Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime

Another point worth raising: even accepting for argument's sake that the death penalty deters killings somewhat, it would still be worth asking if it deters killings enough to justify its existence.

If we implemented a curfew at 10 p.m., or even earlier, there's no doubt that the number of killings (and other serious crimes) would drop substantially. It would be a far bigger drop than the death penalty could ever dream of creating.

However, we do not do so because trying to maintain such a curfew would be too pricey, both in terms to the price tag of having enough additional law-enforcement resources to enforce it properly and to our civil rights and civil liberties.

Here's a stat I'd be interested in seeing...

How many Cops are there murdered in the line of duty in states that don't use the Death Penalty as opposed to states that do?

That's not what I'm arguing at all. And for the record, I don't believe that the death penalty is genocidal vs. blacks.

I'm arguing against the notion that the death penalty shows some of its racial disparities simply because blacks are culprits in more murders than whites.

That fact should not affect what percentage of blacks and whites get the death penalty if the procedure were racially neutral.

I didn't say it was only because blacks are culprits in more murders than whites....but what I did say was in response to Dan's claim that the only reason the DP existed was so that we could kill black people.

I don't know if that would actually tell you anything for various reasons, or if anyone compiles it as an actual stat.

But the FBI lists the officers killed in the line of duty by state and you can probably google up which states are death penalty and which are not fairly easily.

For 2005, for instance, the FBI has listed officers killed in:

Alabama
Arizona
California (6)
Colorado
Florida (2)
Georgia (4)
Kansas (2)
Kentucky (2)
Louisiana (2)
Maryland
Michigan *
Minnesota *(2)
Miss. (5)
Montana (3)
New Mexico
New York * (2)
North Carolina
Ohio (2)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (2)
Rhode Island *
South Carolina
Texas (3)
Virginia (3)

The asterisks are states that don't have the death penalty.


(The numbers may not be exactly accurate since I'm not reading each of these cases. I'm just going by blocks of texts, assuming that in each case one officer was killed. In some cases, multiple officers lost their lives; in others, it's possible that the report had one case go across multiple paragraphs and I've overcounted.)

Just that since murdering a cop is usually an automatic capital offense, I was thinking that the DP played a larger role in discouraging the murder of LEO's than non-LEO's, but looking at your numbers, I'd have to think that this may not the case.

This is true. It is also true that statistics never prove anything on their own. In my own field, I can name a large set of reasons why statistics isolated from other reasoning lead to utterly false conclusions. So if statisticians in my field would claim a matter settled while other experts for the same field, who do not specialize in statistics, deny it is settled, I would consider the matter not settled.

You're right. Neither comparison really works.

Yes. Just on a side note, such cultural differences are of course stabilized by cultural institutions among other things, and the DP itself is probably one such institution.

No, that's not true. You are changing the meaning of the words "death penalty" as you go. One meaning is "a policy that allows for a death penalty, including the possibility of challenging or commuting or deferring death sentences in accordance with law, as opposed to a policy that does not allow for a death penalty". The other meaning is "given a policy that allows for the death penalty, a death sentence that is actually executed, as opposed to one that is commuted or deferred". It's meaning (1) that we refer to when we discuss whether the DP deters crime. It's meaning (2) to which the quoted statistic speaks.

A few years ago, a friend of mine from the University of Chicago wrote a book called "Freakanomics." It was a collection random facts such as the fact that since abortion was legalized in 1973, it has resulted in less crime per capita.

Of course, that and other facts publised in Freakanomics was dismissed by those who politically opposed the arguments the random facts supported. The number of variables involved with the analysis leads me to suspicion and anyone who knows anything about statistical analysis knows that data can be manipulated to show whatever you want.

IIRC, New York does invoke the death penalty for the murder of a cop... That's about the only instance that I know where they will. Perhaps a native NY'er could shed more light on this.

New York only allowed DP for first degree murder, which included only a cop or corrections officer (maybe probation officers, etc. too).

But IIRC the law changed in 1995 to expand the definition of first degree homicide to include such things as contract murderers, killing a judge or witness and several others.

^Alpha, I'm going by what the DPIC says, which is that the DP was declared unconstitutional in NY in 2004. Since these cop killings occured in 2005, for the purposes of this quick illustration, I included it as a non-death penalty state.

I'd imagine cops would actually face slightly more danger in DP states - for the simple reason the criminals are likely more desperate to avoid capture because if they were involved in a capital crime they would face execution.

But then, the capture rate for criminals who kill cops is no doubt fairly low - the criminals don't face the death penalty because they are gunned down by the police.

But then, that's just another layer of deterrence - don't kill a cop, because if you do you are much less likely to get your day in court.

Anyway, interesting that there's counterveiling evidence to the classic 'the death penalty isn't a deterrent.' Last article I read on it was a few years back, stating that it was a deterrent, but became considerably less so as more time went on between sentencing and execution. That because of that in the US it wasn't a very effective deterrent. Interesting that the last studies claim that relationship exists but it's more of a deterrent than previously thought.

I am a non-retributivist as far as my philosophy on corrections is concerned, and as Liet said, correlation is not the same as a cause, there could easily be other things at play here, like cyclical crime rates. I do know a thing or two about statistical analysis, and would have to look at the study mentioned.

Going by the deaths in 2006 listed here (most police officers die in accidents), 56 of 65 murders were in death penalty states.

Well, that blows my hypothesis completely out of the water.

Why?

Not seeing it.

Really? Then explain this:



And this:

Higher murder rates in DP states than non-DP states over a 15 year span


In any case, I won't take either study on its face value, because you can get statistics to say whatever the hell you want them to say with carefully selected data, but to make a false assertion that the topic has been settled because a few economists agree hardly settles anything and betrays an honest study of the problem.

i doubt any study that claims anything deters criminals - they don't go out with the intention of getting caught, so no punishment will deter them.

that said, as i mentioned in my thread on physical punishment, we do have a stimulus-response system that could be corralled into dealing with criminals...

as for the DP, i agree with it in principle, just not in practice. i have no doubt there are many guilty folk out there in need of having their lives ended as soon as possible, but i don't find the potential miscarriages of justice an acceptable price to pay.

It is interesting to note that the states with the highest murder rates also have high numbers of minorities, especially blacks.

I would also note that it's true that minorities, and especially blacks, are the most socially disadvantaged groups of people in the United States.

YAY! Another person with a lick of sense.

People need to realize that crime happens for a reason. Not many crimes, baring serial murder and rape, are committed by mustache twirling villains who tie young girls to railroad tracks.

Quite right, Herpetologist. The effects of environment are highly significant to human development.

Why do you think it should be a family member?

If someone's punishment is ten years in prison should the victim have to rent the cell?

And what if the victim has no family members?!

You don't believe that justice plays any role in the death penalty? Fair enough. You're far from alone.

Their grievance, their right of vengeance.

Nope.
Once it's jail, it's the state's business.
But the state should only step in once the victim's family has forsaken their right of vengeance.
Then all that "protecting society", malarky comes into play.
(And before you get all indignant at that turn of phrase, I'm merely cynical of the government and its goodwill and competence in doing so, not the ideal of protecting society)

People could have a living will type deal to have a family friend do it.

Oh, well you didn’t say we were talking about Klingon law.

What if a family member of the Klingon punished decided the punishment was too harsh, would they have the right of vengeance to punish the original victim?

Indignant! How dare you?!

"And if I lose any limbs due to a bat’leth attack I demand the attacker suffer the ritual of 40 painstiks, accept discommendation and forever be denied entry into Sto-vo-kor."

This is one of those issues that doesn’t have any definitive right answer. I’ve no problem with your opinion.