Death Penalty and its costs: new data

I have written posts on this before, but am updating some of the data I presented.

Now, I would like to first note even if I am wrong on this issue, the cost argument is not an argument for the abolition of the death penalty. It is only an argument to reform it. Indeed, limiting appeals would decrease the cost to almost nothing. As Gary D. Beatty argues, is appeals cases are pursued in a fiscally responsible manner the death penalty is much cheaper then life without parole cases [1]. Kent S. Scheidegger has studies plea bargaining (this avoids all trial costs). He finds no cost studies account for these variables, and when accounted for the death penalty is the same cost or even less then life without parole cases [2].

Instead of writing more, I will refer you to an article I wrote with more data on the subject.
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2012/09/04/wait-does-the-dp-really-cost-too-much-an-analysis.aspx








1. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-next-time-someone-says-the-death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison-show-them-this-article
2. http://www.cjlf.org/publications/papers/wpaper09-01.pdf

Should we ban High capacity mags or "assault" rifles?

Obama and the gun controllers are coming out in droves to push their agenda. 58% of America now supports "assault" weapons bans (semi-autos, when called "assault"weapons the number is 55%) as well as high capacity magazine bans. 85% of Americans support background checks, etc. Pew Research has published this interesting poll:





Whoa, people want to ban the sale of ammunition online? That's idiotic. People will argue "lots of cheap ammo online, criminals would love it". Well, they forget, "lots of cheap ammo online: gun collectors, hunters, sporting events, and people defending themselves would love it". Gun controllers really don't understand how gun ownership works. But let's focus on "assault weapons" and high capacity mags.

The poll above made me laugh: they separated semi-automatics and "assault" weapons. "Assault" weapons ARE semi-automatics. The only difference is the aesthetics. Assault weapons are semi-automatics, not automatics. This video further discusses the issue. He takes apart a hunting rifle, but when he changes the parts it looks excatly like an AR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&mode=related&search=

How about high capacity magazines? The question, which favors a gun controllers standpoint in the eyes of the public, can be reversed: How about multiple attackers? In the LA riots, South Korean Merchants were able to keep their stores standing while the stores next to theirs burned. Their high capacity magazines (they were using assault weapons by the way) actually saved lives. Unlike a revolver where, in this case, there is no good reason to waste one of your 6-8 bullets, you can afford 3 warning shots.

Alright, these bans would save lives, right? Eh, no. Both 1999 and 2004 studies issued by the U.S. government finds that while assault weapons crime did fall during the ban, there is no evidence the bans decreased the assault weapons crime. How can this be? First, crime (in all categories) was decreasing in all categories before the ban. After the ban was passed, the crime fell at the same rate. Near 2000, the crime leveled off. After the ban was lifted, crime began to fall. Now, these studies mainly focused on murder. John Lott published two studies (one not peer reviewed) in 2003 and again in 2010. Lott's 2003 study found two things:

1. There is no evidence assault weapons ban decrease crime -- as supported by every single study and most academics (other than a Brady Campaign report)
2. There is weak evidence assault weapons bans increase crime.

Obviously, when looking into other factors, the basic data trends may not be enough. Lott accounted for these variables. In his 2003 study, he found Assault weapons increased crime 1.5% and murder increased 11.9%. He also found rape would increase 3.2% and robbery 9.9%. Only two categories showed a decrease: Aggravated assault, down 4.6%, and Auto Theft, down 12.4%. The Assaukts were not statistically significant [1]. Lott's second study, in 2010, is the only study done since the sunset of the ban. His second study had lower results, with a 3.2% increase in murder, 0.1% increase in assaults, 1% increase in rape, and 2.7% increase in robbery [2]. All of his second study results were statistically significant, whereas many of his first study's results were not.

The assault weapons bans studied had High capacity bans, too. And look how successful these bans where (sarcasm). I hope these new policies are not enacted and these facts come to be recognized.










1. Lott, John R. The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003. Print.
2.  Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print.

Credibility of co2science.org

The credibility of co2science.org has been called into question by CO2 alarmists, websites such as sourcewatch.org have claimed it to be funded by oil companies. Populartechnology.net has listed the credentials of Sherwood B. Idso, president of co2science.org. The credentials are excellent:

Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964), M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966), Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967), Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962), National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967), Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974), Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993), Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974), Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975), Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001), Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Secretary, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980), President, Sigma Xi - The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982), Member, Task Force on "Alternative Crops", Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007), Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), Member, Botanical Society of America, Member, American Geophysical Union, Member, American Society of Agronomy, ISI Highly Cited Researcher, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)[1]

 Idso has had his skepticism well known for many years. 25 years before he made his website, he was publishing in peer-reviewed journals about his skepticism. He also published two books in the 80's about his views on climate change. Idso notes his views and his website do not come from other organizations, rather his personal views of the truth. It comes from reviewing the scientific literature and publishing the results on his website weekly. Reviewing topics from paleoclimatology to the medieval warm period and plant growth. Idso says he has self funded much of his early research, and government funds also helped him, well before any company even thought of funding him to pay for what he is doing now. Idso writes:[2]

That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person. Rather, it was and is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that. ...  So, it is indeed true that we have our point of view, just as the other side of the debate has its point of view; and those views are radically different from of each other. Please study carefully, therefore, the materials that each side produces and decide for yourself which seems to be the more correct, based upon real-world data and logical reasoning; but be very careful about appeals to authority, claims of consensus, and contentions of funding leading to misrepresentation of climate-change science. Although there likely is some of the latter occurring on both sides of the debate, the mere existence of funding, whether from private or public sources, does not, in and of itself, prove malfeasance on the part of the funds' recipients.

Populartechnology.net on another instance further documents the Idso family view on the subject (the first part of the response is to the studies list showing many papers dissenting from AGW theory):[3]

I presume that all of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that appear on the list were written while I was an employee of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service; and, therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my position as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not written any new reports of new original research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying new research reports written by others that appear each week in a variety of different scientific journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these segments of my scientific career, I have always presented -- and continue to present -- what I believe to be the truth. Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I believe, what I say, and what I write.

Similar funding accusations rail against Patrick Michaels, though his funding, like Idso, happens because of his views, his views are not caused by the funding.

The attack on co2science.org, Patrick Michaels, and many others is blatantly false. The majority of skeptics aren't even funded by big oil [3], and other writers (like Roy Spencer, and the majority of other scholars) are funded mostly by the US government. So these attacks of oil funding is only to distract from the real science, because they are losing the battle.




1. Response to the oil funding for many scientists can be found here:  http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4030
2. Sherwood Idso writes about his funding. He explains companies do not dictate his views, only he does that, and the companies only invest in him because of his views, they do not invest to change his views. http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php John Lott in Freedomnomics further explains the funding issues for any scientific quest or political candidate, if you are interested in expanding on the issue.
3. Also has economist Ross McKitrick, Physicist S. Fred Singer, obviously Sherwood Idso, Physicist Richard Lizden, John R. Christy, among others. They all explain they are not funded by oil sources, and if they are/where it did not affect their views because the funding occured after their skepticism occurred. http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html