A poll of police chiefs found that they ranked the death penalty as least effective in reducing violent crime.
"Least effective"? Among what alternatives? For example if I saw a list of "more cops", "quicker convictions", and "the death penalty", I might say that the death penalty is the least effective in reducing crime but that doesn't mean it is ineffective. It is a big jump from "least effective at reducing crime", to "uneffective at reducing murder".
During the early 1970's, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.9 criminal homicides per 100,000 population; abolitionist states averaged a rate of 5.1.
This might have something to do with greater demand for the death penalty in states with high murder rates. Also do you have more recent data. The early 70s is about 30 years ago.
Since 1973, over 160 children in the U.S. have been sentenced to die. This is higher than any of the other 5 countries (Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) which authorize the death penalty for crimes committed by juveniles.
That's focusing on an unimportant issue. Either the death penalty for teenage murders is just or it is not. If it is just then it doesn't matter much if we do it more often. If it is unjust then even one such execution is wrong.
Also the US has more population then any of those 5 countries. Actually more then any 2, and possibly more then all 5 added together.
Of the 38 death penalty states in the U.S., 12 have no minimum age for imposing the death penalty.
How old was the youngest person ever executed in the US in say the last 2 or 3 decades? Of course the appeals could take years so perhaps the more important question is how young was the youngest executed murder at the time of the murder?
Tim |
