Killers don’t care about the death penalty
There is no evidence that the death penalty works. Researchers have concluded that the death penalty doesn’t have any effect on murder rates. Or to be more exact, the researchers haven’t found any evidence either way that the death penalty works, it might deter or it might make no difference, or even increase the homicide rate; the results are inconclusive.
By looking at how previous studies were carried out the researchers noticed that they didn’t take into account the deterrent effect of execution compared to a very long prison sentence, even if it might mean no chance of parole. They also noticed that the previous studies came up with implausible models of how murderers think about the act they are committing and its ramifications.
What the researchers found was that studies into the death penalty only looked at the death penalty in isolation. They did not compare how criminals think about the different punishments and look at whether they would not have carried out their crime if the sentence was death or life. Nor did previous studies use data on actual executions to decide if the death penalty was a deterrent, they only looked into the concept. None seemed to use the fact that only around 15% of death row prisoners are actually executed. With such a low number, potential murderers could easily consider it a worthwhile gamble to take.
When you look at the kind of people who generally commit murders you find that they are in the lower social classes, most likely in gangs. They don’t tend to commit a murder with much pre-planning and are very emotionally charged in the time up to the event. That emotion might mean acceptance into the gang or absolute hatred of the victim because they are in the enemy camp. They don’t think of the consequences of their actions. That’s why they don’t tend to cover their tracks and are usually easily found out, unless the gang culture hides them.
Some of the conclusions that can be gathered from the report are that to be truly effective a) the death penalty must be soon after the sentence has been passed, b) it should be 100%, and c) that it should be public. If a death penalty takes decades before it’s carried out then you pretty much have a life sentence. If there are only a few prisoners who get executed and the rest plea bargain or manage to get their sentences commuted then the death penalty isn’t a certainty but more like a gamble. The same kind of gamble even a burglar takes when picking a house. And if the executions are carried out in secret then society isn’t being told about the possible consequences of committing murder.
But having said that, the death penalty still will not stop all murders. It won’t stop the murders of husbands and wives by the partner which are very highly emotional. It won’t stop gang related murders. And it could increase homicides by those who have nothing to lose.
SBML
-
1
May 2, 2012 at 10:29 -
“a) the death penalty must be soon after the sentence has been passed, b) it should be 100%, and c) that it should be public.”
Fine by me! Let’s get started.
-
3
May 2, 2012 at 10:58 -
I think you draw some early conclusions.
There are no recent examples of the death penalty in operation and as you say most existing systems are more like life sentences. Not immediate punishment.
I think there has been some credible research show that properly enforced life sentences can be an equal deterrent. But we must again remember that when this is bandied round as a reason not to execute it is easy to forget that 15-18 years is about the maximum you will serve in the UK. Most murders are committed by people living off the state. So the idea of living off the state with a playstation etc and getting out at 35-38 y/o is hardly a deterrrant.
My final point would also be that, as others have pointed out before, properly enforced life sentences are more cruel than death. I think 15 years has the possibility of hope and potentially 50-60 years outside with ones family. The hopeless thought of being locked up for the rest of your life is one I would swap death for any day of the week.
Liberty or Death.
-
4
May 2, 2012 at 11:01 -
“There is no evidence that the death penalty works.”
Depends on your criteria. It’s 100% effective at preventing reoffending.
-
5
May 2, 2012 at 11:23 -
How many murderers kill again after being released from gaol? Anyone know?
-
6
May 2, 2012 at 13:23 -
Clarissa,
It’s about 1.1-1.2% which is the lowest repeat rate for offenders. However, murderers sentenced to life imprisonment are only released after convincing the parole board they are no longer a risk to the public and, importantly, can be recalled to prison to continue their sentence if they commit any other crime. In addition, murderers receive more rehabilitation than other offenders.
The single most effective way to deter murder is marriage (see table on p 500). -
7
May 3, 2012 at 07:31 -
Norman Tebbit did a blog on this a while back. I think since abolition, about three hundred people have been killed by released criminals who would previously have been executed.
-
8
May 3, 2012 at 11:53
-
-
-
9
May 2, 2012 at 11:24 -
10
May 4, 2012 at 18:55 -
JuliaM is spot on. And think of the money we could save! No more keeping such people at our expense… a bit of wood and some rope and… problem solved!! I think there would be a considerable deterrent effect for those non-crime of passion offences.
-
-
11
May 2, 2012 at 11:18 -
One would ask what the effect is on other gang members, particularly newer ones who might be younger and more impressionable.
-
12
May 2, 2012 at 11:26 -
Difficult to quantify a negative, isn’t it? How many murders didn’t happen due to the deterence of the DP? No one will ever know for sure, but a quick look at the increase in murders in the UK since the abolition of the DP might give us a vague idea. IIRC (and without googling) it doubled in the two decades after the abolition. So your chances of getting stabbed or beaten to death have doubled, whilst the chances of a murder receiving the ultimate penalty for the taking of an innocent life have dropped to zero. Sounds like a good deal to me.
-
13
May 2, 2012 at 12:28 -
Correlation isn’t causation. What other factors around the time of the doubling of the murder rate might affect it? An increase in population? Changes in society like the swinging sixties? More minor factors might be better detection and convition rates.
Looking at some figures you are right about the doubling. But a doubleing of what. A doubling of a small nubmer is still a small number. The murder rate per 100K of population has changed from just under 1 in 1900 to a low of 0.57 in 1961 and in 1999 was sitting at 1.45 and has now decreased to 1.23. But that’s about 1 person per 100,000 being killed each year. Compare that with the change in population and naturally there should be some increase the murder rate though it won’t be linear with the population growth.
Now compare the UK to a country with the death penalty like the US. Their murder rate is about 4.8.
-
14
May 2, 2012 at 13:43 -
SBML,
With respect, you are also confusing correlation with causation. Perhaps the countries with the highest murder rates have the death penalty in an attempt to tackle the problem. Here’s some data on murder rates around the world. I thought the availability of guns was a reason for America’s higher rate, but Switzerland has half our rate. Per capita income is one possibility, but Bangladesh has half the reported rate as America. It’s perhaps mainly due to the different means of dispute resolution of different cultures. Perhaps the Swiss belief that their grievances will be handled fairly because of the power of the individual citizen and the rule of law in their society prevents them grabbing a gun and killing.
-
-
-
15
May 2, 2012 at 12:09 -
I used to be ‘pro’ the death penalty………….however, I was then persuaded that it was wrong for the state to have power over someone’s life.
Saying that, I would be quite prepared to pronounce and carry it out as an individual given certain catastrophic circumstances.
-
16
May 2, 2012 at 12:10 -
There is no evidence that the death penalty works.
Of course, this is utter tosh…………….how many executed murderers have committed further murders?
-
17
May 2, 2012 at 18:26 -
How many “pa.rdoned” after being executed have come back to life?
All very well saying that there aren’t many mistakes, but we’ll never really know, and if YOU are that person, would that make you feel better?“When you look at the kind of people who generally commit murders you find that they are in the lower social classes, most likely in gangs.”
Sources please? Murder spans all social types and is certainly not the perogative of the poor and uneducated – Lord Lucan anyone?
-
-
19
May 2, 2012 at 12:24 -
For the insane and for those who kill in sudden anger, the intended deterrent effect of possible punishment is irrelevant.
As for premeditated murderers (those who set out specifically to kill) and reckless murderers (those who willingly kill during the commission of another crime), I suspect that most of them believe or convince themselves that they are going to get away with it. Either that or they simply don’t think that far ahead.
A much greater likelihood of arrest and conviction is probably a more effective deterrent, at least for those who are likely to respond to deterrence at all, than the threat of a death penalty instead of a long term of imprisonment.
I have had the dubious pleasure of serving on the jury which tried a young man, already a valued customer of the criminal justice system despite his tender years, on the charge of murder and rape committed during the course of an armed robbery. He was so bang to rights that, had a team of police cameramen stood around him filming the crime itself, the evidence couldn’t have been more damning. And yet he pleaded not guilty and went to trial, convinced to the end that he could blag his way out of his predicament. I can’t see him responding to the “deterrent effect” of the hangman’s noose.
-
22
May 2, 2012 at 12:32 -
Our criminal justice system needs to be more sophisticated and take into account many factors. Taking a persons life is justified when the state does it on our behalf to spread political ideologies in the desert. Yet under no circumstances can an individual intend to kill someone.
The state needs to accept that it is flawed, that justice often is not served by the current system and have a complete re think on crime and punishment.
Does Death deter a criminal? Is this as important a question as “Does killing a murderer give a sense of justice to the family of the victim”
If a father of a murdered child, then intentionally kills the murderer I do not find this crime equal with the initial crime. To me it is justice served by the individual. In law it would be murder.
There are people in society we really need to just get rid off. Why should old ladies starve in freezing homes because the state cannot afford to provide for them yet at the same time Iam Huntly types are playing playstations, 3 meals a day, warm and safe. What type of society priorities the needs of child killing monsters above law abiding pensioners who played by the rules.
My only concern is the lack of confidence in the legal system to provide accurate convictions.
-
23
May 2, 2012 at 12:38 -
Feed them through tree shredders at the local park on a Saturday morning, see how many of their ‘Bruvvas’ want to go stabbing, shooting and kicking in after that.
Yes, I am a pronounced hanger and flogger
No, I am not very nice
No, I do not careBeen through Peckham lately? It puts the worst of the Wild West to shame.
-
24
May 2, 2012 at 12:46 -
25
May 2, 2012 at 14:47 -
So you are suggesting that gang members (I preume you mean that from ‘Bruvvas’), who arrange themselves in heirarchies outside normal state and society will be cowed into being less violent by the state using violence against them?
And not just decide the state is at war with them and increase their level of violence and fight back?
If so, I invite you to look at Mexico or Guatemala and to think again – if the state uses increased violence, gangs intrept this not in a ‘rational’ mindset, but in their own way of thinking, where the proper response is more violence on their part. Sure, the individual murderer won’t kill again, but in his name his ‘Bruvvas’ will – probably more indiscriminately.
It doesn’t matter about being nice or not. It does matter that we remember we are dealing with people who live in a world of honour and violence, and who are more worried by the loss of face than the loss of life – so perhaps humiliating the gang with a public execution might not have the result you expect.
Oh – and I think deliberately dropping animal waste into a tree shredder would invalidate the warrenty…
-
26
May 2, 2012 at 15:38 -
Rinse and repeat, don’t forget, our gang is a lot bigger than theirs.
-
27
May 2, 2012 at 17:45 -
So use a grinder for rendering fallen stock instead. Warning: content advisory.
-
-
-
28
May 2, 2012 at 15:14 -
Does anyone trust our criminal justice system enough to allow it to kill someone ? I don’t.
However, there could be a smarter way of sentencing those found guilty of murder. Start with a base number of years, say 20, then add on an allowance for the number of years of life the killer has ‘stolen’ from the victim.
So, if I kill a 50-year-old, I get 20 years plus half the victim’s life expectancy, say another 15 years, that’s 35 years in total.
Kill a 5-year-old child and I would get 20 years plus another 40 years, that’s 60 years in total.
OK, kill a 95-year-old granny and I’d only get 20 years, but at least I didn’t ‘steal’ much life from that unfortunate victim.And no early release, no parole – do the crime, do the time. And at least, following any miscarriage of justice, we get the chance to say ‘sorry’.
-
29
May 2, 2012 at 15:16 -
I doubt if any punishment deters any crime.
For the intinsically law-abiding just being found out is deterent enough, for the ciminally inclined, well they just aren’t going to get caught are they?
My brother was killed by a drunk in a stolen vehicle. His killer had been found asleep, drunk, in a stolen vehicle two days previously. He needed the vehicle because his mate needed somewhere to live and they decided that a caravan would be ideal but they would need to tow it when they found one. Getting caught or being punished just didn’t come into it.
As to the death penalty, if it is wrong for an individual to take a life then it must be a greater wrong for the body public to take life in a cold and considered fashion.
-
31
May 2, 2012 at 17:57 -
An interesting debate but completely irrelevant.We are ruled by Brussels and they won’t allow it back.
-
33
May 2, 2012 at 18:50 -
Whatever the crime, whatever the sanction, I’m convinced it’s the promptness of apprehension and retribution that maximises the deterrent value. For those that will be deterred.
And justice must be seen in action.
So I think we’ve lost it on all counts.I kind of like the idea of the death sentence; trouble is I can’t live with the thought of ‘normal’ people being prepared to carry it out.
-
34
May 2, 2012 at 21:00 -
Like all to many of modern day “research” reports, what the “authors” (=collators?) have actually appear to have done is read the research of others and apply their own conclusions. All very nice, but it is not research, nor does it add anything new to the existing body of research.
It is interesting to “learn” that ” the kind of people who generally commit murders …. are in the lower social classes, most likely in gangs”. Is it really true that there are lower class homicidal gangs haunting the streets of Britain? You live in France Anna, are you haunted by lower class homicidal gangs? I think not, nor me. Does this mean that the problem under discussion does not apply to France? Doesn’t France have a horrible problem with its (upper class?) banlieues? Are you in danger of death because of them? I think not. Nor me.
Perhaps then this problem only applies to the UK? What a strange society that UK one must be to have these lower class homicidal gangs. Do British people scurry from safety to safety to avoid them? I think not.
Lastly, death penalties should be (a) quick, (b)100% (does this mean no partial killing, such as kill just a bit a day until not much life left?), and (c) public. Well Anna, I think our Muslim brethren actually indulge in (a) & (c) nowadays, but I don’t know about (b). Certainly our fashionable writers tend to disprove of all 3 of these practices.
Post-lastly, where on earth is the evidence to support the claim that “…those who have nothing to lose.”, kill more people?
-
35
May 3, 2012 at 12:02
-
-
36
May 2, 2012 at 21:10 -
I used to be for the death penalty but I have changed my mind because I too have served on a jury and I have completely lost any faith in our criminal justice system.
There are people who I think should be executed but proving their guilt without any doubt (I know the wording includes ‘reasonable’ but that is open to interpretation) is near impossible.
I would prefer to see long sentences without parole and where the convicted are made to work hard at unpleasant jobs. I think knowing that one faced 20 – 30 years of hard labour would be far more of a deterrent and the work would also go some way to offset the enormous cost of incarcerating felons.
-
37
May 2, 2012 at 22:24 -
The negative of how many murders have not been committed due to a possible death penalty cannot be proven.
The justiciary system along with government need to be boought back into line with True Law, not legislation upon legislation resembling a snake swallowing its own tail. All courts should be jury courts.
The death sentence for murderers should be the only punishment once proven guilty beyond doubt.
It is not for people to seek to rehabilitate murderers and keep them locked up for any period of time. The sentencing of death is to eradicate the murderers from amongst us.
Once a man/woman murders someone, they acknowledge and accept that their life will be forfieted in recompense.Of course, the relatives of the victim should also play a role in the outcome of the punishment, at least in sense of whether or not they wish to seek an eye for an eye or even leniency as the relatives were the ones totally affected by their loss of a kin.
-
38
May 2, 2012 at 23:36 -
People are fascinated by killing. It’s a favourite subject for tv and movies.
Why?
Seriously, why? -
39
May 3, 2012 at 00:45 -
The purpose of capital punishment is vengeance. A notion as old as time.
The state doing it is a beaurocratic impediment.
As for who would do it. I refer you to WW2 – most everybody would do it given social approbation. -
40
May 4, 2012 at 19:50 -
The biggest problem with death penalty IS that one [ law enforcement, prosecutor, judge, jury, public opinion] can be mistaken. There have been many cases of people proven innocent after they were executed. There’s NO way to repair such a situation – they’re dead …
{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }