Associated Press – June 11, 2007:
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.
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.
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?“
IF they would Accually KILL those on Death row.
I have to admit, killing me would deter me from doing nearly everything. Except rotting. And probably decaying.
Is that like car crashes deter drinking & driving so we need more car crashes?
RBG
We figured 10:1 in New Zealand. We don’t have ready access to hand guns.
If you can forgive yourself for killing innocent people once in a while, then I suppose the death penalty sounds like a great idea.
Is it the penalty of death that is the deterrent? Or is it the additional penalty of 20-25 years in jail during the appeal process, followed by execution that is the actual deterrent?
I think all capital crimes should always consist of a long prison sentence, followed by execution.
I’m really surprised at how precise and certain the results from these studies seem to be, but I can’t help but wonder…
1) Are more murders deterred when we execute by electric chair rather than lethal injection? How about hanging, or even crucifixion?
2) Are just as many murders deterred if the executed criminal turns out to be innocent, or does that have a negative effect on the deterrent value? Maybe it even has a positive effect, conveying the message that you won’t get off lightly just because you’re innocent.
3) Would the deterrent effect be enhanced if we began performing executions in the public square or on television? Could we upload videos of the executions to YouTube as a super-deterrent?
4) Would deterrence be increased if members of the public actually participated in the execution, perhaps by throwing small, hard objects like rocks at the convicted criminal until they slowly bleed to death?
We might be overlooking some important ways to really increase the deterrent value of the death penalty, maybe even exponentially. Let’s not give up with such meager results.
If you’re willing to trade places with the next inocent victim, go ahead and speak up about what a great solution to crime the death penalty is. Larry Brown used to say ” Penalty !!?- It’s pretty much ‘Game Over’ “.
An observation: sometimes I am amazed by the extreme diversity of opinion within what others would view as this relatively homogeneous group (others might call this blog’s audience as techs, geeks, or wannabes”). Take the sentiments expressed in the comments above: heartfelt; logical; fear-based, or even Gary Marks’ well composed argument for “elevated humanitarian values”. So just imagine how difficult it is for the rest of the world to agree on the really important things, the meanings, the real stuff of life! And how are these matters settled—sometimes I am surprised that mankind has survived even this long.
#7
Many of the murderers commit another murder(s) once they come out.
You can’t deny that any lives lost due to freed murderer could have been saved if the murderer would have got death sentence.
Even if executing hundreds of those convicted for murder could save only 1 innocent person a year, it is still worth it.
And no I’m not blood-thirsty, give the “second chance” to those who deserve it. Obviously someone who took the live of other(s) (what if it were you or someone close to you?) does NOT deserve any second chances. As a proven psychopath (don’t tell me normal people commit murders) should have been removed from society for good. Not on electric chair or anything like that, but they still ought to be killed. Perhaps lethal injection is the most “humane” way, but on the other hand I see no real reasons why society should treat unhumane creatures in a “humane” manner.
Exactly so.
When murderers are executed, they cease killing innocents. When they are not executed, they can – and too often DO – escape or get released, and more people are murdered.
If every death row inmate were executed tomorrow, the number of them who are truly, factually (NOT technically) innocent, and who would die unjustly are by comparison but a tiny fraction of the number of innocent people who would die unjustly at the hands of those same inmates, if they’re allowed to live.
Some peoples’ acts are so utterly, irredeemably unforgivable that they amount to a resignation from the human race. Somewhere between nearly all and all of those on Death Row have, of their own free will, denounced their humanity and waived all further rights to be treated as anything other than vermin to be permanently expunged from society as expeditiously as possible.
Although I support the death penalty, there should be a more stringent application of it than we have now, however. Foremost, no one should be sentenced to death without physical evidence. Circumstantial evidence cannot be enough, no matter how persuasive. It may indicate an overwhelming likelihood of guilt, but that still doesn’t amount to PROOF – and therefore introduces an unacceptable chance of error.
And ‘deterrence’? Well, it once worked fine. Murderers knew that if caught and convicted, they would die. Now, thanks to the tireless efforts of DP opponents, murderers are confident that they run no risk of getting a life sentence, let alone the DP.
That’s what I love about anti-DPs; they take the back off a functioning clock, jam a screwdriver in the works, and then have the gall to claim that it no longer tells time. Without their interference, it would still be a deterrent, and many, many innocent people would still be alive.
Recently we had a man shoot a woman in our town. The guy had two previous attempted murder convictions. One for shooting a police officer. I have the feeling he is not the only one. Also we had a man who killed a family of five. mom dad and school age kids. He sat on death row twenty six years. I am for killing them all and letting God sort it out. I am not sure there are any innocent people.
#12
And what is the main problem there…? Since first attempted murder you people knew this guy is dangerous for your society. Since the judge(s) failed to remove the cancer from your environment, perhaps people in your town should sue the judge?
If a doctors fail to perform such unpredictable (by nature) things like to heal someone – and they often get sued for it – why the stupid judges in our society are free of any responsibility for their actions?
Judge let the murdered get out earlier and someone was injured or killed because of that – sue the judge for conspiracy… no?
If you read the excellent book “Freakanomics”, it presents a convincing argument that the statistics don’t back up the claims that the death penalty deters crime. I can’t remember the specifics, but the arguments seemed quite good.
>>many innocent people would still be alive.
And without the anti-DP contingent, many innocent people would be DEAD.
Ever wonder why prosecutors had their panties all in a bunch over the idea of using DNA evidence to establish the guilt or innocence of people who had already been sentenced to death?
Back in the “old west” they would hang people convicted of rape, and probably kill them with in a week after the trial. And didn’t cost millions of dollars in court and lawyer fees.
I really don’t give a RATS ASS how “humane” it is to give someone a death sentience. Lethal injection, hanging, electric chair.. wouldn’t it be cheaper to just put a bullet in their brain?
I think it would be less humane if they kept the murder in prison for 20 years, getting anal raped by his cell mate every day. Dose it really matter how a convicted murder is killed? Exactly how humane was the murder towards his victim?
>>Exactly how humane was the murder towards his victim?
That’s assuming the “murder” is guilty. Which, unfortunately, i snot always the case.
Barry Sheck (sp?) was on the tube tonight (Charlie Rose?)–he just got another innocent off (up to about 150 now?). What is SHOCKING is how weak the underlying evidence is in these cases.
#11 has it right above. Even if “for” the death penalty, our justice system/rules need to be cleaned up quite a bit.
Still, it bothers me. The USA has has the most murders, the most people in jail, the death penalty and on and on as compared to other developed nations. Maybe Rumsfeld was right that “Freedom is messy” but there is something else going on in our culture that is offputting. Course maybe it is just the amount of gun ownership and the attitudes that fosters?
The study from the brief above seems flawed in that if you don’t get the death penalty, you “typically” are in jail for life, or out when you are too old to control your bladder.
The limit of the article’s argument is, obviously: if we agree to execute everyone except one of us, then the murder rate will go to zero. Unfortunately, that one person left alive will probably commit suicide for lack of human companionship.
My point is: there is no protection against the vulgarities of the human experience. You can not have a world that has zero murderers.
If you fantasize about a world of people that behave just as you expect them, you are a wannabe crazy Despot.
#19, I don’t think we have the same drug crime as other countries.
The deterrent effect is clear, though I don’t think it’s as lopsided as Lauren says. It’s not those executed alone who are being deterred. That number is quantifiable, and I doubt there are that many who are released and kill again.
I agree 100% with Lauren.
If the Death penalty is such a deterrent, how come most countries without the death penalty have significantly lower murder rates than the United States (the only western country with a death penalty)?
And what about the other arguments against the death penalty?
Its not cost effective. Numerous reports have been released saying the cost of court time for automatic death penalty appeals outweighs the cost of incarceration for life.
It is not really justice. If it were just, how come African Americans, who make up 10% of the population, make up half the population on death row? How come males are far more likely to get the death penalty than women for the same crime? And over 90 people put on death row in the last 25 years were later exonerated, a possibility more likely since if you are innocent, you are not likely to accept a plea bargain to a lesser offense.
Its not moral. The Pope doesn’t think so, nor do most liberal protestant churches, nor do most secular humanist organizations, nor does any western nation outside of the US. The second largest country outside the US with a death penalty is Iran.
If shaky evidence of “deterrent” is the best argument pro-death penalty advocates can come up with, its not good enough for me.
The death penalty may have more effectiveness on lesser crimes than killing crimes. People who kill usually do so because of anger or some other emotion or of a mental dis function ( psychopaths and serial killers). The death penalty seems to be a rational response to an irrational crime. The death penalty is also to console the victim’s living family and friends.
I would assume that the death penalty would have no affect on the number of suicide bombings but it may deter some crimes of theft. If people stealing cars knew they would die if caught, they might think twice. But how many criminals think they won’t get caught? Probably a good portion of them. So the crimes might still be committed regardless of the penalty.
Stopping humans from harming other humans is a difficult task. We may have to learn to live with some violence in our lives.
#8
There are innocent people that get sentence to maximum security prisons all the time and yet we don’t talk about their plight which is arguably worse.
#11
> When murderers are executed, they cease killing innocents.
This argument is specious as the alternate to capital punishment is life imprisonment where they are still unable to kill innocents again.
#22
As you said, there are other arguments against capital punishment such as that it costs more. However, the argument that capital punishment is more “moral” is complete nonsense. For that to be true, it would imply that life imprisonment is “more moral” than capital punishment and that is utter bullshit. Try investigating the conditions at Pelican Bay or other super-max prisons. Torturing a person for life is far more heinous than a relatively quick execution. By the way, using the Pope as a moral barometer is incredibly weak. This is the man that defended priests that had molested children, thinks that abortion for any reason is bad and thinks that using condoms is wrong.
#16 FRAGaLOT
um, if you were innocent facing the death penalty, by your comments, would you give a rat’s ass about your own ass?
just curious
By your logic Thomas, we should kill all criminals instead of inprisoning them? If the conditions are harsh enough at prisons that the prisoners are better off dead then that is a symptom of how truly morally corrupt our society has become.
America has a higher percentage of its population in prisons and jails than any other western country. What does that say about our country? I’d say that it is one of two dead canaries that our system is headed in the wrong direction. The other is the declining state of our public schools.
But back on capital punishment, I didn’t just quote the Pope (who is a spiritual leader to more than half of the worlds Christian population), but also the policies of secular humanist groups that make up a large percentage of the non-christian population in America. Even many major protestant churches like Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopalians have come out against the death penalty.
#14 – If you read the excellent book “Freakanomics”, it presents a convincing argument that the statistics don’t back up the claims that the death penalty deters crime. I can’t remember the specifics, but the arguments seemed quite good.
Comment by Skippy — 6/11/2007 @ 9:43 pm
True.
And if you read ANY credible source, the stats do not back up the claim that the death penalty deters crime.
Just a question to the advocates of DP:
There is always a chance that an innocent person is convicted and executed. When that happens you who are citizens of that state/country will collectively be guilty of murder. Can you live with that?
11 / 21. Agreed.
14 / 27. I hear 95% of all statistics are not true. 🙂
18. Do you believe that if 100% gun control were imposed, violent criminals would no longer commit these crimes? Japan just had a public official just get executed and Japan has some of the most strict gun control in the world.
I remember a while back a mother’s organization put together a march that followed on the coat tails of the Million Man March called the Million Mom March (which was more like a couple hundred thousand or so). They were for gun control citing that x number of kids under the age of 5 are the victims of accidental shootings in the home due to the presence of a gun. What was noteworthy was a similar statistic concerning this age group was released; citing that more kids drown in a 5 gallon tub than there are those who die accidentally by one of these guns. Not surprisingly, the death rate associated with 5 gallon tubs was ignored in favor of the less significant death rate of accidental shootings in the home. Should we have imposed 5 gallon tub control?
It also seems the media is all over any situation whereby gun control could have deterred a crime, but they largely ignore any reports of when a gun helped to deter a crime. Apparently this was the conclusion by some professor / doctor who did a long study and talked about it on Sean Hannity’s radio show. I realize there are liberals here who dispise this guy, but discussion was pretty sobering when gun possession does more good than the bad that is reported. I would say further investigation is warranted, but surely trying to say if you eliminate guns you eliminate crime is rather naive.
16: If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit. 🙂
23. I hear the penalty for shoplifting in Saudi Arabia is cutting off one’s hand. From what I also hear, there is a low to non-existant rate of shop lifiting over there. If true, it seems that in this particular case the threat of permanent physical harm is enough of a deterrent to make would-be shop lifters think twice. I think potential criminals hedge their bets and if the consequences are high enough, they think twice. In the case of a murderer, they probably believe they can get away with it anyways. In the end, I won’t rationalize a violent criminal’s behavior nor will I say that a violent criminal should not be faulted for their behavior due to a bad childhood or a genetic predisposition. End their life. Save tax payer dollars, and put more kids through college with the money that we save by not giving violent criminals access to Cable TV and access to an education while serving time.
I think in the end, it’s a tough choice for society. In my opiniong the better choice would be the death penalty. It brings the greatest good / least evil. There are those who will throw the innocent person scenario and although I would never want to be in that situation, this is the same kind of mindset brought on by the much more liberal to justify why a doctor should not be required to notify a 12 year old girl’s parents that the doctor just performed an abortion on their daughter (since the father of the daughter may also be the father of the daughter’s baby). The greatest good in a liberal mindset it seems always gets trumped by the 1% scenario. I think people need to realize that there is no perfect system. Until we find one, we should go by the one that brings the greatest good.
Because of having been a witness in a death penalty case, I have labored over this issue a great deal more than I would have liked. No matter on which side you fall on the issue, if you are unlucky enough be part of the workings of a trial there’s a good chance you won’t leave believing there is a one solution which fits all situations. Anyone on a jury who enters the process thinking, “fry the bastard” or “I would never support a death penalty decision” (and that’s probably the true disposition of most) will likely finish the process temporized and humbled by the what they encountered. Personally, I would like like to see criminals who are found guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever, handled the same as a dangerous virus. At least try to learn something from them that might prevent a recurrence of the same crime. Clearly, the deterrence aspect of the the death penalty doesn’t play the same role in every crime. So regardless of which side is more correct, there will still be issues needing to be addressed. Is the deterrence factor significant enough to sacrifice the opportunity to learn more about how to head off some crimes. Probably, but that won’t mean much to future victims.