Pepperdine Study Indicates Deterrent Factor to Death Penalty. I’m Still Skeptical.
November 11, 2007
Michael Smerconish’s latest Huffington Post column cites research by two scientists at Pepperdine University that indicates a deterrent effect of capital punishment.
The researchers looked at the rate of homicides nationwide and found a decrease in murders in the months following a highly publicized execution. I’ll admit that this data is compelling, but I’m still skeptical.
What raises my eyebrow isn’t the Pepperdine study itself, but the attitude of the those doing the research. Smerconish writes:
One of the Pepperdine professors assured me they brought no agenda to the table.
“The morality of the issue is something for someone else to argue,” Adler, himself a Fulbright professor, told me this month. “We’re just simply presenting the data and lifting the veil that says, ‘There’s no deterrent effect, therefore . . . ‘ Well, there is, and it’s about 74 to 1. And other people can argue moral grounds on either side.”
Any self-respecting scientist knows that you can’t claim, “Well, there is, and it’s about 74 to 1,” based on the results of one study. Individual studies mean very little until they’re viewed in the context of a much larger body of research replicated over time by other scientists. And even then, there is no conclusive “proof.” Science can only provide support for theories, which can eventually become widely accepted enough to be considered facts in a working model of reality.
Yes, this study has something valuable to add to the dialog about capital punishment, but it’s hardly conclusive proof that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. Especially when there is so much other research to indicate the opposite. Contradictory research findings call for more investigation, not claims of conclusive proof.
First of all, I agree with you on the issue of an individual test being anything but conclusive proof. To this day ciggarette packs say smoking MAY cause cancer, not will cause it. It is an important virtue of science to reject spurious claims. Percision of argument is key to the advancement of the sciences. 99 % is not certainty. After saying this, i still believe that capital punishment does not discourage henious crimes. What a lifetime in a cage does not discourage, a quick death will not either. When one thinks of the act of murder, there are two things involved, rage or desire. these two between them fulfill vengence. All of these catagories do not account for the reasoning individual, for reason is not the providence of these two emotions. It would take a reasoning individual, with a high value placed upon their own continued existance, with out fear of eternal incarceration to decided not to kill someone out of fear of death.
i think an effective deterrent would be to bring back public punishment.
think stocks and humiliation.
i know i’d think twice before stealing a candy bar if i knew that instead of doing some community service or paying a fine i’d have to stand in front of the store with a sign around my neck saying i’m a thief.
public hangings would work even better as a deterrent. though i think once convicted, it should be determined by the victim’s family/loved ones/estate executor/rix whether or not to apply the death penalty (v. life imprisonment) in the sentencing.
Speeding is another one. We should publicly whip people in the town square for speeding. And adultery. And pre-marital sex.
oh and definitely for croc- and ugg-related fashion offenses. fo sho.
you have a puppy????