Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say

[Tender Branson]

The real problem I have with the study is that the numbers are absurdly unrealistic. 10 murders prevented? I might be able to accept the idea that every two executions prevent one murder or some similarly modest number, but 10 murders for every execution not performed is absolutely absurd. That would suggest that states without the death penalty should have enormous murder rates--and that simply isn't the case; in fact, they tend to be below average.

It sounds like a pseudo-scientific study that found what it expected to find because it expected to find it.

Yeah. In Austria we have 60 homicides each year. The country has 8.3 Mio. inhabitants, which brings the homicide rate to 0.7 per 100.000, one of the lowest on the planet. We don´t have the death penalty.

The best thing we could do now in Austria with its 60 homicides, is to re-instate the death penalty, because if every execution prevents 10 homicides, we just execute the 60 murderers and we not just prevent 60 other homcides, but we also have a zero homicide rate and we would be the first country on the planet where potential killers give birth to 540 peace loving hippies by parthenogenesis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah. These nuts should better create a study on the effect of poverty, violence and living standards in death-penalty or non-death-penalty areas. For example I say  the death penalty has no detterent effect whatsoever on homicide rates.

Compare Germany/France and Colombia/South Africa. Both do not have the death penalty. Germany/France have homicide rates of 1-2/100.000 while Colombia/South Africa have rates of 50-80/100.000

Compare Singapore/South Korea/Japan (countries with DP) with Jamaica (with DP). While the first group has a homicide rate of 1-2/100.000, Jamaica has a rate of 40 homicides per 100.000

So what do Germany/France/Singapore/Japan/South Korea as well as Colombia/South Africa/Jamaica have in common ?

The 1. group has a functional social security net, more or less low unemployment and a peaceful society.

The second group of states experiences civil war, racism, high unemployment, high gunownership etc.

So, no matter how many studies are out there which show the DP prevents any murders, I will NEVER believe them, because the real problems of high homicide rates are a matter of poverty and misery.

[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.

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

[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.

[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

[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 ...

[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

[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.