# data[].attributes.body
This is my Instagram follow me for more support so we could get rid of all murderers.

# data[].attributes.body
In the song by Brad Fordyce it was saying he did something bad then the cops came he got away but then later on he go caught. To me the song is saying that you can't get away from justice in a way.

# data[].attributes.body
It is showing that the person is about to be put to death, but Lady justice is looking away that kind of symbolises  the people that don't want it but knows that it is true justice.

# data[].attributes.body
In the video he is just telling you good facts to know about the penalty, if you didn't know about it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Quick Facts About the Death Penalty It is a fact that China executes more people than the rest of the world combined. Here's some quick facts about capital punishment or the death penalty. Quick Facts About the Death Penalty --------------- SUBSCRIBE - http://bit.ly/R1vvcg SHARE THIS VIDEO - http://on.fb.me/1KltzjK --------------- Vsauce, CGP Grey, & Vlogbrothers: Parody!

# data[].attributes.body
In this article Published
September 8, 2017  it talks about how in the court they want to speed up the Death Penalty so they can use it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California court asked to reconsider death penalty ruling

Photo: JOHN DAVENPORT, SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Opponents of a voter-approved measure to speed up executions in California are asking the state Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling upholding the law.

In a court filing on Friday, attorneys for the opponents say the high court's decision unconstitutionally delegates power to the judicial branch.

CHEERLEADER ACQUITTED: Jury says stabbing in college fight was self-defense

Last month's highly anticipated ruling concerned Proposition 66, a push to "mend not end" capital punishment in California.

Condemned inmates in California currently languish for decades and are more likely to die of natural causes than from lethal injection.

ROBBERY IN SF: Man robbed at gunpoint of his bicycle on SF's Market St.

The state Supreme Court upheld the mandate in Proposition 66 limiting successive appeals and filing extensions. But it rejected arguments that a provision setting a five-year limit on appeals was mandatory, raising doubts that the law will succeed in accelerating death sentences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California court asked to reconsider death penalty ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Opponents of a voter-approved measure to speed up executions in California are asking the state Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling upholding the law. In a court filing on Friday, attorneys for the opponents say the high court's decision unconstitutionally delegates power to the judicial branch.

# data[].attributes.body
In the this Article
Published June 11, 2007 it talks about how the Death Penalty actually scares a lot of inmates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.

The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations - pointing out flaws in the justice system - has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.

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.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive."

But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.

"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."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "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?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory - if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

Among the conclusions:

* Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

* The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

* Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.

The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"

"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.

Critics of the findings have been vociferous.

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

"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."

"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished."

Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.

"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."

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.

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.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Studies: Death Penalty Discourages Crime

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey. The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations - pointing out flaws in the justice system - has weighed against capital punishment.

# data[].attributes.body
In this article Published November 14, 2016 written by Austin Sarat it is talking about ho w the Death Penalty should be used more and could benefit us later on.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yet the foundations of the case against capital punishment remain strong and the likelihood of continuing progress toward abolishing the death penalty remains great.

For supporters of capital punishment the most consequential development was the election of Donald Trump. Trump is such a vocal and enthusiastic supporter of capital punishment that, in December of 2015, he promised members of the New England Police Benevolent Association that he would issue an executive order as president containing the "strong, strong statement" that he wants the death penalty for those found guilty of killing a police officer.

"Anybody," Trump said, "killing a policeman, a policewoman, a police officer, anybody killing a police officer: Death penalty is going to happen, okay?"

Trump's election is likely to put on hold any prospect that the Supreme Court will take up Justice Stephen Breyer's recent invitation to his fellow justices to reconsider the constitutionality of capital punishment.

State votes are bad news for death penalty foes

The results of referendum questions on the ballot in California, Nebraska and Oklahoma also brought bad news for abolitionists. Voters in California delivered a double-barreled blow. They rejected Proposition 62, a measure which would have replaced capital punishment for murder with life in prison without parole. They also approved by a narrow margin a separate measure intended to speed up executions. That measure designates special courts to hear challenges to death penalty convictions, limits successive appeals and expands the pool of lawyers who could handle those appeals.

Nebraska voters, by a margin of 61% to 39%, approved reinstating that state's death penalty one year after state legislators voted to abolish it.

In Oklahoma, 66% of voters supported State Question 776 declaring that the death penalty cannot be considered cruel and unusual under the state constitution. It added a provision that "any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution."

Despite these electoral victories, the likelihood of a reversal of fortune for capital punishment is remote. The high costs of capital prosecutions, serious doubts about the reliability of capital convictions, concerns about arbitrariness in death sentencing, and the difficulty of finding reliable methods of execution remain.

These issues have allowed death penalty opponents to build their case state by state, appealing to public officials and offering them a different way to frame opposition to capital punishment.

Over the last decade, that strategy has led to judicial or legislative abolition in New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, Nebraska (a decision reversed by Tuesday's referendum) and Delaware.

Its success can also be seen in the dramatic drop in the number of death sentences handed out across the United States. They have been cut from 315 in 1996 to 49 in 2015.

The number of executions also has declined significantly, going from 98 in 1999 to 28 last year.

Why death penalty is on the decline

These changes have occurred because abolitionists have reframed the way many judges, legislatures, and governors think about capital punishment. The focus of political and legal debates has moved from moral and philosophical abstractions toward a careful consideration of the way the death penalty works in practice. Even after the recent election, public officials can continue to oppose the death penalty by questioning whether its day-to-day practices are compatible with central American values, like due process and equal treatment.

As former Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn explained in 2011 when he signed a bill to end the death penalty, "I have concluded that our system of imposing the death penalty is inherently flawed. Since our experience has shown that there is no way to design a perfect death penalty system, free from the numerous flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment, I have concluded that the proper course of action is to abolish it."

While they did not persuade the citizens of California, Nebraska or Oklahoma, opponents of the death penalty have made substantial progress with the American public. A 2015 national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 71% of Americans believed that there is some risk that an innocent person will be put to death and only 26% thought that there are adequate safeguards in place to make sure that does not happen. That same survey found that 52% of respondents agreed that minorities are more likely than whites to be sentenced to death for similar crimes.

Because of these concerns about the risk of executing the innocent and about racial discrimination in capital sentencing, 42% of the public now opposes the death penalty, the highest such opposition has been since 1972.

Last week's electoral results are a reminder that the death penalty continues to have powerful populist and symbolic appeal, but it does not foretell a comeback for capital punishment. Abolitionists will remain on the offensive, and America still seems to be on the road to abolition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week's election gave hope to death penalty proponents. Balloting in California, Oklahoma and Nebraska as well as the election of Donald Trump seem to foretell a comeback of capital punishment, but Austin Sarat writes that it's not that simple.

# data[].attributes.body
In the flyer it is just showing where the meeting is at and what time to go.

# data[].attributes.body
My name is Marcello Roots my wife and two kids were killed by a armed robber, I support The Death Penalty because  I believe that people who take a life or commit rape should go straight to Death Row.