Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime

[Stinger]

My thoughts:

- Obviously a vast majority of prisoners prefer a life sentence to the death penalty, but some people would prefer to be exectued over a life in prison. To claim otherwise is to deny reality.

Obviously

- Given that our legal system has numerous flaws and is administered by flawed, imperfect being (aka humans), it is very reasonable to assume at some point an innocent has been executed in modern America. If you claim otherwise, you have WAY too much faith in the government.

Note no one has been able to point one out.

Here in Illinois half of the people on death row were exonerated in appeals.

I would check that statistic, some of those are mearly having the charge lessened and the death penalty changed to life. But it does show that we don't take using the death penalty lightly and those given it are provided every opportunity through the appeals process.

Is it that unlikely that one may have slipped through? Or do you have that much faith in the appeals process?

Can you point to one?

- If the death penalty is proven to have a deterrant affect, we face some uncomfortable math. Is it better to have 5 people wrongly executed by the state or for 10 people to be killed by random murderers?

Is it wrong to have a speed limit of 70 mph when we could lower it to 25 mph and save thousands of lives?

I can name people who were killed on the highway because of speed. How about the names of the 5 people who were innocent but executed?

If the death penalty does not have a deterrent affect, then I can't accept the possibility of innocent blood when we have the alternative of life in prison without parole in a super max facility.

The idea that has been presented here is that life in prison is worse, does that deter murder?

Especially when it is a more cost effective punishment.

An argument without merit. We don't base punishment on how inefficiently the government institutes it.

If it is a deterrent, then the question becomes does it save more innocents than it kills?

So far it seems that way by far, how many innocents have been executed?

At a minimum, I'd like to see the standards for imposing the death penalty to be raised. Let's require DNA evidence or a confession.

Sure, I think we have that in place now although sometimes the confession comes with a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty.

I'd even favor setting the standard higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt". I'm not sure how I'd phrase it, but it should be pretty close to "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

The appeals process covers that, it reviews the evidence and they jury's decision.

 

[Psychoclown]

Stinger: I'll admit I do not know of any case were an executed prisoner was later conclusively proven to be innocent of the crime he was killed for. I never claimed to know of such a case.

But given the flaws in our legal system and the basic fact that as humans we are prone to making mistakes, do you sincerely believe we have never executed an innocent person in our nation's history? Do you really think it is impossible for it to happen?

I would check that statistic, some of those are mearly having the charge lessened and the death penalty changed to life. But it does show that we don't take using the death penalty lightly and those given it are provided every opportunity through the appeals process.

A quote from former govenor, George Ryan: "We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death..." I found it at CNN.com.

The idea that has been presented here is that life in prison is worse, does that deter murder?

Depends on what you mean. Does it deter murder compared to no punishment for muder? Certainly. Does it deter murder compared to the death penalty? Probably not. Of course, its not entirely certain that the death penalty deters murder compared to life in prison without parole.

An argument without merit. We don't base punishment on how inefficiently the government institutes it.

Why not? If life in prison w/out parole has the same deterrent affect as the death penalty, wouldn't it make sense to choose the most cost efficient deterrent? Or at least consider that fact in the decision making process?

The appeals process covers that, it reviews the evidence and they jury's decision.

I wouldn't be quite so sure of the appeals process. One of the men in Illinois went through the entire appeals process and was two days away from being executed when an independent group of students were able to prove his innocence.

From the same CNN article in case you doubt my word. "One of the 13 exonerated Illinois inmates, Anthony Porter, spent 15 years on death row and was within two days of being executed before a group of student journalists at Northwestern University uncovered evidence that was used to prove his innocence."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/

 

[Kelzie]

I disagree that the logistics of the death penalty aren't significant to its deterent effect, of course they do. Compare, say, the US death penalty to the Chinese death penalty, there's a big difference in deterent effect between "Well, I might get caught, where I will face trial by jury and I might get off on any number of penalties, but if convicted there is a very very small chance I might get the death penalty, at which point in time I will have a number of appeals which could get me released, but if not then ten years down the road they'll kill me in the most humane way possible" and "Some people will grab me in the middle of the night, torture and then shoot me".

Except these studies don't take into account the number of people sentenced to death, only those put to death. If it was the number sentenced, you'd be absolutely right, the logistics of it would play a huge part in the number of murders it deterred.

And for the record, most of these studies also looked at statistics from the early 20th century, when executions were much more common and appeals much harder to come by. Presumably these results were factored in.

I think it's fair to the person who is executed if the person executed is guilty of murder, and if it's not, well, to be perfectly honest I don't see a rational way to select treating a murderer fairly over saving innocent lives. And the justice in the death penalty is rooted in the fairly universal acceptance that the perpertrator of some wrong should not end up better off as a product of which than the victim.

Which is why I think the risk of executing an innocent person is a perfectly reasonable point in the argument against capital punishment. I have never said otherwise. However, it does not matter in the sense of deterring future murders.

 

[Kasmos]

Why won't I commit murder? Not because I'm afraid of the death penalty, but because I'm afraid of being put in jail for the rest of my days. I think that mentality right there is shared with most people in this country. Sure people are afraid to die, but they are also afraid to be locked up for the rest of their days.

My point being, those who are going to be "deterred" to commit murder because of fear of the death penalty, are probably equally as afraid to commit murder for fear of being sentenced to life in prison. I think saying "10 murders prevented for every 1 sentenced to death" is ridiculous, because the only difference is more people are sentenced to life in prison then death so instead of "10 murders prevented for every 1" it would be "1 murder prevented for every 1" or something like that.

 

[Stinger]

Stinger: I'll admit I do not know of any case were an executed prisoner was later conclusively proven to be innocent of the crime he was killed for. I never claimed to know of such a case.

And if you listen to the anti-death crowd you would think it is a regular occourance.

A quote from former govenor, George Ryan: "We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death..." I found it at CNN.com.

The issue in Illinois is probably the best case the anti-death penalty side has and I support Ryan's moratorium until they could investigate if the system broke down, how and why. I don't recall what the final outcome was.

Depends on what you mean. Does it deter murder compared to no punishment for muder? Certainly. Does it deter murder compared to the death penalty? Probably not. Of course, its not entirely certain that the death penalty deters murder compared to life in prison without parole.

I think the OP study points to that.

Why not? If life in prison w/out parole has the same deterrent affect as the death penalty,

Fact not in evidence, but we still hold as a society that if you purposely and maliciously take the life of someone else you forfeit yours.

wouldn't it make sense to choose the most cost efficient deterrent?

No, I hold we don't base punishment for the most henious crimes based on existing cost efficiencies, we can make it more effcient.

Or at least consider that fact in the decision making process?

No I don't think that is what juries and judges should be concerned with.

I wouldn't be quite so sure of the appeals process. One of the men in Illinois went through the entire appeals process and was two days away from being executed when an independent group of students were able to prove his innocence.

I would support a third party full investigation into the evidence as part of the appeals process if that would improve the system.

 

[politic_analyst]

Death penalty can also have a negative effect on individuals. If an innocent person gets the death penalty and was executed, some people would commit crimes just because they think the system treated their family without justice. I would say the old put people who are violent and war mongers in an island surrounded by heavy fortification without supervision. Let them battle in out and leave the peaceful people alone. That might be a better deterent of violent crimes because they are with people who have equal inhumane behaviors.

 

[Kasmos]

Death penalty can also have a negative effect on individuals. If an innocent person gets the death penalty and was executed, some people would commit crimes just because they think the system treated their family without justice. I would say the old put people who are violent and war mongers in an island surrounded by heavy fortification without supervision. Let them battle in out and leave the peaceful people alone. That might be a better deterent of violent crimes because they are with people who have equal inhumane behaviors.

Haha, you ever seen Battle Royale? (kickass Japanese movie by the way).

We could do something like that. Take everyone who was on death row, give them each a different weapon (varying from a grenade to a handgun with one clip to a frying pan to a bow and arrow), place them on an island, and let them fight to the death. All while on cable TV. Now THAT would be a great reality show and at the same time, deter people from committing crimes!!!

We could call it "Death Island".

 

[wonder cow]

I think you're vastly underestimating the level of competence our academia has

I give them more credit than they deserve, IMO.

I fail to see how the actions in the courtroom once the crime has already been committed would affect the deterrence level of later murders.

Because it may affect whether or not the crime is counted as a murder, which would then affect the number of murders used in the studies.