Studies say death penalty deters crime

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, we could just compare modern U.S with past U.S. Source

This graph would have to be normalized to remove the effects of any other possible contributing factors to changes in the murder rate to be of any value.

His source is here. Couldn't find that exact comparison chart - but I did pull the source numbers.

Year Homicide rate per 100,000

1900 1.2

1901 1.2

1902 1.2

1903 1.1

1904 1.3

1905 2.1

1906 3.9

1907 4.9

1908 4.8

1909 4.2

1910 4.6

1911 5.5

1912 5.4

1913 6.1

1914 6.2

1915 5.9

1916 6.3

1917 6.9

1918 6.5

1919 7.2

1920 6.8

1921 8.1

1922 8.0

1923 7.8

1924 8.1

1925 8.3

1926 8.4

1927 8.4

1928 8.6

1929 8.4

1930 8.8

1931 9.2

1932 9.0

1933 9.7

1934 9.5

1935 8.3

1936 8.0

1937 7.6

1938 6.8

1939 6.4

1940 6.3

1941 6.0

1942 5.9

1943 5.1

1944 5.0

1945 5.7

1946 6.4

1947 6.1

1948 5.9

1949 5.4

1950 5.3

1951 4.9

1952 5.2

1953 4.8

1954 4.8

1955 4.5

1956 4.6

1957 4.5

1958 4.5

1959 4.6

1960 4.7

1961 4.7

1962 4.8

1963 4.9

1964 5.1

1965 5.5

1966 5.9

1967 6.8

1968 7.3

1969 7.7

1970 8.3

1971 9.1

1972 9.4

1973 9.7

1974 10.1

1975 9.9

1976 9.0

1977 9.1

1978 9.2

1979 10.0

1980 10.7

1981 10.3

1982 9.6

1983 8.6

1984 8.4

1985 8.4

1986 9.0

1987 8.7

1988 9.0

1989 9.3

1990 10.0

1991 10.5

1992 10.0

1993 10.1

1994 9.6

1995 8.7

1996 7.9

1997 7.4

1998 6.8

1999 6.2

2000 6.1

2001 7.1 *

2002 6.1

* Includes 9/11 terrorism deaths

Number of persons executed in the United States, 1930-2006

1930 155

1931 153

1932 140

1933 160

1934 168

1935 199

1936 195

1937 147

1938 190

1939 160

1940 124

1941 123

1942 147

1943 131

1944 120

1945 117

1946 131

1947 153

1948 119

1949 119

1950 82

1951 105

1952 83

1953 62

1954 81

1955 76

1956 65

1957 65

1958 49

1959 49

1960 56

1961 42

1962 47

1963 21

1964 15

1965 7

1966 1

1967 2

1968 0

1969 0

1970 0

1971 0

1972 0

1973 0

1974 0

1975 0

1976 0

1977 1

1978 0

1979 2

1980 0

1981 1

1982 2

1983 5

1984 21

1985 18

1986 18

1987 25

1988 11

1989 16

1990 23

1991 14

1992 31

1993 38

1994 31

1995 56

1996 45

1997 74

1998 68

1999 98

2000 85

2001 66

2002 71

2003 65

2004 59

2005 60

2006 53

Again given the the discrepancies between different states - I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this alone. Given that the murder rate varies greatly across different states - it seems to be a "one-size fits all" intepretation, effectively ignoring regional variations at the state level. A reasonable question would be - when the death penalty is not in force in every state, how can you establish a deterrent relationship between the high crime rate of one state, and the execution rate of another.

This BTW is exactly the point that the other article I posted above points out - that the data is often misinterpreted on the national level because the data set is heavily influenced by regional variations.

[Jenn! 918]

Again given the the discrepancies between different states - I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this alone. Given that the murder rate varies greatly across different states - it seems to be a "one-size fits all" intepretation, effectively ignoring regional variations at the state level. A reasonable question would be - when the death penalty is not in force in every state, how can you establish a deterrent relationship between the high crime rate of one state, and the execution rate of another.

This BTW is exactly the point that the other article I posted above points out - that the data is often misinterpreted on the national level because the data set is heavily influenced by regional variations.

It's not only regional variation that makes this potentially misleading. What I meant was that in order to draw the conclusion that more executions *lead* to fewer murders, one would have to make the very gross assumption that there was no other reason why the murder rate could have possibly fluctuated.

In short, correlation does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship.

[Dan J 277]

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.

[dalegg 143]

Ah, Texas. Texas is very actively putting down anyone it can get it's hands on, yes? A

From 1976 to 2005 there were 55,922 murders in Texas and 385 executions. That is comes out to a rate of 0.69%. I don't think .69% qualifies as anyone it can get it's hands on.

...which is another reason why it's not a deterrent.

to be specific, it's not a deterrant the way it is currently instituted. This is probably the biggest problem I personally have with the death penalty- next to the enourmous costs associated. There doesn't seem to be any real consistency in the way it's carried out. It seems like you hear about every execution that's carried out in the news. The anti-death penalty mob holds vigils saying how it's inhumane to put a child murderer to death while most State's governors will stand by any execution regardless of how the crime rates with harsher non-death penalty convictions to prove he's tough on crime. The death penalty as it is currently instituted in the U.S serves more as a political vehicle for politicians than it does to actually curtail crime.

Texas has more executions than any other state though I can't remember if our death row is the biggest.

They've got that one too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again given the the discrepancies between different states - I'm not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this alone. Given that the murder rate varies greatly across different states - it seems to be a "one-size fits all" intepretation, effectively ignoring regional variations at the state level. A reasonable question would be - when the death penalty is not in force in every state, how can you establish a deterrent relationship between the high crime rate of one state, and the execution rate of another.

This BTW is exactly the point that the other article I posted above points out - that the data is often misinterpreted on the national level because the data set is heavily influenced by regional variations.

It's not only regional variation that makes this potentially misleading. What I meant was that in order to draw the conclusion that more executions *lead* to fewer murders, one would have to make the very gross assumption that there was no other reason why the murder rate could have possibly fluctuated.

In short, correlation does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship.

That would also suggest that statistics aren't really the most effective tool of analysing these sorts of trends. You have to make a lot of assumptions before you even start collecting data.