NEW YORK, June 11, 2007
Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say
Hotly Debated Academic Analyses Claim Up To 18 Lives Saved Per Execution
-
Photo
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). (AP / file)
-
Interactive
Capital Punishment
Learn about the death penalty in the United States. Check out statistics, history, famous trials and more.
-
Interactive
Crime Beat
Statistics and specifics on crime in America.
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 away 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:
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from U.S.
-
Video
Obama Wishes Happy 4th
-
Video
Thanks To Teddy
-
Video
National Mall Needs Work
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 81 CommentsDUH?!?!
These "scientists" would probably conclude not only that storks brought babies, but feeding storks a pound more bread would result in an increase of 1.25 babies per fortnight.
It's just too hard to sort out what causes what in something so complex, with so many delays and feedback loops, and where you can't set up a controlled experiment. And assigning specific numbers is really weird science--at least the story shoudl include the margin for error in the conclusions.
And regret it later. Usually.
And look at states that have it versus states that don't. The murder rate in Texas (has the death penalty) is high vs. the murder rate in North Dakota (doesn't have the death penalty) is almost non-existant. It doesn't look like it's detering any murder.
a-human-right.com
packing.org
Vengeance and hate tends to spread and is a characteristic that has led to the fall of many advanced civilizations (e.g. preemptive war in Iraq isn't having a great affect right now).
Posted by boiseriver at 09:50 AM : Jun 11, 2007
The convicted should get one appeal. The expense of all the appeals now is in the multi-millions of dollars. The cost of life without parole is multi-million dollars. Therefore execute within one year of sentence and then spend the money saved now spent on convicted criminals and spend it on the deserving where it will do some good.
Murderers and child rapists get no sympathy from me...get rid of them all. Less victims means less problems in the future.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
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.
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.
60/16692 = 0.4% of murders result in executions.
For all practical purposes, we don't have the death penalty in America.
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.
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.
a-human-right.com
packing.org
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
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?
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?
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?
If punishment were a deterent to crime then there would be no crime. Thus, since there is crime, punishment is not a deterent.
The majority of all crime is committed out of a preceived necessity to comit the crime.
Also, no on here can say "The death penalty deters me from committing murder" You can not say because you have not been placed in the situation where killing someone seems a viable option.
Who wasted the money on this study? And yes, I too would be interested in actually reading the report and see how they measured everything. Also, from "who" did they ask, "Does the death penalty deter you".
Even if a criminal, who only several harmed a person, but did not kill them because of recieving the Death Penalty, the criminal still committed a crime, so really what was dettered?
No... it's pretty much accepted by everyone who does not believe in the death penalty that it is not a deterrent - and it's the stance that gets the most air time.
"That's the only reason this shaky study by some economics (!) prof gets any news--because it goes against the accepted common sense."
Common & readily observable sense dictates that the tougher the consequences, the greater the deterrent - anti death penalty advocates have gotten THEIR press largely because it contradicts this argument, SO much so in fact that people like you now claim YOUR stance follows common sense guidlines.
"But what we do also know is that societies that embrace the death penalty have higher rates of violent crime"
That's called implied causation & is INDEED a leap of logic - could it not also mean that societies that have higher rates of violent crime are more LIKELY to embrace the death penalty?
That is the most ridiculous reasoning I've seen in a long time... if we had no punishment associated w/ crime, there would be infinitely more crime than we experience today. Just look at DUI laws, since they've been enacted - DUI fatalities have fallen thru the floor despite many more drivers on the road. I don't mind a good debate either way, but come ON man... let's look alive out there...
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?
Posted by StapleSauce at 12:54 PM : Jun 11, 2007
who doesn't??? and who actually serves life???
they all get out on parole, especially with overcrowding...
you cannot find it do to the liberal internet censors....
and you thought the internet had freedom of speech.... just like in china... google kowtows to islam and liberals......
Googled
Google has been accused of censoring writers critical Islamic fascism such as Arlene Peck, and those critical of Liberals in general. Google refers to them as promoting "hate."
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/peck2b.htm
"Cruel and unusual? The crimes that those on death row often commit go far beyond cruel and unusual. [...] They lost their rights when the decided to act as an animal."
You may be unfamiliar with the values and laws of the USA, they differ from other countries. Their constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment and gives certain rights to people, regardless of their being criminals. Of course certain human rights are universal also. US courts have ruled on the methods of capital punishment being cruel and unusual (not the punishment itself, which is still debated). Not sure what country you live in, but you wouldn't last long in the USA or any civilised country!
"That's called implied causation & is INDEED a leap of logic - could it not also mean that societies that have higher rates of violent crime are more LIKELY to embrace the death penalty?"
You emphasize my point--the logic in the study is flawed and the conclusions suspect.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 81 Comments