hal@finney.org wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > ... given the statistics of risk of being killed during a rape, robbery, etc,
> > there is a significant probability of deadly harm in such events, and given
> > that its been proven that you are at least 30% more likely to survive such a
> > crime if you are armed with a gun, then not carrying one is simply stupid.
>
> I checked US crime statistics at http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm,
> and I find that in the most recent year shown, 1998:
>
> Violent Crimes: 1,531,044
> Murder: 16,914
>
> Only 1% of all violent crimes lead to murder. Also, I believe I've read
> elsewhere that a substantial fraction of murders do not occur in the
> context of a robbery, but rather are crimes of passion committed by people
> who know the victim. This would further lower the chances that a mugging
> or similar violent encounter with a criminal could lead to your death.
The claim that 'killer knows the victim' is a false claim. The FBI statistics of
the 'victim knowing their assailant' are based upon the fact that someone you
know in your neighborhood or community is considered an 'acquaintance'. The drug
dealer that hangs out on your corner may not be your freind, buddy, or
significant other, but they are, as far as the FBI is concerned, your
'acquaintance'. An assailant may be far more acquaintend with you than you are
with them for the simple fact that many criminals case out their targets.
Whether its a stalker, a robber, a rapist, or a muderer, assailants do typically
know many facts about their targets merely as a matter of the predator
researching his prey. It does not mean that they were in any way on freindly
terms of any kind or relationship.
Moreover, as I have already told you several times, but you seem to be pointedly
ignoring, is you have no idea which type of crime YOU are going to be a victim
of. Hoping for the best possible outcome from the worst sort of person is
polyannish and stupid thinking.
> If you're prepared to kill in response to robberies and other violent
> crimes against yourself (as I believe Mike and others advocate) then you
> must accept that there is a 99% chance that you are NOT defending your
> life, you are rather applying the death penalty to a sub-lethal crime.
Possibly, however, someone who is less likely to want to kill me is also more
likely to either flee or surrender, whereas the determined murderer is not.
>
> I am curious, do people who advocate using guns against robbers also
> support the death penalty? And would they support expanding the range
> of crimes which deserve death, since they are personally willing to kill
> in response to sub-lethal crimes? Would they even go to the point that
> they would support the death penalty for robbery?
Actually, as it is currently adjudicated I don't support it, because the stats
don't show it having any impact on crime rates, and the frequency with which
innocent men have been convicted demands past convictions be reviewed and
evidence tested. With DNA testing, though, I think that capital cases should be
speeded up greatly, with fewer appeals, in cases where there is corroborating
evidence for each category of means, motive, and opportunity. Cases with a dozen
eye witnesses and a corroborating chain of evidence that links the suspect to
the weapon to the victim should not be able to appeal on technicalities.
Currently only a small percentage of murderers ever get the death penalty, or
are even convicted for that matter. Making justice surer and swifter will have a
deterrent effect that is closer to that shown by civilians carring their own
weapons.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:38:55 MDT