Why do states without the death penalty have lowest homicide rates?

Question

"The dozen states that have chosen not to enact the death penalty since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty, government statistics and a new survey by The New York Times show.

Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. In a state-by- state analysis, The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=437&scid=

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_Is_Not_a_Deterrent/page.do?id=1101085&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99

Answer 1

The question is interesting and certainly derserves further examination. Unfortunately, the article did not list those 10 of 12 states. In playing devil's advocate, however, I would have to ask how many of those states that report lower homicide rates are also states without large metropolitan cities. What are the populations of those states? For example, is Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming on the list? High murder rates generally occur where people are stacked on top of each other. In places where you have to drive to get to your closest neighbor's house, homicide is virtually nonexistent.

All in all, I don't think that people who engage in murder are deterred by the death penalty. Generally, we ignore that which we know can kill us. We know we can die from smoking and still do it. And I suspect those that kill, while aware of the law are usually of a mindset where the threat does not sink in.

Answer 2

The [Anti] Death Penalty Information Center gets data from the FBI to produce such comparisons. The FBI's own web site warns against using such a comparison as it does not tell the whole story. There are many factors to consider when making an analysis of the death penalty, such as the age of the population, mobility of the population, education levels, etc. Why not compare things such as states with lower education level also have higher murder rates? Or a younger population? Or where there is a dense population? Or where the worst economies are located? These are all important factors to consider that are being ignored by the [Anti] DPIC to produce biased information.

Answer 3

Well, there is no causal relationship, as far as I know--meaningthat not having capital punishment leads to lower homicide rates.

What you have here is an example of two different effects (lower homicide rates and banning the death penalty) stemming from a common cause.

Generally (and this is not an absolute either/or) states with enough support to ban the death penalty also have state governments and popular support for effective rehabilitation programs and for strong educational initiatives, especially inlow-incoe areas--and so on.

In short, the crime prevention policies in those states tend to be better thought out and more responsive to real problems, instead of being reactive.

Answer 4

I'd like to see the report, not just the report on the report. And quite possibly the states without the death penalty mentioned like Alaska and North Dakota don't have a high population, and the others: Hawaii, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and Massachusetts are small states without a large population. Maybe the size of the state's population has more to do with the homicide rate than the death penalty.

Answer 5

I think it's quite obvious that they didn't choose to reinstate the death penalty because they had no use for it; they never had a major homicide problem to start with, they had and still have no need for the death penalty. If those states had homicide rates above the national average, then they would consider the death penalty as a means of punishment.

If you're implying that removing the death penalty lowers violent crime, that makes no sense. It is equally idiotic to propose that instating a death penalty causes the murder rate to rise, you are essentially saying criminals are committing more crimes when the punishment is harsher and for some reason I think you know better than to say something so foolish.

Answer 6

#1 criminals don't commit a crime, with the idea in mind that they are going to get caught. If they did, most of them would be considered law abiding citizens, because they would never commit the crime.

#2 since they don't figure they are going to get caught, severity of the punishment has nothing to do with deterring the crime. Because the person who chooses not to do it, isn't going to do it whther they are facing a year in jail, or 10 years; and the person who will, it doesn't matter what the punishment is, because they "aren't going to be caught".

#3 crimes of such magnitude are usual crimes of passion, and are performed when a person isn't in their right state of mind. Because they aren't in their right state of mind, consequences do not figure in to the equation. So again, they aren't considering being caught, or paying the consequences.

#4 RESTATED: CRIMINALS DON'T THINK THEY ARE GOING TO GET CAUGHT refer back to #1

States that have abandoned the death penalty have not done so because they didn't need it, they did so, because they have studied the facts and found it saved the tax payers millions a year as compared to life incarceration.

So to answer your question death penalty has no effect on homicide deterrant. Which I believe is your implied statement, that most people missed.
All death penalty serves is to satisfy some peoples' bloodlust for revenge, for a little while.

Answer 7

Well, most of the research shows that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. At least no more then life imprisonment. So the data is probably representative of the culture of the state, and the death penalty has nothing to do with it. Also, the culture of the state is probably where the lack of death penalty comes from. If the citizens are less likely to murder, the state would be as well.

Answer 8

maybe states that implement the death penalty do so because they have high homicide rates. just a guess. i am not saying it has any effect but that maybe has an effect on why it is implemented. you have to look at before and after.

this suggest that the homicide rate has some influence:

"In many states, when life without parole is an option the public's support for the death penalty drops sharply."

Answer 9

It would be a deterrent, if murder was a logical crime, but it is not often premeditated, but usually an act of fear and desperation, So how can it deter? I've wondered about it for years...I find no credible link between death penalty and deterrent. You just showed me that I'm correct.

Answer 10

The question is whether homicide rates have dropped in the states which HAVE a death penalty. It's not about averages, it's about whether the penalty has deterred.