Death Penalty Myth Of Deterrence\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nBush, Gore Both Wrong on Death Penalty Deterrence<\/b><\/p>
\r\n\r\nIn 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. <\/b><\/p>
\r\n\r\nNader, 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. <\/p>
\r\n\r\nOf course correlation doesn't prove causation and other factors need to be considered as well. But a difference this striking in the opposite<\/i> 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. <\/p>
\r\n\r\nOver 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.\" <\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>\n","contact":"rad@gte.net","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Bush and Gore both support for the death penalty, based on the claim it's a deterrent. But the evidence says they're wrong. We're not supposed to punish people if there's a reaonable doubt about their guilt. But what if there's much more than a reasonable doubt about the punishment?","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2000\/10\/deathpen.htm","filesize":"10.3 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2000\/10\/4087.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}