The DPIC, death penalty info center, is an anti death penalty site. Its owners are all abolitionists. Now, the claim of deterrence in their database has many arguments—all flawed—buts lets focus on one: 88% of criminologists think it does not deter. Yep, that's the argument. Instead of numbering the numerous fallacies this falls into lets merely look into the claim head on.
Now, what the DPIC ignores is the important fact that 100% of the criminologists for question twelve answered "yes". In other words, they concede the DP may deter some. Just a major fact they where missing. Now, question eight noted 61% of criminologists think there is valid evidence deterrence exists in peer reviewed studies. But they must agree with this as 16 studies (slightly higher now) agree with the deterrence hypothesis. In question six it was asked if the DP significantly reduced murder, 57% said this statement was false. Here is the catch: this means 43% think it is (or is possibly true). That is a huge minority that cannot be overlooked. Questions 1-3 is where the 88% number came up, again ignoring the 100% number. However, these questions where not even relevant to the DP, and where poorly worded, leading to weak results. Also in relation to question six, they never defined significant giving bias towards the abolitionists.
Further, the study was biased. Dudley Sharp notes:
(Sharp 2009)
So this study isn't even accurate anyway. And remember question 12, 100% of criminologists think the DP deters some.
Overall source:
Now, what the DPIC ignores is the important fact that 100% of the criminologists for question twelve answered "yes". In other words, they concede the DP may deter some. Just a major fact they where missing. Now, question eight noted 61% of criminologists think there is valid evidence deterrence exists in peer reviewed studies. But they must agree with this as 16 studies (slightly higher now) agree with the deterrence hypothesis. In question six it was asked if the DP significantly reduced murder, 57% said this statement was false. Here is the catch: this means 43% think it is (or is possibly true). That is a huge minority that cannot be overlooked. Questions 1-3 is where the 88% number came up, again ignoring the 100% number. However, these questions where not even relevant to the DP, and where poorly worded, leading to weak results. Also in relation to question six, they never defined significant giving bias towards the abolitionists.
Further, the study was biased. Dudley Sharp notes:
"This Survey was funded by Sheilah's Fund at the Tides Foundation in San Francisco and was arranged through the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) in Washington, D.C.The Tides Foundation Death Penalty Mobilization Fund's sole purpose is the end of the death penalty. Sheilah's Fund is a direct contributor to anti death penalty efforts, as well.The DPIC is one of the leading anti death penalty groups in the US and, in my opinion, is one of the most deceptive.Prof. Radelet has been one of the most active anti death penalty activists for decades.Jeffrey Fagan is a ASC Fellow and has been an anti death penalty activist for decades."
(Sharp 2009)
So this study isn't even accurate anyway. And remember question 12, 100% of criminologists think the DP deters some.
Overall source:
Dudley Sharp, "Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock," Justice for all, <http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx>
Thank you. Dudley
ReplyDeleteThis may be of interest.
Death Penalty Deterrence Clarified
Dudley Sharp
There is much confusion about deterrence, some, understandable and, some, intentional.
There are many examples of:
1) murder rates dropping in death penalty jurisdictions and
2) murder rates being lower in death penalty jurisdictions
and many examples of
3) murder rates dropping in non death penalty jurisdictions and
4) murder rates being lower in non death penalty jurisdictions
In different instances, murder/crime rates might suggest deterrence or non deterrence of sanctions.
In other words, gross murder/crime rates are not an accurate method of showing or understanding deterrence.
Some anti death penalty folks work hard to muddy the waters - as with this study, wherein some thought the criminologists had agreed that the death penalty deters none, a finding not confirmed within the study:
"Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
Confusion and understanding, respectively, are revealed by these two questions from a death penalty opponent.
Confusion: "If the deterrence contention holds true, why does the enthusiastic application of the death penalty not suppress the overall murder rate across all death penalty states?"
Then, with understanding:
"I understand your point that the death penalty has some deterrent effect. Perhaps the citizens of South Dakota are simply more homicidal than their northern neighbors, and without the death penalty keeping them in check, the murder rate would go through the roof."
Yes, it has some deterrent effect, but it is clear he had not read the provided deterrence studies because they contradicted his comment about murder rates going through the roof.
The deterrent effect has a very small impact on murder rates, but a substantial savings in innocent lives, as reviewed below.
The death penalty, as all criminal sanctions, deters some, which will be reflected in net murder/crime rates, not gross ones, as explained: Whether murder/crime rates are high or low, whether they are rising, falling or staying, roughly, the same, all sanctions deter some.
contd
contd
ReplyDeleteA perfect example of this is:
"Henderson, Nev., takes the No. 2 spot (America's Safest Cities) despite its location within the Metropolitan Statistical Area of Las Vegas-Paradise, which ranked ninth this year on Forbes’ list of America’s Most Dangerous Cities." (1)
Does this mean no potential criminals are deterred in Las Vegas-Paradise and yet some are deterred in Henderson?
Of course not. Some are deterred in both.
It means that there are different factors in each jurisdiction which provide for different crime rates, as with all jurisdictions, inclusive of the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions, within both jurisdictions.
This should come as no surprise.
Death penalty opponent response: "However, the fact that murder rates are lower across the board in non death penalty (USA) states suggests that there is something else, some more effective deterrent which you would do well to investigate, if you weren't hidebound by your single minded advocacy of the death penalty."
They are not lower across the board. Even if they were, it could not contradict the clear and accurate point.
Furthermore, anti death penalty folks neglect the obvious reality that there are a very wide range of murder/crime rates between communities/cities/counties, within each individual state, be they death penalty or not, revealing the obvious error of the opponents intended point (2).
I think everyone knows that there are multiple deterrents to committing crime: Morality, change of social status if caught, the prospect of being caught and/or sanctioned, being the four most obvious (2)
Note that the 28 recent studies, finding for deterrence (3), find for deterrence of from 1-28 murders prevented per execution. Deterrence was also found to exist just by the presence of the death penalty statute.
While this represents a substantial and very important savings of innocent lives, it has a very small impact on murder rates.
The US has averaged around 33 executions per year since 1973, which equals a deterrent savings of innocents lives of from 33 to 924 per year.
My guesstimate is that the US has averaged about 18,000 murders per years since 1973.
The deterrent effect provides a near negligible impact on the murder rate (min 0.2% to max 5%), based upon those deterrence studies, but provides a huge savings in innocent lives.
Even without those studies, most of us realize that all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is an unqualified truism, for which no exception exists. Some are so hidebound by their opposition to the death penalty that they must find that the death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the ONLY criminal sanction that deters none - a truly absurd notion.
1) "America's Safest Cities", Lifestyle section, Forbes, 12/15/2011,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethgreenfield/2011/12/15/americas-safest-cities/
2) See Sections C and D within:
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html
3) 28 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/dpdeterrencefull.htm
Hello, Dudley. Thank you for your input. I have decided to start making this blog more DP oriented (as I originally made it to be), and appreciate your comments. You are very influence in the public arena.
ReplyDeleteI am aware of the links you have posted, and they have lead me to strong death penalty beliefs. I have enjoyed the extra input.
Thanks,
Alexander