Poll: Does the death penalty lead to more serious criminal offenses?

Elledan · Jun 9, 2001

To gather some more data for my presentation, I'd like to hear some opinions on this topic.

I'll explain my reasoning behind this question:

Statistics show that in the US, crime rates are usually lower in states that don't have the death penalty, than in states that do execute people. Furthermore, crime rates in other Western countries, of which none uses the death penalty, are remarkably lower than those in the USA. Coincidence?

This leads us to the question what the effect of the death penalty is on the public. Do their opinions on the value of life change? If in a country no one is ever executed, if no one is ever being tortured, what does this say about how the citizens of that country value the life of an individual?
Let's first look at a country in which the death penalty is carried out multiple times each year. Since the Government in this country thinks that it's right to execute people in certain cases (e.g. for serious crimes), torture suddenly becomes more likely to occur, for torture is just a slower way to execute someone.
Citizens of this country will (subconsciously) realize that their right to live isn't exactly unconditional, something which they'll reflect on every day life. The value of a Human life in this country is thus lower than in the country where the right to live is indeed unconditional.

Since every citizen in the country with the death penalty (subconsciously) realizes that a tiny glitch is enough to lose your life and life therefore isn't as self-evident as it appears to be at first sight, they'll value the lifes of others less than they should. A certain mood of indifference when it's about strangers settles upon the thoughts of every citizen. Including children.

Eventually, this mood will lead to events like we've seen already a few times in the US: school shootings, children who kill their classmates, shootings between adults, because they had an argument. And why? Because they just don't care about others as much as they should. Who or what is to blame for this? The death penalty and everything else which in some way decreases the value of the life of an individual in the eyes of the citizens of this country.

This is, of course, a reasoning based on observation I've made and data I've gathered via other sources. Any corrections of mistakes and/or remarks are appreciated.

Please don't forget to vote

Yo Ma Ma · Jun 9, 2001

You know, you might be on to something...

<< Since every citizen in the country with the death penalty (subconsciously) realizes that a tiny glitch is enough to lose your life and life therefore isn't as self-evident as it appears to be at first sight, they'll value the lifes of others less than they should. A certain mood of indifference when it's about strangers settles upon the thoughts of every citizen. Including children. >>

I think if there is a correlation, it might instead be due to the criminal not wanting to get caught - at any cost kills his victims he might otherwise leave unharmed or at least alive. I was reading through that list of criminals on death row in TX someone had posted a couple days ago, and couldn't understand why ar these people being killed during a robbery, that might explain it.

acexg1 · Jun 9, 2001

Could it be that the death penalty is legalized in some states because they have higher crime rates, as opposed to states having higher crime rates due to the death penalty?

rc5 · Jun 9, 2001

Without capital punishment, criminals can kill anyone they want to eliminate the risk of busting themselve of leaving victims alive. A living victims can provide lot's of information as you can expect.

If I'm a punk who has little education and don't have job, if I know I won't die and don't have to pay the rent and food for the rest of the live, do I care killing someone else?

Looney · Jun 9, 2001

<< Since every citizen in the country with the death penalty (subconsciously) realizes that a tiny glitch is enough to lose your life and life therefore isn't as self-evident as it appears to be at first sight, they'll value the lifes of others less than they should. A certain mood of indifference when it's about strangers settles upon the thoughts of every citizen. Including children. >>

I find this little theory interesting too... but i doubt it, or at least the effect is extremely minimal, or would at least take several generation before it becomes evident.

What i think capital punishment does is move the role of justice from reformation to vengence. And when the mentality of the culture of justice is vengence, then lesser crimes (that don't merit a capital punishment) will also be influenced by that vengence mentality, and harsher sentencing are instituted. Soon, all you're doing is increasing the time people are spending incarcerated. So a pothead that was once sent to therapy to overcome his abuse, that sentence is now seen as too lenient and something harsher is demanded. How often have you seen celebrities getting busted for a drug charge, and the first thing you think of is how they're getting off light, that they should be thrown behind bars? Do you REALLY think the best thing for that individual and society is to throw him behind bars? Personally, i would rather see that individual go through rehabilitation, and become a role model in society, helping others to overcome their addiction and curbing kids from starting up. But nope, people want them locked up like an animal behind bars... instead of having him go through rehab and become a contributing member of society again, they'll rather the government spend $50,000 a year to lock him up to teach him a lesson.

Anyways, that's my take on it... both from a psych student point of view as well as somebody who's been through the 'justice' system (3 years in a max and med/max institution).

Moonbeam · Jun 9, 2001

rc5, that's a great theory, but if you bothered to read his post, answer me this. Why do the statistics he cites point in the opposite direction.

Looney · Jun 10, 2001

<< Without capital punishment, criminals can kill anyone they want to eliminate the risk of busting themselve of leaving victims alive. A living victims can provide lot's of information as you can expect.

If I'm a punk who has little education and don't have job, if I know I won't die and don't have to pay the rent and food for the rest of the live, do I care killing someone else? >>

Criminals don't do a cost/benefit analysis when they're committing a crime... just as a smoker doens't do a cost/benefit analysis of their smoking habit. And even if they did, they'll suffer from the 'it'll happen to somebody else, but not me' syndrome (forgot the proper psychological term). So that theory doesn't hold up.

Elledan · Jun 10, 2001

<<

<< Since every citizen in the country with the death penalty (subconsciously) realizes that a tiny glitch is enough to lose your life and life therefore isn't as self-evident as it appears to be at first sight, they'll value the lifes of others less than they should. A certain mood of indifference when it's about strangers settles upon the thoughts of every citizen. Including children. >>

I find this little theory interesting too... but i doubt it, or at least the effect is extremely minimal, or would at least take several generation before it becomes evident. >>

Well, there have already been many generations since the death penalty was first used in the USA.

<< What i think capital punishment does is move the role of justice from reformation to vengence. And when the mentality of the culture of justice is vengence, then lesser crimes (that don't merit a capital punishment) will also be influenced by that vengence mentality, and harsher sentencing are instituted. Soon, all you're doing is increasing the time people are spending incarcerated. So a pothead that was once sent to therapy to overcome his abuse, that sentence is now seen as too lenient and something harsher is demanded. How often have you seen celebrities getting busted for a drug charge, and the first thing you think of is how they're getting off light, that they should be thrown behind bars? Do you REALLY think the best thing for that individual and society is to throw him behind bars? Personally, i would rather see that individual go through rehabilitation, and become a role model in society, helping others to overcome their addiction and curbing kids from starting up. But nope, people want them locked up like an animal behind bars... instead of having him go through rehab and become a contributing member of society again, they'll rather the government spend $50,000 a year to lock him up to teach him a lesson. >>

You're making an excellent point here. Accidentally it's the same thing I asked in my other thread on the death penalty: Is the Death Penalty an Act of Justice or Revenge? After reading your post, it does indeed become evident that the death penalty is the result of revenge (locking up people is then a mild form of revenge), not of justice.

BTW here in the Netherlands, we concentrate on rehabilitation of 'criminals', so that they can one day be released again in society and function without problems. We don't have the death penalty, and the maximum time someone can spend here in jail is 25 years. The jails we have here are nothing like those in the US, they're a totally different world, with a totally different reasoning behind them.

p0tempkin · Jun 10, 2001

<< Statistics show that in the US, crime rates are usually lower in states that don't have the death penalty, than in states that do execute people. >>

acexg1 already brought up a point that you haven't addressed yet.

<< Furthermore, crime rates in other Western countries, of which none uses the death penalty, are remarkably lower than those in the USA. Coincidence? >>

Without being specific, you're leaving a LOT of variables open to question. Why not blame it on the violence in US media? How about our US culture, and how we choose to raise our children; that could also be a cause of socio/psychological defects. Or you could blame it on the heterogeneous nature of US society? With so many different types of people, there are surely conflicts of interest.

Regardless, unless you have a substantial report backing up your claims, only a fool would take the information in your post to heart. Your post has ZERO facts, yet you expect us to vote on a topic based on the limited amount of knowledge you present in the form of opinions.

Also, by substantial, I mean not simply numbers, but also when, where, and how those numbers were obtained.

But I quickly see a problem in your presentation; based on your previous posts on this subject, you seem heavily biased against the death penalty and inclined to only research one-half of the argument without trying to disprove any evidence you obtain to support it.

Moonbeam · Jun 10, 2001

pOtemkin, you point to some weaknesses in Elledan's argument, but you make none of your own although you seem to point in an opposite direction. Upon what foundation would you recommend capital punishment?

TimberWolf · Jun 10, 2001

Elledan:

You make the common error of attempting to compare cross-cultural demographics, and then treating your assumptions as "conclusions based on facts". You also make assumptions based on prior assumptions to support your arguement. That makes it clear that you have started with "your conclusion", and then attempted to align "facts" to support it . . .

The most glaring flaw in your logic is the assumption that there somehow exists an "unconditional right to live". Next is the assumption that public acceptance of a death penalty statute implies public acceptance of torture - which also exposes your pre-disposed bias against capital punishment. You then grant yourself the psychic ability to determine subconcious motivation regarding ethics and values without regard to historical or cultural influences.

In the US, well over 90% of violent crime is committed by repeat offenders, which constitute less than 10% of the criminal population.

Moralpanic:

You muddy the waters a bit more by mixing up the issue of rehabilitation from drug addiction with criminal rehabilitation. I have more than passing experience with recovery from alcohol and drug addiction, and currently less than 15% of those afflicted achieve a recovery lasting more than 5 years. Of that 15%, the average number of "visits" to a rehab facility is 3 times. Drug and/or alcohol addicted individuals do not voluntarily seek treatment, or make a determined effort at achieving recovery until the "costs" of their addiction convince them of it's inevitable futility. Incarceration for illegal activities is a part of that "cost".

Your "cost/benefit" comment to rc5 is accurate right up until you assert that his point is invalid. Prison interviews with repeat violent offenders indicate that the "leave no witnesses" mindset is becoming increasingly prevelent in the desire to avoid potential prosecution.

p0tempkin · Jun 10, 2001

<< pOtemkin, you point to some weaknesses in Elledan's argument, but you make none of your own although you seem to point in an opposite direction. Upon what foundation would you recommend capital punishment? >>

How about a moral one? Worst case scenario: the statistics can't prove the death penalty is doing any good, but can't prove its doing any harm either. So the argument reverts to a moral one. Should a convicted murderer be sentenced to death? The answer to this question depends upon your beliefs, but luckily the democracy in our government gives us some slight control over whether the death penalty is implemented or not. And the majority speaks for everyone.

rc5 · Jun 10, 2001

<< Criminals don't do a cost/benefit analysis when they're committing a crime >>

That's not always the case. Back to high school, there are several times I really wanted to kill some assholes for this or that reason, but by realizing the consequence, I didn't do anything.

etech · Jun 10, 2001

WESLEY LOWE'S

"
In 1985, a study was published by economist Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina that showed that every execution of a murderer deters, on average, 18 murders. The study also showed that raising the number of death sentences by one percent would prevent 105 murders. However, only 38 percent of all murder cases result in a death sentence, and of those, only 0.1 percent are actually executed.
...

In the wake of those three Utah executions, there have been notable decreases in both the number and the rate of murders within the state. The figures are there but abolitionists have chosen to ignore them.
During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University came up with these statistics, in 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Spence said:

"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."

And more recently, there have been 56 executions in the USA in 1995, more in one year since executions resumed in 1976, and there has been a 12 percent drop in the murder rate nationwide.
And JFA (Justice for All) reports that in Texas, the highest murder rate in Houston (Harris County) occurred in 1981 with 701 murders. Since Texas reinstated the death penalty in 1982, Harris County has executed more murderers than any other city or state in the union and has seen the greatest reduction in murder from 701 in 1982 down to 261 in 1996 - a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential!

Also, in the 1920s and 30s, Death penalty advocates were known to refer to England as a means of proving capital punishment's deterrent effect. Back then, at least 120 murderers were executed every year in the US and sometimes the number reached 200. Even then, England used the death penalty far more consistently than we did and their overall murder rate was smaller than any one of our major cities at the time. Now, since England abolished capital punishment about thirty years ago, the murder rate has subsequently doubled there and 75 English citizens have been murdered by released killers!
"

I'll agree that deterence should not be the driving force behind executions though it is difficult to debate whether it has a deterence effect on other criminals or not. Give enough people the same set of statistics and they will come up with different answers.

Elledan · Jun 10, 2001

http://www.truthinjustice.org/prob-innocent.htm
http://www.truthinjustice.org/ginsburg.htm
Death Trip: The American Way of Execution
DNA clears man in murder, 11 months after he died on death row
Death Penalty Issues
One in 27 people executed in the US is innocent
Myth: We shouldn't waste tax dollars keeping murderers alive in prison.

I still prefer labor camps over the death penalty.

Looney · Jun 10, 2001

<< You muddy the waters a bit more by mixing up the issue of rehabilitation from drug addiction with criminal rehabilitation. I have more than passing experience with recovery from alcohol and drug addiction, and currently less than 15% of those afflicted achieve a recovery lasting more than 5 years. Of that 15%, the average number of "visits" to a rehab facility is 3 times. Drug and/or alcohol addicted individuals do not voluntarily seek treatment, or make a determined effort at achieving recovery until the "costs" of their addiction convince them of it's inevitable futility. Incarceration for illegal activities is a part of that "cost". >>

Actually.. i have experience with the substance abuse programs as well, being in a few of them myself. And it's true, the rates of recovery is extremely low, but that's dependent on the program and whether the user is there voluntarily or because of conditions.

But i used the example of drug abuse as just a sign that the system isn't mean to recover people, but to punish them. Do you really think the best thing for a substance abuser is to lock them up for 5-10 years? How does a pothead or Robert Downy Jr drug use affect you? Yet most people want him thrown in jail. Is that REALLY the best thing for him and for society? If you really believe that, then i suggest you look at the success and failure rate of 'scared straight' tactics: they don't work, and there's research to back it up.

<< Your "cost/benefit" comment to rc5 is accurate right up until you assert that his point is invalid. Prison interviews with repeat violent offenders indicate that the "leave no witnesses" mindset is becoming increasingly prevelent in the desire to avoid potential prosecution. >>

I don't know where you encountered these prisoner interviews, but i've actually looked at the research behind this, and people that commit crimes do not look at the cost/benefit ratios... or at least it's definitely not the norm. If you look at the majority of murder convictions this becomes evident. Really, what's the percent of murder convictions do you think occured in an instance where the individual wants to kill the victim so they don't get fingered out? Most are done in drive-bys, moments of passion, fear, hate... very few people have the coolness at the moment of committing a serious crime to weight whether the victim should be killed or not... and very few murders are for this reason.

Azoth · Jun 10, 2001

You can look back to the days of cowboys... (no, not yesterday in Texas)

Public hangings during that time were an amusement, where families brought box lunches and made a day of wathing someone be hanged. During that same time the pickpockets were out in force robbing the spectators of their valuables, while thieves would go to the houses (shacks) and take all that was not red hot or nailed down.

IMHO, executions are allowable in many peoples eyes because of the strong religions backing in this country. What they fail to see is that the Bible says an eye for an eye/tooth for tooth... It does not say, you can go to McDonalds, kill everyone with a sawed off, and you will get to live in jail for many years, then when you finally are executed, it will be humane, because we all know how humane you were with the ones you killed.

I think that the way executions are now, they do, in fact, cause more serious criminal offenses. However, if the government were to change them to the aspect of if you shoot someone, you get shot, if you shoot 30 people, you get shot 30 times... starting with your feet. When people see that the punishment for their crimes match their crimes, they will think twice before committing them.

Perhaps if death row were hard labor, then less people would be killing... for that matter, if all jails were hard labor people would think twice before committing any crime. I mean hells, criminals today get more than average citizens get; free food, free lodging, free medical, cable television... It is a social club without the opposite sex.

Just my three cents...

p0tempkin · Jun 10, 2001

<< http://www.truthinjustice.org/prob-innocent.htm Accidents happen
http://www.truthinjustice.org/ginsburg.htm Opinion
Death Trip: The American Way of Execution A long one, still reading.
DNA clears man in murder, 11 months after he died on death row Accidents happen.
Death Penalty Issues One in 27 people executed in the US is later proven to be innocent? I wonder how many general prisoners (ie not on death row) are innocent but still convicted? If you know the correct way to problem-solve, you might realize that the US justice system is closer to a root cause than the death penalty.
One in 27 people executed in the US is innocent Accidents happen.
Myth: We shouldn't waste tax dollars keeping murderers alive in prison. Data was gathered during the 1980s. Things have changed.

I still prefer labor camps over the death penalty. You and what army? Do you have any recent data showing a majority of US voters supporting your point of view? >>

Pyro · Jun 10, 2001

<<
Myth: We shouldn't waste tax dollars keeping murderers alive in prison. Data was gathered during the 1980s. Things have changed.

I still prefer labor camps over the death penalty. You and what army? Do you have any recent data showing a majority of US voters supporting your point of view? >>

[/i] >>

1. Things have not changed regarding the amount of money needed to excute someone
2. He is not from the US as he said earlier.
3. Labrour camps and such are a better alternative. I saw a news cast a long time ago about a county int the us where the sheriff has had the prison painted in pink and prisoners cannot workout, but are free to do embriodery and listen to classical. It said that the repeated crime rate in that county was remarkably lower than in surrounding ones.

Ferocious · Jun 10, 2001

It's quite obvious the death penalty (as it is in the USA) is not a deterrent to murder. Whether having the death penalty leads to more serious crime in general....I tend to doubt any direct correlation there.

p0tempkin · Jun 10, 2001

<<

<<
Myth: We shouldn't waste tax dollars keeping murderers alive in prison. Data was gathered during the 1980s. Things have changed.

I still prefer labor camps over the death penalty. You and what army? Do you have any recent data showing a majority of US voters supporting your point of view? >>

1. Things have not changed regarding the amount of money needed to excute someone True, but who's to say the average cost for appeals per prisoner, or the average cost for a life-term per prisoner hasn't changed too?
2. He is not from the US as he said earlier. My Bad
3. Labrour camps and such are a better alternative. I saw a news cast a long time ago about a county int the us where the sheriff has had the prison painted in pink and prisoners cannot workout, but are free to do embriodery and listen to classical. It said that the repeated crime rate in that county was remarkably lower than in surrounding ones. This is a joke right? We're having a discussion about convicted murderers. Are you somehow indirectly saying we should put them in prison to listen to music and do leisurely activities? >>

Poll: Does the death penalty lead to more serious criminal offenses?

Banned

Lifer

Senior member

Platinum Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Lifer

Banned

Banned

Elite Member

Senior member

Banned

Platinum Member

Lifer

Banned

Lifer

Senior member

Banned

Banned

Diamond Member

Banned