Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime

[IsaiahX]

An article that dispels the notion that capital punishment deters crime.

One of the sources used in the article is a study by Sociology professor and graduate student at the University of Colorado-Boulder (Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock), examining the opinions of leading criminology experts on the deterrence effects of the death penalty.

The results of the study reveal that most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory. In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

With all the studies amd examples it's sad anyone still believes it does. It's nothing more than their lust for violence amd vengeance, having nothing at all do with justice or the possibility of rehabilitation.

 

[Spirit of Light]

An article that dispels the notion that capital punishment deters crime.

One of the sources used in the article is a study by Sociology professor and graduate student at the University of Colorado-Boulder (Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock), examining the opinions of leading criminology experts on the deterrence effects of the death penalty.

The results of the study reveal that most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory. In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder.

The death penalty is a weak way of handling criminal people, and those state officials who are put to do the job of prisons where the death penalty is done, aren't they murderers too? why are they not charged with murder?

 

[BSM1]

An article that dispels the notion that capital punishment deters crime.

One of the sources used in the article is a study by Sociology professor and graduate student at the University of Colorado-Boulder (Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock), examining the opinions of leading criminology experts on the deterrence effects of the death penalty.

The results of the study reveal that most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory. In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder.

The death penalty, as with all forms of institutionalized punishment, was never meant to be a 'deterrent'. All sentences handed out in our judicial system are meant to be justice for a criminal act against society, not some form rehabilitation. However, you have to admit that the death penalty is probably the most truest deterrent out there. Furthermore, the death penalty is also a sure way to prevent recidivism.

 

[PureX]

Like it or not, there are other reasons for capital punishment besides deterrence. A lot of people perceive it as justice. And it clearly is deterrence at the individual level (although that can be achieved by alternative methods). I, personally, feel that there are individuals among us that pose such a significant ongoing threat to others that they do not warrant society taking on that risk. Serial murderers, mass murderers, terroristic murderers, murderers of random victims, and people who commit murder while in prisons do not warrant society taking on the perpetual risk that these killers pose to everyone else. I believe it is the responsibility of those in charge of the public's security to eliminate that ongoing danger by eliminating the source.

 

[dianaiad]

Like it or not, there are other reasons for capital punishment besides deterrence. A lot of people perceive it as justice. And it clearly is deterrence at the individual level (although that can be achieved by alternative methods). I, personally, feel that there are individuals among us that pose such a significant ongoing threat to others that they do not warrant society taking on that risk. Serial murderers, mass murderers, terroristic murderers, murderers of random victims, and people who commit murder while in prisons do not warrant society taking on the perpetual risk that these killers pose to everyone else. I believe it is the responsibility of those in charge of the public's security to eliminate that ongoing danger by eliminating the source.

Personally, I'm against the death penalty. Not because I see it as 'murder,' but because I like the idea of justice. I think murderers should be put in a concrete cage, fed well, given good medical care, allowed library privileges....and not allowed to interact with anybody. Ever. For the rest of their lives. I believe in a "life for a life,' but I also believe that the person paying the penalty should understand completely that s/he IS paying his/her absence of a life for the one s/he took. S/he might even end up contributing something. Who knows?

Besides, it is sometimes possible that, well....s/he didn't actually DO it. Not often, but once in awhile, and if we kill the person, how can we make THAT right?

On the other hand, and this is why I'm responding to your post...I believe you are correct. When there is absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the suspect, and we are dealing with serial killers, terrorists and the others you mention, it's not about justice any more. It's about preventing further damage. Not from OTHER people who might be 'deterred,' but from THAT person.

 

[Twilight Hue]

An article that dispels the notion that capital punishment deters crime.

One of the sources used in the article is a study by Sociology professor and graduate student at the University of Colorado-Boulder (Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock), examining the opinions of leading criminology experts on the deterrence effects of the death penalty.

The results of the study reveal that most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory. In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder.

Let's put it in another way.

That particular sub human will never ever kill a person again.

 

[McBell]

Death Row is a status symbol.
Since everyone knows that the death penalty is the least likely punishment to be enforced here in the US.

 

[IsaiahX]

This is a response to both @PureX and @BSM1.

Thank you both for your input. I want to say that the purpose of the OP was not necessarily to prove that Capital Punishment is wrong, but to show that an argument for it based on deterrence is invalid.

However, while I would consider supporting Capital Punishment if the criminal was proven to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, the dangers of executing an innocent person are considerable. I would also like to say that there are things that actually do deter crime, not all of which involve punishment, and that Capital Punishment can often distract people from those.

Edit: And to everyone else who said something similar. I don't know why I didn't expect y'all.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

An article that dispels the notion that capital punishment deters crime.

One of the sources used in the article is a study by Sociology professor and graduate student at the University of Colorado-Boulder (Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock), examining the opinions of leading criminology experts on the deterrence effects of the death penalty.

The results of the study reveal that most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory. In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder.

BS. Who cares what 'most experts' say. The death penalty insures two things. The one receiving it, will never do it again. And the one receiving it gets a just judgement against his crime.

If the death penalty deters crime or not...who cares?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Nakosis]

An article that dispels the notion that capital punishment deters crime.

One of the sources used in the article is a study by Sociology professor and graduate student at the University of Colorado-Boulder (Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock), examining the opinions of leading criminology experts on the deterrence effects of the death penalty.

The results of the study reveal that most experts do not believe that the death penalty or the carrying out of executions serve as deterrents to murder, nor do they believe that existing empirical research supports the deterrence theory. In fact, the authors report that 88.2% of respondents do not think that the death penalty deters murder.

Never thought it did. Even in High School, quite a while back, I argued against it being any kind of deterrent. Haven't really heard it as an argument lately. Most seem to feel it being necessary for justice/closure for the people affected by the crime still living.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

It may not deter crime but no one who has received the death penalty has committed another crime.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like it or not, there are other reasons for capital punishment besides deterrence. A lot of people perceive it as justice. And it clearly is deterrence at the individual level (although that can be achieved by alternative methods). I, personally, feel that there are individuals among us that pose such a significant ongoing threat to others that they do not warrant society taking on that risk. Serial murderers, mass murderers, terroristic murderers, murderers of random victims, and people who commit murder while in prisons do not warrant society taking on the perpetual risk that these killers pose to everyone else. I believe it is the responsibility of those in charge of the public's security to eliminate that ongoing danger by eliminating the source.

What of those such as Robert Bundy who open up and provide us with a goldmine of information into the minds of such violent people? That source was unfortunately destroyed prematurely, all the information we could have had lost forever. I personally would like that to stop so we have better sources to study so we can better predict and intervene to prevwnt the next Bundy or Shawcross before they have their first kill.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Furthermore, the death penalty is also a sure way to prevent recidivism.

Great argument! The amount of money that could be saved running state and federal prisons by simply applying the death penalty (to prevent recidivism for any crime whatsoever) is surely compelling!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Let's put it in another way.

That particular sub human will never ever kill a person again.

Of course, one presumes that the evidence and proofs that this particular "sub human" ever killed a person at all is perfect. Because if it isn't, correcting the error is -- to say the least -- problematic.

Now, who would like to begin listing all those people, let's restrict it to the US and Canada, who were wrongfully convicted and have since been exonerated. I could start, if you'd like, from a Canadian perspective (where it is estimated that there are about 872 wrongful convictions per year):

Here are just a few convicted of murder, who could easily have been put to death (if we still the death penalty, which we did when Steven Truscott, a boy of 14, listed below, was sentenced to hang):

• Robert Baltovich
• James Driskell
• Anthony Hanemaayer
• Ivan Henry
• Rejean Hinse
• Donald Marshall, Jr.
• David Milgaard
• Guy Paul Morian
• Willie Nepoose
• Romeo Phillion
• Thomas Sophonow
• Steven Truscott (mentioned above)
• William Mullins-Johnson

It should surprise nobody that I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

BS. Who cares what 'most experts' say. The death penalty insures two things. The one receiving it, will never do it again. And the one receiving it gets a just judgement against his crime.

If the death penalty deters crime or not...who cares?

Good-Ole-Rebel

And as I tried to show (it was just a beginning) with my list above, the idea of "the one receiving it will never do it again" presupposes that he or she did it in the first place. I presume that's not a question you ever ask yourself -- do you assume that the justice system is perfect, and never makes errors?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

BS. Who cares what 'most experts' say.

I doubt you actually follow through with that. Such as, I doubt you refuse going to a doctor or refuse treatments because "who cares what the experts say." Engineering is another field where I doubt you really believe that, but only harp it when it's convenient. Your computer and car, after all, weren't designed by those with a higb school level understanding of physics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The death penalty, as with all forms of institutionalized punishment, was never meant to be a 'deterrent'. All sentences handed out in our judicial system are meant to be justice for a criminal act against society, not some form rehabilitation. However, you have to admit that the death penalty is probably the most truest deterrent out there. Furthermore, the death penalty is also a sure way to prevent recidivism.

It's also probably great at incentivizing the murder of possible witnesses.

 

[McBell]

It may not deter crime but no one who has received the death penalty has committed another crime.

How many who received it didn't commit any crime at all?

 

[BSM1]

Great argument! The amount of money that could be saved running state and federal prisons by simply applying the death penalty (to prevent recidivism for any crime whatsoever) is surely compelling!

At least we know that works...