More on Death Penalty Deterrent Effect

The New York Times has an article today examining the death penalty's deterrent effect. Some of the study information became available several months ago, but it examines the issue in a little more depth than some previous articles I read back then.

Incidentally, the primary study cited was done by a death penalty opponent, so it can't be said that he slanted his research to make it come out in favor of a death penalty deterrent.

“I personally am opposed to the death penalty,” said H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study finding that each execution saves five lives. “But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect.”

Though I have always been a supporter of the death penalty, I was actually a little surprised that there was a solid deterrent effect, give that the average time between sentence and execution in the U.S. is about 12 years. And as the article says, only about one in 300 homicides results in an execution.

But on that subject, the research found something that goes along with what I've just said:

The effect is most pronounced, according to some studies, in Texas and other states that execute condemned inmates relatively often and relatively quickly.

That would make sense. Since the crime and the punishment are closer together, there is a better relationship between cause and effect. When a wrongdoer is not punished for his crimes for a long time, the causal relationship becomes blurry.

The article addresses those who oppose the death penalty on ostensibly "pro-life" grounds:

Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science.

“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”

The primary reason for the death penalty, however, is NOT the deterrent effect. We execute the convicted murderer to bring justice.

God delegated this responsibility to human government in Genesis 9:6 after the Flood. This edict predates the Mosaic Law, and thus is irrelevant to discussions that Jesus might have abolished this mandate when he established the New Covenant. Consider, too, that VIOLENCE was one of the reasons the Bible lists for God's destruction of humanity (save Noah and his family) during the Flood. God may have considered this first imposition of the death penalty in Genesis 9:6 necessary to prevent humanity from returning to the violent state in which existed before the Flood.

The concept of restitution and repayment for crimes is vital to any serious system of justice. The only thing is, when you kill someone, there is no way to restore their unique human life. The closest you can come to making restitution and reparation is to give up your own life.

While the death penalty exists primarily to carry out justice for a human life wrongfully taken, it's good to know that it also has the effect of deterring potential murderers from taking innocent human life.