Deterrence and the Death Penalty:
The Views of the Experts
M. Radelet and R. Akers, Deterrence and the Death Penalty ? The Views of the Experts, 1995) Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers
Abstract
The goal of this research is to determine if there is consensus among expert criminologists on whether the death penalty has been, is, or could be a general deterrent to criminal homicide. To assess expert opinion, we surveyed 67 of the 70 current and former presidents of three professional criminology organizations: The American Society of Criminology, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and Law and Society Association. Over 80 percent of these experts believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for capital punishment. Over three-quarters believe that increasing the frequency of executions, or decreasing the time spent on death row before execution, would not produce a general deterrent effects.
*We appreciate the helpful comments from Phoebe Ellsworth,
=====================================================================
The American public has long been favorably disposed toward capital punishment for convicted murderers, and that support continues to grow. In a 1981 Gallup Poll, two-thirds of Americans voiced general approval of the death penalty. That support rose to 72 percent in 1985, to 76 percent in 1991, and to 80 percent in 1994 (Moore, 1994:5). Although these poll results need to be interpreted with extreme caution, it is clear that there are few issues on which more Americans agree: in at least some circumstances, death is seen as a justifiable punishment for the worst sorts of criminal homicides.
Part of the support for capital punishment comes from the belief that the death penalty is legitimate under a theory of "just deserts" (Bedau, 1978; Finckenauer, 1988). This justification suggests that murderers should be executed for retributive reasons; "Murderers should suffer, and life imprisonment is insufficient suffering as retribution for taking a life." While such views are important and worthy of debate, no empirical research can tell us if the argument is "correct" or "incorrect." Empirical studies cannot answer the question of what specific criminals (or non-criminals) "deserve," or settle debates over the moral issues surrounding capital punishment.
On the other hand, much of the public and political support for capital punishment rests on its presumed value as a general deterrent: we need the death penalty to encourage potential murderers to avoid engaging in criminal homicide. Unlike the issue of retribution, empirical studies can answer questions about the death penalty's general deterrent effects.
Politicians and prosecutors are often quick to use some version of the deterrence rationale in their cries for more and quicker executions when they see such appeals as a promising way to attract votes (Bright, 1995; Pierce and Radelet, 1990-91). Examples are not difficult to find. Rep. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, believes that mass executions of "27 or 30 or 35 people at a time" will reduce the importation of illegal drugs into America (Taylor, 1995). When signing legislation that returned the death penalty to New York in 1995, Governor George Pataki said, "This bill is going to save lives" (Dao, 1995). Governor William Weld, who is trying to get his state of Massachusetts to return the death penalty to its law books, bolsters his belief in the deterrent value of the death penalty with data he gets from his "gut." "Beyond a certain point, I think you have got to make a choice and go with your gut. My gut is that ... capital punishment is a deterrent" (Lehigh, 1991). Ken Nunneley, an Alabama assistant attorney general in charge of the state's capital litigation division, obtains his data from the same source. "My gut tells me it has a deterrent effect, let me put it that way" (Lehr, 1993).
While opinion polls regularly find broad public and political support for the death penalty, there are significant pockets of abolitionist sentiments. Many of the nation's largest newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe have editorial positions against the death penalty (Bedau, 1979). Among professional organizations that have gone on record as opposing the death penalty are the American Public Health Association (1987), the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1964), the American Correctional Association, the American Orthopsychiatric Association (Bedau, 1979), and the American Society of Criminology (ASC, 1988). The fight against the death penalty in the 1960's and 1970's was led by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (Meltsner, 1973), and today virtually all civil rights organizations in the United States stand opposed to the death penalty. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International, the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize recipient (see, e.g., Bedau, 1992; Amnesty International, 1989; 1995), feel the same way. The Catholic Church, as well as mainline Protestant and Jewish organizations, are also on record as opposing the death penalty (National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, n.d.). This opposition is often based on moral principles. But just like belief in the death penalty's deterrent effects tends to correlate with pro-death penalty attitudes, most groups and individuals who oppose the death penalty are not convinced that the punishment is an effective deterrent to homicide (Gallup, 1991).
Whether or not the threat or use of the death penalty is, has been, or could be a deterrent to homicide is an empirical question that cannot be answered on the basis of gut feelings or on moral or political grounds. It is an empirical question that scores of researchers, dating back to a young Edwin Sutherland (Sutherland, 1925), have examined.
Has this long history and sizeable body of research served to support sound general conclusions? Can any factual statement be made about the death penalty's general deterrent effects, or are the published studies such that no conclusions can be reached? At least two valid methods can be used to answer this question. One is to examine individual scholarly opinions, as is done in most published research reports. Here researchers review the empirical research on deterrent effects of capital punishment and reach a conclusion based on the evidence from previous research by others and from their own research. A second approach is to gauge the considered and reasoned opinions of a group of scholars or experts. Indeed, much research-based public policy rests on known or presumed consensus of "expert" opinions. It is the aim of this paper to address the question of the death penalty's ability to deter homicides using this second approach: by gauging the judgments and opinions among one set of top criminological experts.
Literature Review
Gauging sentiment on the death penalty is not as easy a task as at first it might appear. When opinion polls ask respondents whether they support the death penalty, often no alternative punishments are given, and respondents are left to themselves to wonder what might happen if a particular inmate was not executed. Often respondents erroneously believe that absent execution, offenders will be released to the community after serving a short prison sentence. Even the most ardent death penalty abolitionists might support capital punishment if the alternative was to have dangerous murderers, such as Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, released to live in their neighborhoods. In one study, a sample of registered voters in Florida estimated that if a person convicted of first degree murder were not executed, s/he would be free and on the streets within ten years (Fox et al., 1990- 91:513-14; see also Bowers, 1993:167-71). In reality, between 1972 and 1994, anyone convicted of first degree murder in Florida and not sentenced to death was not eligible for parole for at least 25 years. When respondents are asked if they would support the death penalty over an alternative of life without parole, support for the death penalty decreases significantly (Fox et al., 1990-91:515; Bowers, 1993). In 1991, Gallup found that 76 percent of Americans supported the death penalty, but that support would drop to 53 percent if life imprisonment without parole were available as an alternative (Gallup, 1991).
While most deterrence research has found that the death penalty has virtually the same effect as long imprisonment on homicide rates (for review, see Paternoster, 1991: 217-45), in the mid-1970's economist Isaac Ehrlich reported that his research had uncovered a significant deterrent effect. He estimated that each execution between 1933 and 1969 had prevented eight homicides (Ehrlich, 1975). This research gained widespread attention, in part because Solicitor General Robert Bork used it to defend the death penalty in the 1970's when the Supreme Court was considering whether to make permanent its 1972 ban of the death penalty (Bedau, 1981:95). Although Ehrlich's work was strongly criticized for methodological and conceptual shortcomings by scholars (e.g., Forst, 1983; Waldo, 1981) and even a panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences (Klein et al., 1978), it continues to be cited by some as more or less conclusive proof that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on homicide (e.g., Sowell, 1994). A student of Ehrlich's, Stephen Layson, later reported his estimation that each execution deterred approximately 18 homicides (Layson, 1985). This research, too, was criticized as fatally flawed (Fox and Radelet,
1989), but nonetheless it continues to be embraced by proponents of the death penalty (e.g., Cassell, 1993).
It could very well be that the mere existence of a critique is more important than the quality of that critique. One researcher finds one thing, and another claims to refute it. What is left is a net gain of zero: politicians who never read or understand the original studies can select either position and cite only those studies that support their position.
Some research has asked the general public whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. Such a question is regularly asked to national samples in Gallup Polls (Gallup, 1985; 1986; 1991). In the mid-1980's, just over 60 percent of the respondents in Gallup polls said they believed the death penalty was a deterrent. Furthermore, these polls show that the deterrence rationale is an important death penalty justification. In 1986, 70 percent of the respondents supported the death penalty, but only a bare majority -- 53 percent -- supported it when the alternative was life without parole. Gallup further asked if the respondents would still support the death penalty "if new evidence proved that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to murder." Support for capital punishment then dropped to 43 percent (Gallup Report, 1986).
In his 1991 poll, where 76 percent of the respondents indicated support for the death penalty, Gallup asked a followup question on deterrence to those who favored the death penalty.
The pro-death penalty respondents were asked:
Suppose new evidence showed that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to murder, that it does not lower the murder rate. Would you favor or oppose the death penalty?
Here it was found that only 69 percent of the death penalty supporters would still maintain their support; 26 percent would change and oppose the punishment. Clearly, if the public were convinced that the death penalty failed to produce deterrent benefits, support for the death penalty would decline precipitously.
Ellsworth and Ross (1983) mailed questionnaires measuring attitudes toward the death penalty to 500 northern California respondents. Among their findings was that 82 percent of the death penalty proponents, but only 3.1 percent of the opponents, either strongly or slightly agreed with the statement, "We need capital punishment to show criminals that we really mean business about wiping out crime in this country" (Ellsworth and Ross, 1983:151). The Gallup and Ellsworth/Ross surveys show that the deterrence argument is one of the most important foundations for death penalty support in America. Questions from both the Gallup and the Ellsworth/Ross surveys were used in our own research, so precise comparisons will be made when our results are discussed below.
Two surveys have been conducted that examine how experts, as opposed to the general public, view the deterrence rationale for capital punishment. The first is limited but instructive. In September 1984, all criminologists (N=11) at the University of Florida released a statement saying that the empirical research on the death penalty did not support the deterrence hypothesis. The statement read:
On numerous occasions Florida's Governor Graham has stated that his fundamental rationale for capital punishment is to reduce the state's homicide rate. As criminologists at the state's leading university, we feel a professional and ethical responsibility to report that there is no credible scientific research that supports the contention that the threat or use of the death penalty is or has been a deterrent to homicide. Other justifications of capital punishment are possible. However, whether or not the death penalty reduces the homicide rate is an empirical question which cannot be answered on moral or political grounds. The question has been clearly answered by numerous research projects conducted over the last 50 years. This deterrence research does not provide a legitimate basis for our state's death penalty policy.
After widespread newspaper publicity throughout the state, Florida's governor responded with the claim that crime statistics are an unreliable gauge for determining whether the death penalty prevents murder. In effect, he took the position that research could never evaluate the deterrent effects of the death penalty. "This is an issue that is inherently beyond what empirical research can validate. The deterrent effect of capital punishment is found in the homicides that are prevented and never get into the statistics" (Gainesville Sun, Sept. 7, 1984:10A).
A second survey of experts was conducted in 1995 by the Washington, D.C. based polling firm, Peter D. Hart Research Associates (Dieter, 1995). Telephone surveys were conducted with 386 randomly selected police chiefs and county sheriffs from throughout the continental United States. Among the "primary" ways to reduce violent crime, only one percent of the respondents chose the death penalty, which ranked this item last among six options. The most effective crime-reduction techniques included "reducing drug abuse" (favored by 31 percent); 17 percent selected "better economy and more jobs." Simplifying court rules, longer sentences, more police officers, and reducing the number of guns were also deemed as more important than expanding the use of the death penalty as ways of reducing violent crime. When asked to consider the statement "The death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides," 67 percent of the chiefs felt the statement was inaccurate and 26 percent said it was accurate. Reacting to the poll, former New York Police Chief Patrick V. Murphy wrote, "Like the emperor's new clothes, the flimsy notion that the death penalty is an effective law enforcement tool is being exposed as mere political puffery" (Murphy, 1995). For comparative purposes, some of the questions we posed to our sample (reported below) were taken from this survey.
Methodology
To assess what the "experts" think about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, we must first answer the question of how to define "expert." One plausible definition is anyone who has published peer-reviewed research on the death penalty and deterrence. Surely those who have been active researchers in an area over many years are experts. However, such an approach has limited utility because 1) it is possible that only death penalty abolitionists, for whatever reasons, are motivated to conduct such research, 2) there would be a problem in differentially weighing the opinions of scholars who have published several acclaimed deterrence studies in major criminology journals from those whose research is less abundant or respected, and 3) surveying researchers in the field of deterrence would ask them to, in effect, evaluate their own work.
For this project we define "expert" as one who has achieved visibility and recognition as a leader among criminologists in the United States. Our operational definition is one who has been recognized by peers to the extent of being elected to the highest office in scholarly organizations. We contacted all present and former presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies. This small and elite group includes many of the country's most respected criminologists. As such, although few of these scholars have done research on capital punishment in general or deterrence in particular, they are generally well versed in central criminological issues, such as crime causation, crime prevention, and criminal justice policy. The presidents of three associations were surveyed: the American Society of Criminology, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association.
The American Society of Criminology (ASC), founded in 1941, is the country's largest association of professional and academic criminologists, with a 1994 membership of 2,500 (Schwartz and Turner, 1994:10685), dominated by academics from graduate and research institutions. The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS), founded in 1963 under the name it held until 1971, The International Association of Police Professors, includes 2,400 members. Its primary goal is the advancement of the criminal justice system through research and education (Schwartz and Turner, 1994:10627). Its membership overlaps to a considerable extent with the ASC, but its leadership (taken primarily from undergraduate teaching programs) does not. Only one person in the history of the two societies has served as president of both. The Law and Society Association (L&SA), founded in 1964, includes more law professors and legal scholars among its 1,400 members than either the ASC or ACJS. Again there is overlapping membership with ASC and some with ACJS, but no one has served as president of L&SA and either of the other two. Its goal is to explore "the relationships between law and society in order to contribute to the understanding of law as a social and political phenomenon and to expedite the use of law as an instrument of public policy" (Schwartz and Turner, 1994:5318). These three associations are all interdisciplinary and publish what are among the most respected scholarly journals in criminology and criminal justice: Criminology (ASC), Justice Quarterly (ACJS), and Law and Society Review (L&SA).
Each organization elects officers, including a president, by a ballot sent to all members. While in the past some presidents served two-year terms, today all elections are for a one-year tenure. To be elected president, one must generally have high visibility in the field, be well-respected, and have been active in programmatic and organizational activities.
We began by writing to the offices of each of these three organizations and obtaining lists of their current and former presidents. Through letters and phone calls to some of those on the list, and to other criminologists, we were able to identify which of the former presidents were still living, and to obtain addresses for each. A total of 71 individuals was identified: 29 from the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, 27 from the American Society of Criminology, and 15 from the Law and Society Association. As noted, one person had served as president of two of the associations, reducing our sample to 70. Drafts of the questionnaire were examined and critiqued by three scholars who have conducted deterrence research. After revisions, numbered questionnaires were mailed to our respondents in August 1995, and followups (eventually preceded by phone calls), were sent throughout the fall. A total of 67 responded (95.7 percent): 27 from ACJS, 26 from the ASC, and 15 from L&SA.
The presidents were asked to answer the questions "on the basis of your knowledge of the literature and research in criminology." We did not ask for their personal opinions on the death penalty. Eleven questions relating to deterrence issues were included on the questionnaire, and the responses to all eleven are reported below.
Results
A. General Questions on Deterrence
The first question to be explored concerns the general question of how the presidents of the criminological associations generally view the deterrence question. Table 1 begins by replicating the question asked in the Gallup polls, "Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment to murder -- that it lowers the murder rate, or what?" It can be seen that the experts are more than twice as likely as the general population to believe that the death penalty does not lower the murder rate -- 41 percent of the population held this belief in 1991, the last year that Gallup published responses to this question, compared to 83.6 percent of our experts. Among the 64 experts who voiced opinions on this question, 56 (87.5 percent) believe the death penalty does not have deterrent effects.
Table 1 also compares responses to deterrence questions between the expert criminologists and the members of the general public in northern California surveyed by Ellsworth and Ross. Here 86.5 percent of the criminologists and 46 percent of the general public say they are "sure" or "think" that "Abolishing the death penalty (in a particular state) would not have any significant effects on the murder rate (in that state)." As would be expected, substantially more members of the general public than the criminologists (32.6 percent vs. 10.4 percent) say they have no idea whether this statement is true or false.
Similarly, as shown in the third part of Table 1, the criminologists are much less likely than members of the general public to agree that "Over the years, states which have had the death penalty have had lower murder rates than neighboring states which did not have a death penalty." Nearly 80 percent of the criminologists said that they were sure or they thought this was not true, compared to 37 percent of the general public. Interestingly, more criminologists stated that they had no idea whether this statement was true or false than did members of the general public (14.9 vs. 6.0 percent).
The results of Table 1 clearly show that approximately eighty percent of the experts in criminology believe, on the basis of the literature and research in criminology, that the death penalty does not have significant deterrent effects. In addition, no matter how measured, it is clear that the criminologists are much more likely than the general public to dismiss the deterrence argument.
Table 2 compares the beliefs of our experts to those of top criminal justice administrators, specifically to the beliefs of the police chiefs surveyed by Peter D. Hart Research Associates in 1995 (discussed above). Overall there is widespread agreement between the criminologists and the police chiefs on the deterrent value of the death penalty (or lack thereof), with the criminologists even less likely than the chiefs to see any deterrent value. As seen in Table 2, all of the criminologists, and 85 percent of the police chiefs, believe it is totally or largely accurate that "Politicians support the death penalty as a symbolic way to show they are tough on crime." Almost 87 percent of the criminologists and 57 percent of the chiefs find it totally or largely accurate to say "Debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focussing on real solutions to crime problems." None of the criminologists, and only about a quarter of the chiefs, believe there is any accuracy in the statement, "The death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides." These statements indicate that both academic criminologists and police chiefs view the death penalty as more effective in political rhetoric than as a criminal justice tool.
Table 3 asks general questions about deterrence in two different ways. We developed the wording for these questions ourselves, so no comparisons with other opinion polls are possible. However, we believe these questions word the issue more precisely than the questions taken from other surveys. Given the widespread availability of "life without parole" as an alternative to the death penalty (Wright, 1990), the first question displayed in Table 3 is perhaps the clearest statement of the deterrence issue as actually faced by researchers and policy makers today. Only three of our respondents (4.5 percent) agreed, and none strongly agreed, with the statement, "Overall, over the last twenty years, the threat or use of the death penalty in the United States has been a stronger deterrent to homicide than the threat or use of long (or life) prison sentences." Ninety two point six percent of the respondents, and 96 percent of those with an opinion, disagreed or strongly disagreed. Responses to the next question indicate that only three respondents felt the empirical support for the deterrent effects of the death penalty had moderate support; none believed it had strong support. Instead, 94 percent of the criminologists felt the argument had weak or no support.
B. The Question of Reform
Proponents of the death penalty might concur with the critics of the deterrence argument, but say that the lack of a clear deterrent effect is a result of the fact that only a small proportion of those on death row are executed each year, or that the wait on death row between condemnation and execution is too long. Increasing the frequency and decreasing the celerity of the death penalty could produce a deterrent effect. The experts responding to our survey, however, disagree with such a position. Almost eighty percent disagree or strongly disagree with the statement, "If the frequency of executions were to increase significantly, more homicides would be deterred than if the current frequency of executions remained relatively stable." As seen in the second portion of Table 4, nearly three quarters (73.2 percent) of the experts disagreed or strongly disagreed with the position that decreasing the time on death row would deter more homicides. Much of the research that informs these experts' opinions was done with data from the 1930's, 1940's, and 1950's, when the frequency of executions was higher and the average time spent on death row was shorter than it is today. Hence, criminologists do have some research at their disposal that would enable accurate predictions of what would happen if these proposed death penalty reforms were actually enacted.
C. Support for the Brutalization Hypothesis
In a final question, the experts were asked how they felt about the so-called "brutalization hypothesis." This argument, supported by some research (Bailey, 1979; Bailey, 1983; Bowers and Pierce, 1980; Cochran et al., 1994), suggests that the death penalty tends to devalue human life and send a message that tells citizens that killing people under some circumstances is appropriate. However, as shown in Table 5, this hypothesis does not have widespread support among experts. Two-thirds (67.1 percent) of the respondents either disagree or strongly disagree with the statement, "Overall, the presence of the death penalty tends to increase a state's murder rate rather than to decrease it."
The responses to this item help us address some possible reservations about our overall findings: Is there anti-capital punishment bias among our respondents? Were the responses made based on an understanding of the research or are our respondents merely liberal academics who object to the death penalty on moral grounds and would report opinions that might undermine it, even if the empirical evidence showed otherwise? The responses to the question on brutalization suggest that the answers to these questions are negative. If our respondents simply respond to any question in a way that buttresses the abolitionist position, there should be strong agreement with the notion that the death penalty actually increases the homicide rate, since this is an anti-capital punishment argument. It appears, instead, that the respondents were responding on the grounds we asked -- their appraisal of existing research. The brutalization hypothesis, in fact has not been tested very well and the research supporting it remains more suggestive than definitive. As on the other questions, our respondents appear to be reacting to the state of knowledge on this question, not to their personal preferences.
Conclusions
The results of this project clearly show that there is a wide consensus among America's top criminologists that the death penalty does, or can do, little to reduce rates of criminal violence in our society. These results chisel away at one of the most important justifications for the death penalty in modern society. To the degree that well-intentioned voters support the death penalty as a last-resort effort to reduce crime rates, this study should have an impact on the public's support for the executioner.
The study also suggests that political debates about how to reduce criminal violence in America should shift away from debates about the death penalty. Politicians or prosecutors who continue to support the death penalty on deterrence grounds may be able to point to their "gut" feelings or to individual studies that support their position. However, given that so few expert criminologists give credence to the deterrence hypothesis, the results of this project challenge political discourse that points to the death penalty as a crime-fighting tool. Our findings support a shift in political discussions about crime away from the death penalty and in the direction of more promising crimereducing policies.
This assumes that public policy makers in the United States actually look to, and care about, what criminologists think about public policies that might in one way or another relate to crime. To be sure, some policy makers do care what criminologists think about some issues. For example, in 1994 Attorney General Janet Reno asked the American Society of Criminology for input on crime control policy options, and twelve task forces were developed (American Society of Criminology, 1995). However, none of these task forces had anything to do with the death penalty, even though General Reno is herself a death penalty opponent who nonetheless has authorized several federal capital prosecutions.
Capital punishment will continue to generate much public debate in the early decades of the next century and various bodies of opinion will be consulted. The results of our research show that the question of whether or not the death penalty can reduce criminal violence, at least in the eyes of the presidents of the major scholarly societies in criminology, is a settled issue. Future research should investigate whether it is a settled issue in expert opinion defined in other ways, such as among the membership of ASC, ACJS, and L&SA, or among criminology faculties. Furthermore, just as results of direct research on deterrence and surveys of public opinion should be and are communicated to policy makers, research findings on expert opinion on the death penalty should be communicated to policy makers. Perhaps the ASC or other scholarly organization could form a task force on capital punishment to make formal recommendations in a manner similar to that of the ASC's 1995 recommendations to Attorney General Reno (American Society of Criminology, 1995). In the end, hopefully this study will encourage politicians to stop using the death penalty as a simplistic means to create the false impression that they are actually doing something about our high rates of criminal violence.
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association
1987 Policy statement 8611: Abolition of the death penalty.
American Journal of Public Health 77:105-6.
American Society of Criminology
1988 Resolutions considered during annual meeting. The
Criminologist, Jan.-Feb., p. 15.
1995 Special Issue. The Criminologist, Nov./Dec., pp. 1-16.
Amnesty International
1989 When the State Kills ... . London: Amnesty
International Publications.
1995 The Machinery of Death: A Shocking Indictment of
Capital Punishment in the United States. New York:
Amnesty International U.S.A.
Bailey, William C.
1979 Deterrence and the death penalty for murder in Oregon.
Willamette Law Review 16: 67-85.
1983 Disaggregation in deterrence and death penalty
research: The case of murder in Chicago. Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 74: 827-59.
Bedau, Hugo Adam
1978 Retribution and the theory of punishment. The Journal
of Philosophy 75: 601-20.
1979 The death penalty in the United States: Imposed law and
the role of moral elites. In Sandra B. Burman and
Barbara E. Harrell-Bond (eds.), The Imposition of the
Law. New York: Academic Press.
1981 The Death Penalty in America, Third Edition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
1992 The Case Against the Death Penalty. New York: American
Civil Liberties Union.
Bowers, William J.
1993 Research note: Capital punishment and contemporary
values: People's misgivings and the Court's
misperceptions. Law and Society Review 27:157-75.
Bowers, William J. and Glenn L. Pierce
1980 Deterrence or brutalization: What is the effect of
executions? Crime and Delinquency 26:453-84.
Bright, Stephen B.
1995 The politics of crime and the death penalty: Not 'soft
on crime,' but hard on the bill of rights. Saint Louis
University Law Journal 39:479-503.
Cassell, Paul G.
1993 Testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary,
subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, on H.R.
3131, October 22.
Cochran, John K., Mitchell B. Chamlin, and Mark Seth
1994 Deterrence or brutalization? An impact assessment of
Oklahoma's return to capital punishment. Criminology
32:107-134.
Dao, James
1995 Death penalty in New York reinstated after 18 years:
Pataki sees justice served. New York Times, March 8, p. 1A.
Dieter, Richard C.
1995 On the Front Line: Law Enforcement Views on the Death
Penalty. Washington, D.C.: Death Penalty Information Center.
Ehrlich, Isaac
1975 The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A question
of life and death. American Economic Review 65:397-417.
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. and Lee Ross
1983 Public opinion and capital punishment: A close
examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime and Delinquency 29:116-69.
Finckenauer, James O.
1988 Public support for the death penalty: Retribution as
just deserts or retribution as revenge? Justice Quarterly 5:81-100.
Forst, Brian E.
1983 Capital punishment and deterrence: Conflicting
evidence? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 74:927-42.
Fox, James Alan and Michael L. Radelet
1989 Persistent flaws in econometric studies of the
deterrent effect of the death penalty. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 23:29-44.
Fox, James Alan, Michael L. Radelet, and Julie L. Bonsteel
1990-1 Death penalty opinion in the post-Furman years. New
York University Review of Law & Social Change 18:499-
528.
Gallup Report
1985 Support for the death penalty highest in half-century.
Gallup Report 232-233 (Jan./Feb.): 3-10.
1986 The death penalty. Gallup Report 244-245 (Jan.-Feb.):
10-16.
1991 Death penalty support remains strong. Gallup Report
309 (June): 40-45.
Klein, Lawrence R., Brian Forst, and Victor Filatov
1978 The deterrent effect of capital punishment: An
assessment of the estimates. In Alfred Blumstein,
Jacqueline Cohen, and Daniel Nagin (eds.), Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Drime Rates. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
Layson, Stephen K.
1985 Homicide and deterrence: A reexamination of the United
States time-series evidence. Southern Economic Journal 52:68-89
Lehigh, Scot
1991 Governor says he'll oppose hike in state cigarette tax.
Boston Globe, Nov. 23, p. 28.
Lehr, Dick
1993 Death penalty foes seek a new debate, see stronger
case. Boston Globe, Jan. 10, p. 1.
Meltsner, Michael
1973 Cruel and Unusual: The Supreme Court and Capital
Punishment. New York: Random House.
Moore, David W.
1994 Majority advocates death penalty for teenage killers.
The Gallup Poll Monthly 348 (Sept.): 2-6.
Murphy, Patrick V.
1995 Death penalty useless. USA Today, Feb. 23, p. 11A.
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
n.d. The Death Penalty: The Religious Community Calls for
Abolition. Washington, D.C.: National Coalition to
Abolish the Death Penalty.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
1964 Policy statement on capital punishment. Crime and
Delinquency 10:105-9.
Paternoster, Raymond
1991 Capital Punishment in America. New York: Lexington
Books.
Pierce, Glenn L., and Michael L. Radelet
1990-91 The role and consequences of the death penalty in
American politics. New York University Review of Law and Social Change 18:711-28.
Schwartz, Carol A., and Rebecca L. Turner
1994 Encyclopedia of Associations, 1995. Detroit: Gale
Research Inc.
Sowell, Thomas
1994 Death penalty is valid option. St. Louis Post
Dispatch, Dec. 12, p. 11C.
Sutherland, Edwin H.
1925 Murder and the death penalty. Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology 15:522-36.
Taylor, Stuart Jr.
1995 The politics of death: Governing by tantrum. Texas
Lawyer, Sept. 11, p. 1.
Waldo, Gordon P.
1981 The death penalty and deterrence: A review of recent
research. In Israel L. Barak-Glantz and Ronald Huff (eds.), The Mad, The Bad, and the Different. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Wright, Julian H., Jr.
1990 Life-without-parole: An alternative to death or not
much of a life at all? Vanderbilt Law Review 43
(1990): 529-68.
============================================================================
Table 1
Comparison of Responses of Criminologists and General Public
To Identical Questions on Deterrence
A. Do you feel that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to the commitment to murder -- that it lowers the murder rate, or what?
Criminology
Presidents Gallup 1985 Gallup 1991
(%) (%) (%)
Yes: 11.9 62 51
No: 83.6 31 41
No Opinion: 4.5 7 8
N 67 1,523 990
B. Abolishing the death penalty (in a particular state) would not have any significant effects on the murder rate (in that state).
Criminology
Presidents Ellsworth and Ross, 1983
(%) (%)
I'm sure it is true 32.8 10.2
I think it's true 53.7 35.8
I have no idea whether it is
true or false 10.4 32.6
I think it's false 3.0 18.0
I'm sure it's false 0 3.4
N 67 500
C. Over the years, states which have had the death penalty have had lower murder rates than neighboring states which did not have a death penalty.
Criminology
Presidents Ellsworth and Ross, 1983:141 (%) (%)
I'm sure it is true 0 4.6
I think it's true 6.0 22.4
I have no idea 14.9 6.0
I think it's false 40.3 32.0
I'm sure it's false 38.8 5.0
N 67 500
TABLE 2
Comparison of Responses of Criminologists (N=67) and Police Chiefs to Same Questions (N=386)
(in percents)
A. Politicians support the death penalty as a symbolic way to show they are tough on crime.
Presidents Police Chiefs
Totally accurate 38.8 33
Largely accurate 61.2 52
Largely inaccurate 0 10
Totally inaccurate 0 6
Not sure 0 2
B. Debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focussing on real solutions to crime problems.
Presidents Police Chiefs
Totally accurate 49.3 11
Largely accurate 37.3 46
Largely inaccurate 11.9 30
Totally inaccurate 0 11
Not sure 1.5 2
C. The death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides.
Presidents Police Chiefs
Totally accurate 0 4
Largely accurate 0 22
Largely inaccurate 41.8 45
Totally inaccurate 52.2 22
Not sure 6.0 7
TABLE 3
Responses of Criminologists
to General Questions on Deterrence (N=67)
(in percents)
A. Overall, over the last twenty years, the threat or use of the death penalty in the United States has been a stronger deterrent to homicide than the threat or use of long (or life) prison sentences.
Strongly agree 0
Agree 4.5
Disagree 43.3
Strongly disagree 49.3
Missing 3.0
B. Overall, how would you evaluate the empirical support for the deterrent effects of the death penalty?
Strong support 0
Moderate support 4.5
Weak support 44.8
No support 49.3
Missing 1.5
TABLE 4
Responses of Criminologists to Belief that Reforms
Could Produce a Deterrent Effect (N=67)
(in percents)
A. If the frequency of executions were to increase significantly, more homicides would be deterred than if the current frequency of executions remained relatively stable.
Strongly agree 3.0
Agree 14.9
Disagree 44.8
Strongly disagree 34.3
Missing 3.0
B. The average time on death row between sentence and execution is now between eight and ten years. If that period was reduced significantly, there is reason to expect that the death penalty would deter more homicides than it does toady.
Strongly agree 4.5
Agree 22.4
Disagree 44.8
Strongly disagree 28.4
Criminologists' Responses to
the Brutalization Hypothesis (N=67)
(in percents)
Overall, the presence of the death penalty tends to increase a state's murder rate rather than to decrease it.
Strongly agree 4.5
Agree 23.9
Disagree 52.2
Strongly disagree 14.9
Missing 4.5
The Views of the Experts
William Bailey and Samuel Gross on early drafts of our questionnaire.