referring to part of my comment wherein I stated, 'As for Ipswich’s crime rate, these statistics are merely an indicator & not set in cement?
They will raise & drop based on people reporting crimes, police operations in the area & even climatic conditions.
I maintain my stand.
And the other half dozen comments.
Whether crime statistics are relevant or not appears to change whether they support your argument or not. Do you not agree that the researcher or the collector of the statistics that your researcher referered to was could equally be inaccurate as the QPS statistics I refererred to? Or are your sources always 100% on the money? I you can.ot have it both ways.
If a country uses capital punishment and a person is killed, usually that is recorded thus you might have, for example thirty persons killed in a specific period of time.
If the crimes are still being committed, capital punishment is not a deterrent.
If I survey a thousand people wherein some answer same, other do not answer it and others just write any crap, then the quality of the survey becomes suspect.
You may have selection bias, question bias, irrelevant questions, you may even have duplicate responses and there is the human error variable, all impacting on the survey.
Similarly, if a survey question relates to how many vehicles are in a household and many state they have three or more vehicles then someone might construe it is a wealthy area.
Problem is, the owners of the vehicles might be significantly in debt thus the term 'wealthy' might be erroneous.
As far as I am concerned statistics, in many cases, are an indicator, certainly not set in concrete.
Wouldn’t you say that would be exactly the same for serious crimes against the Person as I had mentioned in that article I linked you in before. Eg. murder, serious assault, etc.
Please explain how In this article you came to the conclusion that there were larger suburbs with a smaller crime rate than Goodna? Did you use other statistics other than the QPS stats to support your theory? You pick and choose when to use crime statistics. It’s as simple as that. If you don’t believe they are accurate, do not use them, ever. Not just when it suits you and suddenly decide they are accurate.
https://m.qt.com.au/news/crime-map-ha...
Johnelder, you are very cognisant of my stand in relation to statistics, I have mentioned it frequently...in most cases they are 'indicative', not set in cement, as there are many variables impacting upon their accuracy.
The old QPS website for crime statistics had a disclaimer, the new QPS website has the following disclaimer, ‘These figures are preliminary & have been provided without allowing six weeks to enable additional information to be added or edited in QPrime & for quality assurance processing.
‘Therefore are subject to change & should be used with caution’.
Please note the last sentence.
Crime statistics are dynamic, they rise & fall depending upon numerous factors including policing strategies, operations, climate & so on.
If I have a sample group of ten people & five of them have a chronic disease, then my statistics will show that 50% of that group have a chronic illness…that is absolute but to try to attach that figure to a community of 1000 would be totally wrong, other considerations must be met but at the end of the day, you will have an ‘indicative’ number.
Please read it a few times, you will then no longer have to waste my time, I object to having to repeat myself continuously.