Opponents of the death penalty like to tell us that there's no deterrent effect from capital punishment. Since it takes an average of 11 years to execute a convicted murderer, thus far removing the act from it's consequences, that might not be a surprise.
But would it be a surprise if there were STILL a deterrent effect even with that 11 year gap between cause and effect?
The Wall Street Journal features an article by Roy Adler and Michael Summers with a study finding that for every execution, the following year sees 74 fewer murders.
Among the findings:
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.
The death penalty should be used--and used much more quickly--not only for it's life-saving effect, but because justice demands it.
You see, deterrent is a positive side-effect, not the object of capital punishment. We execute the convicted murderer because we recognize the value of innocent human life. In murdering someone, you steal their ability to care for their family, love their spouse and children, attain their dreams, and accomplish things; you have stolen TIME from them, the very years of their life. Inherent in any good justice system is the concept of restitution; if you take something, you replace or pay back. The only thing is, you can't restore or pay back a stolen life. The closest you can come is to give up your own life. In doing so, you acknowledge the wrongful taking of those years from the victim, and the value of those stolen years.
The by-product of paying the ultimate price for the theft of a person's life is that it instills in the public an appreciation for innocent human life (it's so sacred that you must give up your own life for the life wrongly taken)...and it sends a message to those who might be inclined to kill to think twice: is it really worth risking your life to end the life of another?
2 comments:
If the death penalty is such a good deterrent, why are there so many hundreds of thousands of more murders per year in the USA than there are in Canada, where we haven't had any death penalty for at least 30 years. You'd think we'd be run rampant up here with bloodthirsty foes.
Because for the most part we do not have a functioning death penalty in the United States.
The average time from sentencing to execution is about 12 years.
When the punishment is so far removed by time from the crime, the deterrence effect is negligible.
Our judicial system has also become very liberal, and it is difficult to even GET a criminal convicted; our officials look at the justice system as a silly game instead of serious business, and stack it ridiculously in favor of the criminal.
Finally, we have considerably more freedom in the U.S. than you have in Canada. With freedom there must be a commensurate recognition of the need for responsibility. Our abandon of moral absolutes in such an environment--coupled with a corrupt legal system which gives criminals pretty good odds of getting away with their crimes--fosters an environment of disregard and contempt for the law...and thus more crime.
Post a Comment