THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF THE DEATH PENALTY
by Dudley Sharp, Justice For All, February 5, 2002
(contact info, below)
". . . Each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders . . ."
Deterrence
Negative consequences affect behavior. The most severe criminal sanction -- execution -- does not contradict that finding. No one has proven the death penalty is not a deterrent. Nor will they.
I. Deterrence Studies of 2001
The death penalty saves innocent lives University of Houston Professors Dale Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini, found that death penalty moratoriums contribute to more homicides. They found: "The (Texas) execution hiatus (in 1996), therefore, appears to have spared few, if any, condemned prisoners while the citizens of Texas experienced a net 90 (to as many as 150) additional innocent lives lost to homicide. Politicians contemplating moratoriums may wish to consider the possibility that a seemingly innocuous moratorium on executions could very well come at a heavy cost." (1)
Emory University Economics Department Chairman Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Emory Professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd state that "our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities -- arrest, sentencing or execution -- tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders -- with a margin of error of plus or minus 10." (2) Their data base used nationwide data from 3,054 US counties from 1977-1996.
University of Colorado (Denver) Economics Department Chairman Naci Mocan and Professor R. Kaj Gottings found "a statistically significant relationship between executions, pardons and homicide. Specifically each additional execution reduces homicides by 5 to 6, and three additional pardons (commutations) generate 1 to 1.5 additional murders." Their "data set contains detailed information on the entire 6,143 death sentences between 1977 and 1997.
Their findings reflect the most obvious of common sense. They write: "According to the standard economic model of crime, a rational offender would respond to perceived costs and benefits of committing crime."
"Capital punishment is particularly significant in this context, because it represents a very high cost for committing murder (loss of life). Thus, the presence of capital punishment in a state, or the frequency with which it is used, should unequivocally deter homicide." Furthermore, "an increase in pardons (commutations) implies a decrease in the probability of execution, which economic theory predicts should have a positive (increase) impact on murder rates."
Issac Ehrlich in 1975 and 1977. . Although Ehrlich was subject to much criticism, he defended his work in 1999 (Ehrlich and Liu) 1987 (Ehrlich and Brower) and 1977 (Ehrlich). pg 2
Pubic policy makers take note. If you stop executions and there is a deterrent effect, you sacrifice innocent lives. And to those jurisdictions which have no death penalty, there is a strong likelihood that such a policy results in more innocents murdered.
II. 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.
Any criminal who tries to conceal their crime does so for only one reason -- fear of punishment. Likely, more than 99% of all criminals, including murderers, act in such a fashion. And, 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 potential negative consequences. Therefore, it would be illogical to assume that some potential murderers were not additionally deterred by the more severe punishment of execution.
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.
III. 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 demand a death sentence in the punishment phase of their trial. The apprehended criminals' desire for lesser punishments is overwhelming and unchallenged.
Of the 7000 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)
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 for some potential murderers and as an enhanced deterrent over lesser sentences.
IV. If unsure about deterrence
Common sense, reason and reality 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 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 and the social sciences support 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 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.
V. The individual deterrent effect
The individual deterrent effect is represented by those who state that they were deterred from committing a murder because of the prospects of a death sentence. There appears to be some foundation for the individual deterrent effect. (3)
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. (4)
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.
VI. Conflicting studies
In reviewing 30 years of deterrent studies, the strongest statement one may make against deterrence is that there is conflicting data (5). 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." (6) That is far from stating that executions do not deter. Nor have I found one social scientist that has disagreed 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.
Is there any group, be they criminologists, historians, psychologists, economists, philosophers, physicians, journalists or criminals that does not recognize that negative consequences constrain 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.
Numerous studies find that executions do deter. And there is a rational conclusion based on 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." (7)
Conflicting studies and reason both weigh in favor of deterrence.
VII. 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 effected 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 vs. 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 (1967-1976), murders in the United States more than doubled from 11,040 to 23,400. The murder rate also nearly doubled, from 5.6 to 10.2/100,000. During that 1966-1980 period, the US averaged less than 1 execution every 4 years, with a maximum of two executions per year, for only one year. From 1995-2000 executions averaged 71 per year, a 28,000% increase over the 1966-1980 period. The US murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2/100,000 in 1980 to 5.7/100,000 in 1999 -- a 44% reduction. The US murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966 (8) And "(t)he biggest decline in murder rates has occurred in states that aggressively use capital punishment." (9)
The Texas example -- The murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has fallen 73% since executions resumed in 1982, from 44/100,000 in 1981 to 12/100,000 in 2000 (8). Harris County is, by far, the most active execution jurisdiction in the US. The Harris County murder rate dropped nearly 70% more than did the national murder rate, during similar periods.
Potential murderers may have been affected by the example of the state of Texas but, likely, not in a manner consistent with brutalization. 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." (10)
Reason, common sense and the studies weigh against the brutalization effect.
VIII. 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.
Under all circumstances, the execution of murderers will protect innocents at an infinitely higher rate than will incarceration.
IX. 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 may 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.
I have no doubt that many death penalty opponents would oppose executions, even if it was proven that each murderer executed saved 100 innocent lives. Conversely, based on their incredible concern for the innocent put at risk of execution, I also have no doubt that many such opponents would become death penalty supporters, given credible evidence that executions saved innocent lives.
X. Conclusion
For those of us who support execution, we 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 on deterrence, alone. Reason, common sense and the weight of the evidence 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 supports that execution is an enhanced deterrent over lesser sanctions.
The primary support for execution is that it is the just and appropriate response to the overwhelming harm caused by capital murderers. An important, secondary effect of executions is that they save innocent lives.
All MEDIA CONTACTS Dianne Clements, President, Justice For All
pager 713-508-6979 and ph 713-935-9300, e-mail info@jfa.net
Mr. Sharp's e-mail sharpjfa@aol.com, phone 713-623-6070
JUSTICE FOR ALL, PO Box 55159, Houston, Texas 77255
1. "EXECUTION MORATORIUM IS NO HOLIDAY FOR HOMICIDES", Dale O. Cloninger and Roberto Marchesini. go to www.prodeathpenalty.com/Moratoriums.htm based on the study "Execution and deterrence: a quasi-controlled group experiment", Dale O. Cloninger (cloninger@cl.uh.edu), Roberto Marchesini (marchesini@cl.uh.edu), Applied Economics, 4/01, Vol 33, N 5, p569 -- p576
2. "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect: New Evidence from Post-moratorium Panel Data", Dezhbakhsh (econhd@emory.edu), Rubin (prubin@emory.edu) and Shepherd (jmehlho@emory.edu) , January 2001. Located at user www.service.emory.edu/~cozden/dezhbakhsh_01_01_paper.pdf
3. see paragraph 14, Section B, "The Incapacitation and the Deterrence Effects", Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United States, 10/1/97, at www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html 4. "Langley says Texas death penalty affected his actions during escape", by Stephen Martin, The Daily Democrat (Ft. Madison, Iowa), 1/8/97, pg 1.
5) Section B, "The Incapacitation and the Deterrence Effects", Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United States, 10/1/97, at www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html
6) "ASC RESOLUTION ON THE DEATH PENALTY", ASC Annual Meeting, Montreal, 1987, Anti-Capital Punishment Resources from the ASC's Critical Criminology Division, go to sun.soci.niu.edu . Viewed repeatedly, most recently 12/2/01.
7) "Execution and deterrence: a quasi-controlled group experiment", Dale O. Cloninger (cloninger@cl.uh.edu), Roberto Marchesini (marchesini@cl.uh.edu), Applied Economics, 4/01, Vol 33, N 5, p569 -- p576, located at rosina.catchword.com
8) I am still finalizing these citations, but here is a partial.
(i) "Murder and non-negligent homicide 1999", FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) at www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_99/99crime/99c2_03.pdf
(ii) Murder rates from 1960-1998, "The 1997 Chances of Lifetime Murder Victimization", FBI's UCR at www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_99/99crime/99cius5.pdf
(iii) "Number of persons executed in the United States, 1930-2000", Bureau of Justice Statistics at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/exe.txt
9) Boston Globe, 10/28/97, p A12
10) "A Review of the Econometric Evidence on the Effects of Capital Punishment", The Journal of Socio-Economics, v23 n 1/2, p 197-214, 1994
"Pardons, Executions and Homicide", H. Naci Mocan (mmoca@carbon.cudenver.edu) and R. Kaj Gottings (rgitting@carbon.cudenver.edu), October 2001, located at econ.cudenver.edu downloaded on 1/22/01 econ.cudenver.edu
JUSTICE FOR ALL -- JFA is a criminal justice reform organization. Our focus is solely on violent crime issues and what we can do, within the criminal justice and legislative systems, to lessen injury to the innocent and to prosecute the guilty. To accomplish that goal, we are actively involved in community education, elections, legislation, victim's rights issues, including our involvement in many individual cases. |
