Scientists agree, by an overwhelming majority, that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. They felt the same way over ten years ago, and nothing has changed since then. States without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment. And the few recent studies purporting to prove a deterrent effect, though getting heavy play in the media, have failed to impress the larger scientific community, which has exposed them as flawed and inconsistent.
The latest issue of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology contains a study by a Sociology professor and a graduate student at the University of Colorado-Boulder (Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock), examining the opinions of leading criminology experts on the deterrence effects of the death penalty.
The results reveal that most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory. In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder—a level of consensus comparable to the agreement among scientists regarding global climate change. At the same time, only 9.2% of surveyed experts indicated that they believed the death penalty results in a significant drop in murder cases (56.6% completely disagreed with that statement, while 32.9% thought the correlation between capital punishment and lower homicide numbers to be “largely inaccurate”; 1.3% were uncertain).
The study builds upon previous research, published in 1996, in which the opinions of 67 leading experts in the field of criminology were surveyed. The most recent study sent the same questions to a new group of experts (a total of 73), among whom were fellows from the American Society of Criminology, as well as award-winning criminology scholars.
A majority of respondents also expressed the opinion that death penalty states don’t have lower homicide rates than states where capital punishment has been abolished. The authors point to empirical evidence that backs this up — in 2007 murder rates in states that still had the death penalty exceeded those in states that have abolished it by no less than 42%. More than eighteen percent of surveyed experts went even further and actually expressed the belief that the death penalty leads to a higher rate of murders, something the authors call the ‘brutalization hypothesis.’
In addition, a majority of respondents involved in both the 2008 and the 1996 studies believe that “(d)ebates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.” Overall, the authors conclude that there is no significant difference between the opinions of experts from the 1996 and the 2008 time periods and that “a vast majority of the world’s top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed the deterrence hypothesis for a myth.”
Radelet and Lacock also discuss and point to significant inconsistencies in a number of studies conducted by economists, who have found the death penalty to have a deterrent effect. These inconsistencies lead them to conclude that “(r)ecent econometric studies, which posit that the death penalty has a marginal deterrent effect beyond that of long-term imprisonment, are so limited or flawed that they have failed to undermine consensus.”
It doesn't really matter what states have the death penalty or not. Crime depends on the state. Such as New York having a higher crime rate than Texas. Criminals are going to commit crimes no matter what the punishment. If a man rapes and kills an eleven year old girl, do you think it's alright to merely put him behind some bars for a few years with the possibility he will get out on parole? If they are aware of what they are doing, I say an eye for an eye. Why should our tax dollars go to keeping all these dangerous people locked up in these buidlings?
When the prisons fill up, what are we going to do next?
Going back to medival methods of punishment would lower crime rates dramatically. Someone murders, they get the death penalty. Simple. People think too much with their hearts for heartless people.
Understandably, there are exceptions, like a wife murdering an abusive husband, the jury would most likely convict her of man slaughter instead. However, for a serial killer, why should we feel any amount of sympathy for someone like that? What's wrong with you people?
My uncle is a prison guard. Inmates that normally would have gotten the death sentence before a lot of the softening of our laws often kill, rape and beat their cell mates.
Maybe it isn't such a bad thing. I sure wouldn't want to be in for some stupid traffic thing and get raped and killed by my cell mate.
Those Red States sure love to kill people...it's very Christian of them.
these states with the death penalty had a higher murder rate compared to others states, before they passed such laws.
That would be a pretty key piece of information here. It leaves no speculation actually. And if that is the case, i'm sure these liberals heard of it. That would beg the question, why play the circus games? we don't need clowns.
Where is full disclosure? You know: The part of this story that explains that the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology "study" was paid for by the San Fransisco based Tides Foundation? The very same Liberal slush fund whose mission statement reads-- committed to accelerating progressive social change through philanthropy.
Whose Director, Eric Schwartz, was just nominated by Obama to a key cabinet post?
Where in the story do we get to learn the motivations behind the author?
No worries, Mr./Mz. anonymous Amnesty International propogandist, I'll provide the footnote.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I thought we had a "Criminal Justice System" rather than a criminal detergent system.
Maybe we should change the name?
Is anyone seriously saying that if States who have the death penalty abolished it, that their murder rate would go down?
It would appear that the left does not know what Justice is, or if they do don't think much of it.
social Justice is the opposite of Justice, so that would be consistent.
I appreciate you doing the homework, I knew there was a footnote somewhere. For liberals: If the death penalty is not a deterrent, why is it that not one person executed for murder ever killed anyone again? Sounds pretty effective to me, but then these are the same folks who think a 30 day jail sentence for DUI manslaughter is appropriate..
Good job missing the point completely.
For one deterrents by definition must apply to people other than on whom the supposedly deterring action is applied. No criminal ever plans on being caught that's why people still murdered people even in the dark ages when you were likely to be broken on the wheel for it. Not big into history are you. Or criminology,.. Or psychology.. Or sociology.. or juding from your comments, any relevant field of study.
For two that's a false dichotomy, just because I don't think we should execute people like apple tossing ignorant illiterate wig wearing 18th century French revolutionaries does not mean that I do not want to see justice done. There is a difference between wanting to assuage your own insecurity by trying to act tough and mean, and actually wanting to prevent crime . Vengeance is for the weak.
For three the argument for an against the death penalty is based largely on the proven fact that the United States has executed and in all possibility will argument again innocent people.
Those who think the death penalty is a good idea fall into two categories and two alone. The ignorant and the malevolent.
The death penalty is a childish throw back. And a grievous insult to crime victims every where. Even the most thick skulled brute should at least be able to grasp that more money for police is a good thing. Where as the death penalty means substantially more money for lawyers instead.
Quit patting yourself on the back for how cruel you can mentally be like some atavistic angst ridden feral teen and actually look into the issue with a rational eye and an open mind.
Then come back with a rational argument.
A clever man solves a problem, a wise man prevents it. No amount of murder will unmurder a victim. By wasting time and money killing who we already have you let those whom we don't get away with murder.
Go put "DNA clears wrongfully" into Google and read. Easy to run your mouth about the suffering of others. Well news flash tough guy, next time it could be you.
Too many mindless thugs, and an absolutely awful interface.
To the webmasters: It's called "Edit" look into it. Like virtually every other forum on the Internet.
You are a wise man to leave the forum since you are a clueless liberal who feels the need to resort to name calling! I don't have to go any further than your first statement to show.. Let's start here-
"For one deterrents by definition must apply to people other than on whom the supposedly deterring action is applied."
Simply not true. You are deterring an action, not a person. Readers don't need to read any further in your post to realize you are mindless. This is what we get when the uneducated elect the unqualified.