Troubles with professor

[Tabitha]

I am having trouble with my anti death penatly professor unbiasedly reading my prodeath penalty paper. I have used the resources on this website to go with my paper but I believe I am letting my opinion get in the way of creating a paper based solely on factual info rather than opinion. For example, in the issue of deterrence I quoted Sharp saying that there is no way to determine the number of murders that did not occur because of fear of execution. His response was "knowledge is not obtained by looking at what cannot be measured... I can't prove it, it doesn't exist." - which is clearly not the case!

So I need a new approach in the topic of fairness in implementation and criteria for evaluating what is fair with as little emotional arguements as possible.
Anything would help I am pulling out my hair trying to do this without letting my emotions get in the way

[GlennF]

You could use the example of the lighthouse;
Poet Hyman Barshay: 'The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down.'

Here is another quote which highlights the difficulty in proving deterrence:

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
~~John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

There are also cases where criminals openly admit that they didn't kill for fear of the death penalty. Or kill because of no death penalty as in the example below.

www.localaccess.com/wfwc/issue13/pro.htm
If the death penalty was a real possibility in the minds of murderers, they might think twice before ending someone's life. Consider the tragic death of Rosa Velez, who happened to be home when a man named Luis Vera burglarized her apartment in Brooklyn. "Yeah, I shot her," Vera admitted. "...and I knew I wouldn't go to the chair."

Take a look at the two charts, you will notice that when executions virually stopped in the mid 1960s the murder rate exploded! It only dropped in the 1990s after the executions were on the rise. Through the links you can get hold of the actual figures and compare them.
Homicide rates:
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm


Executions
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm

[josephdphillips]

Tabitha said:

I am having trouble with my anti death penatly professor unbiasedly reading my prodeath penalty paper. I have used the resources on this website to go with my paper but I believe I am letting my opinion get in the way of creating a paper based solely on factual info rather than opinion. For example, in the issue of deterrence I quoted Sharp saying that there is no way to determine the number of murders that did not occur because of fear of execution. His response was knowledge is not obtained by looking at what cannot be measured. . . I can't prove it, it doesn't exist. - which is clearly not the case! So I need a new approach in the topic of fairness in implementation and criteria for evaluating what is fair with as little emotional arguements as possible. Anything would help I am pulling out my hair trying to do this without letting my emotions get in the way

Your professor is an idiot, and you can tell him I said so. The claim that something doesn't exist because it hasn't been proven is the classic appeal to ignorance, the argumentum ad ignoratiam.

Furthermore, no "facts" are needed to support or oppose capital punishment. It is perfectly logical to support capital punishment if it doesn't deter people from murder, or even if the murder rate goes up, on retributionist grounds, and it's also perfectly logical to oppose capital punishment on pacificst grounds.

Why? Because capital punishment, like abortion, is a moral issue.

Think about someone you love murdered in cold blood, like the way Nicole Brown was murdered by Orenthal James Simpson. Now think about how you would punish your loved one's murderer.

All the "facts" you need are right there, inside you. Go with that.

[Lauren]

I agree with Joe. Your teacher is an idiot.

Okay, you can't prove the DP is a deterrant so prove sending them to prison isn't either.

Your teacher is letting his emotions run in the way of marking.


P.S- There is evidence Jail doesn't work either.

[Tabitha]

Don't get me started on how big of an ignorant jerk this guy can be, it's just not worth the time. He told me I chose a bad topic and should pick a new one. So I am determined to write this paper and give him information so at least when he makes his anti stance he has heard the other side of the story.

P.S. Thanks for all the advice so far

[crappieboy]

Tabitha said:

Don't get me started on how big of an ignorant jerk this guy can be, it's just not worth the time. He told me I chose a bad topic and should pick a new one. So I am determined to write this paper and give him information so at least when he makes his anti stance he has heard the other side of the story.

P.S. Thanks for all the advice so far

Your professor is just showing how small-minded he is. I wrote a paper for a professor who was totally against the dp. But, I still got an A.

Here's an example from real life. "I knew i was fuked if killed them, fuked if I didn't, so I just shot them. They were just a couple of old people."

[Lisa]

Another argument....somewhere on this site (sorry, I forget where exactly) a murderer said during his sentencing that if he got thrown into the general prison population he would kill a young car thief and they would regret not giving him the death penalty. There have been more than a few inmates given the death penalty for killing prison guards AND other inmates. There are murderers who actually ENJOY the act of killing.

[anti]

knowledge is not obtained by looking at what cannot be measured

Your professor is absolutely correct. Sharp is claiming that positive effects exist which are not measurable. But this is incorrect. Of course we should be able to measure them, e.g. either using comparisons between non-DP/DP jurisdictions or by correlating variations in the use of the DP and murder rates while eliminating confounding factors. This what all these studies are about, including all the studies that Sharp quotes.
The theory behind these statistical methods is lightyears beyond the intellectual horizon of folks like Glennieboy, Phillips et al., so I'm not sure why you seek their "advice".

Apart from that - it is unprofessional to use a highly biased pro-death penalty activist (= Sharp) as a source. His primary interest is to promote the DP, not to provide information. A good paper should rely on impartial information from the most authoritative sources available.

[GlennF]

anti said:

A good paper should rely on impartial information from the most authoritative sources available.

Oh, so I assume you mean Amnesia International.

[Californian]

glennf said:

anti said:

A good paper should rely on impartial information from the most authoritative sources available.

Oh, so I assume you mean Amnesia International.

Or CCRAP! That's a good one, too! ;D

[matthew5v38]

anti said:

knowledge is not obtained by looking at what cannot be measured

Your professor is absolutely correct. Sharp is claiming that positive effects exist which are not measurable. But this is incorrect.

The way it's worded in the post, Sharp is claiming that there is no way to measure the effects. He does not definitively say that such positive effects exist. Not the way Tabitha paraphrased him here.

But I agree with the rest of your post. ---- Tabitha, a truly effective argument proceeds from your opponent's favorite premises. For an excellent argument in favor of the death penalty, I recommend John Stuart Mill's classic:

ethics.sandiego.edu/Mill.html

[Lisa]

Use the following, as well.....a quote by American writer, Thomas Sowell:

People who claim that sentencing a murderer to Life Without Parole protects society just as well as the death penalty ignore three things:

1.) Life Without Parole does not mean life without the possibility of escape.
2.) Life without the possibility of killing in prison or
3.) Life without the possibility of a liberal governor being elected and issuing a pardon.

[Tabitha]

anti said:

knowledge is not obtained by looking at what cannot be measured

Your professor is absolutely correct. Sharp is claiming that positive effects exist which are not measurable. But this is incorrect.

I understand where my professor was coming from in making that statement BUT it cannot be applied to a subject that has so many immeasureable variables like the death penalty. Him saying that knowledge is false until it is proved is similar to saying the world was actually flat until explorers made it around the world. Here's an idea.
We could poll everyone in the US and ask them if they would kill someone if they knew they would not get executed for doing so- then we would know for sure if it has ever detered a murder!
- if this had a simple answer it would have already been answered

* I do understand the need for concrete, measurable facts that is why I posed my question.

[RickZ]

Tabitha said:

For example, in the issue of deterrence I quoted Sharp saying that there is no way to determine the number of murders that did not occur because of fear of execution. His response was "knowledge is not obtained by looking at what cannot be measured... I can't prove it, it doesn't exist." - which is clearly not the case!

Well, I'd take the opposite tack. I'd list the number of murders that have occurred by a convicted murderer (in jail or out on the streets) when that convicted criminal is not executed. Start with Kenneth McDuff. Clearly, these murders were/are preventable by the use of the death penalty, and it's a nonemotional argument.

[vikki]

Tabitha, If you are unhappy with your professor, go to the head of department, explain your situation and ask for your essay to be cross-marked, the head of department will probably do it themselves.

[Charlene]

rickz said:

Tabitha said:

For example, in the issue of deterrence I quoted Sharp saying that there is no way to determine the number of murders that did not occur because of fear of execution. His response was "knowledge is not obtained by looking at what cannot be measured... I can't prove it, it doesn't exist." - which is clearly not the case!

Well, I'd take the opposite tack. I'd list the number of murders that have occurred by a convicted murderer (in jail or out on the streets) when that convicted criminal is not executed. Start with Kenneth McDuff. Clearly, these murders were/are clearly preventable by the use of the death penalty, and it's a nonemotional argument.

Since you can't prove a negative, anecdotal evidence is the best thing to offer.

Arthur Shawcross. In 1973, Shawcross, one of New York's most ruthless serial killers, was convicted of the brutal rape and murder of two children in upstate New York. Since the death penalty had been declared unconstitutional, Shawcross was sentenced to prison. After serving just 15 years-an absurd prison term given the crime-he was paroled in 1988. In a horrific 21-month killing spree, Shawcross took 11 more lives. That is 11 innocent people who would be alive today had justice been served 24 years ago; 11 families that would have been spared the pain and agony of losing a loved one.
~NY Gov George Pataki

Some other good points that can be found on this web site. Particularly on the Articles page: www.prodeathpenalty.com/articles.htm

I've included relevant segments along with the links but you need to read the articles for more:

This one, in particular, perfectly answers your professor's statement.

www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/06-03-2002/vo18no11_fallacies.htm

Death penalty opponents love to assume that the principal purpose for capital punishment is deterrence, possibly realizing it is a perfect straw argument. Tangible proof of deterrence alone is not a valid reason for capital punishment (or any other form of punishment, for that matter), nor is it the main rationale employed by astute death penalty advocates. As Christian writer C.S. Lewis observes, "[deterrence] in itself, would be a very wicked thing to do. On the classical theory of punishment it was of course justified on the ground that the man deserved it. Why, in Heaven's name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? -- unless, of course, I deserve it." Inflicting a penalty merely to deter -- rather than to punish for deeds done -- is the very definition of cruelty. A purely deterrent penalty is one where a man is punished -- not for something that he did -- but for something someone else might do. Lewis explained the logical end of this argument: "If deterrence is all that matters, the execution of an innocent man, provided the public think him guilty, would be fully justified."

Men should be punished for their own crimes and not merely to deter others. That said, the death penalty undoubtedly does deter in some cases. For starters, those executed will no longer be around to commit any more crimes.

---

Several examples of escaped murderers killing again here

www.prodeathpenalty.com/murdock.htm

Life sentences too often are mere challenges for prisoners to escape, terrify law-abiding citizens and sometimes kill again. The death penalty's detractors cannot refute this fact: Even the toughest criminals become remarkably docile once separated from society by six feet of soil.

---

www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder011001.asp

When murderers aren't executed, innocents suffer. Odds are a killer will be released at some point. And there's a fair chance that he or she will kill again. In fact, there's a far greater likelihood of this then of an innocent man taking that long walk.
DON FEDER - Boston Herald

---

Cannot get to the original article but perhaps you can find it during a web search.

Thinking About Crime - the debate over deterrence

Most of us are probably not very well informed about the true costs of crime: being law-abiding, we probably imagine that the chances of being caught are higher than in fact they are, and that the severity of the sentence (measured in years in prison) is greater than it really is.

JAMES Q. WILSON, The Atlantic, September 1983

[matthew5v38]

admin said:

Death penalty opponents love to assume that the principal purpose for capital punishment is deterrence, possibly realizing it is a perfect straw argument.

False. It would be a straw argument if it were both a) easy to defeat and b) held by no-one. In fact it is merely a. But then again, all the arguments for the death penalty are a.

Tangible proof of deterrence alone is not a valid reason for capital punishment (or any other form of punishment, for that matter), nor is it the main rationale employed by astute death penalty advocates.

By implication, President Bush is not astute. Oh well, nothing we didn't know already.

As Christian writer C.S. Lewis observes, "[deterrence] in itself, would be a very wicked thing to do. On the classical theory of punishment it was of course justified on the ground that the man deserved it. Why, in Heaven's name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? -- unless, of course, I deserve it." Inflicting a penalty merely to deter -- rather than to punish for deeds done -- is the very definition of cruelty. A purely deterrent penalty is one where a man is punished -- not for something that he did -- but for something someone else might do. Lewis explained the logical end of this argument: "If deterrence is all that matters, the execution of an innocent man, provided the public think him guilty, would be fully justified."

Bravo! And the same argument works against the "protectionist" arguments advocated by many here at the forum. You can't execute a man to protect the public from him - that would allow you to execute anyone you have a reasonable suspicion is dangerous. You'd be executing him not for what he did, but for what he *might* do, and that goes right against our central ideas of justice and morality.

So the only reasonable reason to execute is that the prisoner deserves it.

But to execute a man because he deserves it is to execute with no intention whatsoever of improving the future. We do it just because of what he did, not because it will improve the future for ourselves or our children. We do not aim to deter future crimes, and we do not aim to protect the public from them. Our sole motivation is abstract - to match one act to another, whoever might be hurt in the process, and thereby appease some dimly imagined goddess of balance weighing faults on some fictitious scale. "Justice" - aiming in no way to improve matters - is merely a remnant of prescientific superstitious thinking. Its home is in religion, not in modern jurisprudence.

[Matt]

All this is well and good, but remember you still need the "A" so you can get into med school. Tread carefully with your nutty professor.

[TexasLady]

And lest we forget Willie Horton. While he didn't commit a second murder, it wasn't for lack of trying.

[TexasLady]

anti said:

knowledge is not obtained by looking at what cannot be measured

Sharp is claiming that positive effects exist which are not measurable. But this is incorrect. Of course we should be able to measure them, e.g. either using comparisons between non-DP/DP jurisdictions or by correlating variations in the use of the DP and murder rates while eliminating confounding factors. This what all these studies are about, including all the studies that Sharp quotes.

No, Sharp is claiming that you can't prove a negative.

While most pros don't claim deterrence, one can't know whether possible murderers are deterred or not.

Can you prove that incarceration of any kind deters crime of any kind? If we put rapists in prison, does that prove that "possible" rapists are deterred? How about burglars? Or shoplifters? Deterrence can't be proven because (let me say this again) one cannot prove a negative.

There's some anecdotal evidence of deterrence, as mentioned above, and you can either take that or not. That's up to you.

Me, I don't really care about deterrence. I just want to see the murdering scum removed from the planet.

[anti]

No, Sharp is claiming that you can't prove a negative.

Wrong. We are NOT talking about proving the non-existence of unicorns. We are talking about deterrence, which is generated by punishment and affects crime rates (in other words: deterrence doesn't just "exist in a vacuum", its effects are theoretically measurable). As pointed out, comparisons between different jurisdictions, or within one jurisdiction over time (correlation: DP / murder) should indeed enable us to measure how many people do NOT murder because of the DP, provided we control for all relevant confounding factors. This is undisputed. The only problem is that people disagree on what the relevant factors are.

Apparently Dudley doesn't understand the basics of the very research he quotes.

[Californian]

provided we control for all relevant confounding factors.

The fly in the ointment for your, or any, proposed statistical model. We don't know all the relevant factors. We never will. And without control for those, as you point out, it's doomed to fail.

However, "deterrence" should not be used to apply to future murders by others. The person executed is deterred forever. I think even the most rabid "ANTI" would agree, however, that there have been cases in which people decided not to murder because they feared the DP.

Which, in the overall scheme of things, is gravy.

[Donnie]

Tabitha said:

So I need a new approach in the topic of fairness in implementation and criteria for evaluating what is fair with as little emotional arguements as possible.

Fairness in implementaton is a false goal. The only true test of fairness is to compare the treatment of the murder victim with the treatment of the murderer. Every murderer is treated more fairly than the murderer treated his victim. Why then should we be concerned about how murderer's are treated with respect to one another? There is no rational reason. What if we give one murderer a color TV and another murderer a black and white TV? Has our gift of a black and white TV to the undeserving murderer been an act of unfairness to him. I never murdered anyone and nobody ever gave me a black and white TV. Does that mean that I should get a black and white TV or a color TV. The argument of fairness in implementation is insane. Murderers have no claim to better treatment than their victims, yet they always receive it. Some murderers never get caught. So unless we assidiously avoid punishment of all murderers, there will always be unfairness in the implementation of punishment of murderers. No emotion is involved in the stark comparison of what is suffered by a murder victim and what is suffered by the victim's murderer. But strong emotion should result when viewing the grotesque unfairness of the treatment of the murderer and his victim.

[Donnie]

Tabitha said:

criteria for evaluating what is fair with as little emotional arguements as possible.

The criterion for what is fair is quite simple. To be fair to two people is to treat them both the same. Thus once the murderer has killed his victim, there is only one way to be fair to the murderer. First he must be treated in such a way that he will have the same exact feelings as the murder victim had before the victim was faced with murder. That means that the murderer must somehow be changed into a person who is not likely to murder and who has the same thoughts about murder that the victim had. A good example for evaluating such a concept would be to the case of Heather Muller (easy to find detailed information with an internet search). Don't forget the Reyuard's syndrome. Then once the murderer has been transformed into a person with the original state of mind of his victim, he must be killed in exactly the same way as the victim with the same degree of suffering. Anything else would be unfair to the victim.

[Donnie]

donnie said:

Don't forget the Reyuard's syndrome.

Sorry, I provided the wrong name for the syndrome that Ms. Muller suffered from. As pennance, I provide this link:
www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/special_packages/carr_trial/4532060.htm

[Donnie]

Tabitha said:

evaluating what is fair with as little emotional arguements as possible.

The case of Mary Alday is another case that can be used to evaluate fairness while avoiding any emotional content. Again, information on this case can be easily found with internet searches on "Mary Alday". There is also a book about the case called Blood Echoes by Thomas H. Cook.

[matthew5v38]

donnie said:

Tabitha said:

evaluating what is fair with as little emotional arguements as possible.

The case of Mary Alday is another case that can be used to evaluate fairness while avoiding any emotional content. Again, information on this case can be easily found with internet searches on "Mary Alday". There is also a book about the case called Blood Echoes by Thomas H. Cook.

The travel agent?

[Californian]

matt said:

All this is well and good, but remember you still need the "A" so you can get into med school. Tread carefully with your nutty professor.

Actually, this is pretty good strategy. One of the ways to handle the occasionally arrogant pricks who teach in universities is to puke back their own misbegotten beliefs at them.

Just make the grade, and then let them know (after you're sure they're never going to be your prof again) that your mind wasn't changed.

They hate that, a revenge is a dish best served cold. ;D

[Matt]

norcal said:

matt said:

All this is well and good, but remember you still need the "A" so you can get into med school. Tread carefully with your nutty professor.

Actually, this is pretty good strategy. One of the ways to handle the occasionally arrogant pricks who teach in universities is to puke back their own misbegotten beliefs at them.

Just make the grade, and then let them know (after you're sure they're never going to be your prof again) that your mind wasn't changed.

They hate that, a revenge is a dish best served cold. ;D

Right. I would say that in most college classrooms, there is a limit up to which one can "debate" a prof in class...at some point it becomes "questioning the general's orders in front of the men..." I figured this out pretty early, when I realized the massive egos at work among the vast majority of my profs. I mean, Jeez, they made us buy all the books they had written for a particular class, then never tested us on any of the material. Just wanted us to buy their textbooks.

I also loved how many of them would threaten us if they ever saw used editions of their textbooks on the course!!! Had to buy the latest editions...

College is a racket, but you gotta play the game.

[RickZ]

matt said:

I figured this out pretty early, when I realized the massive egos at work among the vast majority of my profs. I mean, Jeez, they made us buy all the books they had written for a particular class, then never tested us on any of the material. Just wanted us to buy their textbooks.

Or their buddies'. Income supplement for the tenured.

I also loved how many of them would threaten us if they ever saw used editions of their textbooks on the course!!! Had to buy the latest editions...

Used textbooks are so . . . capitalistic. Just the thought probably had these morons quaking in their socialist Ivory Towers.

College is a racket, but you gotta play the game.

Up to a point. After that point, one is obligated, as the consumer, to report abuse to the proper authorities first. If nothing is done, then other options must be explored. What passes for intellectual vigor coupled with research these days is scary. Ward 'Chief Sh*tting Bull' Churchill somes immeditaely to mind. As does Nicholas De Genova (he of the 'million Mogadishus' comment, where he wish 18 million deaths on the US in Iraq (18 Americans lost in 1993 times a million).

But I agree, academia is a great racket, mafiosa style.