Death penalty found to have little deterrent effect

Over the weekend Houston Chronicle columnist Rick Casey wrote an interesting piece on whether or not the death penalty has any deterrent effect. Sociologist Thorsten Sellin found no deterrent effect when he studied the issue in 1967. One year later Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, determined the death penalty had a deterrent effect.

In 2005 two different studies reached bizarrely contradictory conclusions with one study suggesting that the death penalty might contribute to additional murders due to cultural brutalization while another study found that the death penalty saved about 150 lives a year.

Now the journal of the American Society of Criminology, Criminology, is about to release a study conducted by Duke sociologist Kenneth C. Land and Sam Houston State criminologist Raymond Teske, Jr. that concludes there is not enough data to make any definitive statement about the effect of the death penalty on national murder rates since the number of executions (outside the State of Texas) are too sporadic to draw any valid conclusions.

This new study focuses on the effect of executions in Texas since the death machine kicked into overdrive back in 1994. Their research seems to indicate that since 1994, the murder rate in Texas has declined between .5 and 2.5 homicides in the months after each execution. At the low end that would translate to 5 to 10 fewer murders a year.

Mr. Casey points out that the study found no correlation between the amount of publicity for each execution and any subsequent drop in the homicide rate. The study also shows that this "deterrent" effect is stronger on murders for which the death penalty is not an option.

As long as people drink and argue about girls and money there are going to be murders and no number of executions is going to stop it.

Deterrence and DWI

Doug Berman, the author of the Sentencing Law and Policy blog, has chimed in with his opinion regarding the "leniency" courts have (supposedly) shown convicted drunk drivers. His argument is that repeat offenders should be treated more harshly in an attempt to get them to see the error of their ways.  

Mr. Berman's thesis is based upon the faulty notion that we are all rational beings and subject each and every decision to a cost-benefit analysis.  This is the basis of the concept of deterrence.

Senior Criminal District Judge Larry Gist, of Beaumont, Texas, has a slightly different view of our fellow citizens.  In an October 2007 article in Voice for the Defense (the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's Association magazine) he suggests we all fall into one of three categories: NORPS, SLICKS or SLUGS.

NORPS are Normal Ordinary Responsible People (presumably like us) who are generally responsible and are capable of self-correction.  Rehabilitation and deterrence work for NORPS because NORPS are rational (most of the time).  For instance, when a NORP is arrested for DWI his or her eyes are opened wide to the cost (in time, reputation and money) involved in handling a DWI arrest.  Going through the process is enough to convince them not to get behind the wheel impaired in the future.

SLICKS are the folks who think they are smarter than everyone else -- we all know someone who falls into this category.  SLICKS are (generally) incapable or rehabilitating themselves due to their anger and hatred of society.  These are the folks who deserve to be hanging out in the "Grey Bar Hilton."  SLICKS are incapable of rational thought and deterrence doesn't work for them.

SLUGS get into trouble because they commit stupid, impulsive and poorly-planned crimes. SLUGS seek out attention.  SLUGS never accept responsibility for their actions and don't really care if they are incarcerated (three full meals a day and a bed to sleep in) or rescued by a "do-gooder" who take over his problems.  SLUGS don't respond to deterrents.

Mr. Berman's idea seems to be to raise the cost of committing a DWI to such a level that the cost far outweighs the pleasure/benefit derived from driving drunk.  The problem is that most folks who pick up multiple DWI's aren't NORPS and don't think rationally when making decisions. Therefore, upping the penalties won't cause them to curb their behavior.