Deterrence and the Death Penalty
95
Deterrence and the Death Penalty Llad Phillips
description
Deterrence and the Death Penalty. Llad Phillips. Outline. The Death Penalty Arguments Philosophical and moral (lexicographic ordering) Practical: Is it a deterrent? Impact on the criminal justice system: Detention (prison building era) dominates Operation of the Death Penalty - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Deterrence and the Death Penalty
Deterrence and the Death Penalty
Llad Phillips
Llad Phillips 2
Outline The Death PenaltyThe Death Penalty
ArgumentsArguments Philosophical and moral (lexicographic ordering)Philosophical and moral (lexicographic ordering) Practical: Is it a deterrent?Practical: Is it a deterrent?
• Impact on the criminal justice system: Detention (prison Impact on the criminal justice system: Detention (prison building era) dominatesbuilding era) dominates
Operation of the Death PenaltyOperation of the Death Penalty Homicide and ExecutionsHomicide and Executions
Llad Phillips 3
VI. Lecture Six: “Deterrence and the Death Penalty”, Professor Phillips
Ch. 10 (P&V) "Isolating Deterrence Using the Simultaneous Equation System"
References: Gary Becker, "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach" Journal of Political Economy, March/April 1968 (RBR)
Llad Phillips 4
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7532034279766935521
Llad Phillips 5
What purpose did the execution serve?
Deterrence? Other Saddams? (The Hague)Deterrence? Other Saddams? (The Hague)
Detention? NoDetention? No
Rehabilitation? NoRehabilitation? No
Retribution?Retribution?
Llad Phillips 6
Llad Phillips 7
1976SupremeCourtReinstates DeathPenalty
Llad Phillips 8
Economic Conditions and Crime
California Crime Index Levels Off in the California Crime Index Levels Off in the New MilleniumNew Millenium
Llad Phillips 9
CA Crime Index Per 1000 & CA Misery Index in %, 1952-2007
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Rat
e
CA Misery IndexCA Crime Index Per 1000
Llad Phillips 10
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05
HOMICIDE
California Homicide rate per 100,000: 1952-2007
1980
Llad Phillips 11
California
Llad Phillips 12
California
Llad Phillips 13
Damages: US Violence, 1993
Offense Loss Rate ReportedOffenses
Damages,Billions, $
Homicide $1,191,000 24,526 $46.8
Rape $87,000 104,806 $9.1
Assault $15,000 1,135,099 $17.0
Total $72.9
Source: National Institute of Justice, Victim Costs and Consequences (1996)
Llad Phillips 14
Increase in CA Homicides 2002 to 2003: at least 10 more homicides2002 to 2003: at least 10 more homicides
@$1,191,000, increased damages of $11.9 @$1,191,000, increased damages of $11.9 million, minimummillion, minimum
2003: 2402 homicides, 6.7/100,0002003: 2402 homicides, 6.7/100,000 @$1,191,000, total damages of $ 2.86 billion@$1,191,000, total damages of $ 2.86 billion
2004: 2392 homicides, 6.5/100,0002004: 2392 homicides, 6.5/100,000 2005: 2503 homicides, 6.8/100,0002005: 2503 homicides, 6.8/100,000
http://caag.state.ca.us/
Llad Phillips 15
Llad Phillips 16
Llad Phillips 17
Crime Generation
Crime Control
OffenseRate PerCapita
ExpectedCost ofPunishment
Schematic of the Criminal Justice System
Causes ?
(detention,deterrence)
Expenditures
Weak Link
Llad Phillips 18
Ca Crime Index Per 1000 and Misery Index (percent)1952-2005
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Rat
e
CA Misery IndexCA Crime Index Per 1000
California Prisoners Per Capita, 1952-2005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Rat
e
Llad Phillips 19
Questions About Crime Does the Expected Severity of Punishment Does the Expected Severity of Punishment
Deter Crime?Deter Crime? expected severity = probability of punishment * expected severity = probability of punishment *
severity of punishmentseverity of punishment e.g. in LA County: 0.005*death penaltye.g. in LA County: 0.005*death penalty
Why Do We Keep Building Prisons at Great Why Do We Keep Building Prisons at Great Expense to Warehouse Convicts?Expense to Warehouse Convicts? Doesn’t deterrence work?Doesn’t deterrence work? Do we have to rely on detention?Do we have to rely on detention?
Llad Phillips 20
Controversy About the Death Penalty Death penalty is the most severe sentence.Death penalty is the most severe sentence.
Does it deter crime?Does it deter crime? Opponents of the death penalty say no.Opponents of the death penalty say no.
• Their evidence? Critiques of studies that indicate the death Their evidence? Critiques of studies that indicate the death penalty is a deterrent.penalty is a deterrent.
Why are so few murderers who receive the Why are so few murderers who receive the death sentence executed in California? death sentence executed in California? Death sentence appeases the proponents.Death sentence appeases the proponents. Few executions appeases the opponents.Few executions appeases the opponents.
Llad Phillips 21
Llad Phillips 22
France was thelast WesternEuropean Countryto abandon the death Penalty in1977
Llad Phillips 23
Llad Phillips 24
Public Opinion: Do You Believe in Capital Punishment?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Year
Perc
ent i
n Fa
vor
Roper Poll
Harris Poll
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook
Llad Phillips 25
Gallup Poll Which is the Better Penalty For Murder?, 1985-2006
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
Perc
ent
death penaltylife without parole
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/
Llad Phillips 26
Executions in the US 1930-2007
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs
Peak to Peak: About 65 years
Llad Phillips 27
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Peak to Peak: 50 years
Llad Phillips 28
Nikolai Kondratieff (1892-1938)Brought to attention in Joseph Schumpeter’s BusinessCycles (1939)
Llad Phillips 29
2008-2014:Hard Winter
Llad Phillips 30
Policy Impact of Opponents to the Death Penalty As an instrument for crime control, As an instrument for crime control,
deterrence has been a casualty of the deterrence has been a casualty of the argument about the death penalty.argument about the death penalty. The argument: if the death penalty does not The argument: if the death penalty does not
deter murderers, then deterrence must not work deter murderers, then deterrence must not work as a control.as a control.
As a consequence, society relies more and As a consequence, society relies more and more on detention for crime control.more on detention for crime control. Society builds more and more prisons.Society builds more and more prisons.
Llad Phillips 31
Homicide in Los Angeles County 1990-1994: 9442 1990-1994: 9442
homicideshomicides Increasing number of Increasing number of
gang murdersgang murders > 40 % of the total> 40 % of the total
Only 1 in 3 murders Only 1 in 3 murders leads to punishmentleads to punishment gang killings are harder gang killings are harder
to solveto solve
Llad Phillips 32
Clearance Ratio, CA 1997-2004
Llad Phillips 33
Clearance Ratio, US 1976-2005
Llad Phillips 34
Llad Phillips 35
US Homicides by Circumstance: 76-05
Llad Phillips 36
9442 homicidesin LA County
46%unsolved
54%solved
13%
87%arrest andprosecution(47%)
32%
other
dismissedor not guilty
68%guilty (32%)
Branching Diagram
Llad Phillips 37
Branching Diagram, Continued
Guilty (32%)
dismissedor not guilty
Manslaughter
1st & 2nd degree murder (16%)
50%
50%
15 years to life (7.0%)25 years to life (5.0%)
life without parole (3.5%)
death sentence( 0.5%)
3.1%
Who has benefited the mostfrom the decline in the homicide rate in the nineties?
Who is the victim, family, friendor stranger?
http://caag.state.ca.us/ Homicide in California, 1998
Llad Phillips 42
Llad Phillips 44
Death Sentences Commuted:US
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
40019
68
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Year
Num
ber
Commuted
Llad Phillips 45
Executions in the United States
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
40019
68
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Year
Num
ber
Sentenced Commuted Executed
Llad Phillips 46
Inflow
Sentenced to Death
Stock
Prisoners on Death Row
Outflow
SentencesCommuted,Executions
Administration of Capital Sentences in the US
Llad Phillips 47
Prisoners on Death Row: US
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
300019
68
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Year
Num
ber
Prisoners on Death Row
Llad Phillips 48
The Death Penalty in California
Fourteen persons were executed between Fourteen persons were executed between 1978 and 20091978 and 2009
In January 2009, there were 677 convicts on In January 2009, there were 677 convicts on death rowdeath row
Llad Phillips 49
Llad Phillips 50
Llad Phillips 51
Llad Phillips 52
Llad Phillips 53
Llad Phillips 54
Llad Phillips 55
Llad Phillips 56
California Executions: 1893-2004
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
Year
Num
ber
Llad Phillips 57
Llad Phillips 58
Execution Witness Area
Llad Phillips 59
Execution Chamber
Llad Phillips 60
GasChamber
Llad Phillips 61
Split Personality BehaviorsJack Hirshleifer: “The Expanding Domainof Economics”
Choice
Work and no violence
Work andbrawl in bars
Economic Manmotive: self-interest
Economic Manmotive: self-interestwith episodes ofantagonism
Assaulter’sIncome
Victim’s Income
Total or Social Income
Motivation for Violence: AntagonismAssaulters Iso-preference Lines
High
Low
choice
Work and no violence
Work andbrawl in bars
expect $24,000/yr
Apprehended: lose 1 month in court andjail, $22,000
0.1
0.9 Not apprehended$24,000
Expected income: 0.1*$22,000 + 0.9*$24,000 = $23,800
Llad Phillips 64
Questions About Statistical Studies of Deterrence Do we know enough about the factors that cause Do we know enough about the factors that cause
crime?crime? Can we find variables that will control for variation in Can we find variables that will control for variation in
crime generation?crime generation? We have better measures for the factors that We have better measures for the factors that
control crime than for the factors that cause crime.control crime than for the factors that cause crime. Unknown variation in crime generation may mask the Unknown variation in crime generation may mask the
effects of crime control.effects of crime control.
Llad Phillips 65
Crime Generation
Crime Control
OffenseRate PerCapita
ExpectedCost ofPunishment
Schematic of the Criminal Justice System
Causes ?
(detention,deterrence)
Expenditures
Weak Link
Crime Generation1. variation of offense rate per capita with expected cost of punishment2. Shift in the relationship with a change in causal factors
Offenserate percapita
Expected cost(severity) of punishment
crime generation function
OF = f($CR*SV, SE, MC)
Crime Generation1. variation of offense rate per capita with expected cost of punishment2. Shift in the relationship with a change in causal factors
Offenserate percapita
Expected cost(severity) of punishment
crime generation function
High causal conditionsLow causal conditions
OF = f($CR*SV, SE, MC)
Production Function for the Criminal Justice System (CJS)1. Variation in expected costs of punishment with criminal justice system expenditure per capita
Expected costs ofpunishment
Criminal Justice System expenditures per capita
production function
$CR*SV =g($EX)
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
expected cost of punishment
Crime Generation
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
expected cost of punishment
Crime Generation
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
per capita expenditures on CJS
ProductionFunction
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
expected cost of punishment
Crime Generation
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
per capita expenditures on CJS
ProductionFunction
square
450
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
expected cost of punishment
Crime Generation
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
per capita expenditures on CJSProductionFunction
square
4501
1
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
expected cost of punishment
Crime Generation
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
per capita expenditures on CJSProductionFunction
square
4501
1
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
expected cost of punishment
Crime Generation
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
per capita expenditures on CJSProductionFunction
square
4501
1
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
expected cost of punishment
Crime Generation
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
per capita expenditures on CJSProductionFunction
square
4501
1
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
expected cost of punishment
Crime Generation
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
per capita expenditures on CJSProductionFunction
square
4501
1
2
2
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
expected cost of punishment
Crime Generation
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
per capita expenditures on CJSProductionFunction
square
4501
1
2
2
3
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
1
2
3
Source: Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice
Llad Phillips 80Source: Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice
Expect
Get
per capita expenditures on CJS
offense rate per capita
expected cost of punishment
Crime Generation
Four-Way Diagram: Crime Generation & Crime Control
per capita expenditures on CJSProductionFunction
square
4501
1
2
2
3
Llad Phillips 82Source: Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice
Causal conditions account for more variation than control
Llad Phillips 83
Crime Generation
Crime Control
OffenseRate PerCapita
ExpectedCost ofPunishment
Schematic of the Criminal Justice System
Causes ?
(detention,deterrence)
Expenditures
Weak Link
Llad Phillips 84
Summary The death penalty stirs strong emotions.The death penalty stirs strong emotions. To attack the death penalty, opponents have attacked To attack the death penalty, opponents have attacked
the concept of deterrence.the concept of deterrence. Proponents of deterrence have lost the argument to Proponents of deterrence have lost the argument to
proponents of detention.proponents of detention. Weakness: not understanding causes of crime.Weakness: not understanding causes of crime.
Detention is the principal instrument of crime control Detention is the principal instrument of crime control policy today in the U.S. and it costs big buckspolicy today in the U.S. and it costs big bucks
Llad Phillips 86
Llad Phillips 88
Prisoners Sentenced to Death:US
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
35019
68
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Year
Num
ber
Sentenced
Llad Phillips 89
Executions in the US
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
4019
68
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
Year
Num
ber
Executed
Llad Phillips 90
California Homicide Rate Per 100,000 People
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Rat
e
Llad Phillips 94
California Department of Corrections: http//www.cdc.state.ca.us/
California Executions Since 1978
Name Date Received Date Executed Time on Death Row
Robert Alton Harris 3/14/79 4/21/92 13 years, 1 month
David Edwin Mason 1/27/84 8/24/93 9 years, 7 months
William George Bonin 3/22/82 2/23/96 13 years, 1 month
Keith Daniel Williams 4/13/79 5/3/96 17 years
Thomas M. Thompson 8/23/84 7/14/98 14 years, 1 month
Kelvin Malone 6/22/81 1/13/99 (Missouri) 15 years, 6 months
Jaturun Siripongs 5/2/83 2/9/99 15 years, 9 months
Manuel Babbitt 7/15/82 5/4/99 16 years, 10 months
Darrell Keith Rich 1/23/81 3/15/00 19 years, 1 month
Robert Lee Massie 5/28/79 3/27/01 21 years, 10 months
Stephen Wayne Anderson 7/30/81 1/29/02 20 years, 6 months
![THE DEATH PENALTY AS INCAPACITATION · 2018-10-23 · 2018] The Death Penalty As Incapacitation 1125 deterrence; the Connecticut Supreme Court recently proclaimed that “[i]t is](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5e49e9941a3d017c6709d249/the-death-penalty-as-2018-10-23-2018-the-death-penalty-as-incapacitation-1125.jpg)
