These are words you really need to read. Because they come from an academic, University of Colorado economics professor Naci Mocan, who personally opposes the death penalty.
And proves, rather conclusively, that the death penalty actually acts as a deterrent to murder.
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).
And boy oh boy, do death penalty opponents not want you to hear about Dr. Mocan's conclusions. (You have got to respect a person who is personally opposed to this but is also too honest to try to skew his results to back his personal bias.)
what am I going to do, hide them?
This obviously defective unit needs to go back to the shop for reprogramming.
Hey, look, actual scientists doing science!
Pingback: Death Penalty Works as Deterrent « Michael P.F. van der Galiën
Statistical studies do not establish a cause-and-effect relationship, and there may be many other factors that are not being measured. The study treats all homicides the same, whether premeditated or not, whether commited in the course of another crime, and fails to consider whether the killer was thinking rationally at the time.
More meaningful studies might be interviews of convicted murderers, asking whether they gave any thought to the consequences of the crime beforehand. Or random interviews asking people whether they had ever considered murder and decided against it , and whether they would have gone ahead with it if the punishment would be a prison term instead of execution.
A more useful question would be which is a stronger deterrent: severity of punishment or certainty of punishment? If a person does not anticipate being caught, how will the severity of punishment have any effect? Would Paris Hilton or “Scooter” Libby have acted differently if they had expected jail time? Would it be more cost-effective to hire more cops, and fewer prison guards?
Longer sentences or execution seem to me to rise from a desire for vengeance, rather than justice. Taking another life has never restored the life of a murder victim. And I can’t remember hearing anybody say that they decided not to kill because of capital punishment.
Meaningful? You mean you’d honestly expect them to tell you other than what you wanted to hear? A lot of crime is deterred by people fearing going to jail. Why wouldn’t the death penalty also induce fear?
Take a slightly different view, then. An executed killer has never – not once – killed again.
Mocan’s study is a lot better constructed than your agenda-driven thoughts on the matter.
(You’re wrong about the vengeance thing, incidentally. It has to do more with the idea of societal protection. In other words, that one person will never, ever do it again. And maybe others will think twice before they try it.)
I appreciate your responding to my post.
“Meaningful? You mean you’d honestly expect them to tell you other than what you wanted to hear?”
Isn’t this an agenda driven statement? Doesn’t it assume the researcher wants to prove a point rather than determine facts? Skillful interviewers without an agenda will ask questions in a manner that does not suggest a desired response.
” A lot of crime is deterred by people fearing going to jail. Why wouldn’t the death penalty also induce fear?”
You are supporting my argument that certainty of punishment is the deterrent. The question is whether capital punishment induces more fear than life in prison. Would a greater certainty of arrest and imprisonment be a more effective deterrent than execution?
“Take a slightly different view, then. An executed killer has never – not once – killed again.”
Granted. Life without parole will accomplish the same. And I thought the intent was to prevent the first murder? But why not extend the concept to other crimes? Execution would certainly prevent further DUI’s or shoplifting.
My only agenda is pragmatism and fairness. Ideologies are worthless if they don’t produce the desired result, no matter how deeply one believes in them. I do not categorically oppose capital punishment. I am troubled by the impossibility of reversing an execution in cases of error. Law enforcement and prosecuters feel intense pressure to find and put away killers, with the media whipping the public into a frenzy of fear. There will be an attitude of “Somebody’s got to pay for this!” With the emphasis on “somebody,” and not necessarily the actual criminal. It is an aspect of the common practice in government to “Do SOMETHING, even if it’s wrong.” Remember poor Richard Jewel?
I do not believe it is applied fairly; kill one or two people, you die, but kill thousands by selling a product your learned is unsafe, or by revealing the identity of a covert agent specializing in WMD, you probably won’t be punished at all. Shouldn’t those who make calculated decisions to kill be punished more severely than those who act in passion or dementia? In particular, I think defence contractors who sell defective equipment to the military should be executed for treason. (Felt that way since the Army got stuck with the Sgt. York artillery piece back in the Viet Nam Era; it was so prone to blowing up that it was more dangerous to our troops than to the enemy.)
“You’re wrong about the vengeance thing”
If that were so, prosecuters would not appeal to emotion in their arguments for capital punishment. They emphasize the gory details of the crime, rather than the likelihod the offender would repeat. But I am openminded; I will consider evidence or reasoning to support your claim.
“maybe others will think twice”
Maybe? That sounds like an acknowledgement that your argument is weak.
Do those who are premeditating murder anticipate being caught? If not, capital punishment is irrelevant to their decision. And the ones that are not premeditating, are they considering any consequences or just acting out of rage or fear? I doubt that they think once, let alone twice.
There are thousands of suicides reported in this country every year; is execution a deterrent for such people? For a younger person than me, might the prospect of a long life behind bars be a greater deterrent than death? And capital punishment is not going to deter a person prepared to fly a plane into a tall building or strap explosives around his body, with the expectation that he is earning a glorious afterlife.
To slightly rephrase the title of an album by the Firesign Theatre, “Anything you think you know for sure, may be wrong.” That concept is the reason I USED to be a liberal.