Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say

[David S]

Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say
Hotly Debated Academic Analyses Claim Up To 18 Lives Saved Per Execution
NEW YORK, 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 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.

Full article at:  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml

[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.

[David S]

Dont buy it. Murders happen more in countries with the death penalty. That's just common knowledge. Plus, since when did Libertarians advocate for capital punishment?

Who says Libertarians can't be for capital punishment? In my opinion it is a fitting punishment for certain crimes. You only have to read the paper to find examples of crimes which are so viscious and so horrible that they just scream out for the death penalty.

[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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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%.

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.