Referring to a recent column, it made me wonder if China kills more of its prison population, hence having decreased numbers.
I know the US also has capital punishment, but usually after a drawn out appeals process, and it only applies to the worst crimes.
But I’m sure there are some countries out there who have figured out that swift execution tends to solve prison overcrowding.
While it is true that executed men cannot commit recidivistic crimes, there is no evidence that shows that capital crimes are fewer when the death penalty is an option. Proponents of the death penalty point out that that’s because the penalty is not adminstered promptly, but I discount that theory because a long time on death row cannot be pleasant. There is some evidence that when the death penalty is not available, the rate of capital crimes decreases.
The most likely place to have your pocket picked in 19th Century England was at a hanging, where they were hanging pickpockets. Didn’t seem to slow that trade much.
What these prison numbers do not show are the large numbers of people in jail, immigration detention centers, pretrial detention, drug treatment facilities, and other forms of involuntary removal from society.
Another part of the statistics conundrum can be found in the fact the in the US you can go to jail for 6 months whereas in other countries, such short sentences don’t carry jail time. In my country, you don’t go to jail (effectively, not counting the time you waited for trial) for fewer than 4 years.
I like this example. However, my point is that hanging reduces prison overpopulation. If they didn’t hang those pickpockets, but instead went with long-term incarceration, surely the 19th Century English prisons would be overflowing with criminals?
That’s one reason why I assumed we might have a larger prison population; we don’t, for example, execute drunk drivers.
Surely it begs the question of thether the criminals in questions expect to be caught?
Probably. I remember, when I was in Amnesty International back in college, reading that China would execute people for white-collar crimes such as embezzlement.
Of course, in some countries (e.g., North Korea, the USSR under Stalin, pre-revolutionary France), most people are effectively in prison their whole lives. The state may not put bars around them, but they’re not free–they’re not allowed to travel, or choose their own employment (or even their own clothes, sometimes). The US isn’t there yet.
Most don’t, I understand.
Actually, there have been studies done…
Well, I’m aware of one, but I don’t know if/where it was published. It was conducted by David Anderson, professor of economics at Centre College in Danville, KY.
Basically, they found that prisoners seemed to have been unconcerned about the consequences of their actions. In fact, a large number indicated that if they had known about the consequences, they would have gone ahead and committed the crime.
It really does appear that even severe or capital punishments are not deterrent for people who are thinking about committing a crime.
Certainly, those who are incarcerated or dead will not commit any crimes against the public. That makes the streets safer, to some extent.
Whether incarceration produces a net positive long-term effect is debatable. Do ex-cons have a greater or lesser chance of committing further crimes than the folks who didn’t get caught? (And that, even, begs the question of what is the difference between those who got caught and those who didn’t.)
Ah, well, to return to the OP, yeah, if we could execute folks without the huge expense of appeals, it would relieve overcrowding and save money. But would it be the right thing to do?
Sigh…
I also am tempted to agree that types of punishment may have a grave effect on prison population (pun intended). The death penalty, while not a deterrant, can remove a lot of criminals from society, keeping the jails empty. I doubt that the countries who dispense the death penalty liberally have an appeal process anywhere like what we have in the U.S. Convict today - shoot tomorrow. They may have the death penalty for lesser crimes than we do also.
Longer jail terms may serve as a deterrant also. In many countries, 20 years really means 20 years, and if you survive the conditions, that’s a miracle in itself. End result is a lower prison population.
Many societies may not imprison folks for the same reasons we do. It does seem rather telling that the largest prison populations seem to be in the more “enlightened” societies (i.e., those without a death penalty), with few exceptions.
Statistics occlude the issue also. The statistics seem to compare current prison population, not how many people were convicted of crimes. So, while prison population may be an indicator of something, it is not necessarily an indication of the level of crime in any particular country.
The column says China has 1/6 as many prisoners per population than the US. If the difference is due to capital punishment, they must be executing 5/6 as many people each year that the US is putting into prison. That’s 50,000 executions a year, if you assume the average prison sentence in both countries is 10 years. (More if you assume a shorter sentence.) I can’t refute this possibility but it seems unlikely to me.
They were. A major way to reduce prison overpopulation was to send the convicts far away. In the 18th century this meant America, in the 19th century it was Australia. In fact Australia owes its existence to prison overcrowding caused by the Revolutionary War. The other major way was to let them die from disease and malnutrition in jail.
Amnesty was claiming >1800 per year in 2001.
You’re off by an order of magnitude. China has 1.5 million prisoners, or 1/6 the number of US prisoners. If you figure that the average sentance is 10 years, and the prison population is stable, that means China is sentencing 150,000 people every year. That is you 1/6 figure. 5/6 would be 750,000 people. Although there certainly were years where many, many more than 750k people died due to wars, famines, purges, etc., that’s not the case today.
This is mostly OT but since this is about Capital Punishment I’ll ask it here.
Has anyone done any statistics about how many people on death row or put to death have gotten this sentence on their first crime.
You always hear an argument like we had in Illinois when the last governor commuted all death row sentences. The argument was OK maybe some of them were innocent but look at all the crimes they committed and never got caught.
But then you look at people like Scott Peterson. IF he is found guilty and sentenced to death, I believe it would be his first “serious” crime (other than traffic tickets or shoplifting or some “minor crime”)
Also do studies bear out any info on sentence irrgeularities. For instance in the DC snipers (I forget their names) The older one got the death penalty and the younger one escaped death penalty (for now at least) due to his age. Leopold and Loeb both escaped because of their age. In fact I read that is the only reason the judge spared them.
And also for women. You have women like Susan Smith who drown her kids, blamed a black guy, and only got life (then got pregnent in Prison). Whereas you know if a man did that he would have gotten life.
I know it’s off topic but it seems people here have answers
Thanks
Huh? Can you mention some names? I don’t get it. For reference, you can take a look at http://www.prisonstudies.org/. This is where the data in the article came from. They have clickable maps, so you can visually see what rates are in “enlightened” socities. You can count all of the European Union (basically western europe + scandinavia) as “Enlightened”, since the EU forbids member countries from having a death penalty.
Check out the details and trends for the US http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/worldbrief/north_america_records.php?code=189.
That’s not exactly correct. The EU is primarily an economic union; the EU-treaty only allows for the most meager of coordination in penal affairs.
What you probably mean is the European Convention on Human Rights aka Rome Treaty. This is a treaty providing for basic rights protection on a comparable level to the U.S. Constitution. It has been accepted by 44 countries, including many non-EU countries, such as Russia. (link to search page) (BTW the EU does recognize the ECHR but it is still uncertain to what extent it directly binds EU member states)
But again, things are more complicated. The ECHR doesn’t prohibit the death penalty (indeed, the UK signed the ECHR while still having the death penalty at the time). Only the 6th protocol to the ECRM prohibits the death penalty, but IIRC a country can choose whether to accept this protocol when ratifying the ECHR (it can make reservations). Most countries have accepted this protocal AFAIK, so only in this sense is your statement rudimentary correct.
I’m sorry to nit-pick, but lots of U.S. citizens seem to get this wrong.
No problem, thanks for the clarification. Nothing involving politics can ever be simple, can it?
There’s a big reason why USA crime rates are dropping, England’s going up. Gun laws.
CHL laws are causing a huge reduction in crimes, while England’s victim disarmament program is causing a massive increase.
Victim disarmament programme??!? What the hell is that? It’s not as though until now we were always armed to the teeth - there’s been NO substantial change to any gun laws, so the rising levels of gun crime and violent crime must be the product of other problems.