Capital Punishment causes more murders?

Great Debates
1

According to this link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=70525

the US can expect an upsurge in violence and murders after McVeigh is killed by the state. Brutalization leads to brutalization.

I feel that this is yet another reason (added to many more, moral and juridical)why Capital Punishment is ill judged and unreliable as a punishment.

What do supporters of Capital Punishmnent feel about this link to further murder and mayhem that may follow directly from the exercise of the CP option. If it could be proved that each case of CP led to further serious crimes against the individual, would CP then be seen as counter-productive?

How could we justify it if we ‘knew’ that each execution led to an extra murder or two? Would such vengeance be justified if it occasioned further deaths?

2

Aww, come on, man. I rarely start threads in GD, so why do you have to go and cut the legs out from the Capital Punishment thread that I posted not two hours ago? [Insert Smiley Face.]

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=70227

Yeesh. Perhaps we should consolidate.

Regards,
Jer

3

Aside from more murders, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to have more bombs go off, especially on the anniversaries of his coil-off-shuffling.

4

So if we abolished the entire Criminal Justice System, there’d be no crime, huh?

That’s the ultimate finale of this sort of logic.

5

Spoofe, that is hardly the correct analogy.

While a criminal justice system would seem to be a necessity it is ridiculous to assume that the same system cannot also have negative effects on the society it is set up to protect. A society that utilizes brutality will produce more people who utilize brutality than one which doesn’t. When society places so little value on individuals why should we be surprised when individuals place little value in each other.

Is it a coincidence that the most peaceful western societies have the least punitive criminal justice systems?

Over 400,000 people will get out of prison next year. Many of them have been subjected to conditions which can only have increased whatever antisocial tendencies they had prior to entering prison. This is an issue of serious concern among criminologists. Studies have long demonstrated that contact with the criminal justice system is a far stronger predictor of future criminal behavior by youth than the criminal acts which they have previously been involved in.

I do not pretend to understand the causal relationship more generally but I believe the American criminal justice system as currently run encourages a lack of respect for people generally. I believe that capital punishment challenges any conception of the sanctity of life replacing it with a philosphy that killing is ok with a good enough reason.

6

Killing is ok with a good enough reason.

7

I’m against the death penalty only because I don’t want to execute an innocent person. Other then that I think it is morally ok to kill certain people. Just thought I’d let you know where I was coming from.

I don’t believe the death penalty is a deterrent. That’s ok since no form of punishment appears to be a deterrent. I also seriously doubt that the DP suddenly makes more people willing to go out and murder. The article doesn’t cite anything I can look up and being as it comes from the UK, and decidedly non DP country, maybe they’re just a little biased.

After McVeigh’s death, or any death here in Texas, I’m not expecting a massive increase in brutality.

Marc

8

With the caveat that I think it would be better to let McVeigh rot in prison than to become an executed hero for extremists, I think you’re way off base here, Pjen.

It can legitimately be debated whether the death penalty truly acts as a deterrent to murder, but to argue that it encourages murder in the U.S. is a very difficult sell, especially in the light of hard evidence.

And the argument that sparing vicious killers leads to less violence wouldn’t sit well with the relatives of the victims in this notorious case.

Of course, if you can show that “each execution (leads) to an extra murder or two” it would be a powerful aid to your argument.

Fire when ready. :wink:

9

Although it is reported in a British newspaper, the research it quotes is from Indiana:

http://www.law.indiana.edu/pubs/ila/0801.html

From another page at that site:

‘Dr. Hamm is a Professor of Criminology at Indiana State University, Former Deputy Director of Corrections in Arizona, Former Deputy Warden at the Arizona State Prison in Tucson, and a Former Prison Guard and Death Row Educator in Arizona.’

If he is correct, then the thought that the DP leads to brutalization of the population, leading to more mayhem is chilling to say the least.

10

That’s hard evidence for the decrease of crime generally, but it does not address the connection between incarceration or the DP and crime levels. The attempt to make connections between state actions within the criminal law and levels of crime are notoriously difficult to make, as the causes of crime are so difficult to ascertain.

If Hamm is able to show that the circus that surrounds executions in the US does lead to brutalization of people generally and increases the liklihood of violence and murder, then it would be a possible further argument against the DP.

My interest in posting this was to find out whether DP proponents would feel less so inclined if there was eveidence that the DP led to other innocents being killed or injured.

My anti-DP views are founded on strong moral objections about killing generally, and extreme fear of wrongful convictions. Hamm’s brutalization argument is for me, only an interesting side-show.

11

Many, many apologies. I saw the article in the newspaper and just posted as I saw it. Didn’t scan the other postings first.

Sorry Again :slight_smile:

12

No, there is a difference between ratinal and adequate response to wrongdoing and actions verging on brutalization.

There is much research in criminology and psychology which shows that the brutal conditions of prisons leads to a justification defence in the imprisoned. If life in prisons is made hell for the inmates, they then psychologically reframe their previous criminal behaviour as justified by the brutal response of the state. Hamm’s argument is along these lines; in effect, what he is saying is that there is a psychological reframing by people in the population which goes: ‘The state is justified in killing McVeigh, I think I’ll just off the next person who crosses me and makes me angry.’ Of course, the psychology isn’t as crude or direct as that, but given understandings about the psychology of emotions versus rational cognitive reactions, it is at least a possibility that this unconscious process does go on.

In summary, if the punishing system is seen as fair and justified, it may lead to less reoffending than if the system is seen as brutal and inhuman. If the aim is to avoid future reoffending, it may be logical to ensure that the criminal justice system at least tried to get some acknowledgement from the punished that the system has some justification; else brutalization may lead to extra crime- an unwilled but possibly predictable outcome.

13

I’d be wary of any report that takes an event (the dog disembowelment mentioned in the article) and attributes it to the cause that the researcher is trying to prove. No evidence is presented as to why the execution of McVeigh might have led to this event. The logic used to present the case for a “brutalisation effect” is specious at best, and dishonest at worst. I could make a similar claim that it was due to the phase of the moon, using exactly the same evidence.

And if you ask people in the US which they consider McVeigh’s execution to be, I’d guess that the former would get about 80% of the vote.

14

Good guess, waterj2. According to the little factoid on CNN this morning, 80% of the American public supports McVeigh’s execution, even though only 71% of those polled support the death penalty. Sorry, no cite.

15

This is beginning to drift off into a general debate on the Death Penalty; or when not a general debate, a questioning of the reliability of Hamm’s thesis of Brutalization.

What I was looking for was some consideration of the question:

IF
Hamm’s thesis was proved to be correct

AND
You currently support the Death Penalty

THEN
Would the probability of the occurence of further murders etc. as a direct consequence of an execution change your views?

For instance a parallel argument for anti Capital Punishment advocates would be:

IF
Capital Punishment could be shown to reduce murders and other crimes

AND
You currently oppose the Death Penalty

THEN
Would the probability of the avoidance of further murders etc. as a direct consequence of executions change your views?

16

Maybe I’m missing something, but where in any of the posted links is there any actual data demonstrating that executions lead to more murders? The British news link shows that there are anti-death penalty advocates leafing through the Indiana police logs, desperately trying to link crime of any sort to the upcoming McVeigh execution. I would hope the “research” is of slightly better quality.

Pjen, I am impressed by the number of advocates for criminals who are outraged over incarceration rates, but claim to see no connection between getting felons off the street and the drop in crime.

If I could show you that executed killers never murder again (refer again to my Arizona case example), and

If I could demonstrate that incarcerated criminals are unable to commit crimes against the general public,

would you then be willing to alter your views on law enforcement?

17

Pjen – I’m unclear about what you mean by, *if we ‘knew’ that each execution led to an extra murder or two?"[i/]. What do the quotation marks signify? What would it mean, in your opinion, to ‘know’ this?

Setting aside the possibility of a divine source, I would think we’d be talking about conclusive research. To the best of my knowledge, that doesn’t exist today. There is a lot of useful data in the US, because some years ago, the Supreme Court threw out all death penalty laws. Then, certain states re-imposed various versions of the death penalty. If I gave up my day job, I would love to get all this data and see if one could deduce statistically to what degree the death penalty deters murder, is irrelevant, or causes more murders.

We do know that a considerable number of convicted murderers commit further murders. Some escape; some are realeased for one reason or another; some kill prison guards or other prisoners. So, the death penalty does reduce this class of murder.

I have no data, but I suspect that the number of new murders committed by previously convicted murderers may be greater than the number of innocent defendants who are convicted and executed (speaking here about the US.)

18

Well, that’s a stupid argument. How about:
IF
When a person is executed, the heavens open up, choirs of angels are heard, God himself smiles upon and blesses mankind, and an era of peace and prosperity is had by all

AND
You are currently opposed to the Death Penalty

THEN
Would the lure of world peace as a direct consequence of regular executions change your views?

I mean, if we’re going to debate things that follow from a patently absurd assumption, lets go all out.

19

I guess that the Death Penalty is such an emotive issue, that even when a reasonable ‘thought experiment’ is proposed, the debate necessarily descends to incomprehension and abuse!

What have I learned? Don’t even try to debate the Death Penalty here!

20

Capital punishment in and of itself does not serve as a deterrent to crime.

We in the UK abolished the death penalty in the early '60’s and despite the protestations that society would fall apart the murder rate stayed the same.

What does serve as a deterrent, especially to habitual criminals, is the liklehood of being caught and it is the reason that criminals switch from one offence to another.

On a much lower order of crime is the threatening phone call. Until about three years ago our main telephone provider British Telecom(BT) claimed that it was not possible for the callers number to be made availabe to the called as the system was not capable.

The number of obscene calls soared and when it was revealed that the US had such a system huge pressure was brought to bear on BT which suddenly discovered that their system could provide caller identification.

You will not be surprised to learn that the number of obscene calls has fallen incredibly since the vast majority were from workplaces and domestic residences and the callers could easily be traced.

When speed camers are used the incidence of speeding at that location falls dramatically, all because you will be caught out with absolute certainty.

Wherever cameras are installed in our city centres to monitor street activity crime of all types falls, not just in sight of the cameras, but also in the vicinity since criminals know they will be seen at a particular time and place in relation to the offence.

The building of a national genetic database may well reduce certain types of crime, it is being used to catch offenders who committed their crimes over 20 years ago.

We in the UK are experimenting with the 3 strikes rule but it is not in general use.

When I talk with cons the opinion is almost universal among them that they will be more prepared to kill if it will increase their chances of escape since either way the sentence will be the same, life imprisonment.

This might be true of the relatively few armed criminals we have and some argue that more will carry weapons but I’d doubt it would have much impact on the murder rate since the majority of crime in the UK is non-confrontational.