Studies: Death Penalty Discourages Crime

[mikem317]

Well, it's been awhile since any capital punishment discussion. So i'd like to take the opportunity to proverbially stir the pot. I'm personally hung up on this issue. I'm a waffler on this issue I guess, but with reasonable understanding considering the gravity of the issue and the punishment. Thoughts?

Studies: Death Penalty Discourages Crime

Monday , June 11, 2007

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 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.

In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.

The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"

"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.

Critics of the findings have been vociferous.

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."

"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished."

Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.

"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."

The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.

Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.)

Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven't gotten that kind of scrutiny.

At least not yet. The academic debate, and the larger national argument about the death penalty itself — with questions about racial and economic disparities in its implementation — shows no signs of fading away.

Steven Shavell, a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School and co-editor-in-chief of the American Law and Economics Review, said in an e-mail exchange that his journal intends to publish several articles on the statistical studies on deterrence in an upcoming issue.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280215,00.html

[Guitar Man]

All I can say is I would think twice before commiting a crime.

[PhilB]

My primary objection to the death penalty is the proven unreliability of the justice system. Even if putting murderers to death saves some lives, it is not right to do so if some of those people may be innocent. Even though criminals will continue to commit injustices, it is not right to commit injustices ourselves.

My second objection to the death penalty is that it is an ultimate power that can then be abused. History shows many examples.

PhilB

[nig]

I can't begin to imagine the methodology they used. How do you conclude that an execution prevents X crimes?

[Guitar Man]

Originally Posted by PhilB

My primary objection to the death penalty is the proven unreliability of the justice system. Even if putting murderers to death saves some lives, it is not right to do so if some of those people may be innocent. Even though criminals will continue to commit injustices, it is not right to commit injustices ourselves.

My second objection to the death penalty is that it is an ultimate power that can then be abused. History shows many examples.

PhilB

As it is with everything, it can be abused.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Guitar Man

As it is with everything, it can be abused.

Right. But government abuse of power is as predictable as the sunrise. So care should be taken to limit the power of government to the smallest amount possible consistent with its limited legitimate duties, so as to reduce the damage of the inevitable.

PhilB

[Guitar Man]

Originally Posted by PhilB

Right. But government abuse of power is as predictable as the sunrise. So care should be taken to limit the power of government to the smallest amount possible consistent with its limited legitimate duties, so as to reduce the damage of the inevitable.

PhilB

Can't argue with you there. But the system is in such a distress that I am begining to wonder if this is even possible any more.

[Wakey]

Originally Posted by PhilB

My primary objection to the death penalty is the proven unreliability of the justice system. Even if putting murderers to death saves some lives, it is not right to do so if some of those people may be innocent. Even though criminals will continue to commit injustices, it is not right to commit injustices ourselves.

My second objection to the death penalty is that it is an ultimate power that can then be abused. History shows many examples.

PhilB

I'm right wing on some (MOST!) issues but it's hard to form another conclusion with this issue.

I've been in many prisons (work) and I can promise you that "life" can be worse than death.

I have seen zero evidence that the death penalty reduces crime..

[cbrsensei]

I can't believe that the death penalty isn't in place in EVERY STATE. What a bunch of crap that we pay taxes thru the !@#$% nose to let shitbags live off of us.

Now before your panties get all bunched up I'm talking about the animals that kill without any reason AND when there is no question as to their guilt. Recently a man in Maine had blown the head off (literally) his stepson. When the troopers showed up he was standing in the driveway, rifle in hand, boys headless corpse on the ground and they had to ask him MULTIPLE TIMES to put the weapon down. WTF!?!?!?

Hello, this should be a prime example of swift justice. I'm not saying that the police should have shot him but with all this "evidence" he should be in court within a week and hung within days of finding him guilty.

I'm not anti-american but one of the things that are seriously f***** with this country are the left wing liberal whine asses that allow criminals to spend the rest of their days (unless of course they are parolled for good behavior) behind bars being supported by the rest of the country.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by cbrsensei

I can't believe that the death penalty isn't in place in EVERY STATE. What a bunch of crap that we pay taxes thru the !@#$% nose to let shitbags live off of us.

Now before your panties get all bunched up I'm talking about the animals that kill without any reason AND when there is no question as to their guilt. Recently a man in Maine had blown the head off (literally) his stepson. When the troopers showed up he was standing in the driveway, rifle in hand, boys headless corpse on the ground and they had to ask him MULTIPLE TIMES to put the weapon down. WTF!?!?!?

Hello, this should be a prime example of swift justice. I'm not saying that the police should have shot him but with all this "evidence" he should be in court within a week and hung within days of finding him guilty.

I'm not anti-american but one of the things that are seriously f***** with this country are the left wing liberal whine asses that allow criminals to spend the rest of their days (unless of course they are parolled for good behavior) behind bars being supported by the rest of the country.

If the death penalty was *only* used for such cases, and never expanded beyond that, I'd be fine with it. But it *never* works that way. There are always efforts to expand it, by some politician who wants to pick up votes by appearing to be "tough on crime". And there are plenty of over-zealous prosecutors who want a conviction regardless and will railroad someone to get it. Don't think Nifong (Duke rape case) is an anomaly; that shit happens all the time, and often doesn't get caught or corrected, especially if the person(s) being railroaded are stuck with a public defender. Those are the kind of abuses that show that such a power is not safe to allow the government to have. If the price of not executing any innocent people is having to pay to keep some of the animals in cages, then fine.

PhilB

[Guitar Man]

Originally Posted by PhilB

If the death penalty was *only* used for such cases, and never expanded beyond that, I'd be fine with it. But it *never* works that way. There are always efforts to expand it, by some politician who wants to pick up votes by appearing to be "tough on crime". And there are plenty of over-zealous prosecutors who want a conviction regardless and will railroad someone to get it. Don't think Nifong (Duke rape case) is an anomaly; that shit happens all the time, and often doesn't get caught or corrected, especially if the person(s) being railroaded are stuck with a public defender. Those are the kind of abuses that show that such a power is not safe to allow the government to have. If the price of not executing any innocent people is having to pay to keep some of the animals in cages, then fine.

PhilB

One thing to remember also is there is a lot of money in the penal sector. Sure we usally only focus on the waste of tax payers dollars. But we have to look at other aspects of this also. People are employed. Which of course means that they get paid and as consumers purchase things and contribute to the nations economy.

[nig]

Originally Posted by Guitar Man

One thing to remember also is there is a lot of money in the penal sector. Sure we usally only focus on the waste of tax payers dollars. But we have to look at other aspects of this also. People are employed. Which of course means that they get paid and as consumers purchase things and contribute to the nations economy.

Always follow the money. There's a lot in the "war on drugs" too.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Guitar Man

One thing to remember also is there is a lot of money in the penal sector. Sure we usally only focus on the waste of tax payers dollars. But we have to look at other aspects of this also. People are employed. Which of course means that they get paid and as consumers purchase things and contribute to the nations economy.

Of course it would be much better if those people were employed in doing something more productive.

If cbrsensei and others are really concerned about the cost of incarcerating people and the waste of their tax money, then what they really should be doing is working to end the War on Drugs. We spend *way* more money jailing harmless pot smokers than we do death row inmates.

PhilB

[Guitar Man]

Originally Posted by PhilB

Of course it would be much better if those people were employed in doing something more productive.

If cbrsensei and others are really concerned about the cost of incarcerating people and the waste of their tax money, then what they really should be doing is working to end the War on Drugs. We spend *way* more money jailing harmless pot smokers than we do death row inmates.

PhilB

+1 on that. I always thought that that was one of the more "thankless" professions. I've known a few prison guards and the conditions that they have to deal with (inmates spitting on them etc.) and my hat is off to them.

[mikem317]

I would also fully endorse any capital punishment initiative in this state (yeah, right, as IF - It is Massachusetts, eh?), if it would be used for child rapists/murderers, those convicted of killing officers, and mass murderers. There should be 1. a clearly articulated list of offenders that are eligible for capital punishment, and 2. the rape/murder can no way be repudiated.