Deterrent Effect, if One Exists,

¶ … deterrent effect, if one exists, of the death penalty on violent criminal acts in states with capital punishment laws compared to those that do not. Authoritative legal resources will be used to develop appropriate definitions of capital punishment, capital crimes, and violent criminal acts for the purposes of the proposed study. Various relevant metrics will be used to gauge the deterrent effect of capital punishment if one exists, including the murder rate per 100,000 citizens, and the number of violent crime acts per 100,000 citizens in states where the death penalty exists compared to these same rates in states that do not have the death penalty. In sum, the proposed study seeks to identify any relevant correlation between violent criminal acts in general and instances of murder in those states that have the death penalty compared to those that do not to measure its deterrent effect on such violent criminal activities.

Research Questions

Part One: Description Questions about the Independent and Dependent Variables.

As noted above, the purpose of the proposed study is to investigate the deterrent effect, if one exists, of the death penalty on violent criminal acts in states with capital punishment laws compared to those that do not.

What types of metrics are used to report violent crimes, including homicide and murder, in the states with and without capital punishment laws?

What types of legal descriptors are used to define capital offenses in the various states with capital punishment laws? Do these legal definitions of capital offenses differ significantly from state to state?

Are reported state-level statistics sufficiently compatible to allow for across-the-board comparisons of any potential deterrent effect capital punishment may have had on violent crime rates?

Is it possible to discern an age differential (e.g., younger people may be more reluctant to engage in a capital offense act compared to much older individuals because they have more "life" to lose as a result) in any deterrent effect the death penalty may have among criminals in states with the death penalty on the books?

Are there any gender-related differences in the percentages of capital offenses committed in states with and without the death penalty?

How have the American public's views about capital punishment changed in recent years?

Part Two: Questions that Compare the Independent Variable with the Dependent Variable.

For the purposes of the proposed study, the independent variable to be considered will be death penalty and the dependent variables will be the respective impact of the death penalty on various capital offense crime rates as described below. The three states proposed to be used all have comparable capital punishment statutes as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (e.g., capital punishment for first-degree murder only) (2007).

To what extent, if any, has the death penalty affected the murder rate per 100,000 citizens in Florida over the last 20 years?

To what extent, if any, has the death penalty affected the homicide rate per 100,000 citizens in Florida over the last 20 years?

To what extent, if any, has the death penalty affected other violent crime rates in Florida over the past 20 years?

To what extent, if any, has the death penalty affected the murder rate per 100,000 citizens in Louisiana over the last 20 years?

To what extent, if any, has the death penalty affected the homicide rate per 100,000 citizens in Louisiana over the last 20 years?

To what extent, if any, has the death penalty affected other violent crime rates in Louisiana over the past 20 years?

To what extent, if any, has the death penalty affected the murder rate per 100,000 citizens in North Carolina over the last 20 years?

To what extent, if any, has the death penalty affected the homicide rate per 100,000 citizens in North Carolina over the last 20 years?

To what extent, if any, has the death penalty affected other violent crime rates in North Carolina over the past 20 years?

Implications of the Study

Today, the United States stands with some veritable international pariahs in terms of being among the few nations in the world today that still actively practice capital punishment. To the extent that the several states in the U.S. are allowed to continue to use capital punishment as a punishment alternative, then, is likely the extent to which the international community will continue to regard the U.S. As failing to live up to its constitutional mandate to avoid the use of cruel and unusual punishments and the extent to which the nation will be viewed as hypocritical when issues of human rights abuses are debated. According to Manning and Rhoden-Trader (2000), the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 allows states with capital punishment laws on their books to executive convinced criminals using one of five approved methods: electrocution, firing squad, hanging, lethal gas and lethal injection. In this regard, Delaware, New Hampshire and Washington continue to authorize hanging as a capital punishment, and firing squads are authorized in Idaho, Oklahoma and Utah, with the remaining states using either electrocution, lethal gas or lethal injection as their method of execution (Manning & Rhoden-Trader).

All of these execution methods, though, are increasingly being regarded as barbaric by many countries, including some of America's most otherwise-stalwart allies. According to Grant (1999), "One effect of this divergence between the U.S. And many of its key international allies has been to isolate the U.S. On an issue which is seen increasingly by other governments not merely as a question of domestic law and policy, but as implicating internationally protected human rights" (p. 19). Consequently, the United States has been cited by the United Nations for violations of international law, requests for extradition of fugitives wanted in the U.S. are routinely refused by European states because the criminal sought could face the death penalty in the U.S., and the Supreme Court has been placed in the awkward position of having to refuse a stay of execution delivered by the International Court of Justice (Grant, 1999). This latter incident, involved a Paraguayan national, Angel Breard, who was arrested in Virginia in September 1992, charged, tried and convicted of murder; Breard was sentenced to death and is appeals to the state courts dismissed. The International Court of Justice intervened and sought a stay of execution until it could rule on the merits of the case, but the Supreme Court refused and the execution of carried out anyway in violation of existing treaties with Paraguay (Grant, 1999). This case in particular Grant maintains serves to highlight the untenable nature of the death penalty among the international community today: "The U.S. government portrays itself as a world leader in the protection of human rights and as a champion of international law. Yet, when confronted with a unanimous opinion from the world's highest court compelling its compliance, the U.S. chose instead to renege on its binding treaty obligations" (Grant, 1999, p. 19). Furthermore, some analysts suggest that retaining the death penalty for criminals such as international terrorists in the post-September 11, 2001 climate simply encourages further attacks on the U.S. By Al Qaeda-inspired terrorist organizations. In this regard, McDonnell (2004) asks, "Might the death penalty help create martyrs rather than discourage similar attacks? Could our imposing the death penalty increase support in the Islamic world for al Qaeda and other extremist groups?" (p. 353).

These implications of the death penalty are outweighed at the individual level, though, by the sheer and absolute finality of the punishment involved, with no recourse or appeal available to those capital punishment victims whose innocence is only discovered after the fact. The alarming number of death row inmates who have been exonerated based on DNA evidence suggests that the time to put an end to the death penalty as a constitutionally acceptable punishment for capital offenses is today rather than tomorrow. In fact, 130 individuals have been released from death row since 1973 based on newly discovered evidence of their innocence (Innocence and the death penalty, 2008). In this regard, Bird (2003) notes that, "Critics of the death penalty cite the increasing number of convicted murderers on death row who have been exonerated and released from a system 'haunted by the demon of error' based on DNA and other factual evidence. They contend that the death penalty is no greater a deterrent than life imprisonment without parole, and that retribution cannot justify capital punishment, which is arbitrary and capricious -- and therefore immoral" (p. 1329).

By contrast, death penalty supporters will cite various studies that lend credence and support to their position that capital punishment serves as a deterrent, of course, but other studies either contradict or qualify these findings to the point where meaningful discussions of the impact that the death penalty has on new criminals is unclear and dangerously misguided. As Bird (2003) emphasizes, "Rhetoric piles high on both sides of the political debate regarding the place capital punishment should or should not have in twenty-first century America" (p. 1329). Organizations such as Amnesty International, though, are absolutely unequivocal in their condemnation of the death penalty in general:

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state. This cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment is done in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner. (Abolish the death penalty, 2008, p. 2).

Despite these increasingly vocal protestations from at home and abroad, a majority of the states in America continue to retain the death penalty as a lawful punishment for capital offenses today. While the trend toward abolishing capital punishment was apparent in recent years, it would seem reasonable to assert that the death penalty will continue to be practiced in the United States for the foreseeable future and its effectiveness as a deterrent remains a relevant and timely issue for study.

Chapter 2:

Review of the Relevant Literature

The deterrent aspects of capital punishment are well established in the historical record As Plato noted early on in Protagoras, "Punishment is not inflicted by a rational man for the sake of the crime that has been committed -- after all one cannot undo what is past -- but for the sake of the future, to prevent either the same man or, by the spectacle of his punishment, someone else, from doing wrong again" (quoted in Stolzenberg & D'Alessio at p. 351). According to Fattah (1981), "Discussions around the deterrent effect of capital punishment usually center on a wrong question. The question to be asked is not whether the death penalty deters would-be murderers, but whether it deters them more than the prospect of life imprisonment" (p. 292). The threat of execution vs. life imprisonment, then, is the essence of the debate over the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent.

There are some profound constraints involved in the capital punishment as a deterrent analysis, though. In this regard, Steiker (2005) emphasizes that, "We have not been and never will be able to verify the deterrent effect of executions by conducting a 'controlled' scientific experiment, which would randomly assign either execution or some term of years to similarly situated defendants in similarly situated jurisdictions" (p. 751). Such constraints are compounded by a number of other factors as well. Indeed, even the perception of the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent largely depends on an individual's views concerning the death penalty, with those in favor of capital punishment viewing studies of deterrence differently than those who are opposed to the practice (Burke, 2006).

Furthermore, an examination of the relationship between homicides and capital punishment rates provides mixed results as well. During the first decade of the 20th century, for instance, execution and homicide rates appeared approximately uncorrelated; during the 1920s, though, the execution rate in the United States significantly declined and the rate of homicides increased (Donohue & Wolfers, 2005). During the subsequent 40-year period, the relationship between capital punishment rates and homicides became more noticeably correlated, with both increasing during the decades of the 1920s and 1930s, but decreasing simultaneously during the 1940s and 1950s (Donohue & Wolfers). According to these authors, "As the death penalty fell into disuse in the 1960s, the homicide rate rose sharply. The death penalty moratorium that began with Furman in 1972 and ended with Gregg [vs. Georgia] in 1976 appears to have been a period in which the homicide rate rose. The homicide rate then remained high and variable through the 1980s while the rate of executions rose" (p. 791). Certainly, it is reasonable to conclude that when criminals are executed, they will not commit any future crimes, but from a deterrence perspective for others, the picture is somewhat different. Therefore, as Fattah points out, "The question is not whether the death penalty has a deterrent effect but whether it provides a unique and supreme deterrent, whether it is the most powerful and most effective of all deterrents" (p. 292). Because the United States remains one of the few countries in the world where capital punishment is practiced, these questions have assumed some new importance and relevance in recent years.

According to Stolzenberg and D'Alessio, though, the results of analyses of the deterrent effect of capital punishment to date have provided mixed results. As these authors emphasize, "Healthy debate persists as to the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Although an expansive and diverse body of research has accumulated that examines the effect of executions or execution publicity on murder rates, this research affords few definitive conclusions. On one hand, there is evidence that executions reduce murder levels. On the other hand, several studies fail to discern convincing evidence of a relationship" (Stolzenberg & D'Alessio p. 351).

Proponents of capital punishment maintain that its deterrent effects are significant and justify the infliction of the "supreme deterrent" (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005). According to these authors, "A leading national study suggests that each execution prevents some eighteen murders, on average. If the current evidence is even roughly correct, then a refusal to impose capital punishment will effectively condemn numerous innocent people to death" (Sunstein & Vermeule, p. 703-704). Similarly, Donohue and Wolfers (2005) report that the perception of the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent was reinforced following an analysis of national time-series data in 1975 that claimed that each execution saved eight lives. Likewise, in their study, "Marginal deterrence and multiple murders," Ekelund, Jackson, Ressler and Tollison (2006) report that, "Study of the deterrent effect of capital punishment has become a staple of the economic literature emphasizing marginal behavior. The preponderance but not the totality of empirical evidence in this ever-growing literature is that higher arrest, sentencing, and execution probabilities -- marginal deterrence -- all lower the murder rate" (p. 521). Critics of the death penalty, though, have cited increasing concerns about capital punishment, including whether it actually a deterrent for other violent crimes, the extent to which it provides closure for the families of victims, as well as whether capital punishment is in reality a type of social revenge, and the extent to which capital punishment as a type of justice can actually increase violent crime (Moore, 2006).

Following their review of capital punishment statistics during the period from the 1920s through the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court's handed down its decision in Furman v. Georgia in June 1972 (Grant, 2004). According to Sigler (2003), "In Furman, the Court effectively abolished the death penalty in the United States, having determined that imposition of the punishment under the challenged state statutes resulted in arbitrary and capricious decision-making" (p. 1151) In the majority's opinion in Furman, Justice William J. Brennan noted that, "When a country of over 200 million people inflicts an unusually severe punishment no more than 50 times a year, the inference is strong that the punishment is not being regularly and fairly applied" (quoted in Grant, 2004 at p. 25). Moreover, the decision in Furman v. Georgia included that finding that because life imprisonment was as effective a deterrent as capital punishment, executions were deemed excessive (Grant). These observations are congruent with other critics of capital punishment. For example, Ferrall (2005) points out that, "Incapacitation and deterrence also fail to provide consistent grounds for the death penalty, both because methods of predicting future dangerousness are not sufficiently reliable to justify execution, and because the data has not unequivocally established the deterrent effect of capital punishment over that of life imprisonment" (p. 365).

The finality of the punishment involved is perhaps the overriding concern because a growing number of condemned capital offense prisoners have subsequently been exonerated through new investigative technique, particularly DNA evidence. In this regard, Steiker and Steiker (2005) report that the growing debate over the efficacy of capital punishment has been focused on this finalty: "Advocates for reform or abolition of capital punishment have seized upon this issue to promote various public policy initiatives to address the crisis, including proposals for more complete DNA collection and testing, procedural reforms in capital cases, substantive limits on the use of capital punishment, suspension of executions, and outright abolition" (p. 587).

Chapter 2: Review of the Relevant Literature

The deterrent aspects of capital punishment are well established in the historical record As Plato noted early on in Protagoras, "Punishment is not inflicted by a rational man for the sake of the crime that has been committed -- after all one cannot undo what is past -- but for the sake of the future, to prevent either the same man or, by the spectacle of his punishment, someone else, from doing wrong again" (quoted in Stolzenberg & D'Alessio at p. 351). According to Fattah (1981), "Discussions around the deterrent effect of capital punishment usually center on a wrong question. The question to be asked is not whether the death penalty deters would-be murderers, but whether it deters them more than the prospect of life imprisonment" (p. 292). The threat of execution vs. life imprisonment, then, is the essence of the debate over the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent.

There are some profound constraints involved in the capital punishment as a deterrent analysis, though. In this regard, Steiker (2005) emphasizes that, "We have not been and never will be able to verify the deterrent effect of executions by conducting a 'controlled' scientific experiment, which would randomly assign either execution or some term of years to similarly situated defendants in similarly situated jurisdictions" (p. 751). Such constraints are compounded by a number of other factors as well. Indeed, even the perception of the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent largely depends on an individual's views concerning the death penalty, with those in favor of capital punishment viewing studies of deterrence differently than those who are opposed to the practice (Burke, 2006).

Furthermore, an examination of the relationship between homicides and capital punishment rates provides mixed results as well. During the first decade of the 20th century, for instance, execution and homicide rates appeared approximately uncorrelated; during the 1920s, though, the execution rate in the United States significantly declined and the rate of homicides increased (Donohue & Wolfers, 2005). During the subsequent 40-year period, the relationship between capital punishment rates and homicides became more noticeably correlated, with both increasing during the decades of the 1920s and 1930s, but decreasing simultaneously during the 1940s and 1950s (Donohue & Wolfers). According to these authors, "As the death penalty fell into disuse in the 1960s, the homicide rate rose sharply. The death penalty moratorium that began with Furman in 1972 and ended with Gregg [vs. Georgia] in 1976 appears to have been a period in which the homicide rate rose. The homicide rate then remained high and variable through the 1980s while the rate of executions rose" (p. 791). Certainly, it is reasonable to conclude that when criminals are executed, they will not commit any future crimes, but from a deterrence perspective for others, the picture is somewhat different. Therefore, as Fattah points out, "The question is not whether the death penalty has a deterrent effect but whether it provides a unique and supreme deterrent, whether it is the most powerful and most effective of all deterrents" (p. 292). Because the United States remains one of the few countries in the world where capital punishment is practiced, these questions have assumed some new importance and relevance in recent years.

According to Stolzenberg and D'Alessio, though, the results of analyses of the deterrent effect of capital punishment to date have provided mixed results. As these authors emphasize, "Healthy debate persists as to the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Although an expansive and diverse body of research has accumulated that examines the effect of executions or execution publicity on murder rates, this research affords few definitive conclusions. On one hand, there is evidence that executions reduce murder levels. On the other hand, several studies fail to discern convincing evidence of a relationship" (Stolzenberg & D'Alessio p. 351).

Proponents of capital punishment maintain that its deterrent effects are significant and justify the infliction of the "supreme deterrent" (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005). According to these authors, "A leading national study suggests that each execution prevents some eighteen murders, on average. If the current evidence is even roughly correct, then a refusal to impose capital punishment will effectively condemn numerous innocent people to death" (Sunstein & Vermeule, p. 703-704). Similarly, Donohue and Wolfers (2005) report that the perception of the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent was reinforced following an analysis of national time-series data in 1975 that claimed that each execution saved eight lives. Likewise, in their study, "Marginal deterrence and multiple murders," Ekelund, Jackson, Ressler and Tollison (2006) report that, "Study of the deterrent effect of capital punishment has become a staple of the economic literature emphasizing marginal behavior. The preponderance but not the totality of empirical evidence in this ever-growing literature is that higher arrest, sentencing, and execution probabilities -- marginal deterrence -- all lower the murder rate" (p. 521). Critics of the death penalty, though, have cited increasing concerns about capital punishment, including whether it actually a deterrent for other violent crimes, the extent to which it provides closure for the families of victims, as well as whether capital punishment is in reality a type of social revenge, and the extent to which capital punishment as a type of justice can actually increase violent crime (Moore, 2006).