Monday, July 07, 2008

Steven Truscott: Capital Punishment

My long-held conviction has been that capital punishment has no place in modern society. The Steven Truscott case further confirmed my conviction in this regard. This story, of his wrongful conviction, was a tragedy. It would have been an even worse tragedy if he was hanged for a crime he did not commit.

You can
click here to read the CBC's In Depth feature on this tragic story.

Recommend this post

7 comments:

  1. The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents
    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

    Often, the death penalty dialogue gravitates to the subject of innocents at risk of execution. Seldom is a more common problem reviewed. That is, how innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
     
    Living murderers, in prison, after release or escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
     
    Although this is, obviously a truism, it is surprising how often folks overlook the enhanced incapacitation benefits of the death penalty over incarceration.
     
    No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.

    Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
     
    That is. logically, conclusive.
     
    16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses,  find for death penalty deterrence.
     
    A surprise? No.

    Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
     
    Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they couldn’t measure those deterred.
     
    What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some? There isn’t one . . . although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.
     
    However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Yet, the evidence is  compelling and un refuted  that death is feared more than life.

    “This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death.” (1)
     
    ” . . . a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, (capital) punishment.” (1)

    “Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many as eighteen or more murders for each execution.” (1)
     
    Some death penalty opponents argue against death penalty deterrence, stating that it’s a harsher penalty to be locked up without any possibility of getting out.
     
    Reality paints a very different picture.
     
    What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
     
    What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment.
     
    What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero. They prefer long term imprisonment.
     
    This is not, even remotely, in dispute.
     
    Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
     
    Furthermore, history tells us that “lifers” have many ways to get out: Pardon, commutation, escape, clerical error, change in the law, etc.

    In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to spare murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.
     
    ——–
     
    Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have all been released upon post conviction review. The anti death penalty claims, that the numbers are significantly higher, are a fraud, easily discoverable by fact checking.

    6 inmates have been released from death row because of DNA evidence.  An additional 9 were released from prison, because of DNA exclusion, who had previously been sentenced to death.

    The innocents deception of death penalty opponents has been getting exposure for many years. Even the behemoth of anti death penalty newspapers — The New York Times — has recognized that deception.

    “To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row . . . “. ‘ (2) This when death penalty opponents were claiming the release of 119 “innocents” from death row. Death penalty opponents never required actual innocence in order for cases to be added to their “exonerated” or “innocents” list. They simply invented their own definitions for exonerated and innocent and deceptively shoe horned large numbers of inmates into those definitions - something easily discovered with fact checking.

    There is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.

    If we accept that the best predictor of future performance is past performance, we can reasonable conclude that the DNA cases will be excluded prior to trial, and that for the next 8000 death sentences, that we will experience a 99.8% accuracy rate in actual guilt convictions. This improved accuracy rate does not include the many additional safeguards that have been added to the system, over and above DNA testing.

    Of all the government programs in the world, that put innocents at risk, is there one with a safer record and with greater protections than the US death penalty?
     
    Unlikely.
     
    ———————–
    Full report -  All Innocence Issues: The Death Penalty, upon request.

    Full report - The Death Penalty as a Deterrent, upon request
     
    (1) From the Executive Summary of
    Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs, March 2005
    Prof. Cass R. Sunstein,   Cass_Sunstein(AT)law.uchicago.edu
     Prof. Adrian Vermeule ,   avermeule(AT)law.harvard.edu
    Full report           http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1131
     
    (2) “The Death of Innocents’: A Reasonable Doubt”,
    New York Times Book Review, p 29, 1/23/05, Adam Liptak,
    national legal correspondent for The NY Times
    —————————–

    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
    e-mail  sharpjfa@aol.com,  713-622-5491,
    Houston, Texas
     
    Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O’Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
     
    A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
     
    Pro death penalty sites 

    homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

    www(dot)dpinfo.com
    www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
    www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
    www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
    www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
    www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
    www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
    yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2 (Sweden)
    www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html

    Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part,  is approved with proper attribution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As is always the case, there are at least two sides to every public policy debate.

    Here's my take.

    The Death Penalty in the US: A Review
    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below
     
    NOTE: Detailed review of any of the below topics, or others, is available upon request
     
    In this brief format, the reality of the death penalty in the United States, is presented, with the hope that the media, public policy makers and others will make an effort to present a balanced view on this sanction.
     

    Innocence Issues
     
    Death Penalty opponents have proclaimed that 129 inmates have been "released from death row with evidence of their innocence", in the US, since the modern death penalty era began, post Furman v Georgia (1972).
     
    The number is a fraud.
     
    Those opponents have intentionally included both the factually innocent (the "I truly had nothing to do with the murder" cases) and the legally innocent (the "I got off because of legal errors" cases), thereby fraudulently raising the "innocent" numbers. This is easily confirmed by fact checking.
     
    Death penalty opponents claim that 24 such innocence cases are in Florida. The Florida Commission on Capital Cases found that 4 of those 24 MIGHT be innocent -- an 83% error rate in for the claims of death penalty opponents. Other studies show their error rate to be about 70%. The totality of reviews points to an 80% error/fraud rate in these claims, or about 26 cases - a 0.3% actual guilt error rate for the nearly 8000 sentenced to death since 1973. 

    The actual innocents were all freed.
     
    It is often claimed that 23 innocents have been executed in the US since 1900.  Nonsense.  Even the authors of that "23 innocents executed" study proclaimed "We agree with our critics, we never proved those (23) executed to be innocent; we never claimed that we had."  While no one would claim that an innocent has never been executed, there is no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since 1900.
     
    No one disputes that innocents are found guilty, within all countries.  However, when scrutinizing death penalty opponents claims, we find that when reviewing the accuracy of verdicts and the post conviction thoroughness of discovering those actually innocent incarcerated, that the US death penalty process may be one of the most accurate criminal justice sanctions in the world. 
     
    Under real world scenarios, not executing murderers will always put many more innocents at risk, than will ever be put at risk of execution.
     

    Deterrence Issues
     
    16 recent US studies, inclusive of their defenses,  find a deterrent effect of the death penalty.
     
    All the studies which have not found a deterrent effect of the death penalty have refused to say that it does not deter some.  The studies finding for deterrence state such.  Confusion arises when people think that a simple comparison of murder rates and executions, or the lack thereof, can tell the tale of deterrence.  It cannot. 
     
    Both high and low murder rates are found within death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, be it Singapore, South Africa, Sweden or Japan, or the US states of Michigan and Delaware.  Many factors are involved in such evaluations.  Reason and common sense tell us that it would be remarkable to find that the most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- deterred none.  No one is foolish enough to suggest that the potential for negative consequences does not deter the behavior of some.  Therefore, regardless of jurisdiction, having the death penalty will always be an added deterrent to murders, over and above any lesser punishments.
     

    Racial issues
     
    White murderers are twice as likely to be executed in the US as are black murderers and are executed, on average, 12 months more quickly than are black death row inmates.
     
    It is often stated that it is the race of the victim which decides who is prosecuted in death penalty cases.  Although blacks and whites make up about an equal number of murder victims, capital cases are 6 times more likely to involve white victim murders than black victim murders.  This, so the logic goes, is proof that the US only cares about white victims.
     
    Hardly.  Only capital murders, not all murders, are subject to a capital indictment.  Generally, a capital murder is limited to murders plus secondary aggravating factors, such as murders involving burglary, carjacking, rape, and additional murders, such as police murders, serial and multiple murders.  White victims are, overwhelmingly, the victims under those circumstances, in ratios nearly identical to the cases found on death row.
     
    Any other racial combinations of defendants and/or their victims in death penalty cases, is a reflection of the crimes committed and not any racial bias within the system, as confirmed by studies from the Rand Corporation (1991), Smith College (1994), U of Maryland (2002), New Jersey Supreme Court (2003) and by a view of criminal justice statistics, within a framework of the secondary aggravating factors necessary for capital indictments.
     

    Class issues
     
    No one disputes that wealthier defendants can hire better lawyers and, therefore, should have a legal advantage over their poorer counterparts.  The US has executed about 0.15% of all murderers since new death penalty statutes were enacted in 1973.  Is there evidence that wealthier capital murderers are less likely to be executed than their poorer ilk, based upon the proportion of capital murders committed by different those different economic groups? Not to my knowledge.
     

    Arbitrary and capricious
     
    About 10% of all murders within the US might qualify for a death penalty eligible trial.  That would be about 64,000 murders since 1973.  We have sentenced 8000 murderers to death since then, or 13% of those eligible.  I doubt that there is any other crime which receives a higher percentage of maximum sentences, when mandatory sentences are not available.  Based upon that, as well as pre trial, trial, appellate and clemency/commutation realities, the US death penalty is likely the least arbitrary and capricious criminal sanctions in the  US.
     

    Christianity and the death penalty
     
    The two most authoritative New Testament scholars, Saints Augustine and Aquinas, provide substantial biblical and theological support for the death penalty. Even the most well known anti death penalty personality in the US, Sister Helen Prejean, author of Dead Man Walking, states that "It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical 'proof text' in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this.  Even Jesus' admonition 'Let him without sin cast the first stone,' when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) -- the Mosaic Law prescribed death -- should be read in its proper context.  This passage is an 'entrapment' story, which sought to show Jesus' wisdom in besting His adversaries.  It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment."  A thorough review of Pope John Paul II's position, reflects a reasoning that should be recommending more executions.
     

    Cost Issues
     
    All studies finding the death penalty to be more expensive than life without parole exclude important factors, such as (1) geriatric care costs, recently found to be $69,0000/yr/inmate, (2) the death penalty cost benefit of providing for plea bargains to a maximum life sentence, a huge cost savings to the state, (3) the death penalty cost benefit of both enhanced deterrence and enhanced incapacitation, at $5 million per innocent life spared, and, furthermore, (4) many of the alleged cost comparison studies are highly deceptive.
     

    Polling data
     
    76% of Americans find that we should impose the death penalty more or that we impose it about right (Gallup, May 2006 - 51% that we should impose it more, 25% that we impose it about right)
     
    71%  find capital punishment morally acceptable - that was the highest percentage answer for all questions (Gallup, April 2006, moral values poll). In May, 2007, the percentage dropped to 66%, still the highest percentage answer, with 27% opposed. (Gallup, 5/29/07)
     
    81% of the American people supported the execution of Timothy McVeigh, with only 16% opposed. "(T)his view appears to be the consensus of all major groups in society, including men, women, whites, nonwhites, "liberals" and "conservatives."  (Gallup 5/2/01).
     
    81% of Connecticut citizens supported the execution of serial rapist/murderer Michael Ross (Jan 2005).
     
    While 81% gave specific case support for Timothy McVeigh's execution, Gallup also showed a 65% support AT THE SAME TIME when asked a general "do you support capital punishment for murderers?" question. (Gallup, 6/10/01).
     
    22% of those supporting McVeigh's execution are, generally, against the death penalty (Gallup 5/02/01). That means that about half of those who say they oppose the death penalty, with the general question,  actually support the death penalty under specific circumstances, just as it is imposed, judicially.
     
    Further supporting the higher rates for specific cases, is this, from the French daily Le Monde December 2006 (1): Percentage of respondents in favor of executing Saddam Hussein:USA: 82%; Great Britain: 69%; France: 58%; Germany: 53%; Spain: 51%; Italy: 46%
     
    Death penalty support is much deeper and much wider than we are often led to believe, with 50% of those who say they, generally, oppose the death penalty actually supporting it under specific circumstances, resulting in 80% death penalty support in the US, as recently as December 2006.
     
    --------------------------------
     
    Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, a fair accounting of how it is applied should be demanded.
     
    copyright 1998-2008 Dudley Sharp
     
    Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
    e-mail  sharpjfa@aol.com,  713-622-5491,
    Houston, Texas
     
    Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
     
    A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally.
     
    Pro death penalty sites 

    homicidesurvivors(dot)com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx

    www(dot)dpinfo.com
    www(dot)cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
    www(dot)clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
    www(dot)coastda.com/archives.html
    www(dot)lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
    www(dot)prodeathpenalty.com
    www(dot)yesdeathpenalty.com/deathpenalty_co
    yesdeathpenalty.googlepages.com/home2   (Sweden)
    www(dot)wesleylowe.com/cp.html

    Permission for distribution of this document, in whole or in part,  is approved with proper attribution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. dudleysharp, thank you for your long essay. I have read many such articles and essays over the years but not convinced. Some need treatment. The most hardened criminals need life to protect the society.

    Hundreds and hundreds of people have been found innocent in US and Canada since DNA technology became available. Moreover, death penalty is deterred for whom. The person executed can do nothing and those alive and cared for him/her could and do retaliate towards the society. A horrible vicious circle begins. No jurisdiction has shown that death penalty is a deterrent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are 16 recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, finding for death penalty deterrence.

    All prospects for a negative outcome deter some, without exception.

    For some of the recent 16 deterrence studies, go to:

    http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

    US Senate testimony

    http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1745&wit_id=4991

    "I oppose the death penalty. " " But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?" "Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it." "The results are robust, they don't really go away" "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.".

    Deterrence

    The potential for negative consequences deters some behavior. 

    The most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- does not contradict that finding.

    Reason, common sense, history and the weight of the studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. 

    The death penalty protects innocent lives. The absence of the death penalty sacrifices innocent lives.

    Is there any group, be they criminologists, historians, psychologists, economists, philosophers, physicians, journalists or criminals that does not recognize that the prospect of negative consequences constrains or deters the behavior of some? 

    Of course not -- not even fiction writers so speculate. 

    Even irrational people wear seat belts, choose not to smoke and do not rob police stations because of the potential for negative consequences.

    ll. Historical support

    Reason, history and common sense all support that the potential for negative consequences deters or alters behavior. In short, incentives, negative or positive, matter. That is undisputed.

    Numerous, previous studies have also supported a deterrence finding. And the studies that find a deterrent effect of other criminal sanctions give additional support to the deterrent effect of the death penalty, because, if lesser sanctions deter, then we know that more severe sanctions also deter. The studies that find a deterrent effect of 1. increased police presence, or any other levels of security; 2. arrest/arrest rates; 3. criminal sentencing/incarceration terms; and 4. the presence of rules, laws and statutes all provide additional, collateral support for the deterrent effect of the death penalty. And there are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of such studies and examples (database in progress).

    lII.  Negative consequences matter

    Many have discounted a deterrent effect because of the irrationality of potential and active criminals.  However, both reason and the evidence support that the potential for negative consequences does affect criminal behavior.

    Criminals who try to conceal their crime do so for only one reason -- fear of punishment.  Likely, more than 99% of all criminals, including capital murderers, act in such a fashion.  Fear of capture does not exist without an expectation of punishment.

    This doesn't mean that they sit down before every crime, most crimes or even their first crime, and contemplate a cost to benefit analysis of a criminal action.  Weighing negative consequences may be conscious or subconscious, thoughtful or instinctive.  And we instinctively know the potential negative consequences of some actions.  Even pathetically stupid or irrational criminals will demonstrate such obvious efforts to avoid detection.  And there is only one reason for that -- fear of punishment.

    When dealing with less marginalized personalities, those who choose not to murder, such is a more reasoned group.  It would be illogical to assume that a more reasoned group would be less responsive to the potential for negative consequences.  Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that some potential murderers were not additionally deterred by the more severe punishment of execution.

    As legal writer and death penalty critic Stuart Taylor observes: "All criminal penalties are based on the incontestable theory that most (or at least many) criminals are somewhat rational actors who try so hard not to get caught because they would prefer not to be imprisoned. And most are even keener about staying alive than about avoiding incarceration."  (10)

    Based upon the overwhelming evidence that criminals do respond to the potential of negative consequences, reason supports that executions deter and that they are an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.

    IV.  The pre trial, trial and death row evidence -  the survival effect

    At every level of the criminal justice process, virtually all criminals do everything they can to lessen possible punishments.  I estimate that less than 1% of all convicted capital murderers request a death sentence in the punishment phase of their trial.  The apprehended criminals' desire for lesser punishments is overwhelming and unchallenged.

    Of the 7300 inmates sentenced to death since 1973, 85, or 1.2% have waived remaining appeals and been executed. 98.8% have not waived appeals.  The evidence is overwhelming that murderers would rather live on death row than die.  Why?  The survival effect -- life is preferred over death and death is feared more than life.  Even on death row, that is the rule.

    Even such marginalized personalities as capital murderers fear death more than imprisonment.  And that which we fear the most, deters the most. (kudos to Ernest van den Haag and many others)

    It is logical to conclude that some of those less marginalized personalities, who choose not to murder, also, overwhelmingly, fear death more than life, and, we, thus, logically conclude that some are deterred from murdering because of the enhanced deterrent effect of execution.

    The evidence for the survival effect in pretrial, trial and appeals is overwhelming and that weighs in favor of execution as a deterrent and as an enhanced deterrent over lesser sentences.

    V.  If unsure about deterrence

    Common sense, reason and history all support that the potential for negative consequences restricts the behavior of some.  But, if unsure of deterrence, we face the following dilemma -- If executions do deter, halting executions causes more innocents to be murdered and gives those living murderers the opportunity to harm and murder again.  If the death penalty does not deter, and we do execute, we punish murderers as the jury deemed appropriate and we prevent those executed murderers from harming or murdering again.

    Oddly, death penalty opponents believe that the burden of proof is on those who say the death penalty is a deterrent.  Clearly it is not.  The weight of the evidence, within reason, history, common sense and the social sciences is that the potential for negative consequences restricts the behavior of some.  That is not in dispute.  Furthermore, if opponents cannot prove it is not a deterrent, which they never have and never will, then they are the ones who risk sacrificing innocents, both by absence of deterrence and reduced incapacitation.

    Regardless of jurisdiction, under all debated scenarios, more innocents are put at risk when we fail to execute.  Any alleged concern for innocents weighs in favor of executions.

    Vl.  The individual deterrent effect

    The individual deterrent effect is represented by those who state that they were deterred from committing a murder only because of the prospects of a death sentence. Individual cases support the enhanced deterrent effect. (11)

    One Iowa prisoner, who escaped from a transportation van, with a number of other prisoners, stated that he made sure that the overpowered guards were not harmed, because of his fear of the death penalty in Texas.  The prisoners were being transported through Texas, on their way to New Mexico, when the escape occurred.  Most compelling is that he was a twice convicted murderer from a non death penalty state, Iowa. In addition, he was under the false impression that Texas had the death penalty for rape and, as a result, also protected the woman guard from assault. (12)

    New York Law School Professor Robert Blecker recorded his interview with a convicted murderer. The murderer robbed and killed drug dealers in Washington DC., where he was conscious that there was no death penalty.  He specifically did not murder a drug dealer in Virginia because, and only because, he envisioned himself strapped in the electric chair, which he had personally seen many times while imprisoned in Virginia. (13)

    Senator Dianne Feinstein explained, ''I remember well in the 1960s when I was sentencing a woman convicted of robbery in the first degree and I remember looking at her commitment sheet and I saw that she carried a weapon that was unloaded into a grocery store robbery.  I asked her the question: ‘Why was your gun unloaded?’ She said to me: ‘So I would not panic, kill somebody, and get the death penalty.’ That was firsthand testimony directly to me that the death penalty in place in California in the sixties was in fact a deterrent.''(13A)

    Logic requires that the individual deterrent effect cannot exist without the general deterrent effect.  Therefore, reason dictates that the general deterrent effect must exist. The question is not: "Does deterrence exist?"  It does. The issue is: "What is the quantifiable impact of deterrence?"

    Individual cases support the individual deterrent effect and such cases insure that general deterrence must exist.  And, for both, the evidence also suggests that executions provide enhanced deterrence over incarceration.

    VlI.  Conflicting studies

    In reviewing 30 years of deterrence studies, the strongest statement one may make against deterrence is that there is conflicting data (14).

    Yet, even when academic bias against capital punishment is overt, such as in the case of the American Society of Criminology -- the subtitle to their death penalty resources page is "Anti-Capital Punishment Resources" -- even they fail to state that the death penalty does not deter some potential murderers, only that "social science research has found no consistent evidence of crime deterrence through execution." (15) That is far from stating that executions do not deter.  And the criminologists are, very likely, that academic group most hostile toward the death penalty. What social science conflicts with the notion that the potential for negative consequences restrains the behavior of some? And most would agree that execution is the most serious negative consequence that a murderer may face.

    Numerous studies find that executions do deter.  And there is a rational conclusion based upon common experience.  It appears that all criminal sanctions deter some.  It would be irrational to conclude that the most severe and publicized sanction -- execution -- does not deter some potential murderers.

    Those studies which do not find deterrence say that they could not detect it, not that it doesn't exist.  Those studies which find for deterrence state such.

    As Professor Cloninger states: " . . .  (Our recent) study is but another on a growing list of empirical work that finds evidence consistent with the deterrence hypothesis.  These studies as a whole provide robust evidence -- evidence obtained from a variety of different models, data sets and methodologies that yield the same conclusion. It is the cumulative effect of these studies that causes any neutral observer to pause." (16)

    Conflicting studies and reason both weigh in favor of the death penalty as a deterrent and as an enhanced deterrent over lesser punishments.

    VlII.  The brutalization effect of executions

    Some, particularly death penalty opponents, find that the brutalization effect is more likely than the deterrent effect.  The brutalization effect finds that murders will increase because potential murderers will murder because of the example of state executions.

    Why would potential and active murderers be so influenced by the state in such a deep philosophical manner, revealed by brutalization, but they wouldn't be more affected by the simple "you murder, we execute you?"

    Death penalty opponents make an interesting about face on this issue.  They insist that criminals are so thoughtless and impulsive that they can't be affected by the potential of negative consequences but, then, those same opponents see criminals as so contemplative that their criminal actions increase BECAUSE those criminals follow the example of the state. One might ask those opponents: "Is there any other government action which influences criminals in such a fashion?"  Do criminals kidnap more BECAUSE the state increases incarceration rates?  Do criminals give money to potential victims BECAUSE the state donates to needy causes?

    Murder rates and execution rates

    Although deterrence is much more than a simple look at only execution rates and murder rates, we do find that as executions have risen dramatically, the murder rate has plunged.

    From 1966-1980, a period which included our last national moratorium on executions (June 1967- January 1976), murders in the United States more than doubled from 11,040 to 23,040. The murder rate also nearly doubled, from 5.6 to 10.2/100,000.  During that 1966-1980 period, the US averaged 1 execution every 3 years, with a maximum of two executions per year.  From 1995-2000 executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000% increase over the 1966-1980 period.  The US murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2/100,000 in 1980 to 5.5/100,000 in 2000 -- a 46% reduction. The US murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966 (17).

    The Texas example -- The murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has fallen 73% since executions resumed in 1982, through 2000, from 31/100,000 to 8.5/100,000 (18).  Harris County is, by far, the most active death penalty sentencing and execution jurisdiction in the US.  The Harris County murder rate dropped nearly 70% more than did the national murder rate, during similar periods. Texas' murder rate dropped 62% during that same period, or 41% more than the national average.

    Potential murderers may have been affected by the example of the state of Texas but, likely, not in a manner consistent with brutalization. 

    And "(t)he biggest decline in murder rates has occurred in states that aggressively use capital punishment." (19)

    After a thorough review of deterrence studies, Professor Samuel Cameron observed, "The brutalization idea is not one the economists have given any credence." "We must conclude that the deterrence effect dominates the opposing brutalization effect." (20)

    Reason, history, common sense and the studies weigh against the brutalization effect.

    lX.  The incapacitation effect

    The incapacitation effect states that executed murderers cannot harm or murder again.  Reason dictates that living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder again than are executed murderers.

    That obvious logic escapes death penalty opponents who say that we can have foolproof incarceration.  What hypocrisy.  This is the same group of folks who tell us that our system of justice is so fraught with error that we cannot possibly continue the death penalty.  Yet, the facts tell us that living murderers harm and murder again, in prison, after escape and after improper release.  Executed murderers do not.  In addition, the US death penalty appears to be that criminal justice sanction which is the least likely to convict the factually innocent and the most likely to remedy such rare error upon post conviction review.

    Stuart Taylor: "Statistical studies and common sense aside, it's undeniable that the death penalty saves some lives: those of the prison guards and other inmates who would otherwise be killed by murderers serving life sentences without parole, and of people who might otherwise encounter murderous escapees". (21)

    Under all circumstances, the execution of murderers will protect innocents at a higher rate than will incarceration.

    X.  Death Penalty Opponents

    Why is it that some death penalty opponents appear to laugh off any potential for a deterrent effect of executions?  Because to admit that executions deter some potential murderers would be to admit that, in reaching their goals, they will knowingly benefit murderers at the cost of sacrificing more innocent lives.  Of course, opponents will never prove it is not a deterrent and many will admit that executions do deter some.

    How many would still oppose executions if they knew that the evidence supported the deterrent effect and that many more innocents are put at risk by not executing?

    Stuart Taylor: "So those of us who lean against the death penalty must confront the very real possibility that abolishing it could lead to the violent deaths of unknown numbers of innocent men, women, and children. And those who are still skeptical that the death penalty deters any killings must also confront the risk-benefit calculus suggested by political scientist John McAdams of Marquette University: 'If we execute murderers, and there is, in fact, no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.'  " (22)

    Xl.  Conclusion

    Those of us who support execution do so because it is a just punishment.  The moral foundation for all punishments is that they are deserved.  One cannot support a punishment based upon deterrence alone.

    Reason, common sense and history all fall on the side of deterrence.  Be it Sweden or Rwanda, Texas or Michigan, Singapore or Chile, England or Japan, whether high crime rates or low, the death penalty will always deter some potential murderers.  Regardless of jurisdiction, the potential for negative outcomes will always restrict the behavior of some.  And, the weight of the evidence clearly supports execution as an enhanced deterrent.

    As Professor Rubin states, "Our evidence is that there are substantial benefits from executions and, thus, substantial costs of changing this policy (23).

    From Prof. Robert Blecker, New York Law School,

    "We support execution as a just and appropriate forfeiture of lives which deserve to be taken.  We also support execution as a just and appropriate method to save lives which deserve to be saved. "
     

    ReplyDelete
  5. dudleysharp, ok sir, you are wasting your time on me. Ok, I will tell you. I taught criminology in a major Canadian University and did extensive research. I have some idea of the both sides of the argument and I concluded that capital punishment is not a deterrent and too many times innocent people get hung or put on the electric chair. Also prisons are colleges and universities for young people to turn them into hardened criminals. You need to use informed strategy especially for youth offenders.

    Sorry I type fast and some times I do not check grammar.

    ReplyDelete
  6. From your research, it appears the only prospect of a negative outcome that doesn't deter is also the most severe criminal sanction.

    Fascinating.

    Thank you for the exchange and for allowing me to posy on your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're welcome. Thank for your comments. I knew too many young people destroyed for being put in jail for minor infractions. All they needed was some guidance.

    ReplyDelete