Ohio lethal injection takes 2 hours, 10 tries - CNN.com

I am so proud to stand with the few countries left, like China, North Korea, Syria and Saudi Arabia, that still allow the death penalty.

:note2: I'm proud to be an American, :note2:where at least I know we can still execute people :note2: we may be totally incompetent at doing it :note2: but who cares, no one can stop us anyway :note2: because we're American :note2: and our flag has stripes on it :note2: and we let people go to the bathroom if it takes too long :note2: :note2: :note2:

Its not like they pumped this guy full of drugs, and it failed 10 time.. they had a problem finding an IV site. So what?? They had to needle stick him more than once. I've had that happen to me when I get my blood drawn. I see nothing at all cruel and unusual about that.

Every phelbotomist has an off day.

Nothing in that article would lead one to believe that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime.

However, at the end of the article it mentioned that a Harvard prof is planning to publish some related articles. They should be interesting to read.

Nothing in that article would lead one to believe that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime.

Huh? From the article:

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

and

“Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it,” said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. “The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.”

and

“The results are robust, they don’t really go away,” he said. “I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?”

There are more quotes and statistics, but that's pretty much the vibe of the whole article.

You only included the statements that support your agenda. Below is more information in the article that you did not post. There were more statements to the effect that capital punishment is not a deterrent, but I won't bother to post them because we can all go there and read them if we're interested. But don't go giving the impression that it is accepted and acceptible that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder as stated by the article you posted a link to.

"Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich’s conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven’t gotten that kind of scrutiny.

At least not yet. The academic debate, and the larger national argument about the death penalty itself — with questions about racial and economic disparities in its implementation — shows no signs of fading away.

"Steven Shavell, a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School and co-editor-in-chief of the American Law and Economics Review, said in an e-mail exchange that his journal intends to publish several articles on the statistical studies on deterrence in an upcoming issue."

You only included the statements that support your agenda.

You're way off base. I don't support the death penalty and I don't have an agenda here. I just said this was an interesting article -- certainly knowledge is never a bad thing, even if it leads you to conclusions you don't like. There were points on both sides, but the whole gist of the article was that studies have been done that say it is a deterrent, which is contrary to what most people have said over the years.

If that is true, why did you only post the side of the argument that gives the impression that recent studies show that the death penalty is a deterrent? You gleaned specific exerpts and said nothing about the parts of the article that disagreed that the studies proved anything.

If you are completely on the fence about this issue, I'm very surprised.

I'm not on any fence. I posted the article because I thought it was interesting and because I've never read any studies that said the death penalty was a deterrent. Of course there are parts of the article that disagree -- that's a given in the media -- they always try to present the other side of anything.

Your statement "Nothing in that article would lead one to believe that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime" is why I posted the excerpts. Of course you can choose to believe whichever study or expert you want, but the article does in fact point out that there ARE studies which point to a deterrent effect.

It will be interesting to see what conventional wisdom shows after all of the recent studies are analyzed.

As you know, there are studies and then there are studies. They're all over the map with respect to almost any topic you can think of. Whether they are credible and accurate is what makes them worthwhile. Not just because we agree with one side or the other, or some clever person has figured out a way to make a case that goes against what most other studies have shown.

For over a hundred years, and in many countries around the world, research has shown that capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. If the tide has changed, it will be very interesting to understand the nature of that change.

Maybe when ALL of the results are in, you'll do us a favor by posting a link so we can read all about it.

Whether they are credible and accurate is what makes them worthwhile. Not just because we agree with one side or the other, or some clever person has figured out a way to make a case that goes against what most other studies have shown.

I found this one particularly interesting because of the quote:

“The results are robust, they don’t really go away,” he said. “I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?”

Maybe when ALL of the results are in, you'll do us a favor by posting a link so we can read all about it.

Do you really think ALL the results will ever be in? There will always be competing statistics and studies.

If we can't rely on the findings from studies that are conducted, then why post the link and why bother reading them?

The fact is that if we are thorough in our research and if the studies are unbiased and properly constructed, we can trust that they will reveal accurate findings.

When a study is done that provides very different results from all of the previous studies, we look to honest researchers to analyze it and publish a thorough accounting of why the findings are so out of the mainstream. Poorly constructed and biased studies are usually only given credibility and deemed reliable by those who WISH they were true, even though they make shocking headlines.

If we can't rely on the findings from studies that are conducted, then why post the link and why bother reading them?

The fact is that if we are thorough in our research and if the studies are unbiased and properly constructed, we can trust that they will reveal accurate findings.

When a study is done that provides very different results from all of the previous studies, we look to honest researchers to analyze it and publish a thorough accounting of why the findings are so out of the mainstream. Poorly constructed and biased studies are usually only given credibility and deemed reliable by those who WISH they were true, even though they make shocking headlines.

Given that there are studies to support just about every position on earth, I guess we just shouldn't believe in anything and there's no reason to read.

If you say so, gadget. I don't follow your logic, but I'm sure you must know what you're talking about.

If you say so, gadget. I don't follow your logic, but I'm sure you must know what you're talking about.

LOL! It's your logic I don't follow. I posted an article I thought was an interesting read because it applied to this subject. You said there was nothing in the article that said the death penalty was a deterrent. I posted some things that did. You said there were rebuttal arguments. I said there always are rebuttal arguments, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to the original article or the studies represented therein. Throughout the whole thing, you accused me of having an agenda, which I don't. But I guess when it comes to you, everything I do is agenda-based. So be it. I'm sure I must have had some sort of agenda which is even news to me.

Nope. You're wrong. You said early on that you weren't for capital punishment because it was a deterrent, and I accepted that as the gospel according to gadget. But I thought it was relevant that you only posted the part of the article that was trying to make people think that there is some new wowie-kazowie study or studies that prove that capital punishment deters crime. The article was filled with information that showed that it was not an accepted study at this point, by many learned people. Consequently I didn't make you out to have an agenda at that point, your behavior did.

You can turn things around any way you like, but if anyone is reading this (which I doubt) they can see for themselves how things unfolded here. It isn't fair for you to blame me for something I haven't said or done, nor is it fair for you to say that I said something or other that I did not say. Come on, play fair.

Nope. You're wrong. You said early on that you weren't for capital punishment because it was a deterrent, and I accepted that as the gospel according to gadget.

. . .

Consequently I didn't make you out to have an agenda at that point, your behavior did.

I have never, ever said I was against capital punishment because it wasn't a deterrent. In fact, that's not why I'm against it -- so I wouldn't have said it. You're putting words in my mouth and then assuming from there that I must have an agenda. I do NOT have an agenda and I do NOT base my feelings about capital punishment on the presence or lack of a deterrent effect.

It isn't fair for you to blame me for something I haven't said or done, nor is it fair for you to say that I said something or other that I did not say.

Show me where I said I'm against capital punishment because of the lack of a deterrent effect, please. If you don't want to waste your time, don't go back and look because you will not find it. What's happening here is you're being just plain contrary: if I post it, you find something wrong with it. Period.