What do you think of the new studies that indicate the death penalty deters murder?

Question

A number of academic studies suggest that the death penalty results in fewer murders. The death penalty supposedly has a deterrent effect on the rate of murders committed.

The studies say that there was an increase in murders after the moratorium in Illinois:

"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."

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

I don't think that it is valid to infer that nobody would murder, if the death penalty was really a deterrent. Deterrent does not mean that it makes all people cease a certain action. However, it may make people think twice.

Answer 1

So, what's your question? The death penalty makes people realize that there are consequences for their actions; it makes them responsible.

Answer 2

I think that is flawed. There has been a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois and there hasn't been a rise in murders. So I would say that the death penalty is not a deterrent factor, at least not in the majority of cases.

Answer 3

Well, I've seen other studies that said it didn't. One must be careful when looking at those studies. They may not take other factors into account. Canada, Japan, the Netherlands and Norway are all countries that do not have the death penalty. All of them have much lower murder rates than Texas, which is the jurisdiction which executes the most prisoners per capita in the United States

Answer 4

There are many problems with the methodology in these studies. The use the techniques of econometrics, which attempts to create mathematical models of real life situations, using statistical methods (multiple regression analysis.) Eyes glazing over yet??

The basic problem is that the data used in these studies is very sparse. Outlying data has an undue influence on the results. In situations like these, a good statistician can mainipulate the results as he likes. (Usually to demonstrate that his original hypothesis was correct.) In many of the years and states where data was collected there were, in fact, no executions at all. Econometrics has been unable to accurately predict outcomes in studies of social issues.

Unless you are a statistician or a mathematician, the studies are hard to follow.

Easiest to understand, however, is the fact that homicide rates are consistently higher in states and nations with death penalty than in those without it.

I also see that the article referred to in the AP story is not peer reviewed. Articles appearing in first tier research journals are peer reviewed.

Edit- note to Ross. Life without parole, like the death penalty, incapacitates a criminal (prevents him from reoffending.) Life without parole is sure and swift, both requirements for a punishment to act as a deterrent. The death penalty is neither.

Answer 5

An clever communicate....what a alleviation! i've got related a link to a piece of writing which addresses this subject offering the two facets. in my view, i'm no longer for the dying penalty. a million. apparently for a punishment to act as a deterrent, it may be adminstered directly after the guy is convicted. With the appeals technique, that for sure would not take place. it is observed as favourite deterrent which isn't efficient in deterring crime. the different sort, particular deterrent, in basic terms refers to combating that particular criminal from ever committing that crime returned. for sure that works. 2. i do no longer think of that's fixable. there is mostly a margin of blunders and the fee of the appeals in many cases outweighs the fee of existence in detention center. 3. i might hesitate to reply to this one. I, fortuitously, have not got any experience with the outrage a guy or woman could experience on the shortcoming of a kinfolk member via homicide. i do no longer understand how i might experience, so I won't decide them. 4. i think of the fee of a violent crime by utilizing everybody, extremely a young infants, shows a psychological ailment. existence in detention center.

Answer 6

This is a false correlation of data.

Canada, with no death penalty,
has 0.0149063 murders per 1000.

The US with a death penalty,
has 0.042802 murders per 1000.

And, Colombia with a death penalty,
has 0.67847 murders per 1000.

A death penalty does not prove to be a deterent to murder.

Answer 7

But what happens if at the expense of politics, they chose the wrong person to put to death so that the people will feel better?

Texas has the death penalty and I think that Texas is pretty violent.

Answer 8

I hate to say this but I think if it was done we would have less murders.

When found guilty they should be electrocuted in the witness stand while the tv is rolling

People would be shocked but get the real picture of what doing a crime so awful as murder

Answer 9

Because people know that if they commit a murder...there's a big chance they could be caught and put on death row.

Answer 10

Agree with Magiculalura.
We should go back to the methods of medieval times and conduct public executioms. Savage, but it'll definitely drive home the message.