The Death Penalty Works

One of those things I've never understood has been attempts to argue that the death penalty lacks any significant deterrent effect, especially in light of the efforts that prisoners and their lawyers put forth to avoid receiving this supposedly ineffective punishment. Now comes word that not only does the death penalty work, but it works extremely well, confirming what common sense has always suggested, and leaving liberal opponents* in need of other grounds to oppose it other than efficacy.

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.

The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations - pointing out flaws in the justice system - has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument - whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.(emphasis added)

But wait, there's more!

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,'' [Professor Naci Mocan] 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 from murder).

[...]

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.

To oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it is irrevocable even when wrongly applied is one thing - I myself am wary of its hasty application for just this reason - but it's quite something else to engage in all the usual logical somersaults employed by death penalty opponents to "explain" why it doesn't work, in the same manner that many like to pretend that torture never works: such sophistry suggests that one lacks faith in the capacity of one's stance to carry the day on the moral and philosophical merits, and it also gives those who are exposed to it justified grounds for suspecting those expounding such sophistry of being liars intent on using intellectual bluster to impose their private views as public policy. The death penalty works, and any worthwhile argument against it must start by accepting this reality.

*The intellectually honest ones, anyway. The other contingent won't ever let the evidence sway their views or arguments in the least.

Comments

[Won Joon Choe]

An excellent piece, Abiola.

It is rather evident--or should I say "self-evident"?--that not all murder emerge out of the "heat of passion" or other irrational states. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of murderers perform at least a partial cost-benefit analysis.

I wonder, however, if a more powerful variable in deterring would-be-murderers is the likelihood of getting caught, rather than the likelihood of facing the firing squad. Of course, this would be harder to calculate with any sort of precision--even by the rather lax standards of the social sciences.

In any case, even on those rare times I disagree with you (which is not the case here, by the way), I can seldom fault you for fabricating or misrepresenting data or for employing logically incoherent arguments. I cannot say the same for many "liberal" intellectuals on law and order issues.

[Stentor]

I think you're too uncharitable to the motivation for using non-deterrence arguments. The strategy is about trying to meet your opponents on their own ground, and show them that even if we were to concede many of the bigger philosophical issues, the opponent's arguments fail on their own terms. People are not in fact completely rational, and the deeper your philosophical challenge goes the less likely they are to give it a fair hearing.

Also, there are some of us for whom a belief in the lack of deterrent effect is actually a major factor in our opposition to the death penalty, so making deterrence-based arguments is perfectly honest for us. (Though honesty also requires giving serious consideration to evidence such as the studies you cite.)