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.
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:
(1) 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).
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_
us/death_penalty_deterrence
----
According to these studies, the death penalty actually saves lives! Imagine that. I would love to see liberals try and dismiss these findings.
Yeah, I was reading that exact article about 10 minutes ago coincidentally.
Own. I bookmarked that shit for future reference.
Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.
The homicide rate fell in Canada after they dropped the death penalty.
A number of papers have recently appeared claiming to show that
in the United States executions deter serious crime. There are many
statistical problems with the data analyses reported. This paper addresses
the problem of “influence,” which occurs when a very small
and atypical fraction of the data dominate the statistical results. The
number of executions by state and year is the key explanatory variable,
and most states in most years execute no one. A very few states in particular
years execute more than 5 individuals. Such values represent
about 1% of the available observations. Re-analyses of the existing
data are presented showing that claims of deterrence are a statistical
artifact of this anomalous 1%.
Injured Workers rights were taken away in the 1920's by an insurance company (WCB), it's high time we got them back.
At 6/10/07 11:49 PM, bcdemon wrote: The homicide rate fell in Canada after they dropped the death penalty.
So either way, the data for each is truely inconclusive.
So the only real reason why anyone should be against the death penalty is because of how much it costs.
And because (apparently) date favors either side, if you're against the death penalty for any other reason besides the cost, then you're a weak imbecile.
At 6/10/07 11:49 PM, bcdemon wrote: The homicide rate fell in Canada after they dropped the death penalty.
The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 2005 among death penalty states was 5.87, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 4.03.
That doesn't refute the fact that the death penalty deters murder. It just means there are other factors in some states that negate any difference that having or not having the death penalty could make.
Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.
i find it strange how the death penalty went from punishment to a humanely executed sentence.
At 6/10/07 11:59 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 6/10/07 11:49 PM, bcdemon wrote: The homicide rate fell in Canada after they dropped the death penalty.That doesn't refute the fact that the death penalty deters murder. It just means there are other factors in some states that negate any difference that having or not having the death penalty could make.
The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 2005 among death penalty states was 5.87, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 4.03.
Incredible, in that case we should never allow any statistics to influence any of our decisions. There will always be confounding variables. Maybe the lack of appeal money being spent in those other states is being spent on education, thus reversing the intelligence drain? Perhaps?
it really is amazing, at one point in time a hanging was a public event, witnessed by hundreds of cheering folk to get to see the latest criminal dangle from a rope.
and now? now its looked down upon as inhumane.
I say murdering someoen is inhumane and the punishment should always fit the crime.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
So, scaring other people is more important than justice in our legal system?
So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we had the key...
even though ancient hangings were cruel (look up what "being broken on the wheel" is) if the executioner screwed up or made it cueler by accident, the crowds would often turn on him.
no one ever liked executioners even when the people felt he was doing a neccessary job.
At 6/11/07 12:23 AM, nutrumpet wrote:At 6/10/07 11:59 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
That doesn't refute the fact that the death penalty deters murder. It just means there are other factors in some states that negate any difference that having or not having the death penalty could make.Incredible, in that case we should never allow any statistics to influence any of our decisions. There will always be confounding variables. Maybe the lack of appeal money being spent in those other states is being spent on education, thus reversing the intelligence drain? Perhaps?
No, what I mean to say is that since it is apparent that the death penalty DOES deter murder, then there are other variables that cause the death penalty states to have higher murder rates. If these states DIDN'T have the death penalty, their murder rates could be potentially higher. Maybe the states where they have the death penalty decided to adopt/continue the use of the death penalty because they already had factors as a state that caused them to have a high murder rate?
Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.
Yes, death penalty can deter murder, but if you look at what causes the murder in the first place, what actual underlying social issues are present, that's what you truly want to keep an eye on. Try and find the reason for a high rate of murder before trying to find a way to scare the murder. Changing the cause is a better way to deter the effect than to try to blow away the effect with the cause still present.
Fancy Signature
At 6/11/07 01:49 AM, Tancrisism wrote:
Stuff
...So, no killing minorities.
"Such is life..."
At 6/10/07 11:49 PM, bcdemon wrote: The homicide rate fell in Canada after they dropped the death penalty.
Funny how you say that when all death sentences in Canada were commutted by policy over a decade before the penalty was formally abolished. And one decade before its formal abolition, there was a moratorium limiting the death penalty to the murders of police officers only.
Not to mention there could be confounding factors such as tougher firearms laws occuring in roughly the same time period, which is what we would expect seeing as how the homicide rate actually dropped rather than remaining constant. Unless you believe eliminating the death penalty can actually lower the homicide rate.
The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 2005 among death penalty states was 5.87, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 4.03.
But wealth, population distribution, wealth distribution, gang presence, etc. can vary widely across states, which affects the murder rate. There are too many variables there to reach a conclusion about the deterrence of the death penalty when those variables are held constant. Most (all?) of the formal studies attempt to account for these other variables that affect murder rate.
A number of papers have recently appeared claiming to show that
in the United States executions deter serious crime. There are many
statistical problems with the data analyses reported. This paper addresses
the problem of “influence,” which occurs when a very small
and atypical fraction of the data dominate the statistical results. The
number of executions by state and year is the key explanatory variable,
and most states in most years execute no one. A very few states in particular
years execute more than 5 individuals. Such values represent
about 1% of the available observations. Re-analyses of the existing
data are presented showing that claims of deterrence are a statistical
artifact of this anomalous 1%.
http://preprints.stat.ucla.edu/396/JELS.pap.p df
Even taking the possibility of skewing from the influence of outliers in this ONE study, this article is an attempt to summarize the findings of the MANY recent articles on this subject that employ a variety of methods.
An attempt to collect all articles studying the possible deterrence of capital punishment can be found below:
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence .htm
Most of the studies confirm the deterrence of the death penalty, and I give a few examples:
(1) We use panel data for 50 states during the 1960–2000 period to examine the deterrent effect of capital punishment, using the moratorium as a "judicial experiment." We compare murder rates immediately before and after changes in states' death penalty laws, drawing on cross-state variations in the timing and duration of the moratorium. The regression analysis supplementing the before-and-after comparisons disentangles the effect of lifting the moratorium on murder from the effect of actual executions on murder. Results suggest that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, and that executions have a distinct effect which compounds the deterrent effect of merely (re)instating the death penalty. The finding is robust across 96 regression models.
(2) In an earlier work the impact of an execution moratorium in Texas on the monthly returns (first differences) of homicides was investigated. That moratorium was judicially imposed pending the appeal of a death sentence that could have had widespread consequences. A similar methodology is applied to the state of Illinois. In January 2000, the Governor of Illinois declared a moratorium on executions pending a review of the judicial process that condemned certain murderers to the death penalty. In January 2003 just prior to leaving office, the Governor commuted the death sentences of all of those who then occupied death row. It is found that these actions are coincident with the increased risk of homicide incurred by the residents of Illinois over the 48 month post-event period for which data were available. The increased risk produced an estimated 150 additional homicides during the post-event period.
(3) I examine two important questions in the capital punishment literature: what kinds of murders are deterred and what effect the length of the death-row wait has on deterrence? To answer these questions, I analyze data unused in the capital punishment literature: monthly murder and execution data. Monthly data measure deterrence better than the annual data used in earlier capital punishment papers for two reasons: it is impossible to see monthly murder fluctuations in annual data and only monthly data allow a model in which criminals update their perceived execution risk frequently. Results from least squares and negative binomial estimations indicate that capital punishment does deter: each execution results in, on average, three fewer murders. In addition, capital punishment deters murders previously believed to be undeterrable: crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Moreover, murders of both black and white victims decrease after executions. This suggests that, even if the application of capital punishment is racist, the benefits of capital punishment are not. However, longer waits on death row before execution lessen the deterrence. Specifically, one less murder is committed for every 2.75-years reduction in death row waits. Thus, recent legislation to shorten the wait on death row should strengthen capital punishment's deterrent effect.
(4) This study employs a panel of U.S. state-level data over the years 1978-1997 to estimate the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Particular attention is paid to problems of endogeneity bias arising from the non-random assignment of death penalty laws across states and a simultaneous relationship between murders and the deterrence probabilities. The primary innovation of the analysis lies in the estimation of a simultaneous equations system whose identification is based upon the employment of instrumental variables motivated by the theory of public choice. The estimation results suggest that structural estimates of the deterrent effect of capital punishment are likely to be downward biased due to the influence of simultaneity. Correcting for simultaneity, the estimates imply that a state execution deters approximately fourteen murders per year on average. Finally, the results also suggest that the announcement effect of capital punishment, as opposed to the existence of a death penalty provision, is the mechanism actually driving the deterrent effect associated with state executions.
(5) Evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is important for many states that are currently reconsidering their position on the issue. We examine the deterrent hypothesis using county-level, post-moratorium panel data and a system of simultaneous equations. The procedure we employ overcomes common aggregation problems, eliminates the bias arising from unobserved heterogeneity, and provides evidence relevant for current conditions. Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders—with a margin of error of plus or minus 10. Tests show that results are not driven by tougher sentencing laws, and are also robust to many alternative specifications.
At 6/11/07 01:10 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: So, scaring other people is more important than justice in our legal system?
That depends on your definition of "justice."
it's interesting since just is intended to keep order in society. while revenge should have no place in justice (though to a certain extent most sentences sort of are) means to an end, within the limits of our human rights, seems fair use of "deterent" sentences.
At 6/11/07 03:06 AM, Altarus wrote:At 6/11/07 01:10 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: So, scaring other people is more important than justice in our legal system?That depends on your definition of "justice."
Justice, by my definition, is ensuring that a person who commits a crime does not commit a crime again, through the most humane methods possible. For less heinous crimes, rehabilition is a possiblity, for more heinous crimes, lifetime confinement in a secure prison.
The legal system should not try to "make examples" of people or sentence someone to "scare other people straight."
So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we had the key...
At 6/11/07 02:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:
The legal system should not try to "make examples" of people or sentence someone to "scare other people straight."
Even if it meant to prevent even more serious crimes?
At 6/10/07 10:59 PM, Altarus wrote: According to these studies, the death penalty actually saves lives! Imagine that. I would love to see liberals try and dismiss these findings.
Uh, 'scuse me, but isn't it cheaper to prevent crime by working to combat poverty and low-quality education by providing programs like Head Start, vocational training and improved welfare...? With that, you prevent crime. Preventing crime is cheaper than punishing it, for, after all, death penalty cases alone are quite expensive.
At 6/11/07 04:45 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Uh, 'scuse me, but isn't it cheaper to prevent crime by working to combat poverty and low-quality education by providing programs like Head Start, vocational training and improved welfare...?
except there is no dilemma here, as we can do both
At 6/11/07 02:40 PM, Memorize wrote:At 6/11/07 02:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:The legal system should not try to "make examples" of people or sentence someone to "scare other people straight."Even if it meant to prevent even more serious crimes?
Yes. Never. You punish people for what they did, not for what other people may do.
So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we had the key...
At 6/11/07 06:39 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:
Yes. Never. You punish people for what they did, not for what other people may do.
The death penalty for a murderer is worth million in order to save 5 more lives.
Or do lives have a price now?
Does everyone here want a guy who killed 100 children want to just go to jail for life? the bastered should die.
At 6/11/07 05:21 PM, Altarus wrote:
except there is no dilemma here, as we can do both
Why waste money on executions though? Not in the first place, but at all?
There's plenty of evidence suggesting that they are much more expensive than life without parole.
At 6/11/07 10:03 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:
There's plenty of evidence suggesting that they are much more expensive than life without parole.
That's because the endless appeals cost so much.
Really, if a woman drowns her 5 kids, why not just instantly give her the death sentence? Instead of her wasting 20 years in prison first?
C'mon, the man who tried to assassinate FDR was sentenced to die and then executed almost immediately.
At 6/11/07 08:55 PM, Memorize wrote:At 6/11/07 06:39 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:Yes. Never. You punish people for what they did, not for what other people may do.The death penalty for a murderer is worth million in order to save 5 more lives.
Or do lives have a price now?
No, they don't. Why then, are you assigning prices to them? Why do you believe that 5 lives is worth a million murderers?
Murderers are dispicable people, yes. But—they are still people. They are still human beings. They're just as human as the people you're trying to save. How hypocritical can you get, "what you did was totally subhuman, and abhorable, so as a civilized society, we're going to do the same subhuman, and abhorable thing to you."
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is the most basic form of justice. Why, then, can't we step out of B.C. and into the present day? Why are we still using codes of justice devised before the invention of jails, police, and courts?
Societies aren't judged by how they treat their best citizens, but how they treat their worst. Do we really want to be in the company of Syria, Iran, et. al?
How can someone so gung ho about invading Iraq to remove someone who routinely kills his citizens and tortures people, yet have no problem with their own government doing the same freakin' thing?
I don't doubt that there is a deterrent effect. You know what else would have a deterrent effect? Drawing and quartering them. Burning them at the stake. Let's get those too.
Instead of trying to fix the root problems behind murder, we'll just kill people to scare people straight.
So often times it happens, that we live our lives in chains, and we never even know we had the key...
At 6/11/07 12:27 AM, Korriken wrote: it really is amazing, at one point in time a hanging was a public event, witnessed by hundreds of cheering folk to get to see the latest criminal dangle from a rope.
and now? now its looked down upon as inhumane.
I say murdering someoen is inhumane and the punishment should always fit the crime.
I suppose that might sometimes work, but then again that would mean the government is just as inhumane. Also serial killers still only have one life to lose.
At 6/11/07 10:03 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Why waste money on executions though? Not in the first place, but at all?
There's plenty of evidence suggesting that they are much more expensive than life without parole.
Life without parole doesn't deter murder as much though.
At 6/12/07 10:17 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Murderers are dispicable people, yes. But—they are still people. They are still human beings. They're just as human as the people you're trying to save. How hypocritical can you get, "what you did was totally subhuman, and abhorable, so as a civilized society, we're going to do the same subhuman, and abhorable thing to you."
Yes, killing an innocent person is abhorable, which is why society needs to send the message that it does not tolerate such crimes. One cannot rightly equate the murder of an innocent person to the execution of a condemned criminal. An innocent person has the right to life, whereas a criminal has forfeit that right.
I keep hearing "death causes people to think before they act criminally."
Yet when I look at the cost, chances of innocence and, yes, detterence rates, I know that the facts back up my anti-execution P.O.V.
"In 1990, the murder rates in these two groups were 4% apart. By 2000, the murder rate in the death penalty states was 35% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty. In 2001, the gap between non-death penalty states and states with the death penalty again grew, reaching 37%. For 2002, the number stands at 36%." (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?
scid=12&did=168)
At this link there's a litany of studies that review death penalty costs, and here, innocence is discussed.
At 6/12/07 10:17 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:
No, they don't. Why then, are you assigning prices to them? Why do you believe that 5 lives is worth a million murderers?
I didn't. You did.
I said that to execute 1 murderer to save 5 people is worth it. You didn't, meaning that it is wrong to execute a murderer because their lives are worth just as much as the other 5.
When in reality, that isn't true. A murderer doesn't contribute to society. He's just locked in a cell for the rest of his natural life. And there's already another life that was ended because of him/her (though women get off EXTREMELY EASILY).
Or are you saying that an innocent, law abiding person is equal to that of a murderer?
Isn't an innocent person better than Saddam?
Murderers are dispicable people, yes. But—they are still people.
Even if they are people, they're still not even worth the ants that I step on.
They are still human beings.
Boo hoo?
They're just as human as the people you're trying to save.
No.
How hypocritical can you get, "what you did was totally subhuman, and abhorable, so as a civilized society, we're going to do the same subhuman, and abhorable thing to you."
That would be true Justice. Of course, what do we do? We let them to go sleep and die, peacefully. That's not fairness. It certainly isn't justice.
Societies aren't judged by how they treat their best citizens, but how they treat their worst.
Murderers, rapists, child molestors, child abusers, child killers... they're not worth being called citizens or people.
How can someone so gung ho about invading Iraq to remove someone who routinely kills his citizens and tortures people, yet have no problem with their own government doing the same freakin' thing?
Hahahaha!
You didn't just say something that stupid did you?
First off, we don't torture. We don't go on mass genocides. The people we sentence to death are criminals who take the lives of others, whereas Saddam just decided to slaughter thousands of innocent people.
Haha, don't talk about it as if it were the same.
I don't doubt that there is a deterrent effect. You know what else would have a deterrent effect? Drawing and quartering them. Burning them at the stake. Let's get those too.
Heh, I don't have a problem with that.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
