Amnesty 🇪🇸 1 to 1 about pena de muerte / death penalty facts Part 4
Part 1 https://t.me/AmnestyOneToOne/95
So Carolyn Hoyle in this part of the book IS NOT writing bad things! It's exactly like what we are saying! THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR BEING PRO OR CONTRA RELATED TO THE TOPIC DETERRENT! but don't come here with the bullshit "no death penalty = less homicides!" BECAUSE THIS IS BULLSHIT!
https://t.me/LawsTelegram/133
https://t.me/AmnestyShit/116
🖇🤡 https://t.me/addlist/mhZg0973N14wMjMx
and we said previously, Carolyn is not considering all point of views and sometimes is writing bullshit, but she is doing still a better job than Amnesty!
https://t.me/CarolynHoyle
For, as Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd recognize, executions also have costs: ‘these include the harm from the death penalty’s possibly discriminatory application and the risk of executing innocent people. Policy makers must weigh the benefits and costs to determine the optimal use of the death penalty’
Read such posts
https://t.me/DeathSentenceFAQ/377
https://t.me/DeathSentenceFAQ/355
What she is writing:
First, there is the problem of sufficient data.
First, the percentage of people sentenced to death in the United States who actually are executed is minute so the data will always seem insufficient!!
Second...the executions that do occur are disproportionately centered in a few states—indeed, close to a majority in a single state—so the various effects of skewing hamper sound empirical inference-drawing.
The inference drawn is that the fear of capital punishment rather than long imprisonment will not restrain those who are apt to commit murder, because murder usually arises from an explosion of temper or loss of control, from mental illness or defective personality, or from panic when faced with imminent capture.
Why exactly JUST TALKING ABOUT MURDERS!!! IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT MURDERS!
https://t.me/DeathSentenceFAQ/328
We find that the existing evidence for deterrence is surprisingly fragile ...
See next post
Part 1 https://t.me/AmnestyOneToOne/95
So Carolyn Hoyle in this part of the book IS NOT writing bad things! It's exactly like what we are saying! THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR BEING PRO OR CONTRA RELATED TO THE TOPIC DETERRENT! but don't come here with the bullshit "no death penalty = less homicides!" BECAUSE THIS IS BULLSHIT!
https://t.me/LawsTelegram/133
https://t.me/AmnestyShit/116
🖇🤡 https://t.me/addlist/mhZg0973N14wMjMx
and we said previously, Carolyn is not considering all point of views and sometimes is writing bullshit, but she is doing still a better job than Amnesty!
https://t.me/CarolynHoyle
For, as Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd recognize, executions also have costs: ‘these include the harm from the death penalty’s possibly discriminatory application and the risk of executing innocent people. Policy makers must weigh the benefits and costs to determine the optimal use of the death penalty’
Read such posts
https://t.me/DeathSentenceFAQ/377
https://t.me/DeathSentenceFAQ/355
What she is writing:
First, there is the problem of sufficient data.
First, the percentage of people sentenced to death in the United States who actually are executed is minute so the data will always seem insufficient!!
Second...the executions that do occur are disproportionately centered in a few states—indeed, close to a majority in a single state—so the various effects of skewing hamper sound empirical inference-drawing.
The inference drawn is that the fear of capital punishment rather than long imprisonment will not restrain those who are apt to commit murder, because murder usually arises from an explosion of temper or loss of control, from mental illness or defective personality, or from panic when faced with imminent capture.
Why exactly JUST TALKING ABOUT MURDERS!!! IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT MURDERS!
https://t.me/DeathSentenceFAQ/328
We find that the existing evidence for deterrence is surprisingly fragile ...
See next post