In an op-ed for Newsweek, Stanford Law Professor John Donohue argues that there is not the slight­est cred­i­ble sta­tis­ti­cal evi­dence that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment reduces the rate of homi­cide” and presents data to show that the death penal­ty is not an effec­tive deter­rent. Comparisons between neigh­bor­ing juris­dic­tions show no effect of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment: Whether one com­pares the sim­i­lar move­ments of homi­cide in Canada and the U.S., when only the lat­ter restored the death penal­ty, or in American states that have abol­ished it ver­sus those that retain it, or in Hong Kong and Singapore (the first abol­ish­ing the death penal­ty in the mid-1990s, and the sec­ond great­ly increas­ing its usage at the same), there is no detectable effect of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment on crime.” He cites a 2012 study by the National Academy of Sciences, which, con­clud­ed that there was no cred­i­ble evi­dence that the death penal­ty deters homi­cides.” He also appeals to the psy­chol­o­gy of crime and pun­ish­ment: Since mur­der­ers typ­i­cal­ly expose them­selves to far greater imme­di­ate risks, the like­li­hood is incred­i­bly remote that some small chance of exe­cu­tion many years after com­mit­ting a crime will influ­ence the behav­ior of a socio­path­ic deviant who would oth­er­wise be will­ing to kill if his only penal­ty were life impris­on­ment.” Donohue argues that a more effec­tive way of reduc­ing mur­ders is to take the resources that would oth­er­wise be wast­ed in oper­at­ing a death penal­ty regime and use them on strate­gies that are known to reduce crime,” such as improved polic­ing. Donohue con­cludes, With zero evi­dence that the death penal­ty pro­vides any tan­gi­ble ben­e­fits and very clear indi­ca­tions of its mon­e­tary, human and social costs, this is one pro­gram about which there can be lit­tle debate that its costs unde­ni­ably out­weigh any possible benefits.”

(J. Donohue, Does the Death Penalty Deter Killers?,” Newsweek, August 19, 2015.) See Deterrence and Studies.

Citation Guide