|
Post by beej76 on Jan 3, 2009 21:33:06 GMT -6
Some 2008 final numbers (from year end report by Death Penalty Info Center)
2008 - 37 1998 - 68 Ten year high - 1999, 98 Ten year low - 2008, 37
New death sentences 2008 - 111 1999 - 284
Executions by region in 2008 South - 95% Midwest - 5%
2008 Executions in all states but Texas - 19 2007 Executions in all states but Texas - 16
States with an execution in 2008 - 9 States without an execution in the last two years - 36
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 3, 2009 23:41:45 GMT -6
Some 2008 final numbers (from year end report by Death Penalty Info Center) 2008 - 37 1998 - 68 Ten year high - 1999, 98 Ten year low - 2008, 37 New death sentences 2008 - 111 1999 - 284 Executions by region in 2008 South - 95% Midwest - 5%2008 Executions in all states but Texas - 19 2007 Executions in all states but Texas - 16 States with an execution in 2008 - 9 States without an execution in the last two years - 36 I'm not sure I agree with the DPIC's definition of a 'southern' state, namely because it seems tailored to make the DP look even more southern dominated. Their definition of southern includes Kentucky and Oklahoma, which are more Northern and Western respectively. That makes the South's dominance this year more like 86.5%.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jan 4, 2009 18:51:12 GMT -6
I'm not sure I agree with the DPIC's definition of a 'southern' state, namely because it seems tailored to make the DP look even more southern dominated. Their definition of southern includes Kentucky and Oklahoma, which are more Northern and Western respectively. That makes the South's dominance this year more like 86.5%. Agreed. Further, including Texas as a Southern state is also a stretch. It used to be a separate country, for crying out loud! ;D
|
|
forgesfire
Old Hand
The masses of humanity have always had to suffer
Posts: 546
|
Post by forgesfire on Jan 4, 2009 19:04:22 GMT -6
I think by southern state they mean states that sided with the south during the civil war. Secondly, Texas is definitely a southern state and so is Kentucky. Oklahoma could go either way.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 4, 2009 20:02:36 GMT -6
I think by southern state they mean states that sided with the south during the civil war. Secondly, Texas is definitely a southern state and so is Kentucky. Oklahoma could go either way. Kentucky sided with the North during the civil war, so did Maryland and Delaware. DPIC lists them all as southern for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 4, 2009 20:29:09 GMT -6
I think by southern state they mean states that sided with the south during the civil war. Secondly, Texas is definitely a southern state and so is Kentucky. Oklahoma could go either way. Kentucky sided with the North during the civil war, so did Maryland and Delaware. DPIC lists them all as southern for some reason. As a border state, Kentucky supplied troops to both sides...but it is a bit off that the natural breakdown we're discussing is along the old slave states vs free states - since some folks have studied links from the past to present in regards to executions.
|
|
forgesfire
Old Hand
The masses of humanity have always had to suffer
Posts: 546
|
Post by forgesfire on Jan 4, 2009 21:23:27 GMT -6
Either way, Kentucky is no far north than Virginia which we can agree is a southern state.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 4, 2009 21:32:23 GMT -6
Either way, Kentucky is no far north than Virginia which we can agree is a southern state. Yes, but Virginia went with the South while Kentucky went with the North. That to me is the best determination of North, South and West.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 4, 2009 22:15:52 GMT -6
Yes, but Virginia went with the South while Kentucky went with the North. That to me is the best determination of North, South and West. I'm a Buckeye by birth and I can tell you Kentuckians consider themselves southerners. Also, Kentucky is south of the Mason-Dixon line.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 4, 2009 22:30:33 GMT -6
Kentucky sided with the North during the civil war, so did Maryland and Delaware. DPIC lists them all as southern for some reason. Kentucky was a slave state. Perhaps that's why.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Jan 4, 2009 23:25:09 GMT -6
I think by southern state they mean states that sided with the south during the civil war. Secondly, Texas is definitely a southern state and so is Kentucky. Oklahoma could go either way. Kentucky sided with the North during the civil war, so did Maryland and Delaware. DPIC lists them all as southern for some reason. They are southern states. They were border states. The states may have wanted to stay with the union but many in those states fought with the Confederate.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Jan 4, 2009 23:26:46 GMT -6
I think by southern state they mean states that sided with the south during the civil war. Secondly, Texas is definitely a southern state and so is Kentucky. Oklahoma could go either way. Kentucky sided with the North during the civil war, so did Maryland and Delaware. DPIC lists them all as southern for some reason. BTW so did Missouri.
|
|
|
Post by 4GodnCountry on Jan 5, 2009 18:48:12 GMT -6
This "This is the lowest number of executions in a long time" argument is pissing me off. If it wasn't for the LI challenge, the numbers would have been a little bit different. They're using it as the DP is falling out of favor or a faulty process argument. What B.S. Laura
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 5, 2009 20:17:12 GMT -6
Kentucky sided with the North during the civil war, so did Maryland and Delaware. DPIC lists them all as southern for some reason. BTW so did Missouri. Forgot that one. Thanks. Actually, DPIC doesn't list Missouri or Ohio as Northern states but Midwestern, meaning that there are no Northern execution because there is no North. There is only a Midwest from Nebraska to Ohio and a Northeast from Pennsylvania to Maine.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 5, 2009 20:59:23 GMT -6
This "This is the lowest number of executions in a long time" argument is pissing me off. If it wasn't for the LI challenge, the numbers would have been a little bit different. They're using it as the DP is falling out of favor or a faulty process argument. What B.S. Laura But there was also 1/3 the amount of sentences handed out as there was less than 10 years ago (not quite a 1/3 - but 284 to 111) - so regardless of the number of executions, either states are less inclined to go after the DP, or juries are less willing to hand out the DP. That's a truer sense anyways, don't you think - since actual executions more mirror the pipeline that started a decade ago.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 5, 2009 23:38:54 GMT -6
This "This is the lowest number of executions in a long time" argument is pissing me off. If it wasnt for the LI challenge, the numbers would have been a little bit different. Theyre using it as the DP is falling out of favor or a faulty process argument. What B.S. Laura But there was also 1/3 the amount of sentences handed out as there was less than 10 years ago (not quite a 1/3 - but 284 to 111) - so regardless of the number of executions, either states are less inclined to go after the DP, or juries are less willing to hand out the DP. Thats a truer sense anyways, dont you think - since actual executions more mirror the pipeline that started a decade ago. Laura, it's pros that went soft on executions, not the antis. The U.S. Supreme Court has never cared about execution methods and probably never will. The DP states, however, keep changing the rules and leave themselves wide open for constitutional appeals each time. The Baze decision was supposed to liberate the DP states from worrying about lethal injection's constitutionality. The machinery of death, however, keeps grinding inexorably to a halt, one state at a time. It's the states that have a problem with capital punishment now, not the U.S. Supreme Court. It's the states that went soft on murder to begin with. Welcome back, Brennan. You were missed.
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Jan 5, 2009 23:42:40 GMT -6
I'm not sure I agree with the DPIC's definition of a 'southern' state, namely because it seems tailored to make the DP look even more southern dominated. Their definition of southern includes Kentucky and Oklahoma, which are more Northern and Western respectively. That makes the South's dominance this year more like 86.5%. Agreed. Further, including Texas as a Southern state is also a stretch. It used to be a separate country, for crying out loud! ;D My husband wears a hat that has the state emblem and "The United State of Texas" around the emblem. It's my favorite hat of his. We were just talking about how much happier we would be if we could just take care of our filth on our own without having to deal w/US courts and the red tape. SUCCESSION NOW!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2009 15:28:40 GMT -6
This line really disgusts me. Do all of these states have the DP on their books??
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 6, 2009 16:12:46 GMT -6
This line really disgusts me. Do all of these states have the DP on their books?? Nope, I believe this includes the 14 that don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2009 17:04:38 GMT -6
36-14=22, still too many.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 6, 2009 17:41:12 GMT -6
36-14=22, still too many. You can tick a few off that would have executed inmates had they not been hamstrung with lethal injection appeals. Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, California, Maryland and Delaware stopped because of lethal injection moratoriums. Nebraska would have executed a double-murderer in 2007 but was stopped by an electrocution lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by 4GodnCountry on Jan 6, 2009 23:17:08 GMT -6
This "This is the lowest number of executions in a long time" argument is pissing me off. If it wasn't for the LI challenge, the numbers would have been a little bit different. They're using it as the DP is falling out of favor or a faulty process argument. What B.S. Laura But there was also 1/3 the amount of sentences handed out as there was less than 10 years ago (not quite a 1/3 - but 284 to 111) - so regardless of the number of executions, either states are less inclined to go after the DP, or juries are less willing to hand out the DP. That's a truer sense anyways, don't you think - since actual executions more mirror the pipeline that started a decade ago. Agreed. Perhaps the prosecution is being more selective... Laura
|
|
|
Post by 4GodnCountry on Jan 6, 2009 23:18:58 GMT -6
But there was also 1/3 the amount of sentences handed out as there was less than 10 years ago (not quite a 1/3 - but 284 to 111) - so regardless of the number of executions, either states are less inclined to go after the DP, or juries are less willing to hand out the DP. Thats a truer sense anyways, dont you think - since actual executions more mirror the pipeline that started a decade ago. Laura, it's pros that went soft on executions, not the antis. The U.S. Supreme Court has never cared about execution methods and probably never will. The DP states, however, keep changing the rules and leave themselves wide open for constitutional appeals each time. The Baze decision was supposed to liberate the DP states from worrying about lethal injection's constitutionality. The machinery of death, however, keeps grinding inexorably to a halt, one state at a time. It's the states that have a problem with capital punishment now, not the U.S. Supreme Court. It's the states that went soft on murder to begin with. Welcome back, Brennan. You were missed. Also true Joseph.... I was just reading the CA decision. If they're taking public opinion, the DP will be a long time coming there. Almost as frustrating as living in IL. Laura
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 7, 2009 9:36:38 GMT -6
Also true Joseph.... I was just reading the CA decision. If they're taking public opinion, the DP will be a long time coming there. Almost as frustrating as living in IL. Laura Public opinion doesn't mean much. It doesn't translate into electoral protest. Californians are an odd bunch. They're quicker than the rest of the country to sentence someone to death, but they keep reelecting state supreme court justices that repeatedly gum up the execution process. The excuse has always been that Californians want to be very sure the executed are guilty, and that there aren't enough qualified death penalty appellate attorneys to go around, but that's crap. The state is bursting at the seams with lawyers, who practice solely at the discretion of the state supreme court. Any one of them can be drafted to perform appellate service for condemned killers. As unhappy as I am with the governor for his soft stance on crime, at least he has, by law, the final say in the parole of murderers and he probably grants parole less often than his counterparts in other states. The average-time-served stats for murder here would seem to support that statement. I think the voters here have seen their last execution ever. The death penalty is dead here.
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Jan 13, 2009 18:05:15 GMT -6
This line really disgusts me. Do all of these states have the DP on their books?? Nope, I believe this includes the 14 that don't. DPIC will do whatever it can to increase the number of states that seemed to be "killing the death penalty." What about in the past 3 years? 5 years? 10 years?
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 13, 2009 20:45:06 GMT -6
Nope, I believe this includes the 14 that don't. DPIC will do whatever it can to increase the number of states that seemed to be "killing the death penalty." What about in the past 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? That was my summation of their data - and folks can get mad at DPIC all they want - some things are twisting figures - but it is definitely true that 36 states haven't had an execution in two years. Sure, we could look at 10 years - 5 years, 20 years, whatever - but I think it is pretty clear that if a state hasn't had an execution in over two years - well, use the term "DP state" loosely.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 13, 2009 21:07:21 GMT -6
DPIC will do whatever it can to increase the number of states that seemed to be "killing the death penalty." What about in the past 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? That was my summation of their data - and folks can get mad at DPIC all they want - some things are twisting figures - but it is definitely true that 36 states haven't had an execution in two years. Sure, we could look at 10 years - 5 years, 20 years, whatever - but I think it is pretty clear that if a state hasn't had an execution in over two years - well, use the term "DP state" loosely. Ok, how do you figure two years should be the rule? Especially since many have been barred from executing for the time being thanks to LI lawsuits?
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 13, 2009 22:16:21 GMT -6
That was my summation of their data - and folks can get mad at DPIC all they want - some things are twisting figures - but it is definitely true that 36 states haven't had an execution in two years. Sure, we could look at 10 years - 5 years, 20 years, whatever - but I think it is pretty clear that if a state hasn't had an execution in over two years - well, use the term "DP state" loosely. Ok, how do you figure two years should be the rule? Especially since many have been barred from executing for the time being thanks to LI lawsuits? Fine - as an anti I'm all in favor of any state that hasn't had an execution in two years calling themselves whatever the heck they want. Sure, they can be a big mean DP state. No execution in two years, and you're fighting for the rights of those states to be called strong DP states? Has it gotten that bad for you pros? Wow.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 13, 2009 23:16:24 GMT -6
Ok, how do you figure two years should be the rule? Especially since many have been barred from executing for the time being thanks to LI lawsuits? Fine - as an anti I'm all in favor of any state that hasn't had an execution in two years calling themselves whatever the heck they want. Sure, they can be a big mean DP state. No execution in two years, and you're fighting for the rights of those states to be called strong DP states? Has it gotten that bad for you pros? Wow. You didn't answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 14, 2009 6:34:19 GMT -6
Fine - as an anti I'm all in favor of any state that hasn't had an execution in two years calling themselves whatever the heck they want. Sure, they can be a big mean DP state. No execution in two years, and you're fighting for the rights of those states to be called strong DP states? Has it gotten that bad for you pros? Wow. You didn't answer the question. My original statement was " but I think it is pretty clear that if a state hasn't had an execution in over two years - well, use the term "DP state" loosely." Average state has a couple hundred murders a year - even on the low end, relatively peaceful states like Nebraska have 50 or so murders. That means over the course of a ten year period, the "potential" pool is 500 or so on the low end of Nebraska - but a few to many thousand for most states. Dance around the "worst of the worst" argument all you like - a murder is a murder, so even picking out the worst, you should be able to find quite a few bad ones our of the 500 to a few thousand. So, if in the course of TWO YEARS, you don't have any of these bad ones coming up for execution - well, in my opinion (and I must be clear that the "rule" that you speak of was my person opinion) - then the state is the anti's favorite kind of state - a big talker with really no walk.
|
|