Debunking the Death Penalty Deterrence Myth

Imagine the moments leading up to a murder. Are we to believe a person about to commit a homicide would consider whether or not his state has a death penalty as opposed to just life imprisonment without the possibility of release? Common sense suggests that lucid, rational calculations about capital punishment statutes are not among the things that would cross the mind of a would-be murderer. Yet as illogical as it sounds, new reports are asking us to accept this very line of reasoning.

The reports, including a Wall Street Journal op-ed by two professors from Pepperdine University, have revived the long-discredited argument alleging that capital punishment has a deterrent effect on homicide rates. They are certainly not precise or even consistent with each other, claiming that each execution deters anywhere between three and 74 murders.

Nevertheless, the new reports have captured widespread media attention, which in turn has accorded them a degree of unjustified legitimacy in the public arena. Detailed follow-up studies by prominent social scientists have demonstrated that the available data don't -- and because of inherent limitations probably can't -- support the conclusion that capital punishment deters murder.

The first glaring problem is the studies' failure to consider alternate explanations for declining murder rates in recent years. The possible alternatives include, among other things: the increase of life sentences without release, the improved police "clearance" rates for felonies, and the waning of acute drug epidemics such as the crack problem of the early 1990s. Any study that doesn't take into account these obvious factors can't be taken seriously.

Another problem -- inherent to any statistical study of deterrence -- is that the number of executions is small and insufficient to determine with any certainty the effect of executions on homicide rates.

Economist and law professor John Donohue of Yale University, together with economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Pennsylvania, conducted an exhaustive analysis of the datasets used by several deterrence proponents. They reported that, while the evidence pointed more strongly to an increase in homicides following executions, "there exists profound uncertainty" about capital punishment's deterrent or anti-deterrent effect because of the enormous disparity between the number of homicides and the number of executions.

Numerous other studies by distinguished social scientists have reached essentially the same conclusion -- that, like an election poll that samples too few voters, the limited available data render any conclusions meaningless. For example, Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University, along with other experts, examined the data and found that each execution may save 10 lives -- plus or minus 14 lives. In other words, executions may result in deterrence, no deterrence or more homicides -- not exactly a confidence-inspiring result.

Moreover, the small number of executions makes any conclusions about their influence on homicide rates highly vulnerable to slight changes in the statistical models used. In one of many examples in their analysis, Donohue and Wolfers looked at a deterrence study that had attempted to account for a number of factors that might have influenced execution and homicide rates, including the effect of "partisan influence." This study had concluded that each execution decreases homicides by 18. When Donohue and Wolfers used a slightly different method to account for partisan influence, they found that each execution increases homicides by 18; when they dropped the factor altogether, they found that each execution adds over 50 homicides.

Like the old deterrence studies, the new deterrence studies have been thoroughly debunked -- there is no legitimate or reliable statistical evidence of deterrence. Capital punishment -- the deliberate killing of defenseless human beings -- cannot be statistically, morally or legally defended on the basis that it deters homicides.

Comments

[Anym]

Another proud citizen of NJ.

If it doesn't deter people what purpose other than revenge does the death penalty serve.

[schatsie]

Well according to the Economist we are #19 in the world in murders per capita, all the others that have banned capital punishement are way below us....

[SEQUOIABISON]

I am so proud to be a resident of NJ where we just outlawed the death penalty.

This barbaric antiquated practice makes us the only uncivilized nation in the modern world.

[Aramingo]

If the death penalty is an effective deterent, states with the penalty should have much lower murder rates - that's per capita, not absolute neumbers - then those that don't. Is this the case?... Likewise between nations.

As for the morallity of the death penalty, don't conflate justice and vengeance. For further guidance, turn to Romans 12:19-21

[olephart]

"Capital punishment -- the deliberate killing of defenseless human beings -- cannot be statistically, morally or legally defended on the basis that it deters homicides."

I agree. Death in and of itself is an insufficient punishment for many crimes. I must remind you however of the Constitutional prohibition for more suitable penalties. Even now the Supreme Court is considering whether lethal injection is cruel. Let us examine this in more detail.
PETA, the organization that fights cruelty against animals, has tried to block experimentation on animals for scientific purposes. This is in the quest to prevent suffering. They have not tried to block the euthanasia of our beloved pets, those who have for their whole lives given love and happiness to all. It would seem that they accept that this form of the administration of death is NOT cruel. However, when this administration of death is applied to those who have WILLFULLY brought pain and death to others; those who have caused suffering and sadness to their victims' friends and families; those who have no compunctions, qualms or misgivings about murder, rape or torture it is held up to be cruel.
So I submit that the removal from Society by execution is not cruel. It is in many cases insufficient punishment. My one caveat is that it is irreversible and only those who are guilty should suffer its application. The system is flawed and a coherent and rapid means to rectify this should be sought.

[candlegravity]

Yeah the death penalty is about as effective at deterring murders as Christianity is at deterring homosexuality.

...or should I say as the Republican party is at deterring homosexuality?

[LintLass]

I think one thing's just common sense: The death penalty can at times encourage murder... There's the *nothing to lose* factor: if a criminal already thinks he'll be killed, why not shoot it out with the cops, or kill witnesses.

The fact is it can't be done faster, because it can't be done fairly even as it is with how long it takes.

[ThomasDoubting]

I am not willing to tell this government, or any government that it is alright to kill me, if I commit a crime. While some people like to euphemistically call it the "Death Penalty", I prefer to identify it as what it is, an Official Government Execution of a Citizen. There are unofficial executions also, killing by police etc., but that is another story. We allow the government to kill any of us, but they choose to only kill certain of us. We all know the profile of those being killed. Is it part of our agreement with our government, that they only kill the poor? One way to deter murder, would be to put people in prison, before they commit murder, or another way would be to solve every murder case. Unless we do that, the idea of a deterrent for a crime like murder, is absurd. Murder is almost always, a crime of passion. It is inconceivable that one, would hesitate to commit murder due the threat of being executed, when the alternative is spending the rest of your life in prison. With about 16,000 murders in America, there are only 65 executions in a given year. There are many reasons why only 65 are chosen for official Government Executions, First among those reasons, is the fact that only a small percentage of the 16,000 murders leads to an arrest. Even when arrests are made many of the suspects establish their innocence at that time. Of those convicted many, with decent legal defense, win on appeal. Of those who remain, although many are condemned, only about 65 people are killed. We can speculate on the 65! Are they rich or poor? White or black ? Male or female ? Yuppies or high school drop-outs ? Average intelligence or less than normal ? Non-drinkers or alcoholics ? Private attorney or public defender ? Rx drug user or street drug user ? Self-supporting or unemployed ? Total 16,000 + 65 = 16,065 . .
How does it benefit you, if we kill these people ? . What's really going on?

[oldpotsmuggler]

"Theo", as the story goes, was driving in downtown Barranquilla, Colombia, across from the police station when a guy he wanted to kill walked across the street. Theo got two things from under the front street of his pickup, his .357 and a pile of cash. When the dude was well dead Theo walked into the police station, put the cash on the counter, went home, and the murder was filed as unsolved. One lesson I took from that is that when there are no consequences, murder is not particularly deterred. But I also observed that lots of people in Colombia were armed in public, and the rest of them seemed to go out of their way not to piss anyone off.

Unlike most folks I"ve known a number of murders in my life (even leaving Theo out). One time the dude on the top bunk across from mine had been convicted for two separate killings just since he"d been locked up. The story goes that he"d had his reasons but I never really wanted to get into it in detail.

Then there were all of the Indians convicted of killing friends, family, etc. while drunk. Crimes on Indian reservations are federal offenses. So many times their paperwork said that what had started out as a little rough housing turned into something that no one understood when the level of intoxication got extreme. I personally heard more than one of these dudes say that they didn"t know what they were doing when they did it, and didn"t know what they had done when they were finished. Sad really, but far more common than some might expect.

And just this morning the front page of the local paper reported a guy who put multiple bullets in his soon to be ex in the parking lot of a local church yesterday. He didn"t try to hide it, and didn"t hurt anyone else so whatever was in his head at the time it probably crowded everything else out.

[LeftRight]

no, you're wrong! The death penalty will provide a deterrent effect once they finally execute all of us, then there will be no more murders!

[jnuno]

You're right about some people committing murder irregardless of the consequences because many criminals don't see that far, but if the death penalty were administered swiftly, for example maybe months after a conviction, then it could be the deterrent to murder that it is meant to be. I say that because what do you think would happen if the death penalty were administered only for murders committed on a certain day of the week? For example Tuesday. What we would likely then see happen is the murder rates of every other day of the week go up. Murders on Tuesdays would go down.