The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence
What the paper simply write: there is no evidence,
means no way to show with high quality scientific studies that cannot be applied at all, that a death sentence is effective.
What people understand when they read quickly just the title: a death sentence is not effective.
This is not what the paper is saying! It clearly says
there is no positive or negative evidence, because doing proper studies would be unethical, especially if we would removed all factors that influence such values.
This doesn't happen just with the prison, but even in many other topics. We cannot crash a plane to study what are the effects ... we cannot tell a patient "please eat 0 kcal, because i want to check how many days it requires before you die".
There are so many scientific questions that cannot be answer, due to ethical problem with such studies ...
Studies show no link between the presence or absence of the death penalty and murder rates https://perma.cc/6P4Q-SP5JIf the death penalty is not a proven deterrent to murder (= MEANS NO REAL POSITIVE STUDIES), is it worth the excessive costs, risks of error, uncertainty of completion, and other problems that are inherent to its practice? —> so since we cannot answer that by science, we use factors like errors during execution or the price to say "it's not ok" —> we
cannot say "scientifically there is a negative evidence!"
Even saying "murders are less" is bullshit, like we showed in previous posts, because yes, maybe in one US state this is the case, in another one is totally fake saying that ...
Plus even if there is an increase or decrease, can we really say "it's due to the death sentence?". Canada was the best example. An increase without that ...
https://t.me/WomenRightsTelegram/340So instead of checking half of the information, let we really check facts:
- scientific evidence: NEUTRAL or better
NOT POSSIBLE TO ANSWER DUE TO ETHICAL ISSUES
- more / less homicide = bullshit
- cost: not clear
- wrong sentence / errors: depends
