Does the Death Penalty Really Deter?

You will undoubtedly be surprised at the results of this recent

study which looked at deterrence and the death penalty.

It was posted on Grits for Breakfast and concluded that

there was no deterrence.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2009

Criminologists: Death penalty does not deter

Via Capital Defense Weekly, I was interested to see this new survey of top US criminologists (pdf) on the question of whether the death penalty deters murder, a debate refocused by several much-disputed studies (mostly by economists) in the last six years claiming to find a deterrent, after "scores" of studies by criminologists over previous decades had reached the opposite conclusion. The authors analyze recent studies on death penalty deterrence and follow up by replicating a survey of criminologists published 12 years ago, before the recent econometric studies were published.

Despite these new studies, however, most criminologists (88.2%) still "do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent," researchers found, while 87% said abolishing the death penalty would have no effect on murder rates.

A whopping 90.9% thought it was largely or totally accurate that "Politicians support the death penalty as a symbolic way to show they are tough on crime," but 89.5% said it was largely or totally inaccurate that "The death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides."

The empirical evidence contradicting the deterrence thesis is quite strong. For example, in 2007, the authors note, the homicide rate in states with active death penalty statutes was 42% higher than that of non-death-penalty states. Read the full paper (pdf, 20 pages with appendices) for much more detail and references to research on both sides of the debate.

MORE: From the Dallas News Death Penalty Blog.

Criminal Justice and the Legislature of 2009

This blog called Grits for Breakfast discusses criminal justice news from Texas.

With the end of the legislative session, you might be interested to know the bills

that the governor vetoed. To see them, click here.

Assembly line juvenile waivers are unjust

The Houston Chronicle reports that Houston waived 162 youth

between 14-17 years old in a one year period. Nine other counties

combined including Bexar (San Antonio), Tarrant (Fort Worth)

and Dallas waived 143 in comparison.

Before certifying a child, juvenile judges are supposed to hold a

hearing and review evidence about the seriousness and nature

of the offense, a child’s maturity and background, the likelihood

of rehabilitation and the need for protection for the community,

according to state law.

Some juveniles have been certified for property crimes,

like car theft, or drug charges, a review of recent cases

and statistics showed .

A 16-year-old special education student currently faces a potential

sentence of life without parole for capital murder, though some

witnesses described the crime as an accident. The boy, who had

no criminal history, attacked his older brother with a kitchen

knife for threatening a stray cat. During the struggle in their

crowded apartment, the boys’ 2-year-old nephew received

a single, but fatal wound, court records show. The teen was

certified as an adult, though psychiatric evaluations said he

functions at a third- to fifth-grade level.

Another recent case involved a 15-year-old found with drugs

at school. The boy, whose father is dead and mother abandoned

him, has been raised by an ailing aunt.

Waivers should be reserved for cases where there is no hope

of rehabilitation; this article leads one to believe that there

is a different criteria used in Houston and its fairness is

being called into question.

A nominee's legal philosophy is what really counts

A great deal of the caseload for the United States Supreme Court 

and other appellate courts involves deciding what a word in 

a statute or even the Constitution means. There are cases 

when Justices must decide if the Constitution's words are meant 

to be limited to the times  in which they were written or can be 

considered in light of today's standards . Two Justices on a panel 

debated  whether the Constitution is a "living" document meant 

to expand to meet the times. Justice Antonin Scalia said it is not.

For example, the 8th Amendments prohibition against 

cruel and unusual  punishment was written in an era where 

lethal injections were unknown. But the Court had to consider 

whether the mixture used today in many states met the 

"cruel and unusual" standard.  

An article by Michael Dorf explains Supreme Court nominee

Sonia Sotormayer's legal philosophy which he says is legal 

realism as opposed to Chief  Justice Robert and Justice 

Thomas's philosophy which is legal formalism. 

Each of these philosophies would look at the words 

involved in a statute differently. Consider that Plessey 

v. Ferguson held that separate could be equal and thus 

separate schools, restrooms, train cars based on race 

were constitutional. When Brown v. Board of Education 

was decided, the Court declared unanimously that separate 

can never be truly equal  and desegregation came to be 

the rule of the country.

When they are written, statutes can never be considered 

in every kind of situation. This is equally true of rules and 

regulations. Does the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion 

trump prison security regarding facial  hair when a religion 

prohibits shaving? When the disability statute requires 

"reasonable" accommodation, what is reasonable?

Deciding what the "law" truly says means analyzing words 

in statutes and in the constitution. Thus the philosophy 

of a jurist will give clues to the approach used to decipher 

words. 

Keeping up on crime in your area

An article in the Wall Street Journal today discusses the trend of

having area crime news available shortly after the crime is verified

by the police. Since 2007 more than 800 police

departments are providing crime reports to at least three Internet

sites. This is enabling residents to get an email alert if there is

a crime in the neighborhood.

The service is free to the public but costs the police department

$200 a month. The question raised is whether this is money

well spent when budgets are so tight.

The biggest advantage would be like an early warning signal. 

However one needs to have Internet access and check email

often to learn about the crime in a timely fashion. 

This reminded me of the old "hue and cry" that existed

in early England prior to the formation of police departments.

Neighborhood watch groups could assign someone to monitor

the sites in specific time periods on specific days. But with so

many homes unoccupied during the day when the residents

are at work the disadvantage is that those who are at home

might bear the brunt of the notification system.

You can easily check to see if your neighborhood is included

by going to the web sites mentioned in the article:

CrimeMapping.com,CrimeReports.com and EveryBlock.com

If your neighborhood is not included, you can discuss the need for it,

or the reverse as the case may be, and then bring it up to city

government for consideration.

Technology, GIS, and police are joing forces and we shall probably

see more examples of technology used to include public

awareness in the future.

Going Against Logic

It is quite easy to predict that most citizens would assume crime rates are

rising because the economy is bad. But the information released by the

UCR reveals just the opposite.

"Preliminary statistics from theUniform Crime Report, 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual compilation 

of crime reports from local and state police agencies, 

showed that murders declined by 4.4 percent in 2008, 

rapes declined 2.2 percent, robberies declined 1.1 percent 

and assaults dropped 3.2 percent.

Property crimes were also down over all. 

Burglaries increased 1.3 percent, but motor vehicle theft dropped 

by 13 percent and arson declined 3.9 percent." according to

an article in the New York Times.

No doubt criminologists will be studying the issue in depth

and presenting theories to explain what has happened and

why. 

Could people cutting back on going out have any

connection with the lower rape? Fewer strangers meeting

up and offering fewer opportunities? It will be interesting

to see what theories are offered and if they remain valid

as the economy, hopefully, improves.

What do you think the reason is? 

Maybe we need a pre-parenting test to safeguard our children

Today's newspaper contained an article about a three-year
old from Bakerfield, California, who apparently found a loaded gun
under her parent's bed and accidentally shot and killed her
two year old brother. According to Bakersfield police
Sgt Greg Terry says the girl apparently found a .45 calibre
semi-automatic handgun under her parents' bed on Wednesday
afternoon and accidentally shot her brother.

The mother was in another room in the apartment.

The threat of prison which will quite often result does not seem
to be sufficient. The possibility of losing a child does not seem
to be sufficient. So what must we do to keep children safely
away from the homes of such irresponsible adults?

If this were an isolated incident that had not happened before,
public reaction might be different. But the fact remains that
children are put in danger when irresponsible adults have
both children and guns that are stored fully loaded and easily
found.

We need to find a way before another innocent child is buried.

Do you have any idea of something that might prevent these
needless deaths?