:mad:
If this is its purpose, states with the death penalty should show significant lower murder rates than states that won’t go beyond a life sentence (without parole).
The stats don’t support this idea; capital punishment isn’t an effective deterrent.
If we were the idealized homo oeconomicus of rational choice theory and similar ideas I would agree with you without reservation; but then, crimes of passion wouldn’t happen in the first place, or were rare ..
Unfortunately, our emotions are one of the major drives behind murder: jealousy, rage, panic have all pulled more triggers than rational thought. And let us not forget death by the hands of someone imbalanced by alcohol and other mind altering drugs.
And even people who have premeditated murder in mind might not be swayed by capital punishment or a more efficient police force. An immediately felt need or short term benefits outweigh quite often possible later consequences.
Of course, if the chances for a murderer to escape capture were close to zero and this was a well-known fact, fear might become a powerful deterrent for the calculating type.
Absolutely correct. There is no evidence that the availability of the death penalty has any effect on the “targeted” crimes. I suspect I know why - no cites, just a gut feeling.
I think that one type of person who commits these heinous crimes is simply not making any rational decisions about whether to kill or not. Think of the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world. The nature of the possible punishment never enters into the equation.
The other type of person is the cold, calculating killer. This person is absolutely convinced that he won’t be caught. Again, the nature of the punishment isn’t particularly relevant.
The rest of us probably wouldn’t kill anyone even if it weren’t against the law.
To some degree, you could almost say that we don’t outlaw murder primarily to *deter *people from committing murder. We outlaw murder so that when someone *does *commit murder, we have the means to protect ourselves from further harm.
ETA: What **wintertime **said. 
Exactly.
In the same line : political opponents in various countries under dictatorship (e.g. Iraq) continued their actions although they knew that they not only faced death but also heavy torture.
Ergo : if you are motivated, you will do what you want, whatever the punishment.
[QUOTE=Rumor_Watkins]
So? What does killing them accomplish that life in prison without chance of parole wouldn’t?
[/QUOTE]
That’s possibly the scariest justification I have ever seen from a proponent of the death penalty. No longer is the argument that the appelate system provides sufficient safeguards that it is highly unlikely that an innocent will be executed, but that we should kill people to prevent there being a possibility that they might be found to be innocent.
That’s a misuse of statistics (and by the way I do think the stats indicate it is unlikely that the death penalty is a deterrent).
That Texas’ murder rate is higher than a state without the DP available may well be caused by factors other than the availability of the death penalty. What you need to look at are numbers showing changes in muder rate when the death penalty is enacted or repealed, controlled for other factors that influence the murder rate.
Oh, I agree, it’s not that simple; most analyses seem to have problems.
The point, however, remains, that a hypothesis like “capital punishment is an effective deterrent” should be backed up by stats – something I haven’t seen done so far.
The analysis I linked to, otoh, (btw., did you take a look?) supports the doubts I have touched upon.
villa answered exactly the way I would have. The threat of punishment is a deterrent. The more severe the punishment, the greater the deterrent. The more likely the punishment, the greater the deterrent. That’s all very basic game theory. That there are states with the death penalty that have higher murder rates isn’t particularly informative. Unfortunately, sociology is a damn complex field and it’s hard to find an apples to apples comparison to generate some worthwhile statistical comparisons.
Yes, it’s working splendidly, then. Thank you for your question.
They’re not, of course, “my” methods, or especially “my” goals.
Ok, how is certain inprisonment until you die any less of a deterrent than death?
But it sheds very little light on the whether the death penalty reduces the murder rate. That requires statistics, which you ain’t got.
Hand waving is rarely a good substitute for debate, but you go with what you’ve got, I guess.
Then I want to ask you the same question I had for villa: Did you follow the links I provided?
The studies do not just provide (in link 1) a statistical evaluation of the deterrent factor of capital punishment and (in link 2) a comparative look at different studies, their methods and conclusions, they also include references to further reading.
If you want to critically discuss the data or the methodologies used in the relevant studies, I’m quite interested in doing so. The papers I linked to, e.g., deny the deterrent effect of capital punishment – but the methods used to come to this conclusion are not as irrefutable as the authors suggest.
However, studies that come to the conclusion that you believe in, show even more problems; in effect, they show so many that they are inconclusive at best.
A well-known and influential article by Isaac Ehrlich, that was even cited in the case Gregg v. Georgia, was later strongly criticized by scholars, among them an expert panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences (Lawrence R. Klein et al., The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: An Assessment of the Estimates, in Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates, 336–60 (Alfred Blumstein et al. eds., 1978).
Newer studies, however, go further than Ehrlich: some do not just argue that capital punishment is an effective deterrent against murder, even when committed out of passion, no, a couple also claim that pardons and exonerations lead to an increase in murder rates, while the use of capital punishment deters even other crime rates significantly (at least that’s what Zhiqiang Liu seems to say).
These new studies already had an impact on the public and quite possibly on political decision making.
The question is: how valid are these studies and the conclusions drawn by the authors?
Among other experts, Jeffrey Fagan has analyzed them and came to the following conclusion (on site 60):
A simplistic repeat of an assumption derived from game theory isn’t a convincing counter-argument, once we have the opportunity to compare and discuss statistics based on data accumulated from reality. Theoretical positions must be equilibrated with findings in the world, else they are more ideological in nature than scientific or rational.
But your starting point is even problematic theoretically: like most of the proponents of a deterrent effect, you start with a theoretical background that is most prominently used in economics.
While this is in itself neither wrong nor stupid, we have to ask ourselves how useful such an approach is?
Can we actually see punishment as the cost of crime and potential criminals as homo oeconimici who will react rationally to an increased punishment by reducing their criminal activity?
For whatever reason, you have ignored my objection that many murders are not the result of rational thought but passion or an imbalanced mind.
But this is one of the observations in real life that show how difficult an approach to crime and its reduction is that starts with the idea of purely rational activity.
And even economical theory can be used to doubt the deterrent effect:
Behavioral economics, e.g., neither ignores the occurrence of self serving bias nor hyperbolic discounting by weighing probabilities (of being caught or not) as well as immediate, realized benefits vs. possible future punishment.
We know that criminals, like most other people, tend to exaggerate the probability of success and overlook many risks involved that should logically lead them to a more cautious estimation with regard to failure.
They will also see much clearer the immediately realized benefit gained with the crime compared to the vague loss of a just possible, later punishment.
And if they don’t act alone, they are also subject to group dynamics that change any benefit/loss analysis significantly compared to an individualistic approach.
Even within economics we find reasons to doubt that capital punishment is as effective as some claim.
True enough; and the reasonable conclusion so far is: the evidence is inconclusive at best!
Does that necessarily mean that your assumption is wrong?
No, of course not. Future studies may give us evidence that you were right after all. I doubt it, but it is possible.
But for now, we can only say that there is no strong correlation to be found, no evidence survived the scrutiny of the critics.
So, what does that mean?
One default position of our ethics and our bodies of law is pretty simple: We do not kill! And then we add an “unless”, followed by a short, yet detailed list of qualifications that allow the taking of a life regardless.
It’s not the other way around! We always need a justification and a benefit to kill a person. And if this person hasn’t done anything to justify his death, we can only accept his killing if there is an evident, unmistakable net benefit for society.
Well, we know for a fact that innocent people have been or were waiting to be killed by capital punishment.
So, if we still want to continue the practice, we need to point to the net benefit for society, else capital punishment is itself a crime, and a vile one.
So far, I’ve heard in this thread one reasonable benefit being mentioned: we need to keep society safe from dangerous criminals.
Capital punishment might serve this goal twofold: a) captured criminals won’t get another chance to ever harm a person again and b) criminals considering crimes are deterred by such a severe punishment.
But we can show that it is quite possible to keep society reasonably safe from already captured criminals; not absolutely safe but this is a standard that can’t be achieved in any other aspect of life either; to demand it here but nowhere else, is absurd.
And we can’t show that the deterrent effect actually happens to an extent that is statistically significant.
So, if we don’t have strong evidence for a clear net benefit for society, we can only fall back to the default position of our ethics:
We do not kill!
And who exactly would you have administer these punishments? Do we really want to have on the state payroll paid rapists? Torturers? Stranglers? Police officers and corrections officers have to pass psychological examinations to get the job. Who is going to design the exam that will ensure that we hire the *best *rapists? Ones that won’t balk at doing the job? How much do they get paid? Do they get a pension plan? Do they have a union?
Good lord.
The fact that someone has been sentenced to life without parole. The law would (and does, I think) provide no mechanism for parole applications from those with this sentence. Simple enough.
Nonsense. If you really only wanted heinous criminals executed so that you and the rest of society don’t have to live in fear, you wouldn’t be so anxious to see them executed in sadistic ways involving rape and torture. Rape and torture are simply not necessary to ease your fear.
Because there’s no such thing as certain imprisonment until you die, as I discussed in my first post.
It’s not handwaving. It’s simply applied logic and game theory. There is no way to be certain that it works or doesn’t work - and that’s really not my concern.
I disagree.
So you think the death penalty is justified because it is a deterrent to murder, yet you are not concerned with whether or not it actually deters murder? That’s pretty weak justification.
No, I think the purpose of the death penalty is to deter murder. That’s why society has imposed it. If you want a justification, talk to society.
My personal reasons for supporting the death penalty boil down to “who the hell cares if someone who commits premeditated murder gets to live? Better off dead.” I think that capital sentences should require a more rigorous standard of proof than simple life imprisonment, certainly, but I see no need to justify society destroying a member of that same society who has chosen to contravene its most basic rule.
OK then, do you think the death penalty has accomplished its purpose?
No idea. Don’t really care, either.