Professor Robert B. Ekelund of Auburn University and his colleagues analyzed the effect that executions have on single murder rates, while there was no effect on multiple murder rates”. In another study, Professor Robert B. Ekelund did find that “capital punishment does, in fact, save lives. Each additional execution appears to deter between three and 18 murders”. Professor Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders. By using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000 they came up with three crucial findings. “First, each execution, on average, is associated with three fewer muders. The deterred murders include both crimes of passion and murders by inmates. Second, executions deter
He believes that capital punishment can prevent future murders by eliminating the murderer and making potential murderers think twice about committing a crime (478). Nonetheless, killing the murderer through capital punishment is not the only means to eliminate the possibility of the killer striking again. For example, a life sentence in a secure jail would ensure that the killer would not be able to take another life. Moreover, it would mean one less death in the end. Also, studies have shown that capital punishment may not be the miracle deterrent that Koch and other capital punishment supporters allege it to be. From the Death Penalty Information Center website, William Bowers, a Northwestern University criminologist, states that “society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder.” Along with Bowers, 84% of experts in the academic criminological society say that their research has concluded no proof that the death penalty is a successful deterrent (“In Opposition to the Death Penalty: Deterrence”). Statistics back these criminologists’ statements. A study by the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty confirmed that there have been over 750 executions since 1976. That is 750 lives ended in hopes that the killing will stop. Unfortunately, according to the United States Department of Justice, there continues to be a rise in the number of
“A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The study, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concluded, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” A previous study in 1996 had come to similar conclusions.”
A review was conducted from the Law and society Association, American society of criminology and the Criminal Justice sciences Academy and it revealed that a big majority concluded that capital punishment was not a deterrent to homicide. More than 80 percent of those interrogated believe that the survey doesn’t hold up the effect of deterrence for the death penalty. Other criminologists suggest that more homicides are caused due to the fact that there is death penalty. The outcome of brutalization argues that the rates of homicides will increase because of the example served by state executions.
Many people question the need for the death penalty, the execution of those who have committed certain crimes, as a capital punishment. For instance, the author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment”, Jack Greenburg, who is a Professor of Law at Columbia University, argues that the death penalty does not benefit society and is not necessary. Likewise, Kevin Johnson, writer of “Study Finds No Evidence Death Penalty Deters Crime”, also argues against the use of the death penalty by pointing out the flaws in the common research of deterrence. On the other hand, some may also argue for the many aids the death penalty offers. Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University, Ernest Van den Haag, with his “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense”, and authors James M. Reams and Charles T. Putnam, with their article, “Making a Case for the Deterrence Effect of Capital Punishment”, both give arguments for the grander justice the death penalty offers. While each of these articles give very well thought out claims for the necessity of the death penalty, using arguments including racism, and deterrence, Van den Haag’s claim gives the clearest and best arguments.
About two thirds of the countries around the world have abolished capital punishment in law or in practice on the grounds that it really isn’t effective to crime (opposingviews.com). But a 2008 comprehensive review of capital punishment research since 1975 by Drexel University economist Bijou Yang and psychologist David Lester of Richard Stockton College of New Jersey concluded that the majority of studies that track effects over many years and across states or counties find a deterrent effect (usnews.com).
A study conducted by the Journal of Quantitative Criminology reveals that for every execution performed, fifteen murders take its place (Durlauf, et al). The study compiled execution statistics and murder rates across states in order to determine the efficacy of deterrence. Granted, executions do not directly lead to murders, but the data exposes the fact that the death penalty has not been successful in preventing them. In fact crime rates increase in states that resume the practice of the death penalty. For example, Florida had a twenty-eight percent increase in murder rates after executing a prisoner in 1979 for the first time after fifteen years (“White
The death penalty is one of the most controversed punishments in the United States. According to The Death Penalty Information Center, 88% of criminologist do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent. According to deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law abiding people. Individuals settle on their choices taking into account the net expenses and advantages of every option. There is a basis provided for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates, according to the deterrence theory. Throughout the years, a few studies have shown a connection in the middle of executions and reductions in homicide rates.
among America's top criminologists that scholarly research has demonstrated that the death penalty does, and can do, little to reduce
Surprisingly, there is one study supported by pro-death groups showing that capital punishment can deter crime up to 35.7%, but here is the catch – the death penalty only deters 35.7% crime for a couple of weeks or months, and the execution has to be widely publicized. (Philips) If this is the case, then one solution to the crime problem in the U.S. could be to have at least one
Over the years a theory known as the deterrence effect has been proposed to the world of capital punishment. People believe that if you do something wrong, in this case, kill someone, then you will be put to death therefore preventing you from committing that wrong act again. This theory also states that by viewing or hearing about your punishment then others around you will not follow in your footsteps which will decrease the number of criminal acts committed. Econometric studies have started a panel data in order to view the validity of this theory. One of their hugest studies examines the validity of this theory. One of their hugest studies examined 3,054 counties in the United States from 1977 and 1996. The studies concluded that
Every year, thousands of murders occur in the United States and all across the world. According to Wesley Lowe, during the temporary suspension of capital punishment between 1965 and 1980 alone, the annual murders in the United States jumped from 9,960 to 23,040. (Lowe, 2011). If you or one of your loved one became one of these statistics, wouldn’t you want justice? Now, capital punishment is in full effect and has slowly started to decrease that statistic.
To determine the deterrent effect of death penalty, an author examined cross-state variation and used three standard groups of control variables. The author concluded that each additional execution deterred thirteen murders (Winter, 2008). While there may some bias in this research, such as the personal perspective before the
Defenders of the death penalty often claim that the execution of criminals will teach others not to do bad, initially decreasing crime rates. This hasty form of generalization statistically proves to be wrong. “When it comes to criminals, Texas has the toughest punishments along with a strict court system. The state of Texas spent four hundred and seventy million dollars in 2001 just for punishing convicts. Despite all that money and stern punishment, the crime rate is still twenty four percent higher than the national average, according to 2003 data” (Gonzales). This supports the fact that tough punishment doesn’t necessarily help crime. Ironically, the harshest state in the U.S continues to house the maximum number of criminal acts. The death penalty, a harsh form of punishment, clearly doesn’t lower crime rate.
Studies of the deterrent effect of the death penalty have been conducted for several years, with varying results. Most studies have failed to produce evidence that the death penalty deterred murders more effectively then the threat of imprisonment. The reason for this is that few people are executed and so the death penalty is not a satisfactory deterrent. If capital punishment were carried out
Death penalty advocates argue that the execution of convicted murderers deter others from committing murder for fear that they will also be executed, and also that murderers will be incapacitated: once dead, they will have no opportunity to commit additional murders. Death penalty opponents dispute the deterrent effect of capital punishment, arguing that few murderers rationally weigh the possibility that they might face the death penalty before committing a murder. Finally, death penalty opponents do not dispute that execution incapacitates executed murders, but argue that life imprisonment without possibility of parole is equally incapacitating. (Jacob Sullum, Los Angeles)