| DETERRENCE & BRUTALIZATION (effects of executions on homicides) As the discussion of the Abstract DP pointed out, typically both opponents and defenders of the DP choose their arguments and evidence to support their own beliefs, and ignore other evidence that might challenge or refute their beliefs. Anti DP arguments regularly appear in newspaper and magazine articles "debunking" the idea of deterrence. Typical arguments include; claims that research studies in recent years have found no deterrent effect of executions (in reality, some have and some haven't); claims that the murder rate is twice as high in DP states as in neighboring non-DP states (in reality this depends on which states you compare); the claim that polls show that most US police chiefs and most of the public believe that the DP is not a deterrent (but they rarely point out that both believe this because they think there are too few executions to have a deterrent effect, not because they think that deterrence doesn't work). Pro DP arguments usually appear in material put out by prosecutors and conservative groups, often on the internet. Typical arguments include claims: that "30 years of studies suggest that the DP is a deterrent" (they cite only the few studies that support the claim and ignore the many others that don�t); research that televising executions would deter homicides (the study examined only short term effects, not long term effects); a single amateurish "study" by a conservative ideologue claims that each execution deters 18 homicides; and another single amateurish "study" that claimed to prove that executions in Utah led to fewer homicides. Background/History of Deterrence Research The question of whether punishment deters behavior is one of the most researched questions in criminology. Since the assumption that deterrence works is at the heart of rationales of most legal systems, the traditional research mostly focused narrowly on whether deterrence works, and ignored the possibility that punishment might actually increase the behavior that it tries to deter, a claim long made by those who support a view called brutalization theory. Deterrence theory is based on the idea that humans are �rational� and choose behaviors based on costs and benefits likely to result from choices. With regard to the DP, this means that fear of execution should lead those inclined to kill others to have �second thoughts� and thus the DP should lead to lower homicide rates. The basic research problem lies in how to isolate the effects of the fear of execution from the many other (cultural and social) factors that are likely to influence homicide rates. Traditional deterrence researchers over the last eighty years used several techniques to try to isolate the effects of the DP, including studying homicide rates in �contiguous states� (side by side states, one with the DP, the other without), before and after studies that compare homicide rates before and after executions (or other changes in DP policies), and econometric studies which involve very complex statistical procedures to try to �control for� extraneous factors. Most of the researchers reported finding no deterrent effect of executions on homicides. In 1980, criminologist William Bowers re-examined the data from many of these earlier studies and found that, while the authors had accurately reported finding no deterrent effects, their data actually consistently showed small increases in homicides, the opposite of what deterrence theory would predict. Bowers called these small but consistent increases a �brutalization effect� and argued on the basis of this evidence that rather than deterring homicides, the DP actually causes additional homicides. Based on this and other evidence, brutalization theory is based on the fact that most homicides appear not to result from rational decisions, but rather are impulsive acts done on the spur of the moment � as many homicide researchers put it, most homicides in the US result from arguments, alcohol, and a handy weapon, usually a gun, and occur in the context of a larger �culture of violence� where lethal violence is seen as a legitimate response to threats, especially among young males, where homicide rates are highest. Contemporary Research on the Effects of Executions on Homicides Much of the recent professional research in this area (since the 1990s) has been designed to test for both deterrent and brutalization effects of the DP. Using a technique called �disaggregation� (based on sophisticated homicide data collected by the FBI) which allows researchers to single out and analyze different characteristics of offenders and victims, circumstances of particular types of homicides, weapons used, etc. researchers hypothesize that both theories might be correct � the DP might deter �rational� homicides � planned homicides, etc. � while simultaneously causing additional �impulsive� homicides � argument/alcohol/handy gun homicides, etc. Some consistent findings are emerging from this recent research, especially from several studies of homicides before and after single executions in particular states or jurisdictions. 1. There is some evidence of some deterrent effects of executions � a very small, short term �death dip� for �rational� homicides (felony-related & older adult homicides). 2. There is strong evidence of some brutalization effects of executions � larger and longer term increases in �impulsive� homicides (mainly argument homicides and juvenile offender homicides). 3. The net (combined) effects on overall homicide rates involve very small short term decreases followed by much larger long-term increases. 4. The bottom line from this research is that executions increase overall homicide rates. There are a number of other pieces of circumstantial evidence that tend to support similar conclusions: 1. This research explains why the findings from much previous research were confusing. Without disaggregating different types of homicides, the short term deterrent and long term brutalization effects cancel each other out, leaving researchers to explain that there was no deterrent effect but overlooking small but consistent increases in homicides. 2. In their book The Geography of Executions the authors report finding slightly higher homicide rates associated with the DP in a large scale study of contiguous counties - side by side counties in states with and without the DP. 3. State by state patterns of juvenile homicides in the late 1990s (in a Special Report to the US Attorney General) indicated that states that executed had much higher rates of juvenile homicides than states that had the DP but did not carry out executions. States with no DP consistently had the lowest juvenile homicide rates. 4. A spree of school shootings by juveniles in the 1990s all occurred in active executing states � none of these occurred in states that did not execute. Note: A handful of highly-publicized econometric studies over the last few years claim to "prove" that executions actually do deter homicides and lower overall homicide rates. Most researchers and criminologists do not regard these studies as reliable. Click here for a July 2004 article explaining why most criminologists regard these studies as unreliable. Click here for a more thorough analysis (by a prominent statistician) of the serious statistical flaws in these studies. So what is the �bottom line� from this research? There is no overall deterrent effect of the DP, apart from a possible short term decrease in some types of homicides (a death dip) following executions. Executions lead to long term increases in most types of homicides, especially impulsive homicides and those involving juvenile offenders. Copyright � 2009 Ernie Thomson. All rights reserved. email: [email protected] |