Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime

[thomaska]

This should cause a veritible crap-storm accompanied by much wailing, and gnashing of teeth among those on the extreme left.



"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?"

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEATH_PENALTY_DETERRENCE?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

 

[tracy]

I wonder why no other studies have shown the same results?

 

[Colpy]

This should cause a veritible crap-storm accompanied by much wailing, and gnashing of teeth among those on the extreme left.



"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?"

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEATH_PENALTY_DETERRENCE?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

I hardly think you could put me on the "extreme left", but these studies don't convince me at all. There are far to many factors involved in homicide rates for any study on cause/effect to be taken seriously..........things such as demographics (population density, average age, male:female ratio), economic factors (unemployment, lifestyle disparity), culture and on and on.

I am against the death penalty for single instances of murder.......I think there is far too much chance of making a mistake, and consideration of individual rights demands a policy of "it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be executed".

I do think mass killers should be executed. They should be tried for each murder seperately, in front of a different judge and jury, and on their third conviction they should be executed ASAP.......some folks (Clifford Olson, for instance) are just too evil to be allowed to live.

Edited to say: If this study is valid, why is Canada's murder rate 1/3 that in the United States?

WARNING: I will hunt down and shoot the first person that replies "because Canada has tough gun control"

 

[snfu73]

Oh god...not this crap again. Sure...killing people definitly deters crime. Kill enough...say...EVERYONE...and you won't ever have a problem with crime again! Slaughter away...that will end crime....unless you consider the death penalty a crime...then crime rates INCREASE...don't they?

 

[Tonington]

If those criminals who receive the death penalty were rational enough to weigh the consequences of taking someones life versus a death sentence in the first place it wouldn't be an issue at all. I don't personally think the death sentence is a deterrent at all, as much as it is removing one habitual criminal from the correctional life path.

 

[Twila]

I do think mass killers should be executed. They should be tried for each murder seperately, in front of a different judge and jury, and on their third conviction they should be executed ASAP.......some folks (Clifford Olson, for instance) are just too evil to be allowed to live.

Clifford Olson is a serial killer. Huge difference between serial and mass. I'm all for serial killers/rapists receiving the death penalty. No point to rehabing them. Doesn't work. We're all safer with them dead.

 

[WilliamAshley]

death penalty deters life...

the only way that the death penalty will ever work is if it is voluntary and low cost like give people the choice to die for every crime, then let them jump off a high cliff or something, something low cost. Like china uses bullets.. why? why not just a really high building or cliff. or a tub of water... you don't even need good aim just a lot of water. and it can be reused.

but of course I think it shoudl totally incorporate full body harvesting.. but of course voluntarily as part of the death penalty choice. not like based on being jewish or gypsie or anything like that just because its what you chose... before the trial and after the trial.. everyone should have to have a living will and living legal will confirmed organ donation status etc..

of course I don't think there should be prisons just one big walled city area or something, or relocation to another country (exile) or military service

different options depending on the circumstances.

like start up some northern colonies or something

depending on whether you escaped before you have different perhaps more difficult circumstances... but no prison, only exile death or military service.

but as far as the deathpenalty detering crime.......... proove it....... everyone is different so using social demographics and area trends is not wholely based upon the punishment but the mentality of the populace and 'defences' of the people themselves.

canada has a lower crime rate than the us.. places like newyork or california etc.. may have high crime rates when compaired to say toronto .. while newyork has a deathpenalty and toronto doesn't...

it is not universal.

(note murder is a crime usually.. government condoned murder as noncriminal is just a warping of social sentiment of the act that killing some people is ok and only the majority should decide that is bs)

 

[Stretch]

Oh god...not this crap again. Sure...killing people definitly deters crime. Kill enough...say...EVERYONE...and you won't ever have a problem with crime again! Slaughter away...that will end crime....unless you consider the death penalty a crime...then crime rates INCREASE...don't they?

wanker!

 

[Niflmir]

Were this true, death penalty states would have fewer homicides than non death penalty states, or that the gap would be at the least decreasing in favour of death penalty states, yet quite the contrary, there are higher murder rates in states with the death penalty: (as well as Canada to the USA)

And the gap is increasing, favouring the non-death penalty states.

From www.deathpenaltyinfo.org. Since these studies make empirical predictions which contradict measurements, they are incorrect. One can presume that they used flawed statistics. Any theory must fit all data, not just some specific data.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I wonder why no other studies have shown the same results?

How many other studies have their been? Have there been others showing different results?

It is hard to kill again once you are dead yourself. I think having it as an option is not necessarly a bad thing. I would not make it automatic.

 

[Unforgiven]

Too much focus on attempting to punish and not enough on rehabilitation. Murderers need to be segragated from society for the protection of society. You can't just lock someone up with a bunch of animals for 20 years and then one day open the jail door, no support services, no trade or skills to cope and cut them loose on the public.

It's like taking a dog, making it vicious and working that into it for five years, then letting it loose in a near by park expecting that it now knows that it better behave or else.

While there are some people who just aren't going to be able to function with any safety in society, pedophiles, serial killers, violent offenders, most of the time it's a matter of finding the root of the problem and addressing that while incarcerated so that when released, they can function and have the transitional institution in place to support that change from prison life to civil society.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Were this true, death penalty states would have fewer homicides than non death penalty states, or that the gap would be at the least decreasing in favour of death penalty states, yet quite the contrary, there are higher murder rates in states with the death penalty: (as well as Canada to the USA)

And the gap is increasing, favouring the non-death penalty states.

From www.deathpenaltyinfo.org. Since these studies make empirical predictions which contradict measurements, they are incorrect. One can presume that they used flawed statistics. Any theory must fit all data, not just some specific data.

I don't think this is a valid comparison. To accept this, you would have to assume all states are equal and have the same crime factors. Comparing NY and Utah (not even sure what the statute in Utah is, example purpose only) is probably like comparing Apples and Oranges.

But even given that, NY is probably classified as a death penalty state but I don't believe they have executed anybody in eons. So if you count NY with the death penalty you are warping the statistics and in a big way given NYC probably has a fair bit of crime.

 

[triedit]

Bah. Im for the four strikes rule. Commit four felonies, die. End of one problem. I don't care if it's DUI, Embezzlement or murder. The fourth time you are convicted you should be erased.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

While there are some people who just aren't going to be able to function with any safety in society, pedophiles, serial killers, violent offenders, most of the time it's a matter of finding the root of the problem and addressing that while incarcerated so that when released, they can function and have the transitional institution in place to support that change from prison life to civil society.

And what do you suggest we do with the pedophiles, serial killers, and violent offenders? Currently we lock them up for a while and then place them in our communities and sometimes tell us. Hard to release a dead man.

 

[Niflmir]

How many other studies have their been? Have there been others showing different results?

It is hard to kill again once you are dead yourself. I think having it as an option is not necessarly a bad thing. I would not make it automatic.

It is a bad thing. Prison is where criminals become worse, read the House of Commons Justice Comittee reports or the comments made about the mandatory minimum sentences in our house of commons. They very clearly show that prison is the school of crime.

Having a person in prison who is bitter on life and who isn't being rehabilitated (i.e. a person on death row) makes prison a worse and more dangerous place. They have no incentive not to act up, no incentive to behave and all the incentive in the world to twist the mind of convicts to harm the society that is going to execute them. They will have a ton of time to do this while their appeals, constitutional challenges and legal rights extend their stay on death row.

Then there are these four victims. With four murderers still at large, now eight families looking for justice, and exonerations that will never come.

 

[tracy]

How many other studies have their been? Have there been others showing different results?

It is hard to kill again once you are dead yourself. I think having it as an option is not necessarly a bad thing. I would not make it automatic.

There have been A LOT of studies on this. I wrote a paper on it back in high school. I was assigned the pro-death penalty side and every study done said it wasn't a deterrent to crime or murder in general. It stops that one person from murdering again, but so does keeping him in jail for life so that was sort of a moot point.

 

[missile]

What to do with convicted murderers? Forced enlistment in the armed forces into a combat unit and sent post haste to the front lines until the day they die in combat.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

There have been A LOT of studies on this. I wrote a paper on it back in high school. I was assigned the pro-death penalty side and every study done said it wasn't a deterrent to crime or murder in general. It stops that one person from murdering again, but so does keeping him in jail for life so that was sort of a moot point.

But we don't send most of our criminals to jail for live. We give them 2 or 3 years and probabation. Even 1st degree murderers get out in 25, 2nd degree in 10. Those 2 punks that killed the taxi driver got 1 year of house arrest. There is no deterant for doing crime. Thats one of the reasons crime will continue to rise.

 

[tracy]

But we don't send most of our criminals to jail for live. We give them 2 or 3 years and probabation. Even 1st degree murderers get out in 25, 2nd degree in 10. Those 2 punks that killed the taxi driver got 1 year of house arrest. There is no deterant for doing crime. Thats one of the reasons crime will continue to rise.

We don't execute them either, that isn't the point... Personally, I think it would be a lot easier to lobby for mandatory life sentences for murder than change the law to execute them. Plus, even in countries with execution, most murderers aren't executed. It's applied so rarely that you could hardly argue it's a deterrent.

 

[tracy]

What to do with convicted murderers? Forced enlistment in the armed forces into a combat unit and sent post haste to the front lines until the day they die in combat.

I suspect the soldiers who chose to be there wouldn't be so thrilled with that.