“. . . until Dead” 1

The local rag had two columns on the death penalty yesterday.

One was by Jonathan Last, a conservative with whom I seldom agree, but whose thoughtfulness and reasoning I respect. Last’s central conclusion (full disclosure–my opinions on the death penalty are stated here):

And here is the one case where the prudential unhappily intrudes on the moral: If the existence of a criminal poses an ongoing threat, then the death penalty can be a necessary evil. Such cases are incredibly rare, limited mostly to heads of criminal states or organizations. For instance, an imprisoned Osama bin Laden would pose a continuing threat to the citizenry by inspiring violence in ways a mere murderer, or even a serial killer, would not.

Yet the list of such hypotheticals can be counted on one hand. The overarching case is there to be made that the death penalty should be put aside in America – not because it’s unconstitutional, or because it doesn’t work well, but because it’s wrong. And this should be accomplished not by courts torturing the law, but by citizens and legislators changing the laws.

Waste of Newsprint, on the other hand, cited a study which showed a decline in murders in years following an increase in executions, trumpeting it as proof of a deterrent effect for capital punishment:

They have documented a relationship between capital punishment and the future rate of homicide. When executions leveled off, the professors found, murders increased. And when executions increased, the number of people murdered dropped off. In a year-by-year analysis, Adler and Summers found that each execution was associated with 74 fewer murders the following year.

Of course, he failed to note the study’s authors’ own caution:

74 fewer murders a year.

From 1998 to 2000, there were 12,658 murders in the United States.

74. Triple that to 232 to cover three years. That’s a 1.8% per cent reduction.

How do you say, “statistically insignificant”?

But, yeah, this is fairly typical of Waste of Newsprint’s reasoning.

Waste of Time.

Now, it has been a long time since I studied sociology, but I do recall reading a study that documented that severity of punishment is not a deterrent. Certainty of capture is.

As long as criminals pretty much reckon they won’t get caught, they don’t really think about severity of punishment. And, of course, those who commit crimes on impulse aren’t thinking of the consequences at all.

This link leads to some readings on the subject.

And, as usual on the Hypocrisy Watch, there was no mention of whether Senator Thompson should retire from politics and spend his remaining years with his family.

Now, I do have to say, Waste has a certain “Everyman” appeal.

He’s sort of like Fred Flintstone with a typewriter.