Comments on: Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say

Hotly Debated Academic Analyses Claim Up To 18 Lives Saved Per Execution

[staplesauce]

Surprisingly, there's no link in the article to allow me to view the actual study. Pretty tough to come up with your 'own conclusions' if you can't even see the primary source.

Any one hear about this from somewhere else and know where I can view it?

Lars-
Its hard to kill someone when your in jail for life to.

And who the hell gets 5 years in an 'enlightened dutch prison' for murder?

[mary-61]

Cruel and unusual? The crimes that those on death row often commit go far beyond cruel and unusual. So you are saying let violent people with no respect for anything or anyone, go on destroying lives and families for the sake of thier rights? They lost their rights when the decided to act as an animal. Do you really want to give them the chance to go back into society and commit more crimes? Then here's an idea move them into your home and you support them! You don't want them around you, you're probably the same type of people who protest when the state wants to build a prison near you. Why is that? You don't want them around, you just have a bleeding heart. Keep on letting those habitual killers out and your heart may someday be bleeding at thier hands. But you will have no pain because they didn't have to die a cruel and unusual death.

[lars008-2009]

one thing for sure... once executed...

that deters that guy from murdering anymore people...

question? if you knew you would only get 5 to 10 years in say an enlightened dutch jail cell...
how does that deter anybody from killing somebody that pissed them off???

http://www.nisnews.nl/dossiers/fortuyn/080806_1254.htm
http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/007887.php

[gunownerdan]

My .45 deters criminals like nothing else can.

a-human-right.com

packing.org

[bostonblakie-2009]

As long as we mere "individuals" are being murdered in cases with no impact beyond a small number of people this argument will go on. However, when the very foundations of a society are put at risk by killers it will then be, "how fast can we hang them?"

[susanhelit]

What you want to believe doesn't matter - it's what is real that matters. If this is true, and since the guy finding it out is anti-DP, sounds like the study is at the least unbiased, then you need to think about it, not just go with the tired cliche that the death penalty isn't a deterrent, if the facts say that it is.

Any policy, any belief, not based on the truth, that wants to hide from the truth, won't last. If the death penalty is a deterrent, you have to face that fact, or at least face the question, and look at the study. You still may be against the death penalty, but hiding from the facts shows your position to be weak and based on a fantasy world.

[andor3]

It's pretty much accepted by everyone who knows about this stuff that the death penalty is not a deterrent, is not less expensive, and is largely illegal and unconstitutional since every means of carrying out the sentence has been ruled cruel and unusual.

That's the only reason this shaky study by some economics (!) prof gets any news--because it goes against the accepted common sense.

But what we do also know is that societies that embrace the death penalty have higher rates of violent crime. So it isn't a great leap of logic to conclude that if YOU think the death penalty is a good idea, YOU are part of the reason our society has so much violence and crime. It's not the criminals on the street, it's the face in your mirror.

[tucano2]

The founder of the "Bobbies" in England had it right observing that severity of punishment does nothing for deterrance, but that CERTAINTY OF APPREHENSION IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE DETERRANCE.

[drivelphobe]

I believe the death sentence is a deterrent, however, if it is only a break-even, it should be used anyway. The cost savings is worth it alone. The death penalty should be implemented swiftly and timely. Perhaps hanging or the guillotine, or a more gruesome process could be thought of. These criminals don't deserve any sympathy nor any form of "humane" treatment. The death process itself might add to the deterrent effect. I can think of a shark tank or the like. Even stoning has an appeal. We sure don't need to waste taxpayer money on lifetime maintenance of these vermin. We could sell tickets to stoners, people wishing to hurl, and make it a fund raiser. I would sign up in a minute for these convicted child molesters. Just because we are a civilized society, doesn't make it innapropiate to teminate the lives of murderers and convicted child molesters using methods they understand. "Die by the sword"

[mary-61]

I don't agree with that totally, dogsoul. Prison for some is a home, that's thier security. People sometimes commit crime to come back. Because in prison they have control. Death on the other hand is permanent. Death scares a lot of people. But for the true hardened criminal i'm not sure. Their hearts are hard, weathered and beaten over the years, i'm not sure if they care about much of anything. In my opinion however, death does prevent repeat offenders and escape or parole. In that I am most sure it is effective. And for some would be criminals I'm sure it would be a deterrent as well. I think it a good think. As for the opposition to the death penalty, well, if someone in prison gets out (one way or another) and murders a loved one, would it comfort you to know that at least that murderer didn't have to face the death penalty so was released to commit the crime. As far as I've seen the criminal in a lot of cases has a different mind set completely. Same as the poor, homeless. I've not done scientific studies, but I'd love to see some studies done. I doubt it will happen because that is considered labelling. And we can't label, because no on wants to admit what they are I guess.

[random_radar]

"n 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and non-negligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions."

60/16692 = 0.4% of murders result in executions.

For all practical purposes, we don't have the death penalty in America.

[mikealford3]

It is an example of actions and reactions. If a child wants a piece of candy, yet he knows if he takes a piece he will be punished, is the child likely to take the candy or not? Most likely it depends on the severity of the punishment. The child is likely to take the risk it the punishment is a mere "don't do it again". Whereas if the punishment a months restriction from television or play station he may not take the risk.

Fact is with people committing crimes if there is a harsh enough and "CONSISTANT" punishment for the crime, the criminal must weigh the possible results and dicide whether it's worth the risk. If a criminal knows for fact, if caught he will die versus being in prison for 25 years, he is less likely to commit the crime. We just neet to be more consistant swift in the punishment of such criminals.

[dogsoul]

Let's at least agree that the CONCEPT that if you kill, you may be killed in return is far from ridiculous... heck, prison is certainly a deterrent right? I mean, if murder were legal or otherwise lightly punished... I think we can agree it'd happen a LOT more often. But I think people are saying that for your avg joe, death doesn't provide any MORE deterrent than prison - i.e. if you're willing to risk life in prison, the possibility of death won't make much more of a difference. But what about people who aren't your avg joe... those who ARE in prison, or HAVE spent a lot of time there? those who can & do influence the ongoings of life beyond the prison walls? I'd venture to guess those people probably contribute heavily to the overall murder numbers... so does death deter THEM moreso than prison? Or at the very least, does the idea that it might really seem so ludicrous?

[cbs_oliver]

It would be interesting to know if Prof. Mocan has also looked at the terror impact of spreading frightening information (true and false) about torture.

The same ideas apply.

Some folks suspect that this may be one of the reasons why stories/accusations about torture are publicized while other stories imply that torture continues.

[cbs_oliver]

I cannot believe that Prof. Mocan is sincere in his description of his values and his research findings. The mathematics of statistics and game theory and other phenomena cannot be employed to produce such simple findings as he proposes from the kind of data that is available. I suspect that the Professor and the AP authors have hidden axes to grind on this matter.

It is true that killing certain specific people who are responsible for commanding others to carry out murders will likely directly reduce the number of murders committed. Some people command murders from prison. But it is difficult to believe that the annonymous government execution of some ordinary punk convicted of murder will even be known about, let alone influence the actions of those contemplating murder.

If what he proposes is true then I suppose we could always pretend that we are killing these people to gain the same effect. Who would know the difference. The economics would be the same.

Gosh! Ain't that what happens with stocks and stuff too!

[brianbwb-2009]

It very well might cause one or two average Joes or Janes to think twice before committing crimes that merit the D.P.

But how about TREASON? How does it deter those who feel they are above the law? Why are not cops who recklessly shoot and kill civilians also subject to it? Politicians also murder, but they call it war, they kidnap, rape, and torture, but call it rendition and interrogation.

Since it is not applied to all citizens of equal merit, it should be applied to none, as it represents a manifestation of "unequal justice under the law".

[gzuckier]

I'm willing to believe that cutting the time delay increases any deterrent effect. Every study on punishment, from criminal punishment to dog training, tells us that. Which is one reason that I'm dubious that the current system of executing a few randomly chosen perpetrators several decades later has a significant effect.

As for the morality aspect of this calculus, i.e. every execution deters several murders, I can't help but wonder if that will lead inexorably to the corollary: since faking evidence, railroading and executing innocent people would have the same effect of deterrence, and would similarly save several innocent lives at the cost of one innocent life, then wouldn't that be the proper moral way to go also? It's not as if we don't ever do that now, so why the presure to stop? Reminds me of the line from "A Thin Blue Line", where somebody says, approximately, "This is a serious crime, and SOMEBODY has to pay." meaning full well somebody, not necessarily the actual perpetrator.

[infidel_us]

Like, you actually, really needed a STUDY for this? And I also know that executions carried out in a reasonable timeframe (not 25 years after the fact) are a further deterence.

[docadams3]

Totalitarian states are pretty good at keeping people safe too. That doesn't make them good.

[sigotratando]

Not all penalties are equal for a reason, & execution seems more of a %u201Ccapital punishment%u201D than boarding for life people who have killed. That you have killed, whether mindlessly or with calculation, shows that you have acted upon a capability to end a human life.

The same DNA test that is now revealing wrong convictions can be used to prevent the same.

Another objection is that it somehow does not %u201Crespect%u201D human life. How does one show respect for life ... by single-mindedly saying everyone must live at all costs (literally); that we must preserve a human life for life%u2019s sake? How easy is that.

There%u2019s the argument that says we are not God to decide who is worthy of life. At the same time, we mindlessly destroy life in our ecosystem in the pursuit of our own satisfaction & growth of economy, making godlike decisions concerning the health & wellbeing of the planet, and we cannot set standards for living for ourselves?

Still another argument that execution is simply barbaric/uncivilized. It%u2019s more civilized or evolved to cage people up for life in a remarkably hostile environment.

Deterrent, to me, is not a issue because it seems that most other laws are not held to the same standard. A punishment is an established penalty that we try to mete out in measure to the offense.