Deterrence News and Developments: 1995 – 2004

Article Examines Statistical Models of Measuring Deterrence
In the July 2004 Skeptical Enquirer, Rutgers Sociology pro­fes­sor Ted Goertzel exam­ines the meth­ods — and the vari­ant results that emerge — used in study­ing the deter­rent effect of exe­cu­tions on homi­cide. Read the article here.

Scientific American Looks at Crime Rates
In his Scientific American mag­a­zine arti­cle enti­tled, ​“The Case of the Unsolved Crime Decline,” crim­i­nol­o­gist Richard Rosenfeld exam­ines why U.S. crime rates dropped more than 40% in the 1990’s and what lessons cur­rent pol­i­cy-mak­ers can learn from this decline. Rosenfeld pro­vides an overview and eval­u­a­tion of pre­vi­ous research show­ing a link in the crime rate decline and fac­tors such as changes in demo­graph­ics, law-enforce­ment prac­tices, eco­nom­ic con­di­tions, incar­cer­a­tion rates, domes­tic vio­lence and firearm poli­cies, and the use of guns by young drug deal­ers. He con­cludes that while each of these may have con­tributed toward the decline in seri­ous vio­lent and prop­er­ty crime rates, some of the poli­cies also pro­duced unin­tend­ed pol­i­cy effects that could have been avoid­ed if research-based pol­i­cy exper­i­ments had been con­duct­ed. For exam­ple, stiffer sen­tences for adult drug offend­ers, a pol­i­cy designed to deter crime, may actu­al­ly facil­i­tate the crim­i­nal careers and short­en the lives of the youth­ful drug sell­ers who take their place. Based on his research, Rosenfeld pro­vides three lessons that he believes soci­ety can draw that may help antic­i­pate and even head off the next crime rate rise. These lessons include divid­ing crime trends into their com­po­nent parts, look­ing for unin­tend­ed pol­i­cy effects and engag­ing in research-based pol­i­cy exper­i­ments before new pro­grams are imple­ment­ed. (Scientific American, February 2004) 

Study Identifies Flaws in Recent Deterrence Research
A new study con­duct­ed by Professor Richard Berk of the UCLA Department of Statistics has iden­ti­fied sig­nif­i­cant sta­tis­ti­cal prob­lems with the data analy­sis used to sup­port recent stud­ies claim­ing to show that exe­cu­tions deter crime in the United States. In ​“New Claims about Executions and General Deterrence: Deja Vu All Over Again?,” Professor Berk address­es the prob­lem of ​“influ­ence,” which occurs when a very small and atyp­i­cal frac­tion of the avail­able data dom­i­nates the sta­tis­ti­cal results of a study. He found that this sta­tis­ti­cal prob­lem is found in a num­ber of recent stud­ies claim­ing to show that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment deters vio­lent crime. The UCLA study con­duct­ed by Berk found that in many instances the num­ber of exe­cu­tions by state and year is the key explana­to­ry vari­able used by researchers, despite the fact that many states in most years exe­cute no one and few states in par­tic­u­lar years exe­cute more than five indi­vid­u­als. These val­ues rep­re­sent about 1% of the avail­able obser­va­tions that could have been used by researchers to draw con­clu­sions for ear­li­er stud­ies claim­ing to find that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is a deter­rent. In Professor Berk’s study, a re-analy­sis of the exist­ing data shows that claims of deter­rence are a sta­tis­ti­cal arti­fact of this anomalous 1%.
In the abstract, Berk writes:

“A num­ber of papers have recent­ly appeared claim­ing to show that in the United States exe­cu­tions deter seri­ous crime. There are many sta­tis­ti­cal prob­lems with the data analy­ses report­ed. This paper address­es the prob­lem of ​“influ­ence,” which occurs when a very small and atyp­i­cal frac­tion of the data dom­i­nate the sta­tis­ti­cal results. The num­ber of exe­cu­tions by state and year is the key explana­to­ry vari­able, and most states in most years exe­cute no one. A very few states in par­tic­u­lar years exe­cute more than 5 indi­vid­u­als. Such val­ues rep­re­sent about 1% of the avail­able obser­va­tions. Re-analy­ses of the exist­ing data are pre­sent­ed show­ing that claims of deter­rence are a sta­tis­ti­cal arti­fact of the anomalous 1%.”

(Published on UCLA’s Web site, July 19, 2004).

Gallup Poll Finds Decreased Support for Death Penalty When Compared with Life Sentence
A May 2004 Gallup Poll found that a grow­ing num­ber of Americans sup­port a sen­tence of life with­out parole rather than the death penal­ty for those con­vict­ed of mur­der. Gallup found that 46% of respon­dents favor life impris­on­ment over the death penal­ty, up from 44% in May 2003. During that same time frame, sup­port for cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment as an alter­na­tive fell from 53% to 50%. The poll also revealed a grow­ing skep­ti­cism that the death penal­ty deters crime, with 62% of those polled say­ing that it is not a deter­rent. These per­cent­ages are a dra­mat­ic shift from the respons­es giv­en to this same ques­tion in 1991, when 51% of Americans believed the death penal­ty deterred crime and only 41% believed it did not. Only 55% of those polled respond­ed that they believed the death penal­ty is imple­ment­ed fair­ly, down from 60% in 2003. When not offered an alter­na­tive sen­tence, 71% sup­port­ed the death penal­ty and 26% opposed. The over­all sup­port is about the same as that report­ed in 2002, but down from the 80% sup­port in 1994. (Gallup Poll News Service, June 2, 2004) Read the Gallup Press Release.

FBI Report Reveals Murder Rate Rise in the South 
According to the FBI’s Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002, the mur­der rate in the South increased by 2.1% while the mur­der rate in the Northeast decreased by almost 5%. The South accounts for 82% of all exe­cu­tions since 1976; the Northeast accounts for less than 1%. Read the report. (FBI Preliminary Uniform Crime Report 2002, June 16, 2003). 

Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas. Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart exam­ined exe­cu­tions in Texas between 1984 and 1997. They spec­u­lat­ed that if a deter­rent effect were to exist, it would be found in Texas because of the high num­ber of death sen­tences and exe­cu­tions with­in the state. Using pat­terns in exe­cu­tions across the study peri­od and the rel­a­tive­ly steady rate of mur­ders in Texas, the authors found no evi­dence of a deter­rent effect. The study con­clud­ed that the num­ber of exe­cu­tions was unre­lat­ed to mur­der rates in gen­er­al, and that the num­ber of exe­cu­tions was unre­lat­ed to felony rates. (45 Crime and Delinquency 481 – 93 (1999)).

Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty: Another Examination of Oklahoma’s Return to Capital Punishment. In this study, author William Bailey spec­u­lat­ed that if exe­cu­tions had a deter­rent effect in Oklahoma, it would be observ­able by com­par­ing mur­der rates and rates of sub-types of mur­der, such as felony-mur­der, stranger rob­bery-relat­ed killings, stranger non-felony mur­der, and argu­ment-relat­ed killings, before and after the resump­tion of exe­cu­tions. Bailey exam­ined the peri­od between 1989 and 1991 for total killings and sub-types of killing. After con­trol­ling for a num­ber of vari­ables, Bailey found that there was no evi­dence for a deter­rent effect. He did, how­ev­er, find that there was a sig­nif­i­cant increase in stranger killings and non-felony stranger killings after Oklahoma resumed exe­cu­tions after a 25-year mora­to­ri­um. (36 Criminology 711 – 33 (1998)).

Effects of an Execution on Homicides in California. Author Ernie Thompson exam­ined crim­i­nal homi­cides in Los Angeles before and after California’s exe­cu­tion of Robert Harris in 1992, the state’s first exe­cu­tion after a 25-year mora­to­ri­um. Thompson found slight increas­es in homi­cides dur­ing the eight months fol­low­ing the exe­cu­tion. (3 Homicide Studies 129 – 150 (1999)).

The Geography of Execution: The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America. Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood stud­ied dif­fer­ences in homi­cides and vio­lent crime in 293 pairs of coun­ties. Counties were matched in pairs based on geo­graph­ic loca­tion, region­al con­text, his­tor­i­cal devel­op­ment, demo­graph­ic and eco­nom­ic vari­ables. The pairs shared a con­tigu­ous bor­der, but dif­fered on use of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. The authors found no sup­port for a deter­rent effect of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment at the coun­ty lev­el com­par­ing matched coun­ties inside and out­side states with cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, with and with­out a death row pop­u­la­tion, and with and with­out exe­cu­tions. The authors did find high­er vio­lent crime rates in death penal­ty coun­ties. (Rowman and Littlefiled Publishers, Lanham, MD (1997))

Homicide Rates Fall in Canada After Abolition of Death Penalty 
The abo­li­tion of the death penal­ty in Canada in 1976 has not led to increased homi­cide rates. Statistics Canada reports that the num­ber of homi­cides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% low­er than the num­ber of homi­cides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penal­ty was abol­ished. In addi­tion, homi­cide rates in Canada are gen­er­al­ly three times low­er than homi­cide rates in the U.S., which uses the death penal­ty. For exam­ple, accord­ing to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homi­cide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 pop­u­la­tion and the rate in Canada was only 1.8. Canada cur­rent­ly sen­tences those con­vict­ed of mur­der to life sen­tences with parole eli­gi­bil­i­ty. (Issues Direct​.com, 8/​4/​02).

At her week­ly Justice Department news brief­ing, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said that she has yet to find any evi­dence that the death penal­ty deters crime. ​“I have inquired for most of my adult life about stud­ies that might show that the death penal­ty is a deter­rent. And I have not seen any research that would sub­stan­ti­ate that point,” said Reno. (Reuters, 1/​21/​00)

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the South repeat­ed­ly has the high­est mur­der rate. In 1999, it was the only region with a mur­der rate above the nation­al rate. The South accounts for 80% of exe­cu­tions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all exe­cu­tions in the U.S., has the low­est murder rate.