Capital Punishment Works
Capitalist Pig
By ROY D. ADLER and MICHAEL SUMMERS
Mr. Adler is a professor of marketing and Mr. Summers is a professor
of quantitative methods at Pepperdine University.
November 2, 2007; Page A13
Recent high-profile events have reopened the debate about the value of
capital punishment in a just society. This is an important discussion,
because the taking of a human life is always a serious matter.
Most commentators who oppose capital punishment assert that an
execution has no deterrent effect on future crimes. Recent evidence,
however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an
enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely,
our recent research shows that each execution carried out is
correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.
For any society concerned about human life, that type of evidence is
something that should be taken very seriously.
The study examined the relationship between the number of executions
and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979
to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources. The chart
nearby shows the number of executions and murders by year. There seems
to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions
increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders
increase.
In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated
with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when
the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number
of murders increased. Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the
number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted. Since 2001,
there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders.
It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere
coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year
relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level,
which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random
happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each
execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the
execution took place.
While it is clear that the number of murders is inversely correlated
to the number of executions, it is dangerous to infer causal
relationships through correlative data. Causation can be a two-way
street, but not in the case of capital punishment. It may be logical
that more executions could lead to fewer murders, but it is not at all
logical that fewer murders could cause more executions.
A second difficulty with strong correlative data is that of timing.
Causes should come before effects, so we correlated each year's
executions to the following year's murders and found the results to be
even more dramatic. The association was significant at the .00003
level, which meant the odds against the random happening are longer
than 34,000 to one. Each execution was associated with 74 fewer
murders the following year.
Die-hard campaigners against capital punishment could argue that there
might be yet a third variable, such as a stronger police presence or a
population shift to urban areas, related to each of the other two
variables. Such a variable might exist, but until it can be
identified, Occam's razor suggests the simplest solution is probably
the actual solution. We know that, for whatever reason, there is a
simple but dramatic relationship between the number of executions
carried out and a corresponding reduction in the number of murders.
The conclusion that each execution carried out is associated with the
saving of dozens of innocent lives creates an extraordinarily
difficult moral dilemma for those who campaign against the death
penalty. Until now, those activists could look into the eyes of a
convicted killer, hear his or her sad story, work tirelessly to set
aside the execution and, with that goal accomplished, feel good about
themselves for having "saved a life." These data suggest that the
moral equation is not nearly that simplistic.
It now seems that the proper question to ask goes far beyond the
obvious one of "do we save the life of this convicted criminal?" The
more proper question seems to be "do we save this particular life, at
a cost of the lives of dozens of future murder victims?" That is a
much more difficult moral dilemma, which deserves wide discussion in a
free society.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> WSJ COMMENTARY
> By ROY D. ADLER and MICHAEL SUMMERS
> Most commentators who oppose capital punishment assert that an
> execution has no deterrent effect on future crimes. Recent evidence,
> however, suggests that the death penalty, when carried out, has an
> enormous deterrent effect on the number of murders. More precisely,
> our recent research shows that each execution carried out is
> correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.
That would explain why the US murder rate, despite its employment of the
DP, is more than twice that of Australia (no DP) and more than three
times that of the UK (no DP).
You.
Stupid.
Fuck.
Earl Evleth
1i6zpau.707luz13pepaeN%sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au, "Mr Q. Z. Diablo"
<sa...@notinnedmeatdodo.com.au> wrote:
>> WSJ COMMENTARY
>> By ROY D. ADLER and MICHAEL SUMMERS
>
> That would explain why the US murder rate, despite its employment of the
> DP, is more than twice that of Australia (no DP) and more than three
> times that of the UK (no DP).
An article published on the op-ed page of the WSJ is bound to be
bias, that page publishes universally conservative items.
The item is also listed on the web site of the National Center for Policy
Analysis which prides itself as being a "communications and research
foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public
policy problems". This is very right wing think tank.
Next, the key point of their "research" is limited to the period
"1979 to 2004", the last 26 years.
But from 1900 to 1933 both execution rates and murders
progressively rose, while from 1933 to the mid-1960 both fell.
he Alder and Summer's study is biased in excluding a period
during which they would not find a deterrent effect.
They are into marketing not social science research.
> Mr. Adler is a professor of marketing (at Pepperdine)
> and Mr. Summers is a professor
> of quantitative methods at Pepperdine University.
Actually Professor of Management Science at Pepperdine University.
Adler is there too.
Pepperdine has a tarnished reputation. Richard Mellon Scaife is a a regent
of Pepperdine University and financed the Arkansas Project which was
"to unearth damaging information about President Clinton". Kenneth Starr
was given a post at Pepperdine at the end of his witch hunt of Clinton.
He currently serves as dean of Pepperdine University School of Law in
Malibu, California.
ammonc...@gmail.com
I do not particularly wish to make ad hominem remarks, but it would
appear that Mr. Adler and Mr. Summers do not have the same credentials
as Dr. Wolfers from the respected Wharton School of Business, who has
recently shown that statistical studies on this issue are not robust.
Some studies show an increase in the murder rate, some show a
decrease, and some show no effect. This results from input data
choice and method - neither of which are addressed in the article I am
responding to, making it difficult to determine whether the method and
input was biased. If you do a regression analysis of the numbers
available at http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/, you will find that the
death penalty increases the murder rate. If you look at Canada, which
outlawed the death penalty in 1976, the murder rate has decreased. If
you do a study, using the murder rate numbers by state on the DPIC
site and state-published numbers on income disparity or education
level, you will find that a higher education level has the opposite
and similarly minor effect as the death penalty, but income disparity
accounts for 30% of the differences between states in the murder rate:
the higher the income disparity, the higher the murder rate.
Statistical studies showing an effect of the prospect of life without
parole on the murder rate are more clear cut than those purporting to
show that the death penalty lowers the murder rate. You will note as
well, that the costs of the death penalty are outrageous - as they
must be to try to ensure constitutionality - and that more and more
states are doing away with it just for that reason. (See the DPIC
site.) Further, law school seminars have shown that the costs of the
death penalty could support the prisoner for 40-50 years.
If we address this issue from a Christian point of view - without
trying to dress it up with numbers - we would have to conclude that
Christ would eschew the death penalty. After all, when one of his
disciples lopped off the ear of a servant of the "state" who arrested
him, Christ immediately healed the wound. He did not, for example,
preempt his own death by taking his disciple's sword and killing the
soldier with it. He was a totally innocent human who was being put to
death by vengeful soldiers at the behest of frightened government
officials. Since we need not be frightened of anyone in prison, it
would seem that the Christian choice on this matter would be life
without the possibility of parole.
Earl Evleth
1194382149.6...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
"ammonc...@gmail.com" <ammonc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I do not particularly wish to make ad hominem remarks, but it would
> appear that Mr. Adler and Mr. Summers do not have the same credentials
> as Dr. Wolfers from the respected Wharton School of Business, who has
> recently shown that statistical studies on this issue are not robust.
> Some studies show an increase in the murder rate, some show a
> decrease, and some show no effect. This results from input data
> choice and method - neither of which are addressed in the article I am
> responding to, making it difficult to determine whether the method and
> input was biased. If you do a regression analysis of the numbers
> available at http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/, you will find that the
> death penalty increases the murder rate.
Older analyses as reported in the well known book "The Death Penalty
in America" show results "all over the map" including the "brutalization"
effect you remarked on. I don't believe any of the results which
show an inclination in one direction or another.
> If you look at Canada, which outlawed the death penalty in 1976,
> the murder rate has decreased.
In Europe people are not even looking at what happens. Is the murder
rate up or down in France since the DP was abolished in 1981? I don't
know. It can't have gone up or down much and there are too many other
societal factors which can enter into the causality equation to determine
if abolition had an effect.
> If you do a study, using the murder rate numbers by state on the DPIC
> site and state-published numbers on income disparity or education
> level, you will find that a higher education level has the opposite
> and similarly minor effect as the death penalty, but income disparity
> accounts for 30% of the differences between states in the murder rate:
> the higher the income disparity, the higher the murder rate.
I called attention to the prediction in the book "Crime Drop in America"
that the homicide rate would rise slightly in the period after about 2000
from a slight rise in the relative population of young males. That was
a mainly demographic explanation. Crime rates changes in general were
anticipated to stagnate then rise slightly.
> Statistical studies showing an effect of the prospect of life without
> parole on the murder rate are more clear cut than those purporting to
> show that the death penalty lowers the murder rate. You will note as
> well, that the costs of the death penalty are outrageous - as they
> must be to try to ensure constitutionality - and that more and more
> states are doing away with it just for that reason. (See the DPIC
> site.) Further, law school seminars have shown that the costs of the
> death penalty could support the prisoner for 40-50 years.
This has been pointed out on this group a number of time and I posted
on the excessive trial costs recently. Some local poorer jurisdictions
just can not afford a DP trial so the negotiate a plea bargain. Sometimes
such a bargain is necessary, as in the case of the Green River killer,
Gary Leon Ridgway, who confessed to 48 murders.
> If we address this issue from a Christian point of view - without
> trying to dress it up with numbers - we would have to conclude that
> Christ would eschew the death penalty. After all, when one of his
> disciples lopped off the ear of a servant of the "state" who arrested
> him, Christ immediately healed the wound. He did not, for example,
> preempt his own death by taking his disciple's sword and killing the
> soldier with it. He was a totally innocent human who was being put to
> death by vengeful soldiers at the behest of frightened government
> officials. Since we need not be frightened of anyone in prison, it
> would seem that the Christian choice on this matter would be life
> without the possibility of parole.
Another point. I am not sure he was innocent of a "crime" which in those
days was normally punishable by death. The old testament had
many DP crimes, including cursing a parent. Certainly Charles Manson's
son should be forgiven for cursing his father.
Planet Visitor II
news:1194382149.6...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> If we address this issue from a Christian point of view
Now why in the world would we do that? Is everyone Christian?
Not that I am one, but we have a great number of Koran-thumpers
here, madly in love with Islam. Islamic laws firmly supports the
death penalty.
> - without
> trying to dress it up with numbers - we would have to conclude that
> Christ would eschew the death penalty.
Not to draw too fine a point. Your conclusion is false.
> After all, when one of his
> disciples lopped off the ear of a servant of the "state" who arrested
> him, Christ immediately healed the wound. He did not, for example,
> preempt his own death by taking his disciple's sword and killing the
> soldier with it.
Because that would be murder, rather than the state executing a
murderer. Christ made clear on a number of occasions that he
did not embody a secular state. And he certainly did not
support murder.
> He was a totally innocent human who was being put to
> death by vengeful soldiers at the behest of frightened government
> officials. Since we need not be frightened of anyone in prison, it
> would seem that the Christian choice on this matter would be life
> without the possibility of parole.
Consider that Christ also said -- "he who lives by the sword, shall
surely die by the sword." This provides clear justification for the state
executing someone who has lived his life by the sword, i.e., a
murderer.
Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
All new -- http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html
lance....@gmail.com
That's Dr. Adler and Dr. Summers to you.
Don't trash talk Pepperdine.