theyeti

Well, you can check out this page for starters:

FACTS ABOUT DETERRENCE AND THE DEATH PENALTY.

One can objectively study the issue and see if using the death penalty tends to lower crime compared to not using the death penalty. You'll see from that page that the USA, which compared to other Western nations has quite a zeal for the death penalty, has a much higher crime rate than these other nations. You'll also see that states in the USA that employ the death penalty also have higher crime rates then those that don't. This graphic is particularly instructive:



Now I'm not saying that the higher crime rates are caused by the death penalty. For what it's worth, I think that both the higher crime rates and the death penalty are caused by a common cultural factor. (When you think about it, a violent culture is probably going to want the death penalty. So will one that likes instant gratification.)

Now it's probably true that we can never say with certainty that the DP doesn't deter crime, but I think we can safely say that the evidence in favor of deterrence is sorely lacking. And like with the God issue, the onus is on the advocates to provide the evidence in favor of their case.

That's an interesting question, and I don't really know. Being from SC, you might recall how our former Attorney General campaigned on the fact that he had never backed away from a death penalty case, and how proud we shoud all be of the 11 people he sent to death. I think the politics behind the application of the death penalty tend to warp our justice system away from the polices that might work best. But while it may be possible for the DP to make a useful bargaining tool, I'm not sure that there would be a difference without it. Life imprisonment without parole could work the same way, offering a suspect the possiblity of parole if he pleas guilty. You might not think that it's a good idea to offer these people parole, but if the state can't get an easy conviction, perhaps we shouldn't be so confident in their guilt. I also think this works against the penal system as easily as for. People who are tried in capital cases never plea guility. They can't do anything worse to you if you don't.

theyeti

elwoodblues

Honestly, I think you're right; I don't believe the death penalty has much, if any, deterrence value. But the data you're giving isn't enough.

Here's an alternate explanation for that data. State's with higher homicide rates are much more likely to pass death-penalty laws. Even if the death penalty has some deterence value, they're actual homicide rates may be higher than states without the death penalty.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

theyeti

Elwood, if you check the page that I linked to, there are studies which rule out this scenario. (Or rather, they don't rely on the overall correlation between the DP and crime.) Observing what happens to crime rates both before and after the imposition of the DP should show if it's having an effect. It doesn't appear to have a positive effect, and in some cases the effect appears to be negative.

But like I said, I think the correlation between crime rates and the DP is due to a common culutral attitude that causes both. Nevertheless, I do not think that the death penalty is merely a symptom of this culture tendancy, but rather tends to feed back on it. There may well be a cultural benefit to ending it. Just MHO.

theyeti

Philosoft

Exactly. Is there any reasoning or evidence behind the argument that public executions would promote deterrence? It seems intuitive to some who are not currently premeditiating a murder, but why would the method or publicity of an execution necessarily weigh heavily on someone who is in such a warped state of mind?

Godbert

I think the death penalty should be restricted to offences like spamming and telemarketing

MarkW

A couple of posters have suggested that the death penalty be "streamlined" so that executions would take place within 2-3 years of sentencing. Leaving aside the very serious objection that many wrongful death sentences are not overturned until far longer than that after sentencing, I'd like to suggest that such "streamlining" simply isn't realistic.

One reason I think this is because of the Ted Bundy case. Bundy was sentenced to die in Florida in July, 1979. His appeals were pretty much a formality--I doubt that there was ever any chance of a judge actually overturning his death sentence. At least some of the courts which heard his appeals expedited his case by moving it to the front of their calendars, ahead of cases that had been waiting longer. Despite the expedited proceegings, Bundy was not executed until January, 1989, 9 years and 6 months after his sentencing.

Several years ago, I read David von Drehle's excellent book, Among the Lowest of the Dead. One thing I learned from von Drehle (who writes at length about the Bundy case) is that it simply takes a long time to review death sentences sufficiently to give the sentenced even a semblance of due process. The only way the process could be speeded up, without doing violence to constitutional guarantees, would be to massively expand the court system, creating new appellate courts to do nothing but hear death penalty appeals. You'd also have to give everyone on death row (or their defenders) the resources to conduct a thorough investigation for exculpatory evidence within the 2-3 year time frame. are supporters of "streamlining" willing to support such measures, which would doubtless be very expensive?

Mark

August Spies

Beyelzu:

oops my bad! sorry. ill go bang my head on a wall.
:banghead:

beyelzu

august spies,

no need to bang your head against a wall. i didnt quote the material that i was responding to. so i will bang my head against a wall(in a show of solidarity if nothing else.):banghead:

Shake

No it isn't! It should be, but it isn't. There is a high rate of repeat offenders, and many convicts come out worse than when they went in! That's what's so frustrating.

I'm sorry I didn't have the time to back up my earlier claims, but I still haven't seen a single number showing how the cost of execution is higher than life in prison. Oh yeah, I forgot to add into the costs of keeping someone alive in prison their healthcare! Who pays for that? We do! Until I see a good dollar-for-dollar comparison, I refuse to believe that it's costlier to execute.

I know the system isn't perfect. I'm an advocate of reform. I'm not sure how to better explain my point. I do feel that potential DP cases should be done thoroughly to ensure that the parties are indeed guilty of the crimes, and represent a danger to society, and that there is no rehabilitating them.

Someone responded to my post saying, "Let's get rid of the oldies too." Ha ha. The elderly have ostensibly, made contributions to society, paid into Social Security, whatever. I'm talking about convicted felons, not creating some sort of Logan's Run type society. Just one with a better prison system. Of course, it's not just the prison system. Businesses have to be willing to hire ex-cons who have been rehabilitated and are willing to rejoin society and be good citizens.

I know, I was on a bit of a rant when I first posted here, so forgive my harshness, and lack of supporting URLs, but I don't have time to always back everything up. Much of it was opinion, as are many posts here by most everybody.

August Spies

stats were linked to at the beginning of the thread shake.