Effectiveness?

It says:

Unless you can find another two sets of stats that coorelate, I'm going to assume that those are extremely biased and that you're an idiot.

Also, it's trying to say that there's a prejudice against blacks in there. That's probably not the case. Remember that, especially in the south, the high-crime low income neighborhoods are mostly black as a result of discrimination before the civil rights movement. And again, there are more of those areas in the south than in the NE.

Also, remember that a lot of death row pardons happen because of the governor being against the death penalty, or BS insanity pleas.

And honestly, if someone was sentenced to death row there would have to be really, really good evidence. It couldn't be circumstance and a witness. There should be good DNA evidence. For example, some guy who goes around raping and killing people would have enough evidence to execute.

That's not the argument, though--the argument for the death penalty being prejudiced is that a disproportionate number of blacks are given the death sentence when compared to whites convicted of the same crimes, not that more are given the death sentence overall.

Well, remember that some angry idiot getting drunk and killing someone in a bad neighborhood, may have more evidence against him than a killing in, say, a drug war. Juries like lots of evidence before they'll send a person to death row.

What are you talking about. Evidence shouldn't factor into it after the person's been convicted. This is the argument for prejudice within the system (with made up example statistics).

-300 black dudes are convicted of armed robbery
-100 white dudes are convicted of armed robbery
-50 black dudes are sent to death row
-10 white dudes are sent to death row

Proportions!

And to make things simple, that's 1 in 10 white dudes vs. 1 in 6 black dudes (although those numbers are just numbers)

Evidence is what the Jury uses to decide if they are going to recommend the death penalty, and in most states the death penalty can only be invoked if the jury recommends it unanimously. So yes, evidence DOES factor into the death penalty vrs life in prison debate.

Regardless, chainsawed by the locust horde, really. Is that to harsh? Fine, fine. Hammer of dawn then, okay, pansy?

It absolutely should! A jury is unlikely to use the death penalty unless there is really really good evidence. A good bit more than needed to simply convict.

I'm anti-capital punishment, but pro-Hammer of Dawn.

Because my standpoint is based on mercy, compassion and seeking to better society for all while yours is based on vengeance, cruelty and seeking to slake a population's bloodlust.