Let's see...2 percent of Americans are already in jail. Another 2 to 4 percent have either been released or on on parole. The percentage of crooks not yet caught is legion yet we still debate the pros and cons of guns? The problem is a violence prone culture and a weak justice system. Our "scientists" have convinced us that capitol punishment is not a deterrent and that violence in movies is benign yet the USA is as violent as Zimbabwe.
Since NBC sportscaster Bob Costas went on his halftime anti-gun rant on Sunday using words written by Fox Sports Columnist Jason Whitlock, we’ve heard a lot from the media and from uniformed commentators about America’s “gun culture.” The fact is, America actually has two gun cultures and it is important to distinguish them from one another.
The first gun culture is deeply seated in American history and her founding. Founding Fathers like George Washington understood that an armed citizenry would prevent government tyranny, which is why we have the Second Amendment. This is a concept rapper...
"the USA is as violent as Zimbabwe."
The murder rate in the U.S. is 5.22 per 100,000. The murder rate in Zimbabwe is 34.3. And Zimbabwe has the death penalty. Your theory needs more work. And more facts.
I doubt it.
the US certainly does not apply the DP consistently or fairly.
Thus,as leftists/"progressives" intended,it's not as effective as it would be if applied properly.
If the death penalty in and of itself were a deterrent, Zimbabwe would not have a murder rate 6.6 times as great as ours.
The death penalty is not applied "consistently or fairly" anywhere. Never has been. That's one of several reasons to dump it and go with life-without-parole.
If the death penalty deterred murder, Texas would be the safest place in the country. But, of the 15 states without the death penalty, only two, New Mexico and Michigan, have a higher murder rate than Texas.
Your comment would better be directed at Lib Mind who believes the death penalty deters murder. By so stating, he's asserting that the death penalty "causes" murders to decrease. The problem is, he can establish neither causation nor correlation for his argument.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha
You referred to the death penalty as a deterrent (meaning that it prevents some murders from happening, thus reducing the number of murders that otherwise would happen). It is not.
If you'd studied criminal behavior, you'd know that murder, unlike burglary, robbery, and other such crimes, is not typically a repeated crime. In other words, despite TV shows portraying scary serial killers, murder is usually a one-time crime of passion (often aided by alcohol). There is no evidence that the death penalty deters such crime.
My reading comprehension is fine. But your logic is questionable.
According to that chart my stats are correct. Where do you see a divergence?
Those rates are based on murders per 100K population. They do not take into account causation and correlation factors that affect violent crime rates. Someplace like Vermont cannot possibly correlate to Texas unless you filter demographics and other causations from the data and so on.
The death penalty or lack of has little to do with causation.
lawless illegals,felons,all.(it's a felony to enter the US illegally)
Per the Bureau of justice:
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
So following your death penalty = no deterrent logic that would mean there would be 1.9% less murderers committing murder had they been executed or incarcerated for life w/o parole after their first murder.
look at LosAngeles, Chicago, Detroit, New York. I would bet that Texas has a MUCH lower rate of murder despite your claims.