Does capital punishment reduce crime?

[Noodle]

Here is a web site that points out that if someone is executed, then he will not murder again. It also gives examples where, had an execution taken place, many lives would have been saved.

 

http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter

 

The above quote is one way capital punishment works: it does away with repeat offenders. The current problem with usiing capital punishment as a deterrent is that it is not used soon enough, often enough, brutal enough and public enough. The concept of being killed for your crime is too abstract. Executions are more effective as a deterrent if the concept is made real to the general population. Shoot a law enforcement officer in Texas and you will die. Texans know that, so cops in Dallas don't have to walk in three's like they do in New York City. When a conviction is secure ( proven with more than circumstantial evidence and/or confessed), there is no reason to jail the offender for life. Prisons are a social burden. Better to unshackle society of the cost and use the prisoner to make a statement in the most effective way possible. I am confident that the American public would embrace satelite beamed beheadings on their favorite reality TV station. If every high school class was given the opportunity to witness such an event, there would be no doubt as to the consequence and action equation.

 

Capital punishment, as it is so infrequently and painlessly metted out today, is ineffectual. Convicts rights (an oxymoron) should not exist. All questions of innocence should be decided/appealed/decided, then the conviction acted upon. There needs to be only one cell on death row to house the next execution guest on Saturday Night Live (which will become another oxymoron). Extreme? Unless you are very well off, it will take all the taxes you and ten of your friends will pay this year to house one death row inmate. If you and your friends could live tax free by embracing a speedy execution system, would it affect your moral dilemma? Would you pay double taxes to eliminate capital punishment? How much of your life are you willing to devote to giving murderers a decent life? We all share in the cost and I say there are better things to spend our money on, like space exploration.

[syntax]

The above quote is one way capital punishment works: it does away with repeat offenders. The current problem with usiing capital punishment as a deterrent is that it is not used soon enough, often enough, brutal enough and public enough. The concept of being killed for your crime is too abstract. Executions are more effective as a deterrent if the concept is made real to the general population. Shoot a law enforcement officer in Texas and you will die. Texans know that, so cops in Dallas don't have to walk in three's like they do in New York City. When a conviction is secure ( proven with more than circumstantial evidence and/or confessed), there is no reason to jail the offender for life. Prisons are a social burden. Better to unshackle society of the cost and use the prisoner to make a statement in the most effective way possible. I am confident that the American public would embrace satelite beamed beheadings on their favorite reality TV station. If every high school class was given the opportunity to witness such an event, there would be no doubt as to the consequence and action equation.

 

Capital punishment, as it is so infrequently and painlessly metted out today, is ineffectual. Convicts rights (an oxymoron) should not exist. All questions of innocence should be decided/appealed/decided, then the conviction acted upon. There needs to be only one cell on death row to house the next execution guest on Saturday Night Live (which will become another oxymoron). Extreme? Unless you are very well off, it will take all the taxes you and ten of your friends will pay this year to house one death row inmate. If you and your friends could live tax free by embracing a speedy execution system, would it affect your moral dilemma? Would you pay double taxes to eliminate capital punishment? How much of your life are you willing to devote to giving murderers a decent life? We all share in the cost and I say there are better things to spend our money on, like space exploration.

 

I tend to agree with most of the above.

 

However, it should be noted that the faster the system moves, the more are the mistakes that will result. Unless we are willing to accept the fact--yes fact--that innocent people will be executed becuase the system erred, we should proceed more cautiousely than this.

 

The intelligent thing to do, would be to try to ascertain how many innocent people will be wrongfully executed, compared to how much the murder rate would go down and make a decision based on that.

[Fishteacher73]

The intelligent thing to do, would be to try to ascertain how many innocent people will be wrongfully executed, compared to how much the murder rate would go down and make a decision based on that.

 

Then we should should ban capital punishment. Murder rates are lower in ALL US states w/o CP. This is the point I was trying to make. Most all studies have show that the current system is NOT a deterrent.

A system that advocates the murder of its citizens (well at least those that cannot afford Johnny Cochran) with a demonstrated bias against minorities and the economically disadvantaged is one that needs to be stopped. The great melting pot is becomming the big chum bucket.

[syntax]

Then we should should ban capital punishment. Murder rates are lower in ALL US states w/o CP. This is the point I was trying to make. Most all studies have show that the current system is NOT a deterrent.

A system that advocates the murder of its citizens (well at least those that cannot afford Johnny Cochran) with a demonstrated bias against minorities and the economically disadvantaged is one that needs to be stopped. The great melting pot is becomming the big chum bucket.

 

If these studies show murder rates to be lower in states without capital punishment, why would you conclude that it was because these states did not have capital punishment?

 

Surely you don't think that capital punishment increases the murder rate--do you? :hyper:

 

Is it possible that there is something a little awry in these "studies?" :D

[Fishteacher73]

Well with as something as cut and dry as murder rate (I really do not see how one could statistically "fudge" a basic tabulation) the numbers speak for themselves. Here is a link to the information:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168

 

And there are some cases that the death penalty increases crime. Someone who is likely to face the DP will probably not have a problem continuing the crime spree in an attempt to escape. Or someone fearful of such an action could become violent.

The same ends are met with life-imprisonment as CP without the negative side-affects. The individual is removed from society and can no longer be a threat. Murders tend to fall into two categories, planned and crims of passion. Planned crimes assume that they will not get cought and CP is not a deterrant. As for crimes of passion, people tend to have a knee-jerk reaction and logic and reasoning is not at its keenest. Usually peoiple do not consider the consequences in these situations.

 

 

There are actually studies that show murder rates tend to rise for a period in states that have CP directly after an execution. So yes, there is evidence that points to the idea that CP not only is NOT a deterrant, but actually causes an increase in capital crimes.

[pgrmdave]

I agree with a lot of your statements Fishteacher, but the statistics are slightly skewed by the fact that the states with the death penalty are more urban, and they include states that have the death penalty but never use it. Murder is, I believe, more common in urban areas, and less common in rural areas.

States with death penalty:

Alabama

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Idaho

Indiana

Illinois

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wyoming

 

 

States without:

Alaska

Hawaii

Iowa

Maine

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

North Dakota

Rhode Island

Vermont

West Virginia

Wisconsin

 

While I don't deny that the states without CP have urban areas, they aren't as urban as areas like NYC, California, New Jersey, Chicago, Texas.

[Fishteacher73]

Population density does usually have a direct relationship with crime rates true. Yet one can see wold wide that this trend does not hold true.

 

According to the Indian National Crime Records Bureau the murder rate in India was almost 1/6 of that in Luxemburg in 2002 (3.4 vs. 23.1). (See chart)

 

http://ncrb.nic.in/crime2002/cii-2002/graph.htm (sorry wasn't sure how to import an image).

 

To compare populatiion densities (I could only find 2003 numbers, but I would not suspect that there were any drastic changes ibetween 2002 and 2003)

 

India: 324 per square km

 

Luxemburg : 175 people per square km.

 

So there is a masive differnce in population density and murder rates across the globe.

 

Granted India does have CP, it very rarely used (8/2004 was the first execution since 1995). I can see no way to correlate this into a deterrant.

[pgrmdave]

You also have to take the differing cultures into account. My guess is that India is not culturally like Luxemburg, nor the U.S.

 

I'm not saying that you are wrong, merely that there are many more factors than CP in most cases.

[syntax]

Well with as something as cut and dry as murder rate (I really do not see how one could statistically "fudge" a basic tabulation) the numbers speak for themselves. Here is a link to the information:

 

But there could be factors involved that might increase the incidence of murder that have nothing to do with CP, like the average education level in a state, the average wealth of citizens in a state, the number of blacks in a state, etc. These factors are known to affect the murder rate and are outside the box when considering the statistics. Therefore, you have an apples and oranges situation.

 

And there are some cases that the death penalty increases crime. Someone who is likely to face the DP will probably not have a problem continuing the crime spree in an attempt to escape. Or someone fearful of such an action could become violent.

The same ends are met with life-imprisonment as CP without the negative side-affects. The individual is removed from society and can no longer be a threat. Murders tend to fall into two categories, planned and crims of passion. Planned crimes assume that they will not get cought and CP is not a deterrant. As for crimes of passion, people tend to have a knee-jerk reaction and logic and reasoning is not at its keenest. Usually peoiple do not consider the consequences in these situations.

 

The same thing applies to murder if the punishment were life. The point is that once one has committed a murder, the punishment will be the same regardless, so why hesitate to commit another?

 

There are actually studies that show murder rates tend to rise for a period in states that have CP directly after an execution. So yes, there is evidence that points to the idea that CP not only is NOT a deterrant, but actually causes an increase in capital crimes.

 

I would be interested in examining the methodology of any such "study." Link?

 

Have you ever heard the term GIGO? It applys to "studies" as well as computers. :hyper:

[Fishteacher73]

Agreed.

 

I feel that the act of murder is a moral issue. As with all moral issues, it depends on the personal morals of the individual. Someone's moral framework has so many variables in that I think it is truly impossible to "set a standard" of how these variables affect each other. Yet on the other hand there is a great deal of psychological evidence that many criminals have common traits, ie animal cruelty was exhibited by almost all serial killers as children. Such "red flag" actions I think need to be investigated further, and possibly many of the criminal mind set can be put back on a propper course (As youth, I really feel it would be nearly impossible to "rewire" someon who's moral compas has been that warped. IMO).

[Noodle]

I do not agree that murder is a moral issue. Viewing the circumstances of a murder involves morals in order to come to a judgement, but the murderer is always in the position of being justified in killing. In the murderers mind, he has the RIGHT to kill along with reasons to kill. If there is any hesitation about killing, it will be to assess the chances of getting caught. Spree and serial killers are not going to be rehabilitated. As a class, they have no place in a "civilized" system. Killers continue to kill in prison. Prisons are violent places because they house violent men. Because, we as a society, are timid about killing killers, we warehouse violent men instead of eliminating them. This is not without consequences. It is getting harder to get INTO jail. The jails are full, the courts are clogged and there is less and less we can do to keep violent individuals off the streets. I say, make room for the gangsters: kill the killers. Don't confuse morals with timidity.

[Fishteacher73]

 

I would be interested in examining the methodology of any such "study." Link?

 

Have you ever heard the term GIGO? It applys to "studies" as well as computers. :D

 

Here's the link to the whole page:

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167#STATES%20WITH%20THE%20DEATH%20PENALTY%20V.%20STATES%20WITHOUT

 

 

The citation of one study:

 

Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2, May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona, consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma.

 

Another study with graphs to help illustrate:

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterbrut.gif

[Fishteacher73]

We all share in the cost and I say there are better things to spend our money on, like space exploration.

 

It costs more to execute a prisoner that to keep them in jail for life.

 

Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases:

That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992)

 

 

It costs on average aboiut 45% more to prosecute a captial murder case when asking for the death penalty. (Some state a bit more, some states a bit less). Here's your clammored for citation...:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7#financial%20facts

 

 

So, it costs more, at a bare minimum has show no decrease in crime rate, is of questionable morals, and lets see who is left, oh yeah, the survivors of the victim....An increasing number of victims families have come forth to decry the DP. Many find NO CLOSURE in yet another death.

Then you also have the convicted's family...I'm sure the DP reassures them of justice as well.

 

All of these issues come up even if the death penalty was ALWAYS JUSTLY imposed. It just simply is not. You could drown in the studies that show the racial and economic bias in the aplication of CP. There have been AT LEAST 23 people executed by the state that have been exonerated after the fact. An, "Opps, We goofed!" card from Halmark I do not think really rectifies that situation...Possibly imposing CP on the jurors that found him guilty? They killed him w/o cause.

 

As the addage goes: An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

[Freethinker]

Wow! Murder has nothing to do with morals! I never realized that.

 

As has been mentioned numerous times here, every study, every set of stats shows that CP DOES NOT deter muders. One stat I did not see so far is that the US is basically the only industrialized country that has CP and it also has by far the highest murder rate. But again, can we prove a causal relationship? Or is it more based on the US being a more Christian country than the others? There is also a statistical correlation that way as well.

 

Other comments, about how jails are filled with "violent men". Interestingly, I was reading an article this AM which shows that the single largest citation resulting in prison terms in my area is "Driving afte license revocation". With possession of pot in 2nd. Those horrible "violent men". It is a very small percent of the US prison pop that are actual "Criminals" in the "violent men" catagory.

 

But the Prison Industry is one of the few bright spots in the US economy. Employing more people and constructing more facilities all the time!

 

However many of these otherwise innocent, non-violent offenders, after having their lives destroyed by the current Compassionate Conservative dramatic increase in incarceration rates, become more violent. Where better to learn and be motivated than by this draconian system so praised by the Religious Right and it's puppet government?

[Noodle]

Fishteacher73,

Your citation is for a site that opposes the death penality. What kind of statistics would you expect? Try a real database: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm. They provide the numbers and don't try to sell you something. Good thing your not a creationist or you'd be quoting the Bible to me for proof.

 

There are over two million people in our prisons right now." At yearend 2003, 37 States and the Federal prison system held 3,374 prisoners under sentence of death." "Among inmates under sentence of death and with available criminal histories: -- about 1 in 12 had a prior homicide conviction." Divide 3,374 by 12 and you have 281 people that were killed by people who had been PREVIOUSLY convicted of homicide. That means they had already killed at least 281 people in the first place, then they were released to kill again. Add 281 and 281 and you now have 562 dead people not counting the remaining 3,093 killers who did not have a prior. Without counting multiple murders, the carnage here is at least 3,655 dead (3,093 and 562). If Hallmark was going to print cards, they would spend their money on sympathy cards for the dead victims families and friends. How many people are affected by 3,655 deaths compared to 23 deaths?

 

We promote violent crime by not dealing with the underlying issues. Sex abuse plays a prominent role. " Abused state prisoners were more likely than those not abused to have ever served a sentence for a violent crime. Among male inmates 76 percent who were abused and 61 percent not abused had a current or past sentence for a violent offense. Among female offenders, 45 percent of the abused and 29 percent not abused had served a sentence for a violent crime." But, what do we do with sex offenders? Let's see:

 

"Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.

 

On average the 9,691 sex offenders served 3 1/2 years of their 8-year sentence.

 

Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.

 

The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting."

 

We let them serve less than half their sentence and return them to the general population. Child molesters, 4,295 of them, have molested children. Those children, at least 4,295 and probably more (ever meet a child molester that could stop at one?), are now candidates for violence. Violence has entered their lives and if they cannot absorb the impact, it will be redirected. This is a cycle that can be broken, but not by timid individuals who are afraid of violating convicted criminal's rights.

 

Mine is a straight forward utilitarian argument with emphasis on negative responsibility. Spend your time and energy worrying about the 23 innocents and their families and let thousands of predators loose in an unsuspecting population to rape and murder as they please. Worry about the "morality" of permanently eliminating killers. Make sure that their trials are appealed automatically, thus increasing the costs, even if the killer doesn't want to appeal. Give killers a thousand times more consideration than the killer gave to his victim and then claim the cost is to high to justify capital punishment.

 

Your argument promotes pain and suffering by ignoring the real numbers of violent criminals that our society has to deal with. We need something more practical in our justice system, something that will reverse the numbers of people in prison. Killing the 3,374 people on death row is a start, then move on to the child molesters and skip the sanitizing. Guillotines work over and over. Cheap to operate and very dramatic.

[Noodle]

Other comments, about how jails are filled with "violent men". Interestingly, I was reading an article this AM which shows that the single largest citation resulting in prison terms in my area is "Driving afte license revocation". With possession of pot in 2nd. Those horrible "violent men". It is a very small percent of the US prison pop that are actual "Criminals" in the "violent men" catagory.

 

 

Freethinker,

 

Try the US Department of Justice: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm.

 

Most serious offense Percent of sentenced

State inmates

..............................1995.............................................2001.........................................

 

Total.......................100%...........................................100%.........................................

 

Violent.......................47...............................................49............................................

Property.....................23...............................................19...........................................

Drug..........................22................................................20..........................................

Public-order.................9................................................11.........................................

 

Pretty funny, huh?

[pgrmdave]

Your argument promotes pain and suffering by ignoring the real numbers of violent criminals that our society has to deal with. We need something more practical in our justice system, something that will reverse the numbers of people in prison. Killing the 3,374 people on death row is a start, then move on to the child molesters and skip the sanitizing. Guillotines work over and over. Cheap to operate and very dramatic.

 

Of course, child molesters and murderers aren't really people, they're just evil-doers, who deserve to be killed, there couldn't possibly be a compassionate way to deal with them.