Studies say death penalty deters crime

[Rufus T. Firefly]

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).

I really want to understand the methodology here. Specifically,

1) How do you document murders that didn't happen?
2) How do you assign causation to fluctuations in a crime rate over time?
3) In the specific case of Illinois, they mention "additional 150 murders over four years." Addditional -- over what? Over the number of Illinois murders in an alternative reality where Illinois has the death penaly? Who wrote the study -- Harry Turtledove?



Edit: Wait a minute. I just Googled Illinois' crime rate, and it fell in 2002-2004. It did rise in 2001, but so did the murder rates in Massachusetts (no death penalty for many years) and Texas (all death penatly, all the time), so that rise can be attributed to a larger national trend.

So these guys are basically claiming to know that Illinois' murder rate could have fallen even further with the dp still in place. That kind of statement usually comes from someone sitting in front of a crystal ball or a deck of tarot cards, not a reputable academic study.

[Berzerker]

They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

thats more than the innocent people we'd be executing, true? The Utilitarian must accept the greater good...

How does one measure the death penalty on culture? What are murder rates in countries with well established death penalties, culturally established? Like Saudi Arabia or some other muslim fundie country. To understand the effect the policy has, you need to grow up under the system where people know without a doubt what happens to murderers. But I'm suspicious of drawing conclusions based on Illinois and its moratorium, homicide rates are strongly linked to drug prohibition so I'm curious about the ebb and flow of black market violence in Illinois during that time. I just dont see how someone intent on committing murder would make their decision based on the punishment. On the other hand, western outlaws sure didn't like hanging around when Judge Roy Bean was passing judgement. Hang em high,. hang em there from the hanging tree for all to see. Yeah, the DP is a deterrent, and making it nasty is a stronger deterrent. I wonder how many hands Muslim countries actually have to lop off?

[Blake]

I just dont see how someone intent on committing murder would make their decision based on the punishment.

Exactly.

I honestly think this is some kind of projection thing - layman thinks "I'd be afraid of the death penalty, therefore a remorseless killer will also be afraid of the death penalty". Um yeah, right.

Of course I may also be laboring under projection - if I was going to kill someone I'd be willing to suffer ANY consequences in this world and the next. However that's because I have strong will and a strong conscience, someone who is willing to kill because they "just don't care" obviously has a substantially different mindset.

But in any case, I don't think the death penalty is particularly scary in and of itself - to me it sounds like an easy way out - a way to escape consequences and responsibility. If it was significantly more torturous and humiliating THEN it might actually be a deterrent on the grounds of fear, however that is clearly not going to happen in free society (quite rightfully) so it's better to just forget the whole thing.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Blake
Exactly.

I honestly think this is some kind of projection thing - layman thinks "I'd be afraid of the death penalty, therefore a remorseless killer will also be afraid of the death penalty". Um yeah, right.

Most killers aren't remorseless serial killers. Far more likely are killing someone to rob them, brawls that get out of hand, etc. If you're going to rob someone, the difference between the death penalty and prison could weigh on your mind when it comes to whether you just threaten, or whether you actually pull the trigger. Moreover, even in remorseless, gang-violence type killings, there's generally a culture around prison, with people getting respect for having been there. Change that to the DP, it could well make some even remorseless gang members wonder about whether it's worth it.

Causality hasn't necessarily been established, and econometric data like this is always open to interpretation with different models and such, but from what the article is suggesting, it seems relatively robust. And taking that it's robust in data terms, it's not hard to see the potential for causalityas a deterrent. Indeed, most people seemed to believe it was a deterrent until the older studies suggested it wasn't, which made everyone question the causality.

There are many issues with the DP, such as DNA proving people innocent after the fact, but surely it's possible to have guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and guilty beyond even unreasonable doubt, by making DNA evidence and other such evidence necessary in order to use the DP. Moreover, the DP being given by judges as opposed to juries, as the guilt is found, means that it's not open to as much emotive sway as juries are, and will more likely follow law to the letter.

There's still the moral objection, on principle, but it seems to me the other reasons for opposing the DP are fast running out.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Really, then why is the murder rate highest in states that have the DP?

The same reason states without the death penalty have higher murder rates than other countries without the death penalty - cultural factors, crime hysteresis, etc. It's quite plausible that those states with the death penalty inacted it because they had the largest murder problems, and so sought harsher methods to deal with it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Berzerker
thats more than the innocent people we'd be executing, true? The Utilitarian must accept the greater good...

I think you misunderstand the concept of Utilitarianism. For your comment to be true, you'd have to show not only that the people were equal, as in the difference in utility between executing more innocent people but having less homicides was positive, but also that there were no knock-on effects on the rest of society. It's quite easy to come up with Utilitarian arguments against torture based on the latter of these points. For example, imagine you have a person in custody, and torturing them to find the location of a bomb could save 100 people. It seems Utilitarian to torture them. However the negative effect of that torture isn't just the torture itself, it's the fact that you then have 300 million people who all know they now live in a country that commits torture, and they have a (perhaps irrational) fear that they may be wrongly tortured if authorities feel they have information like this. While the magnitude of this is much smaller, the fact it affects 300 million people, rather than just the 101 people involved, changes the Utilitarian-preferred outcome significantly.

The same thing applies here. Being in a country that executes innocent people, that says "overall it will save lives for us to accept that we will generally kill x number of innocent people each year", will generally make many people feel a bit bad. This also muddies the argument that the DP helps the family of victims get closure, since while it may have this knock-on effect, it may also have the negative effect that many people then know they live in a country that executes people, and that itself can be a source of disutility.

The main point from all this, however, is that Utilitarianism is an abstract concept, not a prescriptive one. You can argue either way generates higher utility. It is impossible to say whether having the DP or not raises utility, thus it's not possible to use it as the way to decide. The Utilitarian never "must" accept anything, since they simply argue that the utility benefit is the other way around.

[Sandman]

If you're going to rob someone, the difference between the death penalty and prison could weigh on your mind when it comes to whether you just threaten, or whether you actually pull the trigger. Moreover, even in remorseless, gang-violence type killings, there's generally a culture around prison, with people getting respect for having been there. Change that to the DP, it could well make some even remorseless gang members wonder about whether it's worth it.

For that to work, you'd have to execute the majority of murderers, instead of wheeling the DP out at random.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Really, then why is the murder rate highest in states that have the DP?

It's the Bible Study groups.


Oh, and the ex-Klan members with time on their hands.


And the immigrants.


And the native-born.


The homosexuals.


The libbruls.


The NeoCons.


The Muslims.


The poor.


The rich.


The single mothers who eat crack rocks out of dead babies' skulls in supermarket check-out lines while using up their milk tokens.


Immoral shockjocks.


The Catholics.


The Jooze.


Hippies.


Guinea pig breeders.

[Patroklos]

Really, then why is the murder rate highest in states that have the DP?

Are you saying the DP increases the murder rate?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Are you saying the DP increases the murder rate?

It's like a 'Top Trumps' for psychopaths and the trigger-happy.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Sandman
For that to work, you'd have to execute the majority of murderers, instead of wheeling the DP out at random.

No you wouldn't, a deterrent can easily work if it's just a possibility, especially if it's a possibility of death. The thought of "if I kill this person, I may be killed" can be enough. Obviously, as the study seems to suggest, if you execute more people you get a larger reduction, but I'd imagine it's kinked with the reduction between 0 and 1 executions being higher than that between higher numbers.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Drogue

No you wouldn't, a deterrent can easily work if it's just a possibility, especially if it's a possibility of death. The thought of "if I kill this person, I may be killed" can be enough. Obviously, as the study seems to suggest, if you execute more people you get a larger reduction, but I'd imagine it's kinked with the reduction between 0 and 1 executions being higher than that between higher numbers.

How many murderers are caught in Texas every year, 1000? How many are then executed, 20? The percentage is too low to enter into a robber's mind, especially if they're on drink or drugs at the time.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Sandman
How many murderers are caught in Texas every year, 1000? How many are then executed, 20? The percentage is too low to enter into a robber's mind, especially if they're on drink or drugs at the time.

That's entirely not true. I'd argue it's far more a "is there a chance I would be executed or not" type thing. If on drink or drugs, it likely wouldn't care if all 1000 of them would, so discounting that, do you think robbers really work out the probability and think "oh, it's only 2%"? I doubt it. However they may think "is there a chance they'll execute me for this", which is a simple yes if they have the DP and no if they don't. That requires a lot less thought, and so is much more likely to enter into it.

[SlowwHand]

Molly, I find myself agreeing with Heresson, where I had no real opinion previously.
You really are an ass.

[Gibsie]

Drogue is indeed right, Sandman. Imagine if there was a 0.1% chance that taking a single aspirin pill would kill you. Even though it's really low odds, would you be more or less likely to take the pill when you have a blazing headache?

To look at the idea in general though I have to agree with Rufus and would really love to see how they justify their claims regarding the methodology. I also suspect that if there is any drop (As low as 3 or as great as 18 per execution) that it would be extremely short-term and meaningless within three years- and the effects on overall society from fostering an "eye for an eye" attitude negative.

[Sandman]

What if you were at your wits end and prepared to rob people for money? I mean, we're discounting drugs and drink related murders (i.e. most of them), so it's difficult to know what's going in the head of our would-be robber.