Death Penalty Myth Of Deterrence Bush, Gore Both Wrong on Death Penalty Deterrence

In their debate yesterday, Bush and Gore both expressed support for the death penalty. When asked directly if they believed the death penalty served as a deterrent, both answered yes. Bush said, "I do, that's the only reason to be for it," and went on to specifically reject revenge as a justification for the death penalty. Gore said that it was "controversial," but that he believed it.

Nader, who was excluded from the debates, is opposed to the death penalty, and the facts are opposed to Bush & Gore. The thirteen states without the death penalty had an average murder rate of 3.7 per 100,000 in 1997, the thirteen states with the most executions from 1977 to 1998 (384 in all) had an average murder rate of 8.2 per 100,000--more than twice as high as the murder rate in non-death penalty states. In 1998 only one state without the death penalty had a murder rate higher than Texas, which leads the nation in executions by an enormous margin. North Dakota, without the death penalty, had a murder rate less than 1/6th of that in Texas--much like Western Europe.

Of course correlation doesn't prove causation and other factors need to be considered as well. But a difference this striking in the opposite direction is clearly incompatible with the claim of deterrence, and strongly suggests the opposite of a deterrence effect: a cycle-of-violence effect. This consists of (1) an existing culture with high levels of violence, that actively sanctions some forms of violence (duels & other forms fighting to 'defend one's honor,' tolerance of bullying, glorification of sports involving physical agression and hurting the opponent, etc.) (2) an actual motive of seeking revenge, consistent with the active sanctioning of violence, rationalized in terms of deterrence, (3) a brutalization effect, which results in increased murder rates as a result of executions.

Over the years there's been substantial evidence that a deterrence effect does not exist, while a cycle-of-violence effect does. Death Penalty Focus cites the Thorsten Sellin studies of the U.S. in 1962, 1967and 1980 which concluded that the death penalty is not a deterrent. The Death Penalty Information Center cites "Four new studies on deterrence [that] throw further doubt that there is any deterrent effect from sentencing people to death or executing people for homicide. The studies did find support for a brutalization effect."

• "Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas," (45 Crime and Delinquency 481-93 (1999)) vy John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart examined Texas executions from 1984 to 1997. Because of Texas's high rate of executions it provided a strongest test for the deterrent claim. However, comparing patterns in executions across the study period against the relatively steady rate of murders in Texas, the authors found no evidence of a deterrent effect. The number of executions was unrelated to murder rates or to felony rates.
  
  
• 
  
  
•