Death Penalty Saves Lives

[seauantea]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

Studies say death penalty deters crime By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer
54 minutes ago

Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey.

The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations — pointing out flaws in the justice system — has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago.

What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument — whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.

The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications.

So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive."

But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past.

"Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?"

Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory — if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

Among the conclusions:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.

The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?"

"If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty."

Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study.

Critics of the findings have been vociferous.

Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

"We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "second-tier journals."

"This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished."

Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.

"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."

The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles.

Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the        U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.)

Ultimately, a panel was set up by the        National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven't gotten that kind of scrutiny.

At least not yet. The academic debate, and the larger national argument about the death penalty itself — with questions about racial and economic disparities in its implementation — shows no signs of fading away.

Steven Shavell, a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School and co-editor-in-chief of the American Law and Economics Review, said in an e-mail exchange that his journal intends to publish several articles on the statistical studies on deterrence in an upcoming issue.

[youandme]

No it does not it's a BS study with ALOT of holes, it's based on archival research which is biased and this study has already been performed and found that through adults formal operational thought process they have personal fables which means they think "it can't happen to me" "I'll be the one to commit the perfect murder"

I did not read the entire article but I hopeit has some critics that blasted it, we love to hear were fighting crime and doing good duties while killing bad people.

[seauantea]

I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.

However, with clutch arguments like 'BS', 'biased', 'archival', 'ALOT of holes', the ever so compelling 'perfect murder' thesis, and without even substantiating them nor reading the article.... your opinion is essentially worthless

I would be remiss to expect you to read the entire article, as such, some highlights for you and your fellow underachievers:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."

Cheers!

[youandme]

I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.

However, with clutch arguments like 'BS', 'biased', 'archival', 'ALOT of holes', the ever so compelling 'perfect murder' thesis, and without even substantiating them nor reading the article.... your opinion is essentially worthless

I would be remiss to expect you to read the entire article, as such, some highlights for you and your fellow underachievers:

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

"Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend."

Cheers!

haha yeah cause you know so much about research, oh brother. Emory has a great research faculty but like I said alot of holes,  but I forgot you knew how to read titles, writing sounds familiar who is this Bluto?

[seauantea]

First I am ‘Johnny Apollo’, then ‘Australian’, then ‘Jimmy’ and now ‘Bluto’

Evidently, I was too subtle with my last reply: To avoid looking like a political board mod schmuck, explain why the research is 'full of holes', 'BS', 'archival' and 'biased'.

[Dos Equis]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

Verrrrry interesting. 

[Dos Equis]

haha yeah cause you know so much about research, oh brother. Emory has a great research faculty but like I said alot of holes,  but I forgot you knew how to read titles, writing sounds familiar who is this Bluto?

Probably "Jimmy."  Definitely a gimmick. 

[youandme]

First I am ‘Johnny Apollo’, then ‘Australian’, then ‘Jimmy’ and now ‘Bluto’

Evidently, I was too subtle with my last reply: To avoid looking like a political board mod schmuck, explain why the research is 'full of holes', 'BS', 'archival' and 'biased'.

Ok then, it's archival since it's using existing records to examine and test the hypothesis, on a ongoing behavior, archival research is ad hoc, and presents bias. It's also looking at behavior rather than a cause The study is full of holes since it's measuring process is backward and bias, while looking at it from a hermeneutics standpoint it should focus on the cause rather than the behavior, asking what is ceasing the behavior? Just the states that have the death penalty? I guess that is why they limited the study...and choose to collect purposive samples. Surely I can tell you that based on their measure I can find states who do not have the death penalty and have less homicides. It's full of holes.... If it wanted to be so vague it should have stated so, it could have used other archival studies that found empirical evidence that actually did show a deterrent effect of capital punishment driven primarily by executions conducted by electrocution (Zimmerman). There are many statistical problems with the data analyses reported. This article addresses the problem of "influence"  and "speeding up" a very small and atypical fraction of the data dominate the statistical results, how are they coming to this? The number of executions by state and year is the key explanatory variable, along side the fact that the study has already collected a heap of discussion, and so the article states leads speculation.


But whatever alot of "BS" studies get published these days mostly to encourage debate, get the percentage off their asses and do something to squash it.

Edit wrong link cant find it, but I do agree it does save lives in a sense.

[seauantea]

Probably "Jimmy."  Definitely a gimmick. 

You never know, I might even be your father too

youandme good post.

On a painfully obvious level: The harsher the punishment, the less attractive the crime. Ergo, I would assume the death penalty is a deterrent to some degree. However, I could not help but raise my eyebrow at the good professor's ability to assign an exact number of lives saved per execution. Additionally, as the article highlighted, there simply is not enough data in America to produce meaningful statistics.

[Dos Equis]

You never know, I might even be your father too

Or not.  I bet Berserker deletes you, like he did when you were "sandy" . . . as soon as he comes back from his hiatus.   

[gcb]

You never know, I might even be your father too

youandme good post.

On a painfully obvious level: The harsher the punishment, the less attractive the crime. Ergo, I would assume the death penalty is a deterrent to some degree. However, I could not help but raise my eyebrow at the good professor's ability to assign an exact number of lives saved per execution. Additionally, as the article highlighted, there simply is not enough data in America to produce meaningful statistics.

Obviously there are alot of better deterents since in countries like Australia where we don't have the death penalty we have alot less homicide - maybe it's a cultural thing.

[youandme]

You never know, I might even be your father too

youandme good post.

On a painfully obvious level: The harsher the punishment, the less attractive the crime. Ergo, I would assume the death penalty is a deterrent to some degree. However, I could not help but raise my eyebrow at the good professor's ability to assign an exact number of lives saved per execution. Additionally, as the article highlighted, there simply is not enough data in America to produce meaningful statistics.

I agree, and that CAN be found. That's the problem I had with the study, but that was what made the story gain this momentrily fame.

maybe it's a cultural thing.

It is. We also pat the criminals on the back offer them help and go tell them to go back out on the streets and play nice, then we end up having missing teenage girls

[headhuntersix]

I'm in KC..this thing is horrible. She went out to buy stuff for her boyfriend and she ends up dead. I'm trying to get a weapon for my GF...way to many nutjobs.

[seauantea]

Or not.  I bet Berserker deletes you, like he did when you were "sandy" . . . as soon as he comes back from his hiatus.   

Oh Joy!

I have progressed the ranks from ‘Johnny Apollo’ to ‘Australian’ to ‘Jimmy’ to ‘Bluto’ to the storied 'sandy' and I must now live in fear till the day 'Berserker deletes' me upon his homecoming from 'hiatus'. One day I hope to meet these fellow savants who have etched themselves so deeply into the political board psyche by virtue of wit and insight!

PS For consistency, you should have written "sandy . . ."

[youandme]

I'm in KC..this thing is horrible. She went out to buy stuff for her boyfriend and she ends up dead. I'm trying to get a weapon for my GF...way to many nutjobs.

Yea and I'm afraid that the Paris Hilton thing overshadowed a REAL problem, the guy had a rap sheet a mile long...was on myspace...talked about killing animals,babies, had a kid himself, WTF? Then we just let a pastors wife off on manslaughter, and gave her 210 days, for killing someone.

It's all about the killer's thought process that is why these studies are in some ways useless, it only helps to calm the crowds, "oh ok everything is working".

It's about metacognitive abilities, they keep out the things they don't want you to hear, like crazy people commiting suicide on the road, cause if they did it causes a 30% rise in "accidents" on the road. off topic

[seauantea]

Then we just let a pastors wife off on manslaughter, and gave her 210 days, for killing someone.

Hold up a minute, that animal made her wear a blond wig and 'fuck me' boots during coitus and she "really" misses him!

In that context, 210 days is almost barbaric!

[Stark]

The phrase "Death penalty saves life's" is as moronic as the Phrase: War against War....

[Dos Equis]

Oh Joy!

I have progressed the ranks from ‘Johnny Apollo’ to ‘Australian’ to ‘Jimmy’ to ‘Bluto’ to the storied 'sandy' and I must now live in fear till the day 'Berserker deletes' me upon his homecoming from 'hiatus'. One day I hope to meet these fellow savants who have etched themselves so deeply into the political board psyche by virtue of wit and insight!

PS For consistency, you should have written "sandy . . ."

As you know, gimmick, "jimmy" and "sandy" were the same gimmick. 

Wrong again on the punctuation.  I was referring to your old gimmick "sandy," not quoting a passage that required an ellipsis.

Please ask your boss to fire you.      

[seauantea]

Wrong again on the punctuation.  I was referring to your old gimmick "sandy," not quoting a passage that required an ellipsis.

Please ask your boss to fire you.      

Really?

Probably "Jimmy."   Definitely a gimmick.

[seauantea]

The phrase "Death penalty saves life's" is as moronic as the Phrase: War against War....

Do you mean moronic as in expressing surprise at Germans (and you did not even get that part right) beheading with an axe, in spite of the fact they were notorious for such activities?

"Stark", are you aware of the expression "One must spend money to make money"? Please take a moment to reflect upon the possible application of this adage to the death penalty

[Dos Equis]

Really?

   How long till you start threatening people again gimmick? 

[seauantea]

  How long till you start threatening people again gimmick? 

Is that your own special way of admitting you are erroneous, obtuse, and outsmarted by a "gimmick"?

The pen keyboard is truly mightier than the sword; I cannot foresee a situation which necessitates one to "start threatening people" when his intellect alone has deeply unravelled them

[Dos Equis]

Is that your own special way of admitting you are erroneous, obtuse, and outsmarted by a "gimmick"?

The pen keyboard is truly mightier than the sword; I cannot foresee a situation which necessitates one to "start threatening people" when his intellect alone has deeply unravelled them

YAWN.     Not impressed gimmick.   

[seauantea]

The only thing more gratifying than humiliating you with my words is doing it with yours, especially considering how vehemently you protested the issue.

Please link your ‘grammar for dummies’ links and visit them