Statistical Evidence Establishes that Each Execution Prevents 74 Murders, Shifting Burden of Persuasion to Death Penalty Opponents 

In the never-ending debate between capital punishment proponents and abolitionists, one ongoing point of contention centers upon whether the death penalty actually deters future murders in America. 

According to a new study by Pepperdine University professors Roy D. Adler and Michael Summers, the answer is an emphatic "yes."  Based upon their evidence, capital punishment exerts a demonstrable, significant statistical deterrent impact upon the number of murders in America.  As a consequence, their study shifts the burden of persuasion dramatically to abolitionists. 

Of course, one should note that even if capital punishment had no demonstrable deterrent effect upon crime or murder in America, several other justifications for its imposition would nevertheless remain. 

The preceding declaration stems from the fact that, according to the heritage of our common law, four philosophical and moral justifications for criminal punishment exist.  Deterrence is merely one of those four. 

The first justification, which is perhaps most ingrained in basic human nature, is what we commonly know as "retribution."  This elementary moral justification asserts that one who commits an illegal or immoral act should himself suffer for having committed that act.  Or, in common parlance, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."  Although some people consider this a vulgar, unfortunate or improper justification for imposing criminal penalties upon other human beings, the simple fact is that it continues to constitute an important basis for criminal law and punishment.  Agree or disagree, our society generally believes that a bad deed should not go unpunished. 

The second traditional justification for criminal penalties is what we know as "incapacitation."  Very simply, this holds that by removing a criminal from society through imprisonment or capital punishment, the criminal is thereby incapacitated from committing additional crimes.  Indeed, this partly explains why crime rates in New York City fell so dramatically under the tenure of Mayor Rudy Giuliani.  According to his theory, the same small segment of society tended to commit both the seemingly "minor" crimes as well as the "major" crimes.  Thus, removing those who committed supposedly "minor" crimes incapacitated them from committing future "major" crimes if allowed to remain on the street, and crime plummeted.  In similar fashion, capital punishment serves this incapacitation rationale because it permanently removes our most vicious criminals from society, thereby eliminating any threat of future crime that they pose while in prison, after escape or after parole. 

The third of four traditional justifications for criminal law is that of "rehabilitation."  In other words, in a perfect world, imposition of criminal penalties would serve to rehabilitate those who commit crime, whether through education in prison, or teaching the more fundamental truism that "crime doesn't pay."  Obviously, capital punishment does less to serve this particular justification, apart from the possible improvement that a murderer can undergo between capture and execution. 

This brings us to the fourth justification for criminal law, and the subject of the eye-opening new study:  "deterrence."  In other words, society aspires to create a criminal justice system that deters future crimes by making an example of those who commit them. 

In turn, this brings us to Professors Adler and Summers, and their remarkable new study.  Examining the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, they correlated the number of executions in America to the number of murders during that span.  It became immediately clear that as executions in America increase, murders decrease.  Conversely, when executions decreased, murders increased. 

In fact, the study revealed that each execution was correlated with some 74 fewer murders the following year. 

Obviously, Professors Adler and Summers were concerned that this corollary relationship was merely coincidental.  Therefore, they conducted a grueling statistical regression analysis on the relationship.  To their surprise, their regression analysis established that the odds against the pattern being random were approximately 18,000 to 1. 

Naturally, death penalty opponents will struggle to suggest alternative explanations for this remarkable evidence of capital punishment's deterrent effect, such as increased police activity, economic prosperity or perhaps demographic shifts.  In light of the professors' new study, however, such opponents now carry a much heavier burden of proof in refuting this dramatic deterrent relationship. 

Even more fundamentally, death penalty opponents now carry a heavier burden to explain why sparing the life of a convicted murderer somehow outweighs sparing the lives of dozens of future murder victims. 

Let the debate continue on this powerful new note.