- 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.
There wasn't a link to the actual studies themselves, so I do not know exactly how these studies were carried out. For instance, did it take into account the economic background's (or difference in economic background) affect on the convicted? Or the change in economic conditions in a given area? The ratio of those who were convicted versus those found innocent? To tell you the truth, I am wondering how they conducted their information gathering techniques. I mean, are they taking the word of convicted murderers or potential murderers?
Regardless, I think these studies are an interesting starting point for a discussion on capital punishment.
3 comments:
I am reluctant to believe this. I would need to know how they arrived at these numbers and what other factors they were considering. More importantly, I need to know if and how it is more of a deterrent than life in prison.
I think that reports like this are dangerous, though important. We of course should try to quantify and qualify the outcomes of policies, especially those that may come about as a result of someone's death. However, studies like this provide ammo for the pro-death penalty lobby, and that concerns me. Even if executions do deter murder, I still don't condone the policy. In fact, I find it an abomination. Given the (even small) probability that an innocent person could be put to death, I don't see how we could find it anything but a reprehensible policy. Not to mention the fact that it on average costs more to execute a convicted offender than it does to detain them for life.
I still cannot fathom why in this country we fail to see the value in proactive crime prevention. Social policies that address the root causes of crime--poverty, economic inequality, education, job opportunities, mental illness, community building--are significantly more likely to deter crime, so why don't we use our resources to right them.
I agree with most of what you have said. The one thing I have a problem with is labeling these studies "dangerous". Information like this should investigated thoroughly. I don't care if it provides ammo to the pro-death penalty lobby. It provides for a more informed discussion of the topic.
I am anti-death penalty too, for the same reasons you gave. The blood of one innocent isn't worth the risk. I would provide a "death option" for lifers, provided by the state. And I do say we should make sure that "life" means until you die. I detest this idea that someone can get "life" and then be out in 15 years, 20 years, 40 years, or whatever. Why doesn't "life" mean their life?
To clarify, I did not mean that information itself is dangerous. What I mean is that countless "studies" are conducted every year that "confirm" pretty much any opinion any group could have. For years cigarette companies conducted tests showing that smoking wasn't harmful, despite what most every legit scientist said; and now there are maybe two meteorologists or climatologists that have some study or another that says global warming isn't caused by man's actions or flatly doesn't exist, leaving some 1000s who contradict them. Now, where such studies become "dangerous" is when they are constructed and manipulated to prove a point or opinion, thereby refuting the basic ethics and purpose of science and the scientific method, and when they are then held up by some camp as proof that they are in the right. A case in point, for years conservatives (as well as some "liberals") have been reluctant to address global warming in any meaningful way because the "lack of conclusive evidence" meant the cost to US companies outweighed the potential benefit. Well, shit, the evidence was there in reams, but a couple of very weak studies conducted by researchers of questionable ethics and skills allowed the policy makers to sidestep the issue say there was conflicting evidence, so lets do nothing. And now look where we are. Massive ice melts, polar bears falling through the ice, Fiji may drown, and Bangladesh is likely to become one giant swamp or very shallow sea.
That is what I mean by dangerous.
Post a Comment