[quote name='pittpizza']There ya go, way to make an admission.
You also stated that in my "arguements you have raised have relied more on emotion then reason." I am not emotionally attached to the issue of deterrence. I have nothing vested in it, nor is it really an emotionally charged topic of debate. All of my arguments have been based in reason, go back and look at them and you will see. They are based on my experience, subjective and objective reasoning, the USSC, Myke's data (harsher punishment resulted in lower crime rates), my education (both undergraduate and law school) in coursework dealing with the law and crime, and various other sources, non of which have anything to do with emotion.[/quote]
Let's deal with the "it makes sense" analogy. Although I still insist (and you've agreed) that you're seeing a social pattern of behavior and imposed an explanation on it that you have not proven (logical fallacy of affirming the consequent), you start with a naive generalization that you have not proven. You made a claim, early on, that you yourself are proof deterrence works because there are *TONS* of crimes you would commit if you could get away with them. You're right about yourself, at the very least (god help you if you aren't), but you're incorrect in assuming that the majority of Americans would do the same thing. You're making an unproven claim by suggesting that most Americans would commit crimes, given the opportunity.
Now, this all falls into your "it makes sense, so it must be true and I don't need no stinkin' evidence" claim that deterrence works (that ol' Beccarian chestnut). As I pointed out earlier, there are a number of claims that can be made that "make sense." The defiance response "makes sense" (harsher punishments lead to greater crime because people rebel against what they perceive as an unfair state). What about religiosity? Americans are, on the whole, rather religious folk - so who's to say that Americans are repressed would-be criminals (your deterrence claim), and that they aren't good, religious, do-unto-others types who would not succumb to the temptation to commit a crime? That "makes sense" too.
Ultimately, as for deterrence, it's a *theory* of crime. And theories are never proven - the ones that last the longest are the ones that have the most difficult time being disproven. If I have a theory that crime occurs because people don't watch enough "Jeopardy!", and find no correlation between criminality and Jeopardy watching, my theory won't last long. Deterrence is lucky that, it's somehow lasted this long, not as a result of supporting evidence, but because it's such a romantic framework for politicians to use (see my Pee-Wee analogy again).
Now, as for the "harsher punishments resulted in lower crime rates," I said nothing of the sort. That's deterrence. Bruce Western's phenomenal book, "Punishment and Inequality in America," is a well-written and thoroughly researched statistically book that reports findings attributing increased punishment rates and prison spending ($52Billion) account for 1.5% of the crime drop in the 1990's (so, about 13-15% of the overall 10-12% decline). Other factors accounted for the remainder (that is, the majority) of the decline.
Hell, go grab a copy of Levitt and Dubner's piece of shit attempt at sociology, "Freakonomics." The first chapter makes an ultimately poorly proven, but more plausible than the pap you're trying to pass off as proof, claim that the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973 accounted for the crime decline in the early 1990's (hypothesizing that poor and minority children (i.e., those most crime prone) were disproprtionately aborted, leading to a smaller pool of would-be criminals at age 18 (which they would have been starting in 1991).
Now, as for your claims about the USSC, give me the citation. You couldn't even retain, properly, the 4 guiding theories of corrections, and you have a limited notion of what "data" and "proof" are, so I'm very curious why you're still hiding behind court opinion (particularly given the internal contentiousness of that court). I'm curious where they said deterrence works, and how they use it for proof.
As this regards Vick, this is ultimately based on some sort of magna carta nonsense that there is a deterrent effect of celebrity punishment. Which is absurd, because deterrence is, at a theoretical level, premised upon the collective populace agreeing that a punishment is so severe so as to make even thinking about committing that crime unpleasant. Now, tell me *ONE SINGLE CELEBRITY* who has been publicly punished that they public *perceived* to have received a deserving and/or harsh sentence? Did the public think Paris Hilton was treated harshly? Those in the Bush Administration responsible for leaking Valerie Wilson's name and identity to Bob Novak? Those responsible for violating FISA? OJ Simpson? Robert Blake? Lindsay Lohan? Nicole Ritchie? Name me a single celebrity who has received a sentence that the public thought was either just or too harsh. Mel Gibson?
Your whole theory is premised on the fallacy that the public *can* view celebrity punishments as too harsh or just right. The public *fumed* that Paris Hilton got off easy, despite the LA Times' own research discovering that she served more jail time than 85% of people who had committed the same sequence of crimes she had.
As to your medevil analogy, you have the parties switched. My view (the one generally accepted by the legal community, our elected legislatures, the US Supreme Court, and incidentally the three Pa. Superior Court justices which I happen to be clerking for) would be akin to that of Copernicus'; the one challenging it would be the myopic astronomer. And welcome to the party!
Yeah. Sure. Nobody supports punitiveness anymore; all the politicians are getting elected on trying to be nicer and nicer to criminals and prisoners.
Cut me the "I'm the marginalized one" crap. You're just as misinformed as the majority of the public.
You STILL have yet to provide any probative stats or data and havent supplied anything from "objective reality", I on the other hand, based my assertion (that deterrence exists) almost solely on reality, both my subjective reality and commonly accepted objective reality. Also it is worth repeating that you also proved my point for me earlier: Harsher penalties (your data) + decreased crime (your data) = deterrence. Again for your future reference, take a tip from the professionally trained: Don't give your opponent his ammunition. 
any type of Racism in all. I dont even see color, I really dont see what the big deal is. 
Its an interesting question considering why humans have such affection for some species and indifference towards others? Why are some animals pets and others only treated as food or worse?
