What does 67% recidivism for murder mean? Does it argue for death penalty?

[Napier]

An argument in favor of the death penalty is that murderers may kill again if they remain alive.

Most almanacs and other references I check say the recidivism rate for murder is around 65 or 70 percent. I am not sure exactly how this is defined. For example, it could mean that among people who have already been convicted of one or more murders, 67% of them will later commit and be convicted of at least one more murder.

Speaking more generally, though, it seems to mean that somebody who is now a murderer will probably kill again. Though, obviously, he won't once he's dead.

So, doesn't this mean that letting a murderer live creates better than even odds that some other as of yet unknown victim will die? In other words, however many murderers we don't kill, we effectively sentence at least a very roughly similar number of other people to death?

[appleciders]

I think you're using the wrong definition of recidivism- I bet you'd find that it's the chance that they'll be incarcerated again for some crime, not necessarily murder.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by appleciders

I think you're using the wrong definition of recidivism- I bet you'd find that it's the chance that they'll be incarcerated again for some crime, not necessarily murder.

That sounds likely to me; I've always heard that murderers usually don't kill again, outside of special cases like serial killers and hit men.

Regardless, most of the arguments I've heard against the death penalty have nothing to do with the recidivism rate, so it doesn't matter much for this arguement IMHO.

[ArizonaTeach]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Regardless, most of the arguments I've heard against the death penalty have nothing to do with the recidivism rate, so it doesn't matter much for this arguement IMHO.

Is that a woosh? Seriously? That's one of primary arguments

Originally Posted by Amnestry International

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.

Originally Posted by New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty

Based on numerous studies, former Attorney General Janet Reno and the American Society of Criminologists agree that the death penalty has no deterrence value.
Janet Reno stated at a Justice Department news briefing in January 2000 that: "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent, and I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point."

Originally Posted by Religious Tolerance.org

Lack of Deterrence: The death penalty has not been shown to be effective in the reduction of the homicide rate. There are some indications that executions actually increase the murder rate.

Originally Posted by End the Death Penalty Now!

Hundreds of studies have also been done concerning the deterrence effect of capital punishment. The fact is, the death penalty does not deter murders from occurring. In one study done in Oklahoma, it was found that after Oklahoma resumed capital punishment, no deterrent effect was found - in fact, a brutalization effect (increase in homicides) was reported. This means that capital punishment doesn't lower crime rates, but in fact raises them. William Bailey, author of the report in Oklahoma, also found a significant increase in stranger-related deaths after Oklahoma resumed the death penalty. In other reports in Texas and California, the same information was reported - proving that the death penalty almost never has a deterrent effect on crime.

...and pretty much the front page of any single anti-death penalty site you look up. Now, I don't know about what the OP brought up, since the reality might be the exact opposite, but hand-waving away an absolute cornerstone of the anti-death penalty movement when the slightest hint of a crack appears is stunning to me.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by ArizonaTeach

Is that a woosh? Seriously? That's one of primary arguments...

Your quotes were talking about the (lack of) deterrent value (that is, people being deterred from ever commiting a crime because of fear of the penalty); the OP is talking about repeat offenders - it's not the same thing.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by ArizonaTeach

Now, I don't know about what the OP brought up, since the reality might be the exact opposite, but hand-waving away an absolute cornerstone of the anti-death penalty movement when the slightest hint of a crack appears is stunning to me.

It's hardly a cornerstone; it's a counterargument to the insistence of the pro-death penalty people that executions are some sort of deterrent. It's especially not a cornerstone since in my experience, most of the pro-death penalty crowd really don't seem to care if it's a deterrent or not, or even makes things worse, or if we are killing innocent people.

And I said "most" arguments. That's only one argument, no matter how often it's repeated.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

Your quotes were talking about the (lack of) deterrent value (that is, people being deterred from ever commiting a crime because of fear of the penalty); the OP is talking about repeat offenders - it's not the same thing.

Apparently the "fact" that the death penalty has no effect on deterrence has come into question with new research.

From the article:

"According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented."

It has made me rethink my anti-death penalty stance a bit. I'm not quite ready to be pro, but it has definitely made me rethink it.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Apparently the "fact" that the death penalty has no effect on deterrence has come into question with new research.

I'm not going to argue that, I just wanted to point out that the ArizonaTeach is comparing apples and oranges.

Killing someone is a very effective deterrent against them being tempted to commit another crime in the future, therefore the arguments about recidivism and deterrence can't be one and the same.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

I'm not going to argue that, I just wanted to point out that the ArizonaTeach is comparing apples and oranges.

Killing someone is a very effective deterrent against them being tempted to commit another crime in the future, therefore the arguments about recidivism and deterrence can't be one and the same.

The new research was just something I wanted to bring up because it has potentially changed my mind, and I was wondering if I was alone in that. Maybe I should start my own thread instead of hijacking this one....

[ArizonaTeach]

Originally Posted by Mangetout

Your quotes were talking about the (lack of) deterrent value (that is, people being deterred from ever commiting a crime because of fear of the penalty); the OP is talking about repeat offenders - it's not the same thing.

Yes, of course, you're right. I don't know how I misread the first post so badly, but I did.

[Mangetout]

Easily done - it took me a while to twig to it.

[Napier]

Well. Yes, I am interested in how often convicted murders who have served some sentence and returned to society then kill again.

I'm surprised that, by recidivism amongst murderers, references mean crimes of any sort being convicted by them. But I wasn't sure what it did mean, so maybe this is true. I will try looking around some more. Anybody who knows more specifically, please chime in!

I'm most interested in this point of fact, about what exactly such a statistic is saying. That's why I posted this in General Questions.

Since we are debating, I'll stipulate that I used to be in favor of the death penalty but have moderated. Mostly, I wish the US were more in step with the rest of the civilized world, but I am also somewhat worried when I read about incorrect convictions and the Innocence Project and the like.

I suspect the biggest driving force behind the death penalty is evangelical Christian leanings. I think we intend to cleanse the soul of a killer, as a service to them and/or to god.

Imagine Schroedinger's experiment with the cat in the box. You go on and on not knowing if the cat is dead. Eventually you open the box and find out, and then we consider what the state of truth was before you found out.

Now imagine a closed off cell with a prisoner in it, a convicted murderer. He stays in the cell, so none of us will ever contact him or interact with him, and he won't kill again. That closed off cell is an isolated universe from our own. We obviously can't have any interest in whether the prisoner is alive or dead in there. Yet, we seem to think we do.

I think the only thing that transcends the closed off cell is religion, if you believe some all-powerful god knows what's happening inside the cell and cares about it and will somehow reward you if the right thing happens in there, even if it can't effect you directly.

[Zedfoil]

It seems to me that if you are in favour of capital punishment you have to be willing to kill the odd innocent person, which is why I don't approve of it.
A life taken can't be restored. Human courts are not perfect.
Capital punishment is either about being pragmatic and saving money and bother or it's about vengence.

[Martin Hyde]

I have a lot of complex feelings on the death penalty. Firstly, I think the death penalty is immoral and wrong. Quite frankly this is an extension of my religious convictions, I'm Catholic and it is well known that the modern day Church rejects the death penalty. I agree completely with the Church's stance on this matter.

Even the most heinous criminal gets a second chance before god (or a third chance, or a fifth et cetera) so I feel they should get the chance to reform themselves in our society as well. While I believe certain criminals should be imprisoned and never released, I do believe they should be allowed to live out their lives while incarcerated. They should be given some means to meaningfully educate themselves and find value in their lives.

I think almost all persons convicted of premeditated murder should spend the rest of their natural lives in prison. This is not a view born out of vindictiveness but simply one that I view as practical. My feeling is, prison should exist for one reason and one reason only, to separate those who are too dangerous to be in society from the rest of us. Prison should be seen as a necessary evil--and just because we don't want those who are locked up out on our streets does not mean we should deny them their basic humanity.

I also think that the vast majority of offenders in this country do not belong in prison. They belong in treatment facilities (for persons who are sent up on substance-abuse related crimes) or they should be required to pay hefty fines and perform lengthy community service. For example I have a cousin who has spent years in prison because he frequently fudges checks (not dissimilar from the villain in this thread.) My cousin is a menace, and he does cause others harm by stealing their money. I agree that he is a criminal and I agree he needs to be punished for his actions.

However, I think most people who commit such crimes would be better off toiling away at community service and paying fines to the government versus being made effective wards of the state in our prison system. Simply put, non-violent offenders should only be put into segregation from society in extreme circumstances (such as a habitual check forger who shows no ability or desire to reform himself and thus is a constant nuisance upon society.)

This raises into question the idea of equity. One reason the death penalty has long been popular is because it isn't entirely illogical to view the only appropriate punishment for taking a life to be the taking of the offender's life. This view would make a lot of sense to me if I were an atheist. For example the Church of Satan (despite its name) is a group of atheists whose leadership has gone on national TV and said, "If you take someone else's life, your life should be taken." They feel this way because they believe this mortal existence is all there is, and if you steal someone's time away from them the only just punishment is for the same to be done unto you. If we lived in our simple lives, died, and passed into oblivion, I would find no compelling argument for any punishment for death other than death itself. If there is nothing other than our existence here on earth, then stealing ANY of that time away is the greatest wrong imaginable and can only be punished in like manner. No amount of time spent even in the worst prison will provide anything approaching equity.

However, the flip side of that is, since we must view the loss of life as the greatest tragedy possible (if we're working from the atheist world view) we can only take life as punishment when we are absolutely certain the person is guilty. I am not familiar with any case in which we can be absolutely certain the accused is guilty, so even under this world view I do not think I could support the death penalty without absolute certainty of guilt.

I think the matter of deterrence is overrated by both sides. I do not think one should support or oppose executions based on whether it is or is not a deterrent. I think punishments should be decided based on what is just punishment for the crime, and if that doesn't deter future crimes, that is unfortunate but we should not apply an unjust punishment simply because it may serve as a good deterrent. We also should not fear applying a just punishment just because it may not work as a deterrent, either.

So while I accept that certain arguments for the death penalty are compelling, I think that morality and the simple fact that we cannot attain absolute certainty of guilt are the two biggest things that should lead people to not support the death penalty.

The last argument I've heard is that sometimes violent offenders, even when incarcerated permanently, are such a threat that they put the very lives of correctional workers at constant peril. Furthermore, there is the argument that persons serving a life sentence in a jurisdiction without the death penalty will have no reason not to kill others in prison. For this reason it is not uncommon in the United States that the killing of another inmate in prison by a person serving a life sentence constitutes a capital offense. It is often the case that killing a correctional officer will also constitute a capital offense in jurisdictions where "simple" acts of murder aren't enough to warrant the death penalty.

I view these as valid concerns, however I feel that those persons who are so dangerous that they cannot even be trusted within the confines of prison can be dealt with without killing them. They can be put into a type of pervasive confinement like you find at Federal "Supermax" prisons. Kept in the same room 23 out of 24 hours They can be kept totally segregated from all other inmates, they can be kept under constant surveillance, they can be brought out of their cell by correctional officers only when heavily restrained and with multiple guards present. An expensive solution, but one that would probably only be necessary for a very small number of people (I feel a lot of the people who are serving time in "Supermax" facilities probably shouldn't be. Ted Kacyznski for example doesn't strike me as dangerous unless you let him have bomb-making materials.)

[Napier]

>It seems to me that if you are in favour of capital punishment you have to be willing to kill the odd innocent person, which is why I don't approve of it.

But you can't avoid that either way. If by releasing murderers, some of whom will repeat their crime, you allow some statistically reliable number of additional murders, then by the same reasoning to disapprove of capital punishment you also have to be willing to kill the odd innocent person. You are faced with a social reality for which none of the known choices prevent all innocent deaths.

>Capital punishment is either about being pragmatic and saving money and bother or it's about vengence.

I proposed that capital punishment might be about preventing further killings by those executed. Why couldn't it be?
Also, don't the further legal proceedings that go along with executions cost more than even lifelong maintenance of a prisoner? I read somewhere that it costs the system several million dollars on average to execute somebody, mostly in the costs of lawyer and court fees.

[Kinthalis]

Originally Posted by Napier

>It seems to me that if you are in favour of capital punishment you have to be willing to kill the odd innocent person, which is why I don't approve of it.

But you can't avoid that either way. If by releasing murderers, some of whom will repeat their crime, you allow some statistically reliable number of additional murders, then by the same reasoning to disapprove of capital punishment you also have to be willing to kill the odd innocent person. You are faced with a social reality for which none of the known choices prevent all innocent deaths.

>Capital punishment is either about being pragmatic and saving money and bother or it's about vengence.

I proposed that capital punishment might be about preventing further killings by those executed. Why couldn't it be?
Also, don't the further legal proceedings that go along with executions cost more than even lifelong maintenance of a prisoner? I read somewhere that it costs the system several million dollars on average to execute somebody, mostly in the costs of lawyer and court fees.

So you propose what exactly? Lessen the number of checks and balances on death penalty procedures so that more innocent people have a chance of ebing executed?

More importantly why do I always see this debate being framed as: death penalty or freedom?

Let the judges and jury decide when life WITHOUT the possibility of parole should apply and when more liniency should be granted. No one is saying that we should let murders go free, just that we shouldn't kill because in doing so we can and probably will kill innocent people.

[Zedfoil]

Napier and Kinthalis, I'd be much stricter about releasing murderers, possibly to the extent of eliminating parole. If they re-commit that's their crime.

Executing an innocent would be the legal system's crime. That's the thing that bothers me.

I realize, of course, that governments kill people. To that you could argue, or goverments could make it look like, the opposition is made up of bad guys. There are rules of engagement and procedures and so on.

If you kill an innocent there is no legal excuse I can think of.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Apparently the "fact" that the death penalty has no effect on deterrence has come into question with new research.

Research by economists? The same branch of "science" that is supposed to be able to tell us what our money will do and can't do that?

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by Kinthalis

More importantly why do I always see this debate being framed as: death penalty or freedom?

Let the judges and jury decide when life WITHOUT the possibility of parole should apply and when more liniency should be granted. No one is saying that we should let murders go free, just that we shouldn't kill because in doing so we can and probably will kill innocent people.

Part of the reason for that framing is because a number of people can point to some horrifying cases where persons were sentences to death, or life in prison, and then were released, anyways, and killed again.

Arthur Shawcross: released early, against reccomendations of prison officials. Secretely relocated to Rochester, NY. Killed another 11 women before being caught and convicted again.

Kenneth McDuff: Actually convicted of capital murder. The death penalty in the US was overturned, so his sentence was commuted to life. And then he was released by a judge, against the reccomendations of the prison officials.

I do not pretend that these cases are indicative of general failures of the penal system. I do think that they, and other cases with similarities, are part of why some people choose to frame the debate on the death penalty in terms of death or some possibility of release. That any killer has been released early from his sentence, and then went on to kill again, is for some people a reason to advocate for the death penalty.

[Napier]

>So you propose what exactly?

The way things are now doesn't seem quite right, but I don't know.

If "67% recidivism for murder" means that for every 3 murderers you don't execute, 2 more victims will die, then I'd propose executing them all. And, we should have some reasonably balanced effort to minimize the incorrect convictions, like we try to minimize deaths by war and disease and accident.

If "%67 etc etc" means something very different, then I'd want to know what researchers say about how many lives are lost using each of the options, and let that guide me.

So the first thing I'd do is try to straighten out what "67% recidivism for murder" actually means. The real problem is needing more information to make a good choice.

Maybe I should post a question online....

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Frank

Research by economists? The same branch of "science" that is supposed to be able to tell us what our money will do and can't do that?

Simply saying that you won't believe a study simply because it was done by an economist (actually "roughly a dozen recent studies" by economists) is lazy.

I'm open to seeing the flaws in the research. Like I said, I've spent most of my life anti-death penalty. But, I'm also open to altering my opinion when new data comes in.

[Dumbguy]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

I'm open to seeing the flaws in the research. Like I said, I've spent most of my life anti-death penalty. But, I'm also open to altering my opinion when new data comes in.

Well, I'll take a shot. The study linked in the Times article is correlational, but both the study and the Times article are claiming causation. The study finds that in a given region in a given year, when the execution rate increased, the murder rate dropped. It also finds that the reverse is true. When the rate of commuted death penalty sentences increases (in a given area in a given year), the murder rate increases.

Let’s assume these findings are accurate and replicable and real. That suggests there’s a correlation, but it doesn’t say anything about causation. In his intro Mocan says, “We find statistically significant relationships between homicide and executions, commutations, and removals.” Which his data supports. He then says, “Specifically, each additional execution (commutation) reduces (increases) homicides by about 5…” At that point he’s claiming causation, which his data does not support.

The problem with correlational data is that often some third factor (or factors) is ‘causing’ the correlation in the variables you’re tracking. For example, if a study found that national credit card debt is higher in December and January than it is in June and July, that clearly doesn’t mean that heat causes frugality. Mocan’s findings could mean that executions reduce the murder rate, or it could mean that some unknown third factor, like higher budgets for law enforcement and the penal system, lead to both lower murder rates and higher execution rates.

If he believes that death penalty statistics are affecting criminal behavior, how is the pool of potential murderers getting this information. I have no idea how many people have been executed in my state or how many sentences have been commuted, so how do I factor that into my internal ‘should I kill somebody’ cost-benefit analysis?

[Askance]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Apparently the "fact" that the death penalty has no effect on deterrence has come into question with new research.

From the article:

"According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented."

It has made me rethink my anti-death penalty stance a bit. I'm not quite ready to be pro, but it has definitely made me rethink it.

You are confusing the deterrence effect on others, with the reduction in murders if the killer him/herself is let out to possibly kill again.

The death penalty has no deterrent effect on other killers, because most murders are committed on impulse, or by people who are convinced they will never be caught no matter what (ie they are stupid). It's been shown time and again that deterrence (for any crime) comes from the perceived likelihood of being caught, not the severity of the punishment if caught (within certain boundaries, of course - "may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb").

The state should not kill for the reason that it is purporting to be a superior moral agent to the one who kills (or indeed commits any other crime). Fine, throw them away for life (literally - that takes care of the recidivism argument), but never ever kill anyone.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Askance

You are confusing the deterrence effect on others, with the reduction in murders if the killer him/herself is let out to possibly kill again.

The death penalty has no deterrent effect on other killers, because most murders are committed on impulse, or by people who are convinced they will never be caught no matter what (ie they are stupid).

I'm not confusing them at all. These studies are claiming that between 3-18 murders are prevented by deterrence on others not that the executed criminal would have otherwise himself killed between 3 and 18 people. Your statement that the "death penalty has no deterrent effect" seems to be very much in question.

From the linked article (bolding mine):

"“The evidence on whether it has a significant deterrent effect seems sufficiently plausible that the moral issue becomes a difficult one,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has frequently taken liberal positions. “I did shift from being against the death penalty to thinking that if it has a significant deterrent effect it’s probably justified.”

Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science.

“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”"

Dumbguy, you might be right or correlation vs. causation. I'm making no claim that the data is conclusive. But, the data is interesting enough that I believe that out and out claiming that there is no deterrent effect is not quite right. And if there is a deterrent effect, I have to rethink my position on the issue.

[doreen]

Originally Posted by Napier

>So you propose what exactly?

The way things are now doesn't seem quite right, but I don't know.

If "67% recidivism for murder" means that for every 3 murderers you don't execute, 2 more victims will die, then I'd propose executing them all. And, we should have some reasonably balanced effort to minimize the incorrect convictions, like we try to minimize deaths by war and disease and accident.

If "%67 etc etc" means something very different, then I'd want to know what researchers say about how many lives are lost using each of the options, and let that guide me.

So the first thing I'd do is try to straighten out what "67% recidivism for murder" actually means. The real problem is needing more information to make a good choice.

Maybe I should post a question online....

Do you have a link to anything stating the recidivism rate for murder is 67%? As it happens , I work in the criminal justice system. In every study I've read, those convicted of various homicides have one of the lowest rates of recidivism, even when recidivism is defined as a rearrest for any crime. My own experience bears this out. You have to remember, most people convicted of homicide are not serial killers or drug dealers. Plenty of them got into a fight, and the other person ended up dead, or they drove so recklessly, or neglected a child so badly that when someone died, they ended up being convicted one type or another of homicide.





For example, in this Dept of Justice report http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf , ( the most recent I could find online) recidivism is defined variously as reaarrest , reconviction , resentenced to prison, or returned to prison with or without a new sentence ( for example, a parole or probation violation) within 3 years of their release in 1994. One part does specifically address people released and rearrested for the same crime

Within 3 years, 2.5% of the 3,138
released rapists were rearrested for
another rape, and 1.2% of the 4,443
persons who had served time for
homicide were rearrested for a
homicide. Among other offenses, the
percentages rearrested for the same
category of offense for which they were
just in prison were
13.4% of released robbers
22.0% of released assaulters
23.4% of released burglars
33.9% of released larcenists
11.5% of released thieves of motor
vehicles
19.0% of released defrauders
41.2% of released drug offenders.

[fisha]

Exactly, doreen.

[Napier]

>Do you have a link to anything stating the recidivism rate for murder is 67%?

Well, this is embarrassing, but I can't find any now. I thought I read this in two almanacs but now I can find one that says 6.6% and can't find the other. I think I'm just wildly off base. I did find several references to an overall recidivism rate of around 60% for ALL crime, hardly the same thing.

So, sorry for stupidly started a misleading thread with bad information!

>Fine, throw them away for life (literally - that takes care of the recidivism argument), but never ever kill anyone.

This is an interesting point, though. I do see in my "The World Almanac 2002" a listing for the Average Sentence for Homicide of 15 years, and Average Time Served of 7 years. If by "throw them away for life" you mean trusting the system to keep a murderer away from society forever, and not release or parole them or let them escape, or for that matter kill somebody in prison who might be there for a pretty minor offense or by mistake, then we don't necessarily have a way to trust the system.

[Askance]

Originally Posted by Napier

I do see in my "The World Almanac 2002" a listing for the Average Sentence for Homicide of 15 years, and Average Time Served of 7 years.

That's a world average? It seems incredibly low, but recall that in countries with the death penalty prison sentences for homicide will by definition only be for the less serious cases (or rather those with some degree of justification or other extenuating circumstance) so that drastically reduces the average.

If by "throw them away for life" you mean trusting the system to keep a murderer away from society forever, and not release or parole them or let them escape, or for that matter kill somebody in prison who might be there for a pretty minor offense or by mistake, then we don't necessarily have a way to trust the system.

They should not be in the same prison as minor offenders.

We do not and should not trust the system, which is why there are avenues of appeal.

[Askance]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

I'm not confusing them at all. These studies are claiming that between 3-18 murders are prevented by deterrence on others not that the executed criminal would have otherwise himself killed between 3 and 18 people.

You failed to note the counter-quotes in that same article:

The death penalty “is applied so rarely that the number of homicides it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot reliably be disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors,” John J. Donohue III, a law professor at Yale with a doctorate in economics, and Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in the Stanford Law Review in 2005. “The existing evidence for deterrence,” they concluded, “is surprisingly fragile.”

Gary Becker, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 1992 and has followed the debate, said the current empirical evidence was “certainly not decisive” because “we just don’t get enough variation to be confident we have isolated a deterrent effect.”

Originally Posted by fiveyearlurker

Your statement that the "death penalty has no deterrent effect" seems to be very much in question.

Why then do countries with the death penalty not have lower murder rates than others? Why do US states that halt or reintroduce the death penalty not see a dramatic shift in murder rates? I maintain that most murders are spontaneous, or done with the perceived certainty of not being caught, and so deterrence is not relevant. No-one thinks "well I would murder him if I was going to go to prison for 40 years, but since they'll execute me I won't. "

And, as I said before, the state must adopt a superior moral stance to the criminal or lose moral authority and just become another playa, just as parents must not break rules of morality they enforce on their children.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Napier

An argument in favor of the death penalty is that murderers may kill again if they remain alive.... 67% of them will later commit and be convicted of at least one more murder.

I think you've got that wrong. I think you've misplaced a decimal point there.

I've been debating the Death Penalty for years. There was an oft-quoted study which put the arrest figure at, IIRC, 6.6%. And that is not in itself a meaningful figure for several reasons.

for a start, arrest does not = guilt. Hey there was a murder committed during a robbery, the cops arrested and questioned someone with a record of similar crimes. Maybe they did the same to 100 ex-cons, and only one of them was actually guilty, or maybe none of them were and it was a new guy.

Also, the sample size was so small that one arrest could make a swing of several percent.

anyway, I'll try and dig up the report sometime, but 'm going to bed right now,

The recidivism rate is nowhere near 60%.

As for the contention that each execution prevents several murders, how do you explain the places that have abolished the death penalty without any rise in the murder rate?

[Pericles_64]

Whatever the recidivism level of murderers who are imprisoned, it is higher than among those who are executed. The recidivism rate of those executed is ZERO.

When a man knows he will NEVER, EVER, be released from prison, and will suffer no consequences for murder other than a few more years tacked onto his 300 year sentence... then you have given him a license to kill guards and other inmates.

Shannon Agofsky killed a friend of mine, in a very brutal way. Tortured him to get the security codes for a bank alarm, then duct taped him into a chair and threw him, alicve anc conscious, off the Number 10 bridge into Grand Lake of the Cherokees. For that, he recieved a Life sentence.

http://www.ocolly.com/issues/1997_Fa.../sentence.html

Since that time, he has been sentenced to death for the murder of a fellow inmate. In a recent interview he stated that he works out and waits for the guards to make a mistake.. leave him where he can reach another prisoner... so he can "try my hand". He is currently awaiting execution.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Pericles_64

When a man knows he will NEVER, EVER, be released from prison, and will suffer no consequences for murder other than a few more years tacked onto his 300 year sentence... then you have given him a license to kill guards and other inmates.

A false argument. There will always be a maximum sentence, beyond which no further punishment is possible.

When a man knows that he will be executed and will suffer no consequences for murder other than another death sentence on top of his death sentence, then you have given him a licence to kill guards and other inmates.

Shannon Agofsky killed a friend of mine ... Since that time, he has been sentenced to death for the murder of a fellow inmate. In a recent interview he stated that he works out and waits for the guards to make a mistake.. leave him where he can reach another prisoner... so he can "try my hand". He is currently awaiting execution.

There you are, as I said. Under sentence of death, and still announcing his intention to kill again.

Is this supposed to help your case?

[Pericles_64]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

A false argument. There will always be a maximum sentence, beyond which no further punishment is possible.

When a man knows that he will be executed and will suffer no consequences for murder other than another death sentence on top of his death sentence, then you have given him a licence to kill guards and other inmates.



There you are, as I said. Under sentence of death, and still announcing his intention to kill again.

Is this supposed to help your case?

I have seen men sentenced to hundreds of years. If you are saying there will always be maximum sentence, then those men had not reached it.

As for Shannon Agofsky, he killed while serving a LIFE sentence. He now no longer has the capability of killing, as he is sitting on death row, isolated from other prisoners... and soon, hopefully, he shall never have any possiblity of ever killing again.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Askance

Why then do countries with the death penalty not have lower murder rates than others?

Apples and oranges. We have guns in the US. We have all sorts of confounding variables that make such a comparison irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Askance

Why do US states that halt or reintroduce the death penalty not see a dramatic shift in murder rates? I maintain that most murders are spontaneous, or done with the perceived certainty of not being caught, and so deterrence is not relevant. No-one thinks "well I would murder him if I was going to go to prison for 40 years, but since they'll execute me I won't. "

That's exactly what these studies DO show:

"The studies try to explain changes in the murder rate over time, asking whether the use of the death penalty made a difference. They look at the experiences of states or counties, gauging whether executions at a given time seemed to affect the murder rate that year, the year after or at some other later time. And they try to remove the influence of broader social trends like the crime rate generally, the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, economic conditions and demographic changes."

You can maintain all you like, but the data is all that matters. Is the data potentially flawed? Yes. All data is open to interpretation. But, looking at the data and analyzing it is better than sticking to something that seems right and declaring that "deterrence is not relevant" with nothing to back it up.

Originally Posted by Askance

And, as I said before, the state must adopt a superior moral stance to the criminal or lose moral authority and just become another playa, just as parents must not break rules of morality they enforce on their children.

This is a fair argument, but an entirely separate one from whether there is a deterrent effect. There appears to at least be sufficient data that someone simply stating that there is no deterrent effect should re-examine the issue. Like I said, the data is potentially wrong, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it because we don't like it.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

That's exactly what these studies DO show:

cite? The quote you provided (where from?) doesn't have anything to do with that.

Can you show a study that compares deterrence in death penalty vs deterrence in 40 year sentences?

You can maintain all you like, but the data is all that matters. Is the data potentially flawed? Yes. All data is open to interpretation. But, looking at the data and analyzing it is better than sticking to something that seems right and declaring that "deterrence is not relevant" with nothing to back it up.

The data is perfectly available to all. Many countries in the last 150 years or so have abolished the death penalty, with life imprisonment being the maximum sentence. If the DP deters crimes that prison fails to deter, then you would expect a rise in crime immediately after abolition. It doesn't happen. They always experience pretty much the same crime level before and after abolition.

you can theorize all you want to, but actual practical experience shows that prison is just as good a deterrent as the DP.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

cite? The quote you provided (where from?) doesn't have anything to do with that.

Can you show a study that compares deterrence in death penalty vs deterrence in 40 year sentences?

Ask and ye shall receive though with a pdf warning. (bolding mine)

"We find statistically significant relationships between homicide and executions,
commutations and removals. Specifically, each additional execution (commutation)
reduces (increases) homicides by about 5, while an additional removal from death row generates about one additional murder."

[Peter Morris]

Right, I haven't studied it in detail, but a glance through it reveals this on page 15:

Using the average of the coefficients estimated, each
additional execution (commutation) results in a reduction (increase) of murders by
about 5.

Right, so they ESTIMATE the variables in their equation, and come up with the number they want. With different estimates they would have come up with different answers.

But their guesses don't actually follow real life. Again I say, many countries have abolished the death penelty. Can you show ONE instance where this was followed by an immediate rise in crime?

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Right, so they ESTIMATE the variables in their equation, and come up with the number they want. With different estimates they would have come up with different answers.

From the author of that study (in the linked NY Times article):

"I personally am opposed to the death penalty,” said H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study finding that each execution saves five lives."

Seems to me he got the answer that he DIDN'T want.

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

But their guesses don't actually follow real life. Again I say, many countries have abolished the death penelty. Can you show ONE instance where this was followed by an immediate rise in crime?

Again I say that other countries are irrelevant. There are already enough confounding variables within a country to make it a complicated thing to study. Add another culture with other gun laws and trial systems, and the study becomes essentially impossible.

[Askance]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Apples and oranges. We have guns in the US. We have all sorts of confounding variables that make such a comparison irrelevant.

My point was not limited to the US. Here in Australia we abolished the death penalty in 1967. By your thesis murder rates should have jumped up the next year, as the deterrence was reduced.

But this chart (C3.10, scroll about 1/3 of the way down) shows there was no such jump. Murder rates decreased from 1915 to the 1940s, then increased until the late 80s, then decreased again. The rate in 1968 is actually lower than that for 1967. A bit further down is this quote:

Looking across many nations, from a policy point of view things like expanding the number of police, giving them better technology, setting longer prison sentences, imposing or abolishing the death penalty have had no effect on the homicide rate, which has remained fairly constant in most countries.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Again I say that other countries are irrelevant. There are already enough confounding variables within a country to make it a complicated thing to study. Add another culture with other gun laws and trial systems, and the study becomes essentially impossible.

Rubbish. You are not comparing two different countries with different variables and different gun laws. You are studying THE SAME country with only one variable changed, and all other things left the same.

You aren't comparing UK to America, you're comparing UK with DP to UK without DP, France with DP to France without DP, Canada with DP to Canada without DP and so on.

Does crime in a country increase after abolition, all other things being equal? That's the only question. And I've never seen any credible evidence that it does.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Pericles_64

As for Shannon Agofsky, he killed while serving a LIFE sentence. He now no longer has the capability of killing, as he is sitting on death row, isolated from other prisoners... and soon, hopefully, he shall never have any possiblity of ever killing again.

I wonder if there is a way to re-create this state in prisoners who are not on death row?

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Rubbish. You are not comparing two different countries with different variables and different gun laws. You are studying THE SAME country with only one variable changed, and all other things left the same.

You aren't comparing UK to America, you're comparing UK with DP to UK without DP, France with DP to France without DP, Canada with DP to Canada without DP and so on.

Does crime in a country increase after abolition, all other things being equal? That's the only question. And I've never seen any credible evidence that it does.

I don't know, and again, it doesn't matter because you're NOT comparing France with the death penalty to France without the death penalty. You're comparing France, with it's laws and it's gun control and it's criminals with the death penalty to France, with it's laws and it's gun control and it's criminals without the death penalty. And then trying to extrapolate that to the US.

Switzerland began requiring men aged 21 to 32 to have an assault rifle and ammunition in their homes. They enjoy a vanishingly small murder and robbery rate, many say (and data suggests) as a result of this gun ownership.

Should we require men aged 21 to 32 in New York City to have a gun in their home? I mean, it worked in Switzerland, so obviously it would work in the South Bronx. We should stop trying to get guns off the streets and institute a guns for toys program!

Or are there confounding variables that make this extrapolation impossible? Is it possible that the history of the Swiss with guns is different than the history of New Yorkers? That the gun culture of the Swiss is such that the crime rate would decrease as a result of compulsory gun ownership, while in Brooklyn, the murder rate would go through the roof? That the population density, wealth of the citizens and personal history of the inhabitants are so different that such comparisons are silly.

That what works for the Swiss is completely irrelevant to New York.

My ONLY point is that the data currently is suggestive that there is a deterrent effect of the death penalty. It is no longer acceptable, to me, to simply state as fact that there is no deterrent effect.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

I don't know, and again, it doesn't matter because you're NOT comparing France with the death penalty to France without the death penalty. You're comparing France, with it's laws and it's gun control and it's criminals with the death penalty to France, with it's laws and it's gun control and it's criminals without the death penalty. And then trying to extrapolate that to the US.

So you're saying that deterrence works differently in USA than it does in every single other country?

Many other countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, and this wasn't followed by a rise in crime, but America is different from all of them. Is that what you are saying?

Okay, how about individual states in America that have abolished. Can you show in America examples of abolition leading to higher crimes a few months later?

Some have abolished and reinstated it. Can you show that crime dropped upon reinstatement anywhere in America?

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

So you're saying that deterrence works differently in USA than it does in every single other country?

Many other countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, and this wasn't followed by a rise in crime, but America is different from all of them. Is that what you are saying?

Not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying every country is unique.

Please provide a cite that every country that abolished the death penalty had no change in the murder rate. I'm sure that the murder rate dropped in a number of countries after Sharia law, and death penalties skyrocked, was adopted. I'm also sure that the confounding variables to this make it meaningless to extrapolate to the US.

In other words there are probably examples of countries that would work in my favor in this argument, but they are just as meaningless as the examples that work against my argument.

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Okay, how about individual states in America that have abolished. Can you show in America examples of abolition leading to higher crimes a few months later?

Some have abolished and reinstated it. Can you show that crime dropped upon reinstatement anywhere in America?

There are quite a few studies showing exactly this (bolding always mine).

From the June 2004 Journal of Legal Studies:

"I examine two important questions in the capital punishment literature: what kinds of murders are deterred and what effect does the length of the death row wait have on deterrence? I use monthly murder and execution data that measure deterrence more precisely than the annual data of most capital punishment studies. 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 African-American and white victims decrease after executions, which suggests that capital punishment benefits people of all races. However, longer waits on death row before execution lessen the deterrence. Specifically, one less murder is committed for every 2.75-year reduction in death row waits. Thus, recent legislation to shorten the wait should strengthen capital punishment's deterrent effect."

Here is an interesting study publication with the following conclusion:

"Third, we supplement the before-and-after comparisons with regression analysis
that disentangles the impact of the moratorium itself on murder from the effect on murder of
actual executions. By using two different approaches, we avoid many of the modeling criticisms
of earlier studies. Fourth, in addition to estimating 84 distinct regression models—with
variations in regressors, estimation method, and functional form—our robustness checks examine
the moratorium’s impact on crimes that are not punishable by death. Our results indicate that
capital punishment has a deterrent effect, and the moratorium and executions deter murders in
distinct ways. This evidence is corroborated by both the before-and-after comparisons and
regression analysis. We also confirm that the moratorium and executions do not cause similar
changes in non-capital crimes. The results are highly robust."

This paper that I already cited has this data in figure 1 showing an interesting inverse relationship between execution number and murder rate.

There are quite a few other studies as well.

Again, I'm still anti-death penalty, but it's harder now that there seems to be a rising tide of data showing deterrence.

You have to at least acknowledge that the data seems to be compelling; it is hardly the case that "there is no deterrence" is a fact. The data might be wrong, but it might also be right. The reason I'm still anti-death penalty is that if this data is wrong, I don't want to execute people as a result. But, I'm open minded to the possibility that the data is right.

I'm just sayin' that you have to at least acknowledge that the data seems to be compelling; it is hardly the case that "there is no deterrence" is a fact.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

Please provide a cite that every country that abolished the death penalty had no change in the murder rate.

It's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence backing it. You are claiming that execution deters murder. Its up to you to provide evidence backing it.

In other words there are probably examples of countries that would work in my favor in this argument,

Are there? name them.


[quote] There are quite a few studies showing exactly this (bolding always mine).


you can find studies showing ANYTHING if you look for it. Plenty of studies show the opposite.

See, the trouble with these studies is that they speculate about what would have happened if one thing had been changed. They might point to a year when crime rates fell, and say, ah yes, if there had been more executions then the rates would have fallen even more.

All such studies require making several assumptions, each one of which is dubious. Under one set of assumptions you can analyze the data and come to one conclusion. Under a different set of assumptions you can analyze the same data and come to a different conclusion.

so, you've found a study claiming deterrence, it doesn't mean the study is right, or that thestudy is widely accepted.

[Fiveyearlurker]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

you can find studies showing ANYTHING if you look for it. Plenty of studies show the opposite.

See, the trouble with these studies is that they speculate about what would have happened if one thing had been changed. They might point to a year when crime rates fell, and say, ah yes, if there had been more executions then the rates would have fallen even more.

All such studies require making several assumptions, each one of which is dubious. Under one set of assumptions you can analyze the data and come to one conclusion. Under a different set of assumptions you can analyze the same data and come to a different conclusion.

so, you've found a study claiming deterrence, it doesn't mean the study is right, or that thestudy is widely accepted.

First of all, I've found about 12 studies claiming deterrence. I've posted (I believe) five, but if you would really like me to, I'll post more. The ones I've posted have been from very credible sources in peer reviewed literature. Like it or not, there is the possibility that the death penalty functions as a deterrent. Not because I say so, but because the data says so.

Note the word "possibility" in that sentence. I'm open to the possibility that the data is wrong. I'm also open to the possibility that the data is right. I adjust my opinion accordingly. Why is that so awful?

You're also right that some data suggests the opposite; that there is no deterrent effect. Why do you believe this data, but not the data that you don't like? I'm open to both. I'm just not open to either side claiming that there is a fact about this issue. There isn't. It's very much in dispute.

I'm not even sure if I would be in favor of the death penalty if I knew for sure that there was a deterrent effect, but it would be another data point in forming my decision.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker

First of all, I've found about 12 studies claiming deterrence.

And I could easily find just as many claiming the opposite.

I've posted (I believe) five, but if you would really like me to, I'll post more. The ones I've posted have been from very credible sources in peer reviewed literature.

Are they?

I glanced through them. At least some of them cite heavily Ehrlich's work. Now, Ehrlich has been widely discredited.

Anyway,being published in a peer-reviewed journal does not prove they are right. It just gives others a chance to rebut the study. And there are always rebuttals.

You want me to be impressed, show me a deterrence study that has been accepted as valid by the consensus of qualified commentators.

Like it or not, there is the possibility that the death penalty functions as a deterrent. Not because I say so, but because the data says so.

no, the data does not say so. It is subject to interpretation. And the interpretation you cite is not universally accepted.

You're also right that some data suggests the opposite; that there is no deterrent effect. Why do you believe this data, but not the data that you don't like?

Don't you go putting words in my mouth. How dare you say that I "believe" one and not the other. I thought I made it plain that both are dubious interpretations.

I'm just not open to either side claiming that there is a fact about this issue.

But that's what you just did when you asserted that "the data says so"

[Annie-Xmas]

I don't believe in the death penalty for crimes of passion. Anyone who commit one murder doesn't deserve to die.

I do believe in the death penalty for serial killers. These people only stop killing when they are dead. They are beyond reform. They don't give a rat's ass about who they killed, the families left behind. Their whole attitude is "So Fucking What?" They will not stop until they are DEAD. If they escape prison (like Ted Bundy) they will kill again (three women, including a fourteen year old child!). Bundy was also caught trying to escape again. People like him do not deserve to live.

[Napier]

>I think you've got that wrong. I think you've misplaced a decimal point there.

Yes, I think you're right and I'm wrong, as I said 3 posts above yours:

>Well, this is embarrassing, but I can't find any now. I thought I read this in two almanacs but now I can find one that says 6.6% and can't find the other. I think I'm just wildly off base. I did find several references to an overall recidivism rate of around 60% for ALL crime, hardly the same thing.
>So, sorry for stupidly started a misleading thread with bad information!

My mistake. Sorry again!

I wonder what the US's maintaining death penalties in some states does to our standing abroad? So many things have so badly hurt that standing in the last 6 years that we may need all the help we can get.

[gonzomax]

Life in prison. No repeat offenses.