The Myth of Deterrence

December 7, 2007

In a recent editorial entitled "The Myth of Deterrence," the Dallas Morning News pointed to the many reasons why the death penalty does not deter murders: a majority of murders can be classified as irrational acts, and the perpetrators are unlikely to have considered the possibility of a death sentences before and during the crime; those who commit premeditated murder are also unlikely to consider the possibility of capital punishment because it is so unlikely to be carried out. "No rational criminal should be deterred by the death penalty, since the punishment is too distant and too unlikely to merit much attention," the News writes, quoting economist and "Freakonomics" author Steven Levitt.

According to the News, the arguments that the death penalty deters murder do not hold up to scrutiny. States in the South have a higher homicide rate than all other regions of the United States, and they also have higher numbers of death sentences and executions. The News asks, “If capital punishment were an effective deterrent to homicide, shouldn't we expect the opposite result?” Recent studies claiming the death penalty deters numerous murders have also found to be “fatally flawed.”

The editorial follows:

In theory, the death penalty saves lives by staying the hand of would-be
killers. The idea is simple cost-benefit analysis: If a man tempted by
homicide knew that he would face death if caught, he would reconsider.

But that's not the real world. The South executes far more convicted
murderers than any other region yet has a homicide rate far above the
national average. Texas' murder rate is slightly above average, despite the state's
peerless deployment of the death penalty. If capital punishment were an
effective deterrent to homicide, shouldn't we expect the opposite
result? What's going on here?

Human nature, mostly. Murder is often a crime of passion, which by
definition excludes the faculties of reason. The jealous husband who
walks in on his wife and another man is in no position to deliberate
rationally on the consequences of killing his rival. The convenience
store robber who chooses in a split-second to shoot the clerk has not
pondered the potential outcomes of pulling the trigger.

People overtaken by rage, panic or drunkenness should be brought to
justice, of course, but they are hardly paragons of pure reason, and
it's unreasonable to assert that they consider the possibility of a
death sentence when committing their crimes.

Too distant a threat

Even premeditated killers don't expect to be executed. And for good
reason. Statistics show that a homicidal gangster is far more likely to die at
the hands of his fellow thugs than the hands of the state. As economist
and Freakonomics author Steven Levitt writes, "No rational criminal
should be deterred by the death penalty, since the punishment is too
distant and too unlikely to merit much attention."

Well, then, just speed up the appeals process, some say. But the appeals
process has already been shortened as much as possible without being
reckless. This at the same time that a steady stream of DNA exonerations have
raised important questions about investigative tactics once thought to
be foolproof.

Is it worth the risk of killing innocent people on the unproven theory
that it would result in fewer innocents dying via homicide?

This year, this newspaper reversed its longstanding support of the death
penalty because the process is deeply flawed and irreversible. Among the
moral, legal and practical reasons for our stance is the absence of hard
evidence that capital punishment prevents murder.

Some recent studies purport to show that executions actually deter
murders.  These studies have been analyzed by others and found to be fatally
flawed - "fraught with numerous technical and conceptual errors," as
Columbia Law professor and statistics expert Jeffrey Fagan testified to
Congress. One Pepperdine study touted last month on the Wall Street
Journal op-ed pages found that a national decline in the murder rate
correlated with executions. But that study links two broad sets of numbers and leaps to a simple conclusion.

Inconclusive at best

The devil really is in the lack of details. The national murder rate has
been declining for a decade and a half - in states with and without the
death penalty. But the drop has been faster in states that reject
capital punishment. At best, evidence for a deterrent effect is
inconclusive, and shouldn't officials be able to prove that the taking
of one life will undoubtedly save others? They simply have not met that
burden of proof, and it's difficult to see how they could.

The only murders the death penalty unarguably deters are those that
might have been committed by the executed. But we shouldn't punish
inmates for what they might do. Besides, society has an effective and
bloodless means of protecting itself from those who have proved
themselves willing to murder. It's called life without benefit of
parole. In a previous editorial, we called this "death by prison."

Granting the state the power of life and death over its citizens
requires something far more solid and certain than mere guesswork.

Source: Death Penalty Information Center

Back to Home