I need some time to write up the Scott Sonnon review. In the meantime, I found this interesting.
Part of my passion for MA is keeping up with the latest trends in crime. If we’re going to be serious about self-defense, then we must take these things into consideration. With that in mind, this article below is fascinating. However, you feel about this controversial topic, the results of these studies mentioned below deserve serious consideration.
By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer
Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.
The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations — pointing out flaws in the justice system — has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.
What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer. (emphasis mine, isn’t this shocking? You don’t hear about this on the nightly news, do you?)
The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.
So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey’s commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as “inconclusive.”
But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.
“Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it,” said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. “The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.”
A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. “The results are robust, they don’t really go away,” he said. “I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?”
Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).
To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.
Among the conclusions:
• 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).
• 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.
• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.
In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.
The studies’ conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago’s Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled “Is capital punishment morally required?”
“If it’s the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple,” he told The Associated Press. “Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven’t given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty.”
Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.
Critics of the findings have been vociferous.
Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.
“We just don’t have enough data to say anything,” said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were “flimsy” and appeared in “second-tier journals.”
“This isn’t left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it’s too hard to tell,” Wolfers said. “Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it’s still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished.”
Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.
“Instead of people sitting down and saying ‘let’s see what the data shows,’ it’s people sitting down and saying ‘let’s show this is wrong,’” said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. “Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend.”
The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.
Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court’s 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.)
Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich’s conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven’t gotten that kind of scrutiny.
At least not yet. The academic debate, and the larger national argument about the death penalty itself — with questions about racial and economic disparities in its implementation — shows no signs of fading away.
Steven Shavell, a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School and co-editor-in-chief of the American Law and Economics Review, said in an e-mail exchange that his journal intends to publish several articles on the statistical studies on deterrence in an upcoming issue.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Q // Jun 13, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Frankly I know just enough statistics to know it can be bent to say anything, but common sense tells me that though the number may not be accurate, the effect is definitely there. I don’t think the issue is so much whether the deterrent effect exists, but whether it’s great enough to warrant having death sentences. I think a better strategy is to have higher sentences for lesser crimes because people tend to get worse gradually. Wouldn’t it be better to prevent a problem while it’s less serious?
2 jonathan liljeblad // Jun 13, 2007 at 10:57 pm
i don’t want to get into the politics of this (even though that is what i’m studying)…as much as i can see a deterrence role, the 1 concern i have (and this goes for any legal sanction) is that it actually goes against the criminal–as opposed to someone who was wrongly convicted.
the reason the Illinois governor suspended the death penalty in Illinois (and he only suspended it pending review…he didn’t eliminate completely) is that he found 150 cases of convictions based on questionable evidence or dubious courtroom proceedings. this was after 8-11 cases in Texas where it was found via DNA evidence that innocent people had been wrongly convicted and executed (incidentally, most were “expedited” executions, and there is now a strong suspicion that there were racial undertones).
in terms of deterrence value…i think the death penalty example can be distinguished from martial arts on the criteria of post hoc (after the fact) versus ad hoc (at the time). the death penalty, being an instrument of state justice, occurs after the crime–post hoc, and as a result is susceptible to the above issues. in contrast, martial arts is something more likely to be employed at the time of the attempted crime (ad hoc), and so less likely to be susceptible to some of the above issues.
of course, this revolves around the image of the self-defense adept actually waiting until the attempted crime begins to apply self-defense (since this would mean they presumably would be sure the person they were engaging was indeed the criminal)…
still, i wonder if it indeed would deter crime if everyone on the street was a skilled practitioner–in theory, any criminal would have to worry that anyone they attacked was a martial arts master. i know in Texas, it is legal to carry concealed firearms, and there was a case in the early 90s where a thief held up a man at gunpoint in the middle of a carnival, only to have the victim pull out his own gun, and the 2 having a face-to-face gunbattle in the middle of the street a la “High Noon.” classic Texas.
3 cmc (formerly seeker6) // Jun 13, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Unfortunately Robert Tanner does not detail the methodology used, therefore it is impossible to make a clear comment on the findings. However, I agree with Q that statistics can easily be twisted to suit any argument.
The main problem, in my opinion, with the death penalty is that innocent people sometimes get executed. Once they are dead it is final for them and their families. Also, in these cases, the real criminal remains free to commit more crimes. Is this possibility taken into account in the studies?
Countries with capital punishment do not necessarily have a lower number of serious crimes committed.
A much more effective way of reducing serious crime would be to ban all firearms.
4 Darius // Jun 14, 2007 at 6:25 am
Is that why incarceration and crime rates are generally many times lower in the EU (where there is no death penalty) than in the U.S.?
5 Chad // Jun 14, 2007 at 8:21 am
Everyone here seems to be pretty astute on theissues and problems with statistical studies. The problem with these specific studies is that the statistic were extrapolated in most cases. This means they simply looked at how many people committed murder after being communted from the death penalty or how many it was estimated that that particular carreer criminal would kill. So the numbers are not real.
The Emory report is one of a very slim minority of studies done that have valid methodologies and found that there is a deterent eeffect. The vast majority of studies conclude the opposite. Murder rates tend to drop in states that have abolished the death penalty. Neither opf these conclusions should be trusted, however, because determining the deterant effect can be affected by time, bias, and a number of other issues.
Futhermore, the studies focus on murder rates, not motives. In truth, murder rates are far more affected by poverty levels than any other factor. the motivation for murder is paramount to the issue, because if a motive cannot be detered, there can be no deterrant effect. A quick glance at the literature will ferret out that murders in general, are not concerned with the death penalty at the time of their crime-which would seem to be essential for it to be a deterrent. The people the death penalty deters are peoplewho are not likely to commit murder in the first place. Namely, people who can logically, and rationally figure solutions to problems and are at least semi-ethically minded. If there is a moticvation that can over power that, it seems unlikely that the thought of the death penalty will disuade the individual.
6 Tim Chapman // Jun 15, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Interesting topic. I had a criminal justice professor in the late 1980s who presented studies that showed capital punishment had no effect on the murder rate. If you think about the reasons for murder, the vast majority are crimes of passion which, by their very nature, are not subject to a deterrent. The types of crimes that might be deterred (gang shootings, robberies, etc.) would be more effectively prevented by addressing some of the root causes like education, poverty and mental health. Statements like, “Each execution deters an average of 18 murders” and “The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years” are simply irresponsible. These sorts of conclusions cannot be drawn from any data they could have collected. My guess is that they’re extrapolating the same way one does in classic misuse of logic examples; Alcoholics often have bad breath–Bob has bad breath–Ergo, Bob is an alcoholic.
7 taichibulldog ( anthony reid) // Jun 16, 2007 at 12:03 pm
hi chessman,
btw i’m a pretty good chess player when the depression doesn’t rear it’s ugly head.play around 1800-2100 in those cases.
so 2 the point.With something so critcal as the death penalty,I was left wanting and question the fact that these studies say it is a deterent, yet don’t say one iota about how it is a deterent.
that’s with the exception of killing the killers so they can’t kill again. with that said, that isn’t a deterent. a deterent only applies to those WHO ARE ALIVE IN CASE FOLKS 4GOT, which seems to be the case.
in addition, I’d like to say since I’m what most folks call and african amer. ( btw I think it’s folly to do so. As we should all know. people who were oppressed, controlled, & enslaved BY THERE DOMINATORS are often called names that pleases the dominator/oppressor not necessarily that which is appropiate.
I live in Baltimore Maryland where anybody knows who cares to pay attention that I will be treated far worst if I COMMIT A CAPITAL CRIME AGAINST A WHITE MAN OR WOMEN AS OPPOSED TO if I killed a Black man.
this reality has been known across the U.S.A. for quite some time.it seems like the racial issue is just one more legit issue that is looked at as if it means nothing.
of course this mentality is usually held by people who are of the race of the oppressor.These people enjoy the benefits daily of said oppression even if they did not directly act in a malliscious fashion THEMSELVES!
So I’m hoping that u the chessman can show me/us just how they came to there conclusions. You see I’m not the trusting type. Not blind trust anyway.
When my students asked me to show them something else, or want to go to the next posture I ask them to show me what they have already. So far no one was able to support their argument to get taught something else, by there own demonstration I might add.
hey Chessman if u don’t come up with the good I promise not to challenge you. lol peace,power,and luv. Taichi Bulldog.
p.s. please 4 give the many typing erros. thx
8 Chad // Jun 16, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Tim has hit the nail on the head with his post. An interesting thing i heard put was this:
People murder because of one of three reasons: Profit, Passion, or compulsion.
Profit murders are carried out by people who have meticulously thought this out and are convinced they will not get caught. A threat of death is not going to deter someone who does not think they will ever be caught.
Passion murders, as Tim pointed out, cannot be deterred in any way shape or form. the whole idea behind the concept is that the passion causes a complete lapse of judgment. With no judgment ability, a deterant will not work.
Compulsion murders, like serial killers and the like, are done by people who know what they are doing is wrong and cannot stop them selves, or think they are defending themsleves or other wise not doing anything wrong. The mind tricks them into compulsively performing the act. The deterant effect cannot work on these people.
Leave a Comment