I'm skeptical of how the information was gathered, but what do you all think of the study?

Very interesting article. But this doesn't tell anything new. Just confirms what many already thought. But even still comparing apples to murders is a little broad for any theoretical idea, especially in a case where the results have dire consequences. However, the power of discipline and punishment acting as deterrents to crime is not a new idea, it is part of the relations of power already present in society. These kinds of ideas were explored by Michel Foucault in his famous work "Discipline and Punish."

1)Personally, as a practical thinker I believe we ought to take any and all effective measures to decrease homicide rates. But the death penalty! The basis for a punishment by execution, no matter how humane, essentially says that the society has the right to take the life of its members. Which I am very much against. Not to mention that innocent people have unjustly been legally executed. Even if it is a deterrent, that doesn't change the fact it is a violation of our human rights. "Deterrence" is not a justification for legally sanctioned murder. I am not convinced by the findings of the study, the argument in general, nor that is it sound reason to think "the execution(killing) of one person will save (prevent the death) of 5 people." Homicide is a "crime" as old as time, and the social moral of "an eye for an eye" is not a "new finding."

2) Isn't amazing that these kind of findings always get such good press. But what about the 100's of studies that show that increasing the standard of living for the poor, raising the quality of education, the protecting of the rights of children, and various other social factors, that also act preventive measures against all kinds of crimes including homicide.

Have we really exploited all the non-violent measures to decrease the crime rates? Aren't they worth more consideration, than the deterrent effect of killing supposedly guilty convicted criminals?

You know, I love statistics. It was my favorite math class in high school.


I already know the statistics are probably skewed in the studies. However I'd still like to look at how the study was conducted though.

I've never heard anyone say differently.



If there is a deterrent effect from the death penalty, and there probably is some, it's not likely to be very high. I'm very skeptical of an analysis that would say even as many as 5 homicides are prevented by each execution. Personally, I think you'd probably find that succesful homicide investigations and convictions would be a much greater deterrent than whether the punishment is death or a long imprisonment.

Deterrence shouldn't be the primary argument in favor of capital punishment, it'd just be an additional benefit.

In my opinion, deterrence is the only good argument in favor of death penalty.

Others do not hold water at all.

Oh, it depends on your value system. Personally, I have no use for people that commit murder or various other heinous crimes in my society. We're much better off being permanently rid of them.

Without even reading the article, I can say that if we made life in prison a little less pleasurable (for example, taking away the freaking internet and TV's), it might work almost as well as an actual punishment. Of course these people aren't deterred from crime when their life in prison might even be better than their life at home.

EDIT: looks like in at least one Oregon prison, there is no internet access for inmates. My mistake.