Science lacking on whether death penalty deters murder

[Tank]

Science lacking on whether death penalty deters murder

As there was no essential quotation this is the whole article.

A committee of scientists reviewed research done over the past 35 years and found it was "not informative about whether capital punishment decreases, increases, or has no effect on homicide rates," said the report.

"Consequently, claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy judgments."

The report was issued by the NAS's National Research Council, which convened a Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty to look at available evidence on how the death penalty may affect murder rates.

A previous report by the NRC in 1978 found that "available studies provide no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment."

In the decades since that report, "a considerable number" of studies have attempted to judge how well it works, or does not, and have reached "widely varying conclusions," the latest report said.

"Fundamental flaws in the research we reviewed make it of no use in answering the question of whether the death penalty affects homicide rates," said Daniel Nagin, professor of public policy and statistics at Carnegie Mellon University and chair of the committee that wrote the report.

"We recognize that this conclusion may be controversial to some, but no one is well-served by unsupportable claims about the effect of the death penalty, regardless of whether the claim is that the death penalty deters homicides, has no effect on homicide rates or actually increases homicides."

Until now, a key flaw in the research has been the failure to account for how punishments such as life in prison without the possibility of parole may affect homicide rates.

Also, a number of assumptions have hobbled previous studies, particularly by assuming that potential murderers actually consider the risk of execution and respond accordingly.

Instead, researchers going forward must perform more rigorous studies that assess how potential criminals view the death penalty and its likely effect on their actions, the report said.

Better methods for future research include collecting data that consider both capital and non-capital punishments for murder and doing studies on how potential murderers perceive a range of punishments in homicide cases, it said.

Just 15 percent of people who have received the death sentence since 1976 have been executed, "and a large fraction of death sentences are reversed," added the report.

The members did not examine the moral arguments for or against capital punishment, or the costs involved.

So what decides to kill or not when there is no evidence of deterrence?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Whether or not any particular person has refrained from killing another because of the presence of the death penalty will probably be a difficult thing to determine.  What can be determined is whether states/nations without the death penalty fare any better or worse than those with it.  But it's going to be hard to say whether or not Texas would have had fewer murders over the past 10 years without the death penalty, or if Maine would have had fewer murders over the same period if it had the penalty (which it doesn't).  You're probably going to have more murders per capita in Texas than in Maine no matter what penalties apply, due to a variety of cultural factors.

Philosophically, the death penalty can be justified on the basis of societal self-defense.  The murderer will not murder again once executed.  His death assures this more than life in prison, as he can escape (which murderers have done) or kill people in the prison.  However, living in the US state that executes more people than anyone, the greatest argument against the death penalty is the club that it puts us in. We are there with China, North Korea, Iran and Saudi Arabia.  I would rather not be in that club, even if it eventually is proven that the death penalty provides some degree of deterrence.  It is starting to become an embarrassment to discuss the issue with other civilized folk.  For that main reason, I would get rid of the death penalty in Texas.  It's just not worth the social cost, even if it provides some minor benefit.  The tide is against the death penalty, and I see no compelling reason to resist that movement.

[Asmodean]

As I see it, it's not about detering murder as much as about making the problem (read: convict) go away after the fact.

What would be nice is if it could be done cheaply and with low percentage of error.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

As I see it, it's not about detering murder as much as about making the problem (read: convict) go away after the fact.

What would be nice is if it could be done cheaply and with low percentage of error.

You are in Norway, correct?  I suppose you think Breivik ought to be executed.  How do most people feel about that?

[ThinkAnarchy]

I never even considered the death penalty as being a deterrent. It always simply seemed to be a worse form of punishment when compared to life in prison.

I find the topic of if it deters crimes to be a moot point. I have opposed it for a few years now due to some innocent people being put to death. Deterring crime has never factored into my stance on this issue.

With that said, I do hope they eventually discover it doesn't lead to less crime. That could only strengthen my position, and I can't think of logical argument in support of it, if that were the case. If it turned out it was an effective deterrent, it would have to come down to the question of if a few innocent deaths at the hands of the state is a fair trade off for lower crime rates.

Added: There would still be the argument of an eye for an eye style justice, even if it doesn't deter crime. Didn't think of that in my initial writing.

[Amicale]

I can see the arguments for and against the death penalty, having been on both sides of that philosophical debate in my lifetime. The biggest argument for it has already been mentioned: even if it doesn't deter murder in general, there's a 100% certainty that THAT particular person won't murder again. Eye for an eye mentality, I suppose. The biggest issue I personally have against it (and I no longer support the death penalty) is that innocent people have been killed. Apparently, the technology, forensics, etc etc they use to determine guilt are not absolutely accurate, and this is a huge problem. If you wrongly arrest and imprison someone, you can set them free. If you wrongly arrest and kill someone, it's not like you can bring them back.

The other issue I have with it is, I suppose, an emotional one. I don't like the idea of taking someone else's life because they took one. I don't see how it makes us much "better" than the person who committed the crime. True, our intention isn't to kill an innocent person, but a guilty one. All the same, I personally feel it may be more effective to keep them in prison for life. Put them to work, OK. Don't just let them lounge around watching TV, good. But killing them?

I suppose I prefer the idea of letting them live for the rest of their lives with what they did. In some ways, you could look at killing them like they're being given an "out"; if they're gone, they can't reflect, they can't change their mind, they can't turn their life around... and I can think of several murderers who would certainly prefer to be killed rather than have to live out the rest of their lives, contemplating their actions.

I know my arguments aren't fully 'thought out', and may be easily refuted. That's fine. It's just my personal opinion, and because I live in a country that doesn't have the death penalty, I'm aware I'm biased.

[Asmodean]

As I see it, it's not about detering murder as much as about making the problem (read: convict) go away after the fact.

What would be nice is if it could be done cheaply and with low percentage of error.

You are in Norway, correct?  I suppose you think Breivik ought to be executed.  How do most people feel about that?

I think he should be judged using the standing laws. Today, there is no death penalty in Norway, and I don't deal with "ought tos" when evaluating the criminals of today in relation to non-existing laws.

If, however, Norrway had death penalty and Breivik was found sane enough, than that would be the prefered course of action in my book.

In general, people are sort of of two minds about it, but when it comes down to it, I suppose most are against death penalty, even in this case.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

In general, people are sort of of two minds about it, but when it comes down to it, I suppose most are against death penalty, even in this case.

If murdering over 70 people doesn't move public opinion to be in favor of it, I doubt that anything would.  Most Westerners don't want to be in the Executioner's Club like Texas is.

[Asmodean]

If murdering over 70 people doesn't move public opinion to be in favor of it, I doubt that anything would.  Most Westerners don't want to be in the Executioner's Club like Texas is.

There are numerous reasons for that. Some people see death penalty as a rather poor punishment, others consider themselves too decent to take part - however indirect - in killing another person (While supporting the government having an army, which is, for all intent and purpose, a legalised killer club... The hypocrites!) and so on.

Personally, I see death penalty as nothing more than a potentially cheaper way of getting rid of one problem at a time for an indefinite period of time than long-term imprisonment. As long as it doesn't work out that way (Which is, as I understand, usually the case in the US), I do not support it.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Personally, I see death penalty as nothing more than a potentially cheaper way of getting rid of one problem at a time for an indefinite period of time than long-term imprisonment. As long as it doesn't work out that way (Which is, as I understand, usually the case in the US), I do not support it.

Here it can take 20 years and millions of tax dollars to kill someone.  Not always, but it usually takes a long time and a lot of money. Not really worth the effort.

[Asmodean]

Yes, you see, that is not something I support.

[AnimatedDirt]

What about finding a large island...

[Asmodean]

What about finding a large island...

With an unnecessarilly tall high voltage fence around it..? Sure, why not?

[Tank]

What about finding a large island...

With an unnecessarilly tall high voltage fence around it..? Sure, why not?

Been done. The inmates took over. Look up USA and Australia.

[Amicale]

What about finding a large island...

With an unnecessarilly tall high voltage fence around it..? Sure, why not?

Been done. The inmates took over. Look up USA and Australia.

I was talking about national nicknames for people, with a student of mine who lives in Australia. I said the words Canuck, Yankee, Kiwi, and then asked him what Australians are called. I thought he'd say 'Aussies', but no... without skipping a beat, he said "convicts!"