Rather annoyingly this morning I made the mistake of leaving my copy of the Independent on the train assuming that the little table of figures I was going to talk about would be online and it doesn't seem to be. Thus you will just have to take my word for it on what I am about to say.The cover of the Indy today (over there on the right) is all about the death penalty and says, if you can read it, "The US already kills more of its prisoners than almost any other country". When you opened page two there was table of figures from Amnesty showing that last year the US executed 53 people (it might have been 54, but it was definitely in the 50s).
In comparison, China had executed over 1000 people, a number of other countries had executed hundreds and counties like Saudi Arabia had a + sign next to them indicating that this was a minimum guess figure because of the state secrecy that existed in the specified nation. In fact, the US was amongst the lowest in the figures of actual executions last year. So what is the truth of the front page headline? Statistical playfulness, that is what. The assertion is based upon proportion of executions to prison populations in different states.
It really doesn't matter what your view on capital punishment may or may not be, the problem remains that the cover of the Indy today is pushing forward a view that the US is on some sort of manical path of human destruction, yet, when you look at the actual number of executions each year compared to say the population of the country as a whole you realise that actually, they don't execute that many people at all.
Now, you may be against the death penalty vehemently, but trying to paint the US with some sort of moral equivalence against say Saudi Arabia is, frankly, pathetic. Of course the Independent is not anti-american in anyway you understand.
Update: The figures I could not see this morning are there now. This is them:
2006 executions
China: 1,010+ , Iran: 177, Pakistan: 82, Iraq: 65+, Sudan: 65+, USA: 53, Saudi Arabia: 39+, Yemen: 30+, Vietnam: 14, Kuwait: 10+.
Update II: Have just corrected the title from the Indy page and added the word 'almost'. My point about the comparison of the headline to the table of figures remains the same.
21 comments:
A deliberate attempt to mislead and reinforce the prejudices of their readership. Just another Indy headline.
Independent? What rubbish. Every day it has some polemic to push as if it were a factual news item, and this one is a miserable and mendacious example.
The story is on line because I covered it myself. It is interesting to note that those States which formally were involved with slavery have the highest prison populations, have the most blacks in prison, and that the majority on Death row are blacks.
On capital punishment, polls consistently show over 60% in favour. However on all the media the commentators are against it and any body in favour is depicted as a raving loon. We can't have the great unwashed telling us what to do that would be too populist.
just to clarify what JailhouseLawyer said, I didn't say the story wasn't online. I said the little table of figures that appeared in the print edition wasn't online.
I think these are the stats which were printed below the article:
2006 executions
China: 1,010+
Iran: 177
Pakistan: 82
Iraq: 65+
Sudan: 65+
USA: 53
Saudi Arabia: 39+
Yemen: 30+
Vietnam: 14
Kuwait: 10+
Source: Amnesty International, based on 2006 figures
+ symbol indicates that the figure is a minimum one; the true figure may be higher due to state secrecy or a lack of available information
Hmm didn;t see those this morning. Ta. Will add them to the post.
Sorry Dizzy but that front page you have there. It doesn't say "The US already kills more of its prisoners than any other country". It actually says "The US already kills more of its prisoners than ALMOST any other country" (Caps mine). That is a fairly significant difference.
And the tenor of the article (which I just read online so I assume it is the same as the print version) is about the fact the President wishes to make the death penalty more efficient and the relative merits of this policy position.
The argument about southern states judicial system is not completely unfounded. As are several other arguments.
Whilst I won't argue that The Independent does veer toward sensationalism, you have misrepresented them. Clearly by mistake, but your original assumption/quote is wrong.
Err whilst you are right to point out that I need a new glasses prescription, my assumption is not wrong at all.
My comment was not on the tenor of the article but the angle of the headline in comparison to the figures in a table on the inside.
I have not misrepsenmted the Indy, you have misrepresented me with a straw man.
Shit House Lawyer - You have never been to the United States, you know absolutely nothing about it except what you've seen on TV shows, your blether about the southern states is based on ignorance, TV dramas and movies - in other words, the entertainment industry which is under no obligation to present facts. They write entertainment.
Just because you hacked an old lady to death when her back was turned doesn't make you an expert on American jurisprudence, you cheap, attention-seeking moron. Your post tells me you know absolutely nothing about the complexities of American justice.
Back to The Independent, they shouldn't be talking about 'the US' killing more prisoners blah blah blah. Like so many people in the socialist British media, they seem to think that the United States, as an entity, has a uniform policy on capital punishment.
This is wrong. (Some people even think the US President is the boss of the states rather than of the federal government.)
The 50 states are independent entities. Some have capital punishment. Some do not. Some states that permit gun ownership allow carry concealed. Some do not. According to the wishes of their voters. Unlike in Britain, where politicians impose their own tender consciences on the unwilling electorate.
Some states have death by lethal injection. Some have death by firing squad. Some give the murderer a choice.
Unless you have done several years' reading on the southern states, SHL, (which your idiotic opinions advertise loud and clear that you haven't) don't favour the world with your observations because you have no background in American history. The United States is a vast, very complex organisation.
Verity, please can you refrain from giving him shit like that here? I;m happy for you to argue with him, but I can;t be arsed with all this "axe killer" stuff, it's actually irrelevant to the fact that his analysis is wrong.
Dizzy, thanks for your hospitality and your interesting blog.
The individual in question predicates all his arguments - indeed, his entire life - on the fact that he committed a brutal murder and then took a course in law while he was incarcerated for it. It is relevant to every post he writes because everything he writes is predicated on his crime. Even his blog name. It is therefore impossible to refer to his "thoughts" without referring to what gave rise to them - his incarceration for hacking someone to death.
Rather than risk abusing your hospitality, I will refrain from commenting on any thread on which this individual makes an appearance.
Kind regards.
Dizzy, I think the point of the article is 1) Bush's attitude about the death penalty and his hypocrisy in proclaiming himself a pro-lifer and 2) the company that it keeps in the list of countries that nfore capital punishment.
I think somewhere in the article it says that 150 Americans are sentanced to death every year, so if only 50 or so are executed every year that implies quite a backlog. If the measure passes into law the UIS should jump up the table.
I don't need an explanation on what the point of the article I know that very well. My issue, is that the statement in the headline and the numbers inside are worlds apart.
As to the company that the US keeps, the country remains a democracy where the death penalty remains a divisive wedge issue that split the country down the middle and depending when you poll and who you find differing results.
However, juxtaposing that with say China, a communist dictatorship where no one gets a vote is weak moral relativism and the article is in fact guided by typical anti-americanism.
I do not however disagree with your analysis that you can be "pro-life and pro-death penalty". Equally you can't be anti-death penalty and pro-choice in mind. Thankfully I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty.
Dizzy, the death penalty does not split the country down the middle. Most states that have it are quite content to have it. Otherwise they would vote to abolish it. Most states that don't have it are very pleased with themselves for not having it, despite having higher crime rates.
Equally, I am pro-life - I don't believe in robbing a life of its opportunity to be born and take its chances at life. A life in the womb is innocent of any wrongdoing or wrong thinking. I am also strongly pro the death penalty, because those people are not innocent. They took one or more human lives and they have to pay with their own.
I am probably the only person posting here who has ever owned a gun, and who lived in Texas and have seen how wonderfully instructive the death penalty and an armed citizenry are for miscreants. An armed society is a polite society.
There's only around 80 executions per annum in the entire US - a country of over 300m. These are carried out after 10 years of tax-payer funded appeals.
There are around 16,000 murders in the US per annum, so I don't think that 80 executions is that big a deal. Most of the murders happen in states without the death penalty.
I have seen polls over the years that suggest otherwise, but I think it is beside the point really and actually we're in general agreement on the matter. I also agree that an armed society tends to be a polite society, at least in my experience of the US. You certainly don't get low-level anti-social behaviour in the US like we do in the UK.
Also, in armed states, Dizzy, you also don't get anywhere close to the level of burglaries and damage to property.
I can only speak for Texas, but I think the law is fairly uniform in states where the citizens can legally bear arms. If someone breaks into your property in Texas, as long as they have stepped over your threshhold - into your "homestead" to use the old original term of a couple of hundred years ago - you can shoot them. The police advise you to shoot to kill. The person should not have been in your house; he knew he was taking a terrible chance (burglars know the law) and, according to the police, if you kindly shoot to wound, he will turn the tables on you. As in, "The lady said she was lonely and would I like to come in for a drink". Or "the gennelmun said he needed help moving his freezer and ast me to come on in and help him shove it forward". Etc. (Also, there's always the possibility that he's armed and it's best to shoot him before he shoots you.)
If you shoot an intruder dead, the police will come and take pictures and a statement and make a report, an ambulance will come and take the body away, and you will be asked to attend the police station the following day and sign a statement. That's about it.
That's why cities in Texas have a negligible number of break-ins. The law is heavily on the side of the homeowner and everyone knows it.
However, here's a caveat for those interested in statistics: if you shoot an intruder, it still counts in the statistics as a gun death, of course.
Thus, armed states often appear to have a significant number of gun deaths. But it is the deaths of people who have deliberately placed themselves in harm's way, rather than innocent people.
It's worth remembering that in unarmed states, only the criminals have guns. In states where gun ownership is perfectly legal and unexceptional, a good half or more of the adult population is armed.
What else can you expect from the Indy. They obviously decided there was a need for a new anti-American angel this morning. Absolutley pathetic. Its not the Americans who have a big business in selling organs from prisoners but the Chinese.
The number of US prisoners being executed actually come from only a handful of states. In reality many states don't use the death penalty even if it is on the statute, while others are moving towards this position. I bet the Indy didn't publish that. No to them all American are blood thirsty, ignorant hicks.
Its amzing, the Indy believes people should be tolerant of others cultures but practises such anti-americanism.
Smith writes: "In reality many states don't use the death penalty even if it is on the statute, while others are moving towards this position."
Could you name those states, please, Smith?
Kansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and South Dakota had no executions last year at all. Colorado, Tennesse, Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Oregon, New Mexico and Wyoming all had two or less. Just short of half the states have below double figure execution rates, and most of those are on a trend downwards.
Incidentally, I am not arguing you here Verity, or arguing against the death penalty, merely pointing out that in the US there are some states that use their statute powers far less, and in some case never, compared to others.. but that's the beauty of state rights, something the EU seems to have forgotten.
Couldn't agree more about states' rights, Dizzy! Damn' straight!
Of course, some states listed above probably didn't have murders in a given time period that would attract the death penalty. New Hampshire,for example, is a tiny state, but it definitely invokes the death penalty when it can (see Mark Steyn, an enthusiastic resident). I think in some states - perhaps most - it's perhaps only first degree murder that attracts the death penalty. There have to be circumstances obtaining that would make it possible for the prosecutor to demand the death penalty.
For sure in Texas, a huge state geographically, with over 30m population, not every murder can have the death penalty applied to it.
Post a Comment