Deterrent Death Penalty

The authors, Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L Akers, Professors of Sociology, Center for Studies in Criminology and Law, University of Florida, explains that America’s top criminologist has demonstrated that the death penalty does little to reduce rates of criminal violence. They used statistics gathered over the years about the death penalty and deterrent effects and used those to ask questions to criminologist, general public, and police chiefs. By using many expert opinions they seem unbiased. These statistics would help support one of the lack of deterrent effect of the death penalty.
Jongmook Choe, University of Texas Austin, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, examines deterrent effect of the death penalty. Choe compares state-level panel data of states with capital punishment/non-capital punishment related to homicide rates. Through uses of data he failed to find meaningful effects of deterrence of the death penalty. Most execution records does not have statistically meaningful lower homicide rates than no death penalty states. Choe explains that his paper does not aim to find “universal conclusions regarding the deterrent effect.” but rather to show more evidence to why it doesn’t deter homicide which helps support his ethos and unbiased
opinion. These statistics would support the lack of deterrent effect of the death penalty.
The author, Daniel Nagin, Professor of Public Policy and Statistics at Carnegie Mellon University, explains how all research about deterrence done in the past generations should be ignored and how the deterrent evidence of capital punishment is too weak to guide decisions.
Nagin talks about the shortcomings in existing research and how incomplete statistics are. He explains that the evidence doesn’t account for many other important factors. Like how the committee did not review the deterrent effect of non-capital states and only deterrent effect on death penalty on murder. Sound a little bias but not much, and this source would better support why the deterrent effect of the death penalty cannot be
determined.
In DPIC podcast, episode 4: Deterrence, it talks about statistical of murder in rate of death penalty states and non-death penalty states and the percent difference between death penalty states and non-death penalty states. Later explains that 80% of executions in the U.S are done by the South and has the highest murder rate of the four regions. It goes over three studies, Michigan Lawmakers Reaffirm State’s Longstanding Ban on Capital Punishment, States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates, and States Without the Death Penalty Fared Better Over Past Decade, comparing states with the death penalty and states without. This seems unbiased because it’s just statistics and would be used as recent evidence.
The author, Gebhard Kirchgässner, University of St. Gallen SIAW-HSG Bodanstrasse, talks about a published article in the wall street journal called ‘Capital Punishment Works’ and how the two authors do not provide any information about how they derive these results. Kirchgässner uses examples to show how easy it is to produce results that do and do not support deterrence. By using simple and advanced econometric techniques he shows how one simple change can change from supporting deterrence to not support it. He then explains the usefulness of statistics in any form of debates and how we cannot draw any strong conclusion with this evidence. Seems unbiased and would help support that the deterrent effect cannot be determined.
Goldberg’s article provides eight arguments against capital punishment, that focus on the death-penalty as a potential deterrent to crime. Goldberg’s article explains different arguments and how it relates to deterrence. The eight arguments he talks about are emotional impulses, no evidence, innocence, state takes a life, exchanges “real lives”, why have it if we don’t know whether it deters, it is “uncivilized”, and those who oppose the death penalty who act out of humane motives. Goldberg relates all the arguments to deterrence and shows both sides of having it or not having it in these situations. In the last paragraph he explains that he does hopes that the death penalty does not deter but he doesn’t fool himself into “thinking that hope speaks well of one’s character”. Seems a bit bias, but could be used to support life in prison.
The authors, Michael L. Radelet and Marian J. Borg, Department of Sociology, University of Florida, talks about 25 years of debate, the paper examines the changing nature of death penalty arguments in deterrence, incapacitation, caprice and bias, innocence, and retribution. In the deterrence sections it goes over the early history of deterrence. It explains that deterrence was top argument in favor of the death penalty in the early 1970’s. It explains that slowly the argument that was once favored for the death penalty is not used much today. What was once the public’s most widely cited justification for the death penalty is rapidly losing its appeal. Seems unbiased and could be used in all propositions.