First, I’ll note that I am absolutely against the death penalty being administered by the courts.
But I wonder, has the crime rate increased since the death penalty - and other methods of permanent removal from society like transportation - was progressively removed? If so, looking in Darwinian terms, could there be a correllation with criminals surviving to procreate and breeding the next generation of criminals?
I would think that since the criminal usually gets life imprisonment instead execution, there’s not a lot opportunity to reproduce anyway.
The death penalty is imposed on a tiny fraction of criminals.
Many criminals have non-criminal parents. The reasons someone turns to crime are complex. I don’t think there’s a crime gene that can be bred out of humans.
The death penalty would only prevent those who hadn’t already had kids procreating, while transportation wouldn’t stop crims from breeding in Australia, for instance, would it?
The OP assumes there is such thing as a genetic predisposition to criminal behavior – a theory first posited by the 19th-Century criminologist Cesare Lombroso, but, AFAIK, no longer taken seriously as science.
The usual alternative to capital punishment is imprisonment. From a Darwinian standpoint, it’s just as effective for removing people from the genetic pool.
Some people have made the argument that legalizing abortion has reduced the crime rate. The theory is that unwanted children would be more likely to grow up in an environment that would turn them into criminals.
What evidence is there for a genetic predisposition to criminality? Lacking that, the OP has started with a faulty premise. Until that gets cleared up, I don’t see any point in taking the debate any further.
BTW, I’m against the death penalty, too. This is one practice that I’m comfortable calling “barbaric” without feeling that I’ve strayed into the land of hyperbole.
No, not a faulty premise: a premise up for discussion. Itis, however, well established that criminality does run in families - the Mafia, anyone?
Now? Yes. A few centuries ago? No.
While I admit there’s probably no “criminal gene,” there are probably genes that increase or decrease the chances of criminal behavior. A tendency for aggression, poor empathy, and so forth.
And while nurture certainly plays a role in those things, I would suggest that criminals might be less proficient in nurturing an empathetic, non aggressive children
Have you observed the behaviour of any Aussies recently? 
What evidence is there that we are seeing a genetic effect instead of an environmental effect? Christianity runs in families, too. Does that mean there is a “Christian gene”? Show me some twin studies or something and then we can talk.
Crime families are not the product of the nature of genes, but rather the nature of the Mafia.
But we are genetically disposed to exist in tribal units, so there may be a little something there.
One might also look at organized government as a crime family or tribal leadership with accountability. Or in many cases, without it.
Friday: Are you sure this is the woman you saw in the post office?
Burns: Absolutely! Who could forget such a monstrous visage? She
has the sloping brow and cranial bumpage of the career
criminal.
Smithers: Uh, Sir? Phrenology was dismissed as quackery 160 years ago.
Burns: Of course you’d say that…you have the brainpan of a
stagecoach tilter!
I see no evidence of that. How often are people driving from one city to another attacked by brigands these days ? If anything, societies with a death penalty tend to be more savage; either more crime ridden, more prone to legalized violence, or both.
Setting aside the discussions about genetic predisposition and so on, there is a straightforward answer to this question: No, with repsect to murder rates. Repeated studies show that there is no difference between murder rates under a death penalty regime, and under a system of life imprisonment. In fact, in some countries such as Canada, the murder rate has consistently trended down since the abolition of the death penalty, as stated in research conducted on behalf of the United Nations, and summarised on the Amnesty International website:
I appreciate that the OP was asking about crime rates in general, rather than murder rates, but if the abolition of the death penalty for murder does not lead to an increase in murder rates, the offence must clearly affected by abolition, it’s hard to see how abolition could lead to increased crime rates in general.
The causes of crime, and the crime rates in any particular location, are subject to a lot of variables (e.g. - proportion of the population composed of males between 15-25, who commit the greatest proportion of crimes). Trying to link crime rates in general to the abolition of the death penalty strikes me as a pretty difficult task.
I couldn’t find any decent cites. Can someone more knowledgeable supply some?
Even if there were such a thing as a murder gene, it’s only been 35 years since the abolition of the death penalty. A population really doesn’t evolve in 35 years.
They started phasing out the death penalty hundreds of years ago.
For robbery, perhaps. They’ve had the death penalty for millennia, and it doesn’t seem to have cut down on crime.
If there was a murder gene, it would clearly be recessive, since not all children of murderers are murderers. Thus it would be very hard to remove from the population. Not all people with a procivlity to murder actually do so, and not all those who murder get caught, let alone get executed. So there is no particular reason to think that the death penalty would affect the gene pool either way.
How much have you read about evolution? It sounds like you accept it, but don’t understand it all that well. That’s easily remedied. No one should believe in evolution - far better to understand it well enough to see why it is clearly true.
Ah, but I’m asking the reverse: has the removal of the death penalty coincided with an increase in the crime rate?