NEW YORK, June 11, 2007

Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say

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

  • 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). 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.

(AP)  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 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:

  • 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.

    Continued



    © MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

    Video and Galleries from U.S.

    Add a Comment See all 81 Comments
    by ammermantm June 11, 2007 9:04 AM PDT
    who commits a crime thinking about the punishment? usually you plan on getting away with it.
    Reply to this comment
    by funkiwiteboy June 11, 2007 9:15 AM PDT
    My guess is the death penalty will deter just about anything attached to it. And when applied to the judicial hiarchy for say, messing up lives just to prove their point, a lot more useless "***" would stop...
    DUH?!?!
    Reply to this comment
    by cvbarnard June 11, 2007 9:23 AM PDT
    Obviously these researchers never sat in a room and had a discussion with someone facing a capital murder charge (or subsequently convicted of that charge and facing the death penalty). I have. Time and again, each one said they weren't thinking of consequences when they took the actions leading to the crime. In general, violent crime is characterized by lack of impulse control not rational thinking. Those who do plan their crimes do not plan on getting caught. So, how is the death penalty a deterrent?
    Reply to this comment
    by oigen June 11, 2007 9:25 AM PDT
    Some 80 % of murders are crimes of passion. You know, where someone hauls off and kills his or her spouse without thinking of consequences. Temporary insanity is what it's called I think. The other 20% or so of murders are cold blooded where the perpetrator is either totally insane, suicidal or could care less of any consequences. Ergo, capitol punishment is hardly a deterrent in most cases.
    Reply to this comment
    by andor3 June 11, 2007 9:30 AM PDT
    Just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other. In one of my early courses, the prof pointed out in England at one time the stork population was correlated with the birth rate.

    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by slim1h2o June 11, 2007 9:33 AM PDT
    Anybody so angry with someone, or impassioned enough, that they want to kill, well punishment be damned, they will act on those passions.

    And regret it later. Usually.
    Reply to this comment
    by oxmyx-2009 June 11, 2007 9:37 AM PDT
    Then the death penalty does not deter behavior- it prevents continuing lethal behavior. That's the continuing debate.
    Reply to this comment
    by kpokey June 11, 2007 9:39 AM PDT
    This is so stupid. If it would have detered crime all these years, the US would have one of the lowest murder rates in the industrialized world. Instead, we have the death penalty, other industrialized countries don't, but we have one of the highest murder rates. Those facts speak for themselves.

    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by zootallures2 June 11, 2007 9:40 AM PDT
    Just add THC to the water supply and all foods.
    Reply to this comment
    by granolaboy1 June 11, 2007 9:40 AM PDT
    I was in a fistfight in my twenties, some guy cold cocked me over a traffic incident. A martial arts enthusiast, I was able to recover from the initial blow, which broke my nose, and overpower my attacker. When he was down, every fiber in my being wanted to finish him. He's probably alive today because San Quintin's gas chamber flashed through my mind, and I simply walked away.
    Reply to this comment
    by kpokey June 11, 2007 9:43 AM PDT
    What the death penalty does do is show the people in a society that murder is an acceptable way to get back at people. It shows that the government will murder someone to get back at a crime that person committed. That cheapens life in a society and makes it more likely that people will kill to get back at people.
    Reply to this comment
    by gunownerdan June 11, 2007 9:43 AM PDT
    It is best for everyone when dangerous criminals are stopped by those they intend to victimize. Self defense is the most basic of human rights and criminals prefer unarmed victims.

    a-human-right.com

    packing.org
    Reply to this comment
    by boiseriver June 11, 2007 9:50 AM PDT
    The study referenced in this article addressed the wrong question and appears to be seriously flawed. There may be some general deterrent effect from executions. The real issue is does the death penalty offer more general deterrence than alternatives such as life in prison w/o parole? The volume of research on this question suggests that there is no difference. Given the problems associated with executions, no wonder public confidence is slipping.
    Reply to this comment
    by barbaraf4 June 11, 2007 10:07 AM PDT
    The death penalty deters REPEAT violent crimes.
    Reply to this comment
    by lawandorder7 June 11, 2007 10:15 AM PDT
    Thsi is so far off the board it should not even be on this site as news. The death penalty DOES NOT deters REPEAT DOES NOT deter violent crimes. If it did why do we have so much of it. Look what has happen in just the last year. This is sick, as news it is real sick. One more time, The death penalty DOES NOT deter, REPEAT DOES NOT deter violent crimes.
    Reply to this comment
    by antoniof123 June 11, 2007 10:15 AM PDT
    Capitol punishment many try to argue that it is about justice. Well, look at our justice system when business has more rights then people. No capitol punishment is about vengence pure and simple so if you can accept that then you should not have any problem with it.
    Reply to this comment
    by BlueInWI June 11, 2007 10:30 AM PDT
    Yep. And forced sterilization deters sudden infant death syndrome. Doesn't make it right. The few murders that are prevented by the death penalty does not justify the fact that society itself is committing murder - and has in the process murdered innocent people in some instances.

    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).
    Reply to this comment
    by theusa1st June 11, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
    The real issue is does the death penalty offer more general deterrence than alternatives such as life in prison w/o parole? The volume of research on this question suggests that there is no difference. Given the problems associated with executions, no wonder public confidence is slipping.
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by berniepeders June 11, 2007 10:38 AM PDT
    A lot of people, myself included, feel that if someone commits a crime atrocious enough to warrant the death penalty, and killing them will make us feel better, do it. Hey, I'm not thinking about the consequences either, but doesn't it cost a lot of our tax dollsrs to keep the dregs of society locked up year after year?
    Reply to this comment
    by sigotratando June 11, 2007 10:42 AM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by sigotratando June 11, 2007 10:51 AM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by sigotratando June 11, 2007 10:54 AM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by docadams3 June 11, 2007 10:57 AM PDT
    Totalitarian states are pretty good at keeping people safe too. That doesn't make them good.
    Reply to this comment
    by infidel_us June 11, 2007 11:03 AM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by gzuckier June 11, 2007 11:09 AM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by brianbwb-2009 June 11, 2007 11:09 AM PDT
    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".
    Reply to this comment
    by cbs_oliver June 11, 2007 11:09 AM PDT
    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!
    Reply to this comment
    by cbs_oliver June 11, 2007 11:17 AM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by dogsoul June 11, 2007 11:34 AM PDT
    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?
    Reply to this comment
    by mikealford3 June 11, 2007 11:44 AM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by random_radar June 11, 2007 11:50 AM PDT
    "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.
    Reply to this comment
    by mary-61 June 11, 2007 11:51 AM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by drivelphobe June 11, 2007 11:58 AM PDT
    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"
    Reply to this comment
    by tucano2 June 11, 2007 12:03 PM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by andor3 June 11, 2007 12:21 PM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by bostonblakie-2009 June 11, 2007 12:37 PM PDT
    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?"
    Reply to this comment
    by susanhelit June 11, 2007 12:37 PM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by gunownerdan June 11, 2007 12:42 PM PDT
    My .45 deters criminals like nothing else can.

    a-human-right.com

    packing.org
    Reply to this comment
    by lars008-2009 June 11, 2007 12:43 PM PDT
    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
    Reply to this comment
    by mary-61 June 11, 2007 12:52 PM PDT
    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.
    Reply to this comment
    by staplesauce June 11, 2007 12:54 PM PDT
    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?
    Reply to this comment
    by staplesauce June 11, 2007 12:54 PM PDT
    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?
    Reply to this comment
    by staplesauce June 11, 2007 12:54 PM PDT
    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?
    Reply to this comment
    by intheknow2 June 11, 2007 1:10 PM PDT
    Studies about "Does X deter Y" are an utter farce and complete waste of time.

    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?
    Reply to this comment
    by dogsoul June 11, 2007 1:17 PM PDT
    "It's pretty much accepted by everyone who knows about this stuff that the death penalty is not a deterrent"

    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?
    Reply to this comment
    by dogsoul June 11, 2007 1:26 PM PDT
    "If punishment were a deterent to crime then there would be no crime. Thus, since there is crime, punishment is not a deterent."

    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...
    Reply to this comment
    by lars008-2009 June 11, 2007 1:26 PM PDT
    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?
    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
    Reply to this comment
    by andor3 June 11, 2007 1:30 PM PDT
    Mary-61 writes:
    "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!
    Reply to this comment
    by andor3 June 11, 2007 1:35 PM PDT
    dogsoul writes:
    "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.
    Reply to this comment
    by intheknow2 June 11, 2007 1:35 PM PDT
    Dogsoul....what also comes with the enactment of any new law? I can not tell you how many "LifeTime Afterschool Specials" about not drinking and driving that I had to watch in High School, so really the DUI laws do not have much to do with reduction in crime, but public awareness does.
    Reply to this comment
    See all 81 Comments
    • MOST POPULAR
    • Viewed
    • Commented
    Latest News
    Featured Blogs