Why doesn't the death penalty deter crime?

[InfiniteJest]

A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The study, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concluded, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” A previous study in 1996 had come to similar conclusions.

Study: 88% of criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective...

No one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006. […] Yet, according to the N.C. Department of Justice, the state murder rate has declined in the years since executions stopped.

Cute example, but this is just one state. Are there other states which experienced a similar trend or the opposite trend?

Nationally, murder rates are significantly lower in states that don’t use the death penalty than in those with a death penalty statute — and have been consistently for the past two decades. In some years, the murder rate in non-death penalty states was as much as 46 percent lower than in death penalty states.

Cool, but perhaps states with the death penalty instituted the DP precisely because there was more crime.

So:

1. Does the DP deter crime?

2. If not, why not?

[Deeg]

My understanding is that the DP does not deter crime. The common explanation that I’ve heard is that the probability of being arrested/tried/convicted is much more of a deterrent than the punishment.

[Czarcasm]

Just this once can we not hear “It deters the person that is executed from killing again.” That is not what is meant by “deter” in this case.

[Hamlet]

The death penalty deters the person that is executed from killing again.

[sub]What?[/sub]

[leftfield6]

Simple answer is, it doesn’t deter the criminal action because the soon-to-be criminal does not think he/she will be caught, thus any subsequent penalty is not top of mind.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

If spending most of the rest of their life behind bars isn’t enough of a deterrent to someone, what makes anyone think death would be? They either don’t care about the consequences or they’re convinced they won’t be caught.

[Shodan]

“Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it,” said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. “The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.”

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. “The results are robust, they don’t really go away,” he said. “I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?”

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy away from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

Among the conclusions:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

[Der_Trihs]

@InfiniteJest

1. Does the DP deter crime?

No, and it never has. Public executions for example were known for attracting pickpockets who would steal from the assembled gawkers. And if anything it seems to* increase* the rate of murder, not decrease it.

@InfiniteJest

2. If not, why not?

In no particular order:
[ul]
[li]The unlikelihood of getting caught; the perceived certainty of being caught has deterrence value, the severity of punishment past a certain point doesn’t. That’s just how human minds work.[/li][li]The blatant racism/classism/etc of the death penalty makes it obvious it has little to do with the crime committed, and everything about being an acceptable target.[/li][li]The railroading of innocent people (or just guilty people who aren’t that guilty) means that people know that not committing DP-worthy crimes is little protection.[/li][li]Executing people puts the stamp of social approval on killing. Human beings imitate each other and conform to the expectations of society, and the death penalty tells them that killing is socially acceptable.[/li][li]People who commit the most physically violent crimes are often not very rational, not very bright, or both. It’s one of the ironies of our society that the more rational a criminal is, the easier we go on them; we aren’t going to execute someone who coldbloodedly kills thousands of people because they *correctly *calculated that it would profit them and their company to do so even if they were caught. But we’ll execute someone who kills a single person and is too irrational or stupid to take consequences into account.[/li][/ul]

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

Your cite has a second page:

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

“We just don’t have enough data to say anything,” said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were “flimsy” and appeared in “second-tier journals.”

“This isn’t left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it’s too hard to tell,” Wolfers said. “Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it’s still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished.”

[Chronos]

In addition to the above, the death penalty, and especially a swift death penalty, decreases the likelihood of a perpetrator getting caught. If you kill someone in a non-DP state, then you have to lay low for decades at least. If you kill someone in a DP state, though, then you only have to lay low until someone gets executed for it, and the case is closed and you’re scot-free. And if you happen to be committing murders because you’re the sort of sick bastard who likes people dying (which is not the only motivation for murder, but is certainly one of them), then you get two for the price of one.

[Icarus]

@Der_Trihs

People who commit the most physically violent crimes are often not very rational, not very bright, or both.

I would say this is the number one factor, but I would define “rational” narrowly in this case to be the ability to foresee consequences over a long time horizon.

The primary crime that would possibly result in a death penalty is murder. Murder is almost by definition a crime of passion, rather than a crime of rationality.

IMHO it is fairly useless to talk about the death penalty as an “incentive” as that assumes all humans act “rationally” at all times. Nope, some times humans act “passionately” instead.

[wolfpup]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

If spending most of the rest of their life behind bars isn’t enough of a deterrent to someone, what makes anyone think death would be? They either don’t care about the consequences or they’re convinced they won’t be caught.

This. Also, AFAIK the death penalty is always avoidable if someone prefers the idea of life imprisonment (or lengthy imprisonment, at any rate), because my understanding is that the DP is never applied if the perp pleads guilty or seeks a plea bargain. This is pretty much the system’s tacit admission that the DP isn’t a deterrent.

@Der_Trihs

People who commit the most physically violent crimes are often not very rational, not very bright, or both.

And this.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
No, and it never has. Public executions for example were known for attracting pickpockets who would steal from the assembled gawkers. And if anything it seems to increase the rate of murder, not decrease it.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that the DP is good policy and think we should get rid of it, but do you have a cite for this, since it seems non-intuitive to me. ETA: For the second half of your assertion here, as the first half seems meaningless to the question and I figure you put it in for fluff.

[Der_Trihs]

@XT

I don’t think that the DP is good policy and think we should get rid of it, but do you have a cite for this, since it seems non-intuitive to me.

Here’s an article that mentions the phenomenon.

Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. In a state-by-state analysis, The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

@XT

ETA: For the second half of your assertion here, as the first half seems meaningless to the question and I figure you put it in for fluff.

No; I put it in as an example of how the death penalty does not and never has intimidated criminals.

[Velocity]

Correlation is not causation.
Also, deterrence is virtually impossible to measure. Perhaps the death penalty does deter crime but we can’t tell. As for the drop in homicide after the death penalty was removed, it could be that socioeconomic conditions improved, etc.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Here’s an article that mentions the phenomenon.
[/QUOTE]

Since there could be a whole host of other factors, I don’t think your cite really backs up your statement.

No; I put it in as an example of how the death penalty does not and never has intimidated criminals.

Um, how would the death penalty deter someone from pickpocketing?? I mean, that doesn’t even make any sense. Now, show me some folks going through the crowd there to watch a death sentence killing people in the audience and you might have something.

[InfiniteJest]

@Der_Trihs

It’s one of the ironies of our society that the more rational a criminal is, the easier we go on them; we aren’t going to execute someone who coldbloodedly kills thousands of people because they *correctly *calculated that it would profit them and their company to do so even if they were caught. But we’ll execute someone who kills a single person and is too irrational or stupid to take consequences into account.
[/LIST]

:rolleyes:

What do you mean? Wanna get a little bit more concrete here?

[storyguide3]

@XT

Um, how would the death penalty deter someone from pickpocketing?? I mean, that doesn’t even make any sense. Now, show me some folks going through the crowd there to watch a death sentence killing people in the audience and you might have something.

In England, prior to 1808, pickpocketing could be punished by the death penalty.

[Velocity]

@Der_Trihs

**we aren’t going to execute someone who coldbloodedly kills thousands of people because they *correctly *calculated that it would profit them and their company to do so even if they were caught. **

Ah?..Who?

[XT]

@storyguide3

In England, prior to 1808, pickpocketing could be punished by the death penalty.

All I could find on this was an old news paper clip saying it’s a wives tale. How often was it actually punished by death? Because I have to think that the English weren’t punishing every pickpocket caught by death.