View
219
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Deterrence There are at least two meanings:
1) Special (or specific) Deterrence aimed at creating fear in the offender by punishment so that he or she will not commit another crime
2) General Deterrence aimed at creating fear in all members of society by sending a message through punishment of an offender so that we will not commit crimes
First, it is obvious that the death penalty is NOT A SPECIFIC DETERRENT -- Why?
If the offender is DEAD, he or she cannot be afraid of committing another crime
So the only issue is whether the death penalty is a GENERAL DETERRENT
That is, does it cause fear in US that stops US from committing murder?
The Logic of Deterrence
Gosh, it makes sense at least! …here’s an example
How do you stop a dog from peeing on the floor?
The Logic of Deterrence
Why do we punish a dog for peeing on the floor?
To make it not do it again (PREVENTION) We assume dogs learn through punishment … As do cats, other animals, and PEOPLE! …
The Logic of Deterrence When it comes to humans, we assume:
People are hedonistic (pleasure-seeking) People are rational (can think in advance of behavior) People want to avoid pain such as punishment
(deterrence) So the thought of death should deter … and seeing
punishment administered to others should deter
The Logic of Deterrence BUT … Just because deterrence is logical, does this mean that
the DEATH PENALTY IS ACTUALLY A DETERRENT ???
(What does the evidence say?)
Hint: it is not good …
Quotes from Supporters ... “… we must conclude that we lack strong statistical
evidence that capital punishment deters … There is no such evidence for nondeterrence either. The statistics available are simply inconclusive ...” (Pojman, 1998)
“Statistics have not proved conclusively that the death penalty does or does not deter murder more than other penalties” (Van den Haag, 1997)
Meanwhile, virtually all experts agree that the death Meanwhile, virtually all experts agree that the death penalty penalty DOES NOT DETERDOES NOT DETER would-be MURDERERS would-be MURDERERS
Does it Matter to People?(Deterrence and Public Support)
Historically, deterrence has been a major reason cited in public opinion polls as to why people favor capital punishment
(e.g., to stop others from committing murder) But recently, it is not widely cited by supporters Perhaps people know the evidence? … (That the death penalty is NOT considered a deterrent
to murder according to the scientific evidence)
Key facts to remember up front …
About 1 / 2% of aggravated murderers (death eligible killers) get the death penalty
How could it be a deterrent when it is not used? (Evidence about deterrence suggests that most
important element is CERTAINTY OF PUNISHMENT – for punishment to deter, it must be likely to happen)
Summary of Evidence Studies tend to compare: States with death penalty and without … Nations with death penalty and without … Jurisdictions before and after having death penalty … Effects of highly publicized executions … ETC! …
What would you expect to find in these studies?
Summary of Evidence States WITH death penalty have HIGHER murder
rates than those without … Nations WITH death penalty have HIGHER murder
rates than those without … Effects of imposing and removing death penalty have
OPPOSITE effect expected …
NO CONSISTENT EVIDENCE of DETERRENCE and MORE EVIDENCE OF “BRUTALIZATION”
States Murder rates 48-101% LOWER in states WITHOUT
the death penalty South has HIGHEST murder rate and MOST
executions: 2002: South: 6.8 per 100,000 (68 executions in 2002) West: 5.7 per 100,000 (1 execution in 2002) Midwest: 5.1 per 100,000 (2 executions in 2002) Northeast: 4.1 per 100,000 (0 executions in 2002)
States Average murder rate in 1999 of DEATH PENALTY
STATES was 5.5 per 100,000 Average murder rate in 1999 of NON-DEATH
PENALTY STATES was 3.6 per 100,000
Nations Canada abolished capital punishment in 1976 2001 homicides (554) were 23% lower than 1975
homicides (721) Homicide rates in Canada about 3 times lower than in
US US: 5.7 per 100,000 (1999) (98 executions in 1999) Canada: 1.8 per 100,000 (1999) (0 executions in 1999)
Summary of Evidence No studies considered valid today show evidence of
deterrence The largest, most sophisticated study which found
evidence of deterrence (Ehrlich, 1975) concluded for each execution, 7-8 murders would be prevented
This study was replicated numerous times and found NO EFFECT
Study is plagued by numerous flaws so that National Academy of Sciences report did not accept his findings
But supporters say ... Consider the BEST BET HYPOTHESIS … If we do not know if the death penalty is a deterrent,
we should bet that it is … it would be better to assume there is a deterrent
(when there is not) and use death penalty -- this unnecessarily kills guilty murderers
… than to assume there is not a deterrent (when there is) and not use the death penalty -- this allows innocent people to die …
So supporters say ... Consider the ANECDOAL EVIDENCE ...
Stories do exist of those who claim to have been deterred by fear of capital punishment …
Experts’ Views Survey of Presidents of ASC, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,
and Law and Society Association found: 84% say death penalty is NOT deterrent to homicide 0% say the death penalty significantly reduces homicide 93% say threat of death penalty is NOT greater deterrent to murder
than long prison terms 87% say abolishing the death penalty in a state would have no
significant effects of murder in that state 100% say politicians support death penalty to appear tough on
crime 87% say debates about death penalty distract law makers from
focusing on real solutions to crime problems
So what about Incapacitation?
Incapacitation is “taking away one’s ability to commit another crime so that it is impossible to commit more crimes”
While typical forms include probation, incarceration, the ultimate form is death!
Anyone want to argue that death penalty does not achieve this?
Does capital punishment achieve incapacitation?
Yes, for 2% of aggravated murderers! Remember Supreme Court said we cannot kill them
all, prosecutors do not pursue it, juries will not impose it ...
So, a handful of them are killed (31 per year since 1977)
And it costs more to kill them (the way U.S does it) than to keep them in prison for life
So, is it necessary or is there an alternative?
Recommended