Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say

[Gabu]

Gabu I don't know the methods used. I just posted an article from the Associated Press because it sites a statiscal study as opposed to BRTD's comparison of states with and without the death penalty.

Well, it's not exactly of any more worth if all it is is just some article stating conclusions with no information whatsoever on how they were arrived at.

[David S]

Gabu I don't know the methods used. I just posted an article from the Associated Press because it sites a statiscal study as opposed to BRTD's comparison of states with and without the death penalty.

Well, it's not exactly of any more worth if all it is is just some article stating conclusions with no information whatsoever on how they were arrived at.

Found the study. Its at http://econ.cudenver.edu/home/workingpapers/2001_18.pdf

[Tender Branson]

Moreover, Texas used to execute peole on an average of 4 per year in the 1980s. Now it executes an average of 20 people per year, but its murder rate has gone up, not down.

What is your source for the murder rates?

According to this http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
it has gone down by about 50% or more since the 80s.

It´s true that Texas's homicide rate went from 16.9 in 1980 to 6.2 in 2005.

But you should further note that the rate in non-death-penalty-states also declined over that period, from a low level to a even lower level.

I pointed out that Verily's statement was incorrect. Is there a problem with that?

No, I just provided you an argument that the reduction of a homicide rate on a high level to a still high level 25 years later should not be used as a justification that the death penalty deters upcoming homicides, especially in the light of non-death-penalty states which have lowered a then low rate even further in the last 25 years.

For example the rate of Hawaii declined from 8.7 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2005.

Perhaps a more fair comparison would be to use the USA as a whole rather than Hawaii.

For the US as a whole http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm the murder rate dropped from 10.2 in 1980 to 5.6 in 2005. That's a reduction of 45%. For Texas the reduction was from 16.9 to 6.2, a drop of 63%.

Why compare Texas with the US ? Lets compare Texas with NY, a state with a death-penalty statute, but with no execution taken place in the last 45 years.

NY is an excellent example why the DP is no deterrent:

You said TX's homicide rate went down 63% in the last 25 years. Wow !

But look at NY: The rate went down from 12.7 to 4.5, a reduction of 65%.

Your point is therefore disproved.

[David S]

Moreover, Texas used to execute peole on an average of 4 per year in the 1980s. Now it executes an average of 20 people per year, but its murder rate has gone up, not down.

What is your source for the murder rates?

According to this http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
it has gone down by about 50% or more since the 80s.

It´s true that Texas's homicide rate went from 16.9 in 1980 to 6.2 in 2005.

But you should further note that the rate in non-death-penalty-states also declined over that period, from a low level to a even lower level.

I pointed out that Verily's statement was incorrect. Is there a problem with that?

No, I just provided you an argument that the reduction of a homicide rate on a high level to a still high level 25 years later should not be used as a justification that the death penalty deters upcoming homicides, especially in the light of non-death-penalty states which have lowered a then low rate even further in the last 25 years.

For example the rate of Hawaii declined from 8.7 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2005.

Perhaps a more fair comparison would be to use the USA as a whole rather than Hawaii.

For the US as a whole http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm the murder rate dropped from 10.2 in 1980 to 5.6 in 2005. That's a reduction of 45%. For Texas the reduction was from 16.9 to 6.2, a drop of 63%.

Why compare Texas with the US ? Lets compare Texas with NY, a state with a death-penalty statute, but with no execution taken place in the last 45 years.

NY is an excellent example why the DP is no deterrent:

You said TX's homicide rate went down 63% in the last 25 years. Wow !

But look at NY: The rate went down from 12.7 to 4.5, a reduction of 65%.

Your point is therefore disproved.

Hold on there cowboy. If you want to do it right you need to compare all states and take other factors into account too.  But unless you are a really talented statistician that would prove to be quite a challenge. But that's what the study does.

[Tender Branson]

Moreover, Texas used to execute peole on an average of 4 per year in the 1980s. Now it executes an average of 20 people per year, but its murder rate has gone up, not down.

What is your source for the murder rates?

According to this http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm
it has gone down by about 50% or more since the 80s.

It´s true that Texas's homicide rate went from 16.9 in 1980 to 6.2 in 2005.

But you should further note that the rate in non-death-penalty-states also declined over that period, from a low level to a even lower level.

I pointed out that Verily's statement was incorrect. Is there a problem with that?

No, I just provided you an argument that the reduction of a homicide rate on a high level to a still high level 25 years later should not be used as a justification that the death penalty deters upcoming homicides, especially in the light of non-death-penalty states which have lowered a then low rate even further in the last 25 years.

For example the rate of Hawaii declined from 8.7 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2005.

Perhaps a more fair comparison would be to use the USA as a whole rather than Hawaii.

For the US as a whole http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm the murder rate dropped from 10.2 in 1980 to 5.6 in 2005. That's a reduction of 45%. For Texas the reduction was from 16.9 to 6.2, a drop of 63%.

Why compare Texas with the US ? Lets compare Texas with NY, a state with a death-penalty statute, but with no execution taken place in the last 45 years.

NY is an excellent example why the DP is no deterrent:

You said TX's homicide rate went down 63% in the last 25 years. Wow !

But look at NY: The rate went down from 12.7 to 4.5, a reduction of 65%.

Your point is therefore disproved.

Hold on there cowboy. If you want to do it right you need to compare all states and take other factors into account too.  But unless you are a really talented statistician that would prove to be quite a challenge. But that's what the study does.

I stand by my opinion that these studies are just bent in the one or the other direction, just what result you like. There are numerous other studies which show that there´s no deterrent effect:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Link

You know, there´s this saying:

"If mathematics is the handmaiden of the sciences, statistics is its whore."

Lets agree here that we don´t agee, and don´t call me a cowboy

[Gabu]

Gabu I don't know the methods used. I just posted an article from the Associated Press because it sites a statiscal study as opposed to BRTD's comparison of states with and without the death penalty.

Well, it's not exactly of any more worth if all it is is just some article stating conclusions with no information whatsoever on how they were arrived at.

Found the study. Its at http://econ.cudenver.edu/home/workingpapers/2001_18.pdf

Oh, thanks.  I'll have to check it out when I get home.

[MaC]

Plus, since when did Libertarians advocate for capital punishment?

Like abortion, it was never part of the platform-so please don't pidgeon hold us.  Although I don't support the death penalty...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Interesting, that study indicates that the higher the unemployment rate, the lower the murder rate.  No wonder Europe has a lower murder rate.

[NDN]

I don't really care about deterrence to be blunt. Some people are just too violent and costly to have in society, or to have indefinitely imprisoned. I'd prefer to execute violent repeat offenders, as opposed to having them rot in prison (at tax payer expense) or get out on parole then inevitably rape/kill/maim again.

[David S]

I don't really care about deterrence to be blunt. Some people are just too violent and costly to have in society, or to have indefinitely imprisoned. I'd prefer to execute violent repeat offenders, as opposed to having them rot in prison (at tax payer offense) or get out on parole then inevitably rape/kill/maim again.

Seems like a rational comment although I think the deterrent effect is good too.

[MasterJedi]

I don't really care about deterrence to be blunt. Some people are just too violent and costly to have in society, or to have indefinitely imprisoned. I'd prefer to execute violent repeat offenders, as opposed to having them rot in prison (at tax payer offense) or get out on parole then inevitably rape/kill/maim again.

Seems like a rational comment although I think the deterrent effect is good too.

I concur with both of these statements.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I don't really care about deterrence to be blunt. Some people are just too violent and costly to have in society, or to have indefinitely imprisoned. I'd prefer to execute violent repeat offenders, as opposed to having them rot in prison (at tax payer expense) or get out on parole then inevitably rape/kill/maim again.

The taxpayer argument does not really float because the appeals cost more money than imprisoning someone

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Still morally wrong and too costly, next

Ditto.

[David S]

I don't really care about deterrence to be blunt. Some people are just too violent and costly to have in society, or to have indefinitely imprisoned. I'd prefer to execute violent repeat offenders, as opposed to having them rot in prison (at tax payer expense) or get out on parole then inevitably rape/kill/maim again.

The taxpayer argument does not really float because the appeals cost more money than imprisoning someone

Well you are right about that. Someone once proposed the death penalty for drug dealers but it turned out that the average life expectancy of drug dealers on the street was less than the life expectancy of a person on death row. It seems they are much more likely to be killed by rival drug dealers than the electric chair. So by sentencing them to death we actually increased their life expectancy as compared to leaving them on the street. That bizarre outcome in my opinion is not a problem with the death penalty but rather with a highly inefficient justice system.
The constitution requires that the accused be given a speedy trial by an impartial jury, a means of subpoenaing witnesses on his behalf and legal counsel but it does not require that he be given unending appeals. The latter is a perversion of the justice system to my way of thinking.

[Tender Branson]

Interesting, that study indicates that the higher the unemployment rate, the lower the murder rate.  No wonder Europe has a lower murder rate.

Hahaha. Really ? Its really sinking fast now and it has reached the lowest level ever with close to 7% now. And yeah, just look at the US, I never trusted this country's labor data. Do you think it is accurate when the number of unemployed is determined by a telephone survey, rather than registering unemployed ? Which unemployed person tells a foreign person on the telephone that he/she is unemployed ? Probably the real US unemployment rate is 6-7% too ...

[NDN]

I don't really care about deterrence to be blunt. Some people are just too violent and costly to have in society, or to have indefinitely imprisoned. I'd prefer to execute violent repeat offenders, as opposed to having them rot in prison (at tax payer expense) or get out on parole then inevitably rape/kill/maim again.

The taxpayer argument does not really float because the appeals cost more money than imprisoning someone

So limit the appeals process. That's a pretty obvious solution. And given that these would be people who have REPEATEDLY wasted their chances, I don't see how anyone could complain.

[Tender Branson]

Rwanda's parliament has voted to abolish the death penalty, a move that should clear the way for suspects in the 1994 genocide to be extradited back to Rwanda.

Rwanda says many of the remaining suspects accused of involvement in the killings of 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and Hutu moderates are at large in Europe, North America and West Africa.

Many countries refuse to extradite criminal suspects to nations that practise capital punishment or torture.

Forty-five legislators voted late last on Friday night to scrap the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment, and five abstained. The remaining 30 members of the assembly were absent.

Survivors of the slaughter welcomed the decision, noting that the death penalty had existed in Rwandan law before the genocide.

"It didn't deter people from picking up machetes to slaughter their fellows - that's why we are not bothered by its removal," said Theodore Simburudali, president of the Ibuka genocide survivors' group.

The new legislation could also encourage the transfer of war crimes suspects being held at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), in the Tanzanian town of Arusha.

Frustrated at the slowness of ICTR proceedings, Rwanda wants suspects transferred to face trial at home. The court has a huge backlog, but is due to be closed next year.

Link

[John Dibble]

"It didn't deter people from picking up machetes to slaughter their fellows - that's why we are not bothered by its removal," said Theodore Simburudali, president of the Ibuka genocide survivors' group.

Methinks that genocide isn't the type of murder this study or any other death penalty study is talking about.

[Tender Branson]

"It didn't deter people from picking up machetes to slaughter their fellows - that's why we are not bothered by its removal," said Theodore Simburudali, president of the Ibuka genocide survivors' group.

Methinks that genocide isn't the type of murder this study or any other death penalty study is talking about.

And ? What else than murder is genocide ? Ruandas executions before the genocide didn´t prevent the genocide, meaning the death penalty has no impact on those who comitted the genocide. Better create a study interviewing killers if they thought about a possible death sentence before or while they comitted their murder. I´m sure a majority didn´t care about a death sentence during their act of killing. YOu think about how to kill your victim not what happens with you.

[John Dibble]

And ? What else than murder is genocide ? Ruandas executions before the genocide didn´t prevent the genocide, meaning the death penalty has no impact on those who comitted the genocide.

*sigh* These studies are applied to domestic murder, not war crime murders. I'd think that meaning would have been clear. The Rwandan genocide occured during a civil war, and considering that during such a war the law is heavily in question it is hardly a valid case when considering domestic murders in times of peace. I doubt those who commited the genocide believed that they would be prosecuted for it as they believed they would be the winners and they would be the ones making the laws afterwards, unlike those who would commit murder during peacetimes when the government is stable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

During crimes of passion you don't generally think about it, but if you are doing a premeditated murder you generally think about the aftermath unless you're particularly stupid - why do you think people often try to hide the body or make it look like an accident? People do care about consequences, which is why a lot of people don't commit crimes that they otherwise might. Now whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent or not is up for debate, and frankly I'm not too terribly invested in it, but I can at least recognize the difference between types of situations.

[Bacon King]

Still morally wrong and too costly, next

Ditto.

I agree with these guys.