Death Penalty deterence: Reply to the DPIC

The DPIC, death penalty info center, is an anti death penalty site. Its owners are all abolitionists. Now, the claim of deterrence in their database has many arguments—all flawed—buts lets focus on one: 88% of criminologists think it does not deter. Yep, that's the argument. Instead of numbering the numerous fallacies this falls into lets merely look into the claim head on.

Now, what the DPIC ignores is the important fact that 100% of the criminologists for question twelve answered "yes". In other words, they concede the DP may deter some. Just a major fact they where missing. Now, question eight noted 61% of criminologists think there is valid evidence deterrence exists in peer reviewed studies. But they must agree with this as 16 studies (slightly higher now) agree with the deterrence hypothesis. In question six it was asked if the DP significantly reduced murder, 57% said this statement was false. Here is the catch: this means 43% think it is (or is possibly true). That is a huge minority that cannot be overlooked. Questions 1-3 is where the 88% number came up, again ignoring the 100% number. However, these questions where not even relevant to the DP, and where poorly worded, leading to weak results. Also in relation to question six, they never defined significant giving bias towards the abolitionists.

Further, the study was biased. Dudley Sharp notes:

"This Survey was funded by Sheilah's Fund at the Tides Foundation in San Francisco and was arranged through the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) in Washington, D.C.

 

The Tides Foundation Death Penalty Mobilization Fund's sole purpose is the end of the death penalty. Sheilah's Fund is a direct contributor to anti death penalty efforts, as well. 

 

The DPIC is one of the leading anti death penalty groups in the US and, in my opinion, is one of the most deceptive.

 

Prof. Radelet has been one of the most active anti death penalty activists for decades. 

 

Jeffrey Fagan is a ASC Fellow and has been an anti death penalty activist for decades."

(Sharp 2009)

So this study isn't even accurate anyway. And remember question 12, 100% of criminologists think the DP deters some.

Overall source:

Dudley Sharp, "Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock," Justice for all, <http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx>

 

Response to media matters Carlos Maza

Carlos Maza in his media matters column criticisms FOX news for citing a recent study which has claimed homosexuals are not the parents we thought they where. He argued his data shows the opposite to the APA's no difference claim and notes heterosexual parents are indeed superior.

He cites examples of poor methodology, his source? Equality matters. He is titled a researcher, but citing that really disqualifies him. Even the FRC websites cite credible studies making them superior to other think tanks. His main criticism is its failed comparison. But I doubt he has even read the study!  Regnerus actually controls for the marriage gap through regression, and therefore needn't compare them the "right" way. Now, I agree with the assumption this should not be THE evidence, as more studies are needed on the subject. He quotes Regnerus out of context. In reality he said he just is a starting point. He never said his study was false. However, studies looking into his brief note, "Regnerus (2012) provides convincing evidence that various young adult outcomes are associated with having a parent who had a same-sex relationship."[1]

Sure, its not the evidence or holy grail, but it is a start and is the best study on the issue. In reality, his study is supported by basic social science anyway. So really his theory cannot either be treated as gold nor like dirt. It should be, however, considered the best we have for now.

Now, the article then criticises the fox news writer:

1. His first criticism is arguing the man is biased and should not cite pseudoscience. However, his argument is the one using pseudoscience. The Regnerus has gotten much praise and criticism, however all of these criticisms are actually either showing the readers of the study cannot read (I doubt he even read the study). Basically, the study itself refutes most criticism. A great deal of its refuted by Osborne [1]. 

2. He then says the writer ignores this "credible" evidence the gay agenda has. The Fox news author rightly states we need the data that doesn't exist for no differences theory. However, all previous studies have methodological problems such as almost literally no sample size, bias authors (homosexual authors), statistically insignificant results. I will just make bullet points:

• Unclear hypothesis or research design


• Missing or inadequate comparison groups


• Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements


• Non-random sample sizes, much of the time other participants asked other friends to join or advertisements put up


• Samples too small to get any valid results (all studies had this problem except Cameron 1996)


• Missing or inadequate statistical analysis [2]

 In another analysis:

• here is no nationally representative sample. Most of them are non-random, selective, etc.


• They also express concern about small sample sizes as homosexuals are a small group, and although many studies have moderately sized samples they too have the non-random problem.


• And this study has even worse concerns: the outcomes are biased as they only look into psychology and not into the child’s well being like sociologists would look into (many of the unisex parenting advocates arepsychologists).


• And another great concern is that there is no long term studies, they are all short term. All of them are questions saying how are you now… None of them (or at least ones that claim “no difference”) follow them to adult hood.[3]

 Where is the "credible" in evidence?

If you are interested in the truth, either use blogs with accurate citations and credible studies (like this), and stop citing equality matters.....



[1] Cynthia Osborne "Further comments on the papers by Marks and Regnerus," Social Science Research, vol. 41, issue 4, (July 2012)
[2] Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D. “No Basis: What the Studies Don’t tell us about Same-Sex Parenting,” Marriage Law Project, Washington, D.C. (January 2001)
[3] aggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker “Do Moms and Dads matter? Evidence from the social sciences on family structure and the best interests of the child,” Margins Law Journal, (2004)

Is no differences theory correct?

No differences theory: The no difference theory states ON BALANCE children of gay parents—married or not—have little differences then those raised by married heterosexual couples. "The widely circulated claim that parents engaged in same-sex relationships do just as well as other parents at raising children—a claim widely known today as the "no differences" thesis."[1]

This is not about gay adoption laws, this is merely if homosexuals on balance raise "no difference" kids. 

Now, a mere Google of the subject gives you an onslaught of  gay parenting papers that they are "not" different. However, these papers are usually dated to the nightnties. And these papers have been discredited. Two sociologists note, “We conclude that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing. Therefore, they should not be used in legal cases to make any argument about ‘homosexual vs. hetero- sexual’ parenting. Their claims have no basis.”[2]

All of these studies had unclear data sets, hidden data (would not give them out for research), bias, too small of a sample size, non-random samples, etc. All of the studies had at least two or more methodological problems meaning there is  “no basis” for the theory. 

In 2004, another analysis gathered the same results as the report in 2001. They have gathered many experts in their law review who really say no conclusions can be made at the current time. They all agree, however, children are raised best with biological parents. In many court cases they show the judges who ordered the research for a specific case usually argue no decision can be made from the evidence. They conclude:

Studies comparing children of single lesbian mothers with children of single heterosexual mothers cannot credible be used to contradict the weight of social science evidence in general on the benefits of the married, intact biological family over alternative family forms [3].

The review also cites many studies not looking directly into gay parenting, however the evidence does conclude children to best with a mother and a father. Two men might make good fathers, neither can be a mother. 

Now many can argue sure, the evidence is flawed, but I have no evidence myself and, therefore, my argument is invalid. Here is the problem: I have evidence. 

Many have argued lesbians are the best parents (specifically lesbians). However, the social science concludes this, “something unique to fathers that provides children with different opportunities to regulate their emotions”. Mothers, too, have different effects on a child's outcome. She acts an an equal, unlike fathers who act like teachers, which help grow a child's emotional stability. Further, even if the woman is lesbian, her nature is to be more lenient unlike fathers which are, on balance, more strict then women. Nearly all evidence (just looking at father/mother differences) have shown without one a child grows differently. And this is a fact. Two men might be fathers, neither a good mother, two women good mothers, neither a good father [4].

 Further, it has been observed homosexuals (even when married) are less stable. Children like stability. Much of the time these homosexuals are previously married and them coming out of the closet leads to much turmoil. It has also been shown the absence of a mother or father (even if it is temporary) harms the children’s development.  After controlling for marriage laws (he has a weighted system controlling for “possible” marriage “discrimination”). He found even after controlling for marriage those families where much less stable. And as he noted “children like stability”. These homosexuals have more affairs, fights, higher parent molestation rates (sadly), and more of them had gender problems. Most of the population is straight, only 3% is gay, and the study found much higher homosexual rates coming from these homes. This means, likely, these parents can affect these children’s outcomes. Whether this is good or bad is irrelevant—it is still a difference—and I would prefer not get into a debate on whether being gay is ok. Further, he has found based on his interviews a statistically significant difference amongst the groups of their perceived negative impacts. Family of origin negative impacts when comparing heterosexuals and homosexuals had a significance of (P < 0.05) which is significant in this study. Overall academic achievement was also lower in homosexual groups [5].

When I cite this, many argue the APA (a highly credible source) has argued no difference theory is correct. However, the studies the APA claims to be fact are weak. 26 of 59 have no comparison groups. When a group existed, rich homosexuals where compared with poor single parent families (leading to bias), none of their studies had a large enough sample size to be statistically significant (small sample size basically destroys its credibility...), the definitive claim the APA has is not well supported by the studies [6].

Note on sources: all of them are accessible online.

[1] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640

[2]  Robert Lerner and Althea K. Nagai, “No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting” Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, (2001)

[3] Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker “Do Moms And Dads Matter? Evidence From The Social Sciences On Family structure And The Best Interests Of The Child” Margins Law Journal, (2004)

[4]  A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D. “Gender Complimentary and Child-rearing: Where Tradition and Science agree” QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW, Vol. 6, (2005) 

[5] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)

[6] Loren Marks, “Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)

Gun control: the response to Aurora?

A delayed response... I know. I don't think anyone follows this blog anyway :P

How many of you have heard we need more gun control in response to Aurora? We need "sensible" regulations? In my former posts, we have seen there are many benefits to guns, for example the 2.5 million defensive usages a year outnumber the amount of times they are used in murder (Kleck 1995). We have also seen more guns, such as conceal carry, has reduced crime in the United States (Lott 1997, Moody and Marvel 2008, Lott 2012, and many others). The question here is, though, does gun control work at reducing these crimes? You know, if these regulations worked this would be a sensible response. On the surface it also makes sense. However, when examining the facts, that "sensible" solution seems to fall apart.

Many saw the need to limit the possible bullets one could sell. The current proposals say a sensible regulation would be 1,000. Other then the fact prepers would get pissed, would this stop mass shootings? Unlikely. Most shootings have months or years of planning and investment put into them.  It would still be possible to legally buy all the ammunition, just spread out the purchases. And they could easily go to some black market venue, or reload their shells from previously used ones (for those who don't know what reloading is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handloading).

Others say we need a magazine cap. But this was ineffective when tried in 1994 in the assault weapons ban! Crime in states that passed these bans murder actually rose 11.9% on average. And no credible evidence suggests the ban has had any positive effects. Studies usually have found "mixed" results, and two separate analysis's have found increases in crime [1][2].

But lets look into the most common argument on this issue: Assault weapons serve no purpose.  There are two problems with this: 1) this is false, and 2) this logic does not work.

Lets start with one... obviously. Although well placed shots can take down a deer from an assault rifle (generally .223 caliber), it is usually used for small game like rabbits. Why? When you shoot it, unlike with a thirty caliber, you would actually have meat left. And even better: they shoot at high speeds making them more beneficial for the job. Although other weapons, such as pistols, shoot at the same speed or faster they are less accurate. //these guns purpose is used in crime!!!// Um... actually assault weapons are only used in .20 percent of all violent crimes [3].

Wait, I heard from the Brady campaign and John Kerry they have no purpose! Deer hunters don't need guns, and there is no sporting purpose. Sorry to say, assault weapons are a great sporting weapon. Literally many gun sports revolve around the existence of these weapons. Here is the fact:.

"In fact, the AR-15, M1 and M1A -- semi-automatic rifles that gun control say are "assault weapons" -- are the rifles most commonly used for marksmanship competitions and training in the United States, such as the NRA's National Rifle Championships, the Civilian Marksmanship Program's National Matches, and the regional, state and local competitions that precede the national events each year. All 1,300+ men, women and teenagers who competed in the National Trophy Rifle Matches in 2010 used semi-automatic rifles that gun control supporters say should be banned as "assault weapons."[4]

No sporting purpose is a lie. It is the most common used weapon in sports and I dare say that it has no purpose to the 1,300 Americans who have been in competitions. And this does not count the thousands, like me, who shoot these things at paper which is considered a "sport". So, really, when you see blogs and opinion articles with no references (other then the Brady Campaign or another such organization), know they are liars.

And, anyway,  this logic is flawed. Even if it was true, that's not a justification for banning assault weapons. Lets use an example, grapes. Grapes have no purpose as they are not needed to be healthy, use strawberries instead. No, this argument does not work. One must give a compelling reason to affirm or justify the assault weapons ban. Saying there is no reason to to X is not compelling. Many might criticize me as my position on Same Sex marriage uses that logic, however [maybe if I remember] in a later post I will explain the harms that some if SSM is allowed and my argument invalidated.

So if they are right: they lose. If I am right: they lose. If their laws pass: we lose (higher crime).

Also, gun control never has worked. Here is an important piece of information: the theater was a gun free zone. Its a textbook example of gun control failing, it was already like a gun ban in there: as extreme as it can get. So how are more laws that criminals ignore help? Seriously, its like putting a speed bump in the road will stop me from getting to my house...

Now, any of you out there still support gun control? I ask this question: Name one gun ban that has reduced crime. Just one. Why do I ask? Because you cant.

Here is a good fact to begin your research if you are trying to find a ban that has decreased crime: "Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar. In the four years after the U.K. banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40%. Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."[5]

Hey, wait a minute, the UK has more gun control and lower crime!

Hey, guess what, Israel has an extremely high gun ownership and no crime, same as switzerland.

And, anyway, this logic does not prove your point. Using these comparisons hardly makes a case for gun control.  Ideally, one must examine the crime rate before and after the law in trends to examine the actual crime change of these laws. To correctly estimate a policy and its effect on crime, one must find and isolate the variable they are trying to prove (or disprove, or just find an answer) its effect on crime. NO STUDY HAS DONE THIS THAT PROVES GUN CONTROL WORKS, the ones that properly do these studies either find no correlation between guns and crime or more guns less crime [1].

So, is gun control the response to Aurora? No.


[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
[2] Lott, John R. "The Bias against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard about Gun Control Is Wrong." Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2003.
[3] http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
[4] http://www.gunbanfacts.com/Get_the_Facts/Ban_Supporters_Wrong/no_sporting_purpose.aspx
[5] http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/crime/gun-laws-dont-reduce-crime/

Liberal myth: Republicans hurt us from 1998 - 2008

I have heard claims saying republicans have ruined America from 1998 - 2008, and that we are now paying the price. Let's break down their points.

1. Clinton surplus ruined by republicans

This is the most common claim. We ruined the surplus. This is false, there was never a Clinton surplus. Not defending the Bush deficit increases -- they did exist -- Clinton never really had a surplus. You can have a surplus but have billions in debt (odd isn't it?) Clinton increased deficits by 281 billion, he didn't decrease it by 350 million.

Using Treasury department data we see in no year dud the debt decrease, and debts increased BEFORE the bush administration.

Highly researched articles hold the data:
1. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16/
2. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30

2. Tax cuts failed!!

Did they really? No. The Clinton tax hikes slowed growth, growth didnt occur until a REBUBLICAM congress cut taxes. The bush tax cuts saved us from the 2000 recession, and the 2008 recession was caused by other factors.

1. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/setting-the-tax-record-straight-clinton-hikes-slowed-growth-bush-cuts-promoted-recovery

3. They caused recession, conservatism failed

First, they didn't cause it. Clinton and Carter did.
Second, the policies implemented by Bush to stop the recession was similar to obamas, It's a case study showing liberalism fails.

For more on that,:

1. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/democrats-caused-the-recession-and-republicans-tried-to-stop-it/
2. http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/recession-2008-clintons-contribution/
3. http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2008/09/jimmy-carter-bill-clinton-share-blame.html?m=1