Perhaps you should ask youself, albed, if you're capable of doing your own thinking and contributing something original instead of just ENDLESSLY regurgitating the opinion that you are superior to everyone you encounter based on your simpleton's arrogance and pretending you're "informed" about something.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albed
People with common sense really don't need studies to tell them the obvious but with mass stupidity becoming the fad of the times it's good to have formal proof.
|
Not only were the studies in the original article
NOT "formal proof," you
blithering fuckwad, the article itself plainly pointed out that there's
not enough data in them to draw a conclusion.
From your mindlessly parroted article, which you apparently didn't even bother to read yourself:
Quote:
"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."
The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.
Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.)
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.
|
You're the single most ignorant poster on this board, and always have been. You have zero credibility, and, in conclusion, fuck you and your hillbilly mother.