Reply #29: Let's say the fight is between a polar bear and a penguin...

[Autonomy]

it's obvious the polar bear would win, but it begs the question, what's the penguin doing the northern hemisphere (or the polar bear in the southern)? I can see the billing now: THE CATHARTIC IN THE ARCTIC.

Just kidding. On the square.

Are you using the boxing analogy to explain the unequal distribution of the DP problem, or the lack of deterrence problem? I don't think it works for either. Too many confounds in both. For unequal dist., perhaps the wealthy white women never have special circumstances, such as "in the commission of another crime". For the deterrence part, perhaps it does deter people of a certain socioeconomic group, which is why they have a lower murder rate.

Neither your state-by-state chart, nor your PDF file is really any good for proving anything in this discussion. Could you explain what the FBI chart is supposed to show? There's no population statistics, no race or gender categories, and on a city-by-city basis (assuming all cities are equally populated and have the same socioecomic make up, which is a huge flaw) it seems to contradict your argument. I've looked up the populations of two of the cities:

City
Population 2000: 114,024
Metro area: Ann Arbor, MI (no death penalty)
Murders in 2002: 5

City
Population 2000: 115,930
Metro area: Abilene, TX (death penalty)
Murders in 2002: 4

Seems like the death penalty prevented a murder in 2002 to me. But not really. It's too complex to come up with that conclusion, and the sample size is way too small.

My supporting point is that your statement from the OP, taken literally, invokes the fallacy of small numbers. You won't find enough examples of wealthy white women committing premeditated murder against poor black or hispanic men (or against anyone) to overcome the small sample size problem.