10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 1/12

Follow @nro

Subscribe PrintSubscribe DigitalGift: NR PrintGift: NR / Digital

October 20 Issue

Log In Register ARTICLES AUTHORS RSS STORE DONATE MEDIA KIT MAGAZINE HELP CONTACT NR INSTITUTE

Archive Latest RSS Send

Tweet 46 0 Print Text

Comments 600

MAY 8, 2014 4:00 AM

The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty It’s weaker than most people realize.

By John R. Lott Jr.

After the recent mishandled execution inOklahoma, in which the murderer ended up dying from a heart attack, deathpenalty opponents pounced.

Google+

173kLike

by TaboolaPromoted Links

Ramesh Ponnuru Mind Not the Gap

Joel Gehrke RomneyReturns to Iowa for aGOP Star

John Fund Braced forVoter Fraud inColorado

Heather Mac Donald Proactive Policing IsNot ‘Racial Profiling’

370Share

Your EMail Here

Sign up for free NRO emails today:

NRO PollsLockerDomeNRO Polls1of71of7

14,953VotespollDo you trust Obamato fight ISIS?

Read more

13,315VotespollHow Do You ViewThe Amount of Golf Played By thePresident of the United States?

Home Corner Agenda Campaign Spot Home Front Right Field Bench Memos Media Blog Feed Planet Gore Unnaturally Political

Audio, Video & Galleries Kudlow PryceJones Phi Beta Cons Postmodern Conservative Human Exceptionalism Tweet Tracker

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 2/12

Not surprisingly, the Sundaymorning talk shows focused on whether we shouldkeep the death penalty. ABC News’s This Week was hardly a balanced panel, withfour members wanting to abolish the death penalty and the fifth wanting “maybe ahalfway point between eliminating it” and what we currently have.

Let’s analyze the three main arguments made on ABC against the death penalty.

1. “Support for the death penalty has fallen from 80 percent in 1993 [actually 1994]to 60 percent in 2013.”

Has support for the death penalty fallen since 1994? Sure, but what ABC Newsdidn’t explain was that the years chosen were carefully cherrypicked. Support forthe death penalty in 1994 was the highest ever recorded, according to Gallup. Butconsider instead all the 43 surveys from 1936 to 2012. Those surveys showed thatan average of 63.8 percent of Americans supported the death penalty. Sixty percentin 2013 is down slightly from the average over the preceding 76 years, but it washardly an earthshattering change.

And why has support dropped? Probably because crime has fallen. In 1994, themurder rate was 9.0 per 100,000 people. By 2012, it had fallen to almost half that,4.7.

2. “Some states . . . for the same crime [are] three times more likely to sentence anAfricanAmerican defendant to death. I think that’s very, very troubling. . . . Raceis an issue.”

This is simply false. In murder cases, whites are executed much more frequently.Nationally, from 1977, when the death penalty was reinstituted, to 2011, the lastyear for which the FBI has compiled data, 64.7 percent of those executed werewhites, but whites committed only 47 percent of the murders.

Nor do individual states stand out in the way this statement claimed. I went throughthe totals for each individual state over the seven years from 2005 to 2011, andnone have the imbalance the ABC News panel complained about. Missouri wasclose, with five blacks and two whites executed. Only three other states, includingheavily Democratic Maryland, executed more blacks than whites, and in each caseonly one more black was executed. (To see statebystate data for a given year inthis range, search for “capital punishment [insert year] statistical tables.”)

An honest evaluation has to start with explaining why white murderers are executedat a much greater rate than black murderers.

3. “We still see 60 percent still supporting it despite the fact that innocent peopleare on death row.” . . . ”I am troubled by the fact that there are people who havebeen exonerated through DNA. That’s horrific, and we have to do something aboutthat.”

Nobody wants an innocent person convicted. The Innocence Project claims that,since 1989, 34 people convicted of any type of murder have been exonerated by

Print Digital iOS Google Android

Tuesday Links

Pro Abortion Magical ThinkingAbout Dead Fetus

Is Cory Gardner Still an Underdogin Colorado?

D.C. Event on Marriage andReligious Liberty

Twelve Inches: The Worst PitchCall of 2014

Defending the OnDemandEconomy, Part I

Senator Landrieu: I Live with MyParents in Louisiana

SUBSCRIBE TO NATIONAL REVIEW

CONNECT WITH NRO

NRO LIVE BLOG FEED

The Corner

Human Exceptionalism

The Campaign Spot

Bench Memos

Right Field

The Agenda

The Feed

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 3/12

Tweet 46 0 Print Text

DNA evidence; of these, 18 had been sentenced to death. In that same time, about260,000 Americans have been convicted of murder, with DNA evidence being usedin about 12,000, or 4.5 percent. The error rate then was less than 0.3 percent, and itis actually much lower than that, since many of the exonerations came fromconvictions that were made before 1989. Furthermore, DNA evidence hasimproved its accuracy in trials over the past couple of decades, as it has becomemore commonly used. There is an old saying that it is better to let ten guilty peoplego free than to convict one innocent person. But the current system seems to bedoing much better than that.

Finally, all this ignores one extremely important point: There is overwhelmingevidence that the death penalty deters murder and saves lives. Combine that withthe fact that errors, few to begin with, are becoming ever less common, andobjections to the death penalty are basically eviscerated.

— John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center andthe author of More Guns, Less Crime.

NATIONAL REVIEW COMMENTS POLICY

600 Comments National Review Online Login

Sort by Newest Share ⤤

Join the discussion…

Matthew Crockett • 5 months ago

My stance on the death penalty hasn't been altered in part because it's notbased on the standard reasons. I don't support the death penalty based on it'svalue as a deterrent but as a protection against those we as a society don't daretake the risk that they might escape.

For those who argue based on the likelihood of a wrongful conviction, I wouldpoint out that even with smart bombs we still manage to kill civilians or friendlytroops. We as a society glumly accept this unhappy statistic because we as aspecies haven't yet figured out a way to have national security without the

Favorite

370Share

From The Web You May Like

Patrick Brennan 'There's No Such Thingas BlackonBlack Crime'

Thomas Sowell Is This Still America?

George Will Rent Seeking: America’sNational Pastime

Mark Steyn A Dagger at the Heart ofJustice

Mark Steyn Unarmed Man Goes OnShooting Rampage

by TaboolaPromoted Links

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 4/12

• Reply •

species haven't yet figured out a way to have national security without thecapability to wage war.

• Reply •

JohnnyReason • 5 months ago

Also, murderers in the general population are likely the ultimate predators andcould victimize other inmates, as they have nothing to lose -- as there is no riskof the death penalty.

We should remember that guys in prison for non-violent crimes are people, too,and deserve some protection from super-predators.

• Reply •

JohnnyReason • 5 months ago

One good reason for the death penalty is using it as a bargaining chip to get aninmate to take a plea deal -- and thus give valuable evidence -- for first degreemurder and avoid a costly trial. Otherwise, he might as well not talk and go totrial, which burdens taxpayers and victims' families.

• Reply •

joevil • 5 months ago

The question that never gets asked is, does prison for life deters murder. I wouldventure that it does not either,for the simple reason that people think that theycan get away with murder.

Also,I have a strong suspicion that if a convicted person (for murder) get a choicebetween a death penalty or life in prison ,the high majority will fall overthemselves for life in prison and then promptly wet themselves with relieve if it isgranted.

The will to live is so strong that any (committing suicide is another discussion)living being will fight like hell to hold onto it does not matter how bad thecircumstances.It is for that very reason alone that I think the death penalty formurderers is not such a bad idea.

• Reply •

eli • 5 months ago

see more

I'm a graduate student in economics- I use statistics everyday. I understandthem well and respect John Lott's work immensely. However, for as useful asstatistics can be (when utilized correctly), I don't believe they can truly addressthe morality of issues. Lott wrote "More Guns, Less Crime" (great book- it reallypisses liberals off). What if the research had led to the opposite conclusion, thatmore guns=more crime? Would he then oppose the right to keep and bear arms?I know that my views would stay the same regardless of statistics. I believe it isfundamentally wrong for a government to tell people they do not have the right toself defense and fundamentally wrong to leave the only means of force in thegovernment's hand. These are philosophical beliefs not based in utilitarianstatistics. Even if guns led to more deaths on the whole, you cannot punish anindividual based off of probabilities. I, as a gun owner, am very safe withweapons, have NEVER negligently discharged a weapon, and practice shootingregularly. Even if guns on average led to more crime, I personally do not lead tomore crime (I've never even had a traffic ticket). The government is supposed toguarantee individual rights, not govern solely on the utilitarian system (greatestgood for the greatest number). The issue of the death penalty needs to beexamined morally and philosophically, not statistically. I'm opposed to it because

John Lott • 5 months ago> eli

Well, my guess is that most people are willing to trade-off freedom forsafety. If it were true that the cost of gun ownership in terms of safetywere high enough, you too would be willing to accept more regulation (areyou really immune to any trade-offs on this issue?). Now my own research

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 5/12

• Reply •

you really immune to any trade-offs on this issue?). Now my own researchhas convinced me that freedom and safety go together with respect toguns, but you would only know that by doing empirical work. As to yourclaim about the empirical literature, please see my response to yourcomment below.

• Reply •

eli • 5 months ago> John Lott

I have great respect for your empirical work and agree with youthat freedom and safety go hand in hand with the gun issue. I wasgiven your book at age 19 when I was just beginning to questionthe extreme liberalism in which I was raised- it was an eye-opener.I've even managed to "convert" a liberal econ professor to the pro-concealed carry side thanks to your studies. Certainly I'm willing toaccept some compromises on the freedom/safety issue, such aslimiting RPGs or bombs and even allowing background checks toprevent violent felons from owning weapons (though I don'tactually believe they're effective). However, I cannot imagine asituation where I'd be willing to completely sacrifice my gun rights(or free speech, freedom of religion, etc), even if they were provento cause more harm than good in the general population. I believethose rights are unalienable, that every human possesses them byvirtue of being human (endowed by their Creator...). Utilitarianarguments can work very well for many debates- min. wage,Obamacare, trade, gambling, environmental regulations, etc. andcan certainly supplement arguments on things like gun control orthe death penalty. However, I don't think those arguments aresufficient for things like gun control or the death penalty.

• Reply •

John Lott • 5 months ago> eli

Thanks, Eli. I guess as an economist I believe thateverything involves trade-offs. Everything is a continuum.When you say "completely sacrifice my gun rights" what ofthe difference between a $50 fee to get a permit, or a $250permit, or $500, or $1,000? Higher fees make it moredifficult to get a gun, but it isn't a zero/one type decision.Let me put it this way. Where would you draw the line andsay that you were unwilling to put up with an additional $1cost of getting a gun if someone was able to show thatdoing so could save another life? I am not saying that Ibelieve that is the case, but I think that you would have ahard time drawing such a line and say that you wereunwilling to have an additional dollar increase in fees nomatter what the benefit. Fees are just one way you cancompromise "rights" to getting a gun and make it more andmore costly to do so.

• Reply •

eli • 5 months ago

I find it odd that Lott's link to the "overwhelming evidence that the death penaltydeters murder and saves lives" sends you to Freakonomics, where the authorscome to the opposite conclusion and say there's not sufficient evidence that thedeath penalty deters murder and saves lives.

John Lott • 5 months ago> eli

Sorry, Eli, but you should look at the link more carefully. The link goes tomy book, Freedomnomics, which provides a survey of the literature onthe death penalty. My statement about the "overwhelming" evidence isbased on what post peer-reviewed studies by economists find.

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 6/12

• Reply •

Among the research that I discuss is the study done by one of the authorsof Freakonomics. Regarding that I note: "Rather than analyzing thepercent of murders that result in execution, some researchers measurethe number of executions per prisoner. It is not clear why anyone wouldbelieve that if jails are filled up with additional prisoners convicted ofcrimes like drug possession or car theft, the risk murderers face fromexecution would decline. Comparing two unrelated statistics, it is hardlysurprising that this research cannot identify any benefit from the deathpenalty. See Lawrence Katz, Steven Levitt, Ellen Shustorovish, “PrisonConditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence,” American Law andEconomics Review, 2003, 318-343." I properly classify this paper assaying the authors believed that the death penalty has no effect.

If you disagree with the survey that I provide of the literature, please tellme where I am wrong. But I suspect that you wrote up your comments alittle too quickly.

• Reply •

bungopony • 5 months ago> eli

Dead guys don't reoffend.Smarm aside,until we have more honest cops/prosecutors,we will haveaxe-grinders trying to score points by killing guys like GeorgeZimmerman.In Canada,we had Robert Baltovich,Donald Marshall,David Milgaard,Guy-Paul Morin convicted of crimes for which the mob would've beendemanding a bite outta their still-beating hearts,every one convictedbecause cops/crown had to "get"somebody,anybody.Governments bugger up everything they touch,so I'm damned if I'mgonna give them this,too.Incidentally,when we were having a"debate"(people debated,pols ignoredus)over reinstating capital punishment,folks in favour would routinelysay,"Oh,and while we're at it,let's kill the drug pushers..."What "drugs"?Crack?Heroin?Nicotine?Who'd decide?

• Reply •

dave pod • 5 months ago

This is indeed...the stupidest article I have ever read in my life. John Lott is theworst right wing space cadet I think I have ever witnessed, even surpassing MarkLevin, who at least knows that he is misrepresenting the facts. Lott reallybelieves what he is saying, this is disconcerting, frightening but not surprisingfrom a gun fanatic, who either can't interpret statistics, and has invented his ownreality. In fact, the crime rate in Canada, UK and Australia ( all with strict gunrestrictions), is down to where it was in 1972, with death by firearms at thelowest recorded level ever. New York city, where they have very strict gun laws,had a homicide rate last year lower than over half a century ago. These are facts,but I guess people who cannot even read and understand the meaning of the2nd amendment, can't be expected to absorb facts.

• Reply •

Richard • 5 months ago> dave pod

And of course you will provide citations, that we can check, to prove all ofthese assertions?

• Reply •

All for Naught • 5 months ago> dave pod

Of course you plan on letting us plebs see a copy of your CV, I mean if aDr of Econ at UofC, Yale, and UCLA is such a dunce, your resume mustbe awesome....

brock • 5 months ago

The decline in support for the Death penalty could also be the result of news

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 7/12

• Reply •

The decline in support for the Death penalty could also be the result of newsreporting that it costs significantly more per death row inmate than othercriminals and the knowledge that death row inmates often live for many, manyyears following conviction. I suspect that support would be greater if wecontrolled for cost factors and we control for people who are simply fed up withthe system because it is too lenient.

• Reply •

joevil • 5 months ago> brock

The reason that a death penalty costs more is because most of thesemurderers sit on death row for years and years and submit appeal afterappeal which cost the tax payers an enormous amount of money.

Also,since they sit on death row for so long does the "shock" or deterrenteffect of execution gets diminished where in a place like China does themurderer gets shot the next day at sunrise.

• Reply •

95Theses • 5 months ago

see more

This article originally appeared years ago in the National Review. Unfortunately, itcan no longer be accessed from their website. But since very few people seemto be aware of this method of execution, I am posting it here in its entirety. I hopeNR will excuse my taking the liberty.

Killing with Kindness – Capital Punishment by Nitrogen Asphyxiation Capital punishment needn't be cruel or unusual — especially if you use nitrogenasphyxiation to put people to sleep.1995, September 11 | Stuart A. Creque

Last October, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the 9th U.S. District Court ruled thatexecution in California's gas chamber is a form of cruel and unusual punishment,the first ruling ever by a state or federal judge to invalidate a method of executionon Eighth Amendment grounds. She noted that the evidence showed that thecondemned man might remain conscious for several minutes, experiencing theemotions of ‘anxiety, panic, terror,’ as well as ‘exquisitely painful muscle spasms'and ‘intense visceral pain.’

On its face, Judge Patel's ruling applies only to the gas chamber, but every

• Reply •

wjmusmc • 5 months ago

just a thought. When a life sentence is given, cancel their civil rights and sendthem to another country to serve their sentence. Cost would be pennies on thedollar compared to here, and their sentence would be served in a facility thatactually represents a punishment.

• Reply •

bungopony • 5 months ago> wjmusmc

Which"other country"?

Claudio Giusti • 5 months ago

Capital Punishment is like slavery: nobody has theright to impose it.

Death penalty is a clear violation of human rights:right to equality, right to life and freedom from torture.

It is an “arbitrary and capricious” black hole in theLaw: a land with unclear and inconsistently drawn borders, changing in time andspace.

It is a “privilege” of the poor, because “capital

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 8/12

• Reply •

see more

It is a “privilege” of the poor, because “capitalpunishment means that those without the capital get the punishment”.

It is an irreversible punishment and kills the insaneand the innocent.

It is not self-defense, but revenge.

It is not a more effective deterrent than prison andmakes worst the evil it pretends to cure, because death penalty brutalizes and

1

• Reply •

95Theses • 5 months ago

see more

> Claudio Giusti

... According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because hedeserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore,barbarous and immoral ...

My contention is that this doctrine, merciful though it appears, reallymeans that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, isdeprived of the rights of a human being.

The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment theconcept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting linkbetween punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeservedthat a sentence can be just or unjust. I do not here contend that thequestion "Is it deserved?" is the only one we can reasonably ask about apunishment. We may very properly ask whether it is likely to deter othersand to reform the criminal. But neither of these two last questions is aquestion about justice. There is no sense in talking about a "justdeterrent" or a "just cure." We demand of a deterrent not whether it is justbut whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just butwhether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal

• Reply •

miliukov • 5 months ago

Not that it matters, but I think that there should be limits on what the state can doto its citizens as a matter of principle. The "criminals" -- murderers and terroristsand child molesters, et. al., today -- could be tax dodger, gun clingers, Biblethumpers, tomorrow.

I mean, you guys don't even trust the government to deliver the mail or providebasic health care -- you really want to entitle them to decide matters of life anddeath?

• Reply •

Miles Hall • 5 months ago> miliukov

Yes.

• Reply •

Aristotelian1 • 5 months ago

Many criminals are sociopaths and commit crimes so their fellow sociopaths willadmire them. That includes being tough enough to get a death sentence. Deathdoesn't frighten them, because their own life is unbearable. If they were toldthey'd go behind prison walls and never get out, and they'd be forgotten, andtheir girl would have a new guy, and someone else would drive their car, andprison is like a living death, and they're suckers, that would frighten them.

2

paustin • 5 months ago> Aristotelian1

It's funny about the "sociopathy" label. During the 1970s, Dallas' HenryWade (of Roe v Wade) used a psychiatrist as an expert witness in

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 9/12

• Reply •

Wade (of Roe v Wade) used a psychiatrist as an expert witness insentencing trials for death penalty cases. The psychiatrist wasenormously persuasive that "the defendant is a dangerous sociopath..."and got many death sentences for Wade to claim credit for. Well, thepsychiatrist testified on behalf of one of Wade's political enemies (a drunkdriving charge) and Wade immediately declared that his pet psychiatristwas a quack and a charlatan...So much for expert opinion.

• Reply •

Aristotelian1 • 5 months ago> paustin

For my discussion purposes, I suppose there are anti-socialpersonalities, and they have a disorder, but they function. They arethe school bully, the bad boss, the lousy neighbor. The sociopathis the same as that, but has crossed the line into criminal behavior.The sociopath is however loyal to certain friends, relatives, andmob buddies. The psychopath adds certain narcissistic personalitydisorders ("inferior humans can never catch me"), and perhaps hasbiological damage to the brain. The psychopath is rare, 1%-2% ofthe public but 10%-20% of prison populations. They live bybullying and conning, and are never "normal" in their relationshipwith others. The psychopath has limited range of emotions, andfeels hunger, thirst, greed, sexual desire, but not empathy andpossibly not fear. Execution is not a threat to them.

• Reply •

Frogman • 5 months ago> Aristotelian1

Yes, but the vast majority of condemned murderers appeal and battletheir sentences right to the end. When the reality of a "death" sentencestares them right in the face, they fight it vigorously. Very few decline theappeals process. Life in prison, even with no possibility of parole, is still"life."

• Reply •

johnlac • 5 months ago> Frogman

Not only that, hundreds if not thousands of innocent citizens havebeen killed by escaped murderers. How do the anti-death penaltypeople respond to that? Nobody wants an innocent personexecuted, but then we also don't want innocent people beingmurdered by killers who wouldn't have been able to perform theirheinous deeds if they were taking a dirt nap.

1

• Reply •

Aristotelian1 • 5 months ago> johnlac

My solution would be life sentences without parole, unlessproof is found that the prisoner is actually innocent. This would also mean a cash settlement for the innocentprisoner, because there's no likelihood he can ever work.

• Reply •

Th_Ph • 5 months ago

So @HarryFenton responds to @Lee the loon pooper? Could it be that Harry is asockpuppet?

1

• Reply •

HarryFenton • 5 months ago> Th_Ph

No, I have only a single persona. But you keep deleting entries so it isdifficult to tell. You clearly enjoy an echo chamber, but as you have nearly10,000 comments on this site, I respect that your unemploymentelsewhere creates a need for power and activity here without anychallenge to your ideas.

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 10/12

• Reply •

• Reply •

HarryFenton • 5 months ago

I find it troubling that many posts critical of this article are constantly beingdeleted by self-appointed zealots for the cause of death penalty. It reflects poorlyon National Review and the openness of debate supported by William F.Buckley, Jr.

• Reply •

Topnife • 5 months ago

My objections to the death penalty have been entirely pragmatic, and are mainlyinfluenced by the way it is practiced in my home state of California:1. Death penalty trials are enormously more expensive than those in which thedeath penalty is not sought, and are typically resorted to by prosecutors forpolitical reasons.2. Vast sums are spent on supporting defense efforts to avert the penalty, and onstate efforts to defend against it, with repeated appeals, motions and hearings.During this entire process, the families and loved ones of the victims aresubjected to a never-ending ordeal, that poisons their lives as well.3. Throughout all this, death row prisoners are housed in comparative luxury, andfar more often die of old age than of execution. The number of executionsannually is a tiny fraction of the number of new capital murder convictions.Effectively, most killers are serving life without parole, regardless of whether theywere sentenced to death.

Make the death penalty work efficiently, with reasonable timeliness, and I'd be allfor it. Maybe I'll move to Texas.

2

• Reply •

OJOHN28 • 5 months ago> Topnife

Even in TX it's only carried on a tiny % of murderers (1 in 345 IIRC, thatprobably includes all unlawful killing, negligent homicide and so forth, butit's still a small % of even 'outright murder', however you define it). And atthat rate it's inherently arbitrary. And the timeliness and efficiency thereare only *relatively* better than most of the other states. The things you cited about CA are true enough (if not as extreme as there)everywhere else in the US to make it not worthwhile IMO, and I supportedits abolition in my state. It's become more trouble than it's worth. And youcan class a lot of things as 'the left's fault' but that doesn't change realityof the resources that are going to be wasted in elaborate trials andappeals for just a small % of killers.

• Reply •

Topnife • 5 months ago> OJOHN28

I've heard that in China, a death penalty is carried out by taking themiscreant out behind the courthouse and shooting him in thehead. And they send a bill for the bullet to his family!A bit harsh, but it probably works better.

• Reply •

Rob Hobart • 5 months ago> Topnife

The fact that the modern Left has screwed up the application of the deathpenalty along with all other aspects of the justice system is an argumentagainst the Left, not against the death penalty.

6

Topnife • 5 months ago> Rob Hobart

As I said, my objections are pragmatic. The Left controls theaccess, and they are not likely to suddenly go away, so sentencingpersons to death is just a very expensive and cumbersome way ofgiving them a life sentence without parole. Better to just lock them up and throw away the key, and forget

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 11/12

• Reply •

about them.

• Reply •

Sweet_Lew • 5 months ago

Another factor - without the death penalty, prosecutors have nothing to bargainwith in dealing with an obviously-guilty defendant. Some plead guilty to avoid achance of getting the death penalty. Take that away and you have to go throughthe time and expense (and likely, pain to the victim's family) of trial every singletime.And yes, I realize it's possible that innocent people may also plead guilty to avoidthe death penalty. That's horrible but doesn't outwigh the benefit. IMO.

• Reply •

wombat1951 • 5 months ago> Sweet_Lew

That's a weak argument :)

If the punishment for a capital crime were, say, life at hard labor withoutpossibility of parole ever -- many would "bargain" to get a sentence with apossibility of being free at some point.

Of course -- such requires the absolute certainty that life without paroleis, in fact, life without parole.

1

• Reply •

Topnife • 5 months ago> wombat1951

I disagree. Plea bargaining away the death sentence is thestrongest argument for retaining it, and making the max sentenceto be life without parole means some of these scum would actuallyget out again by bargaining down from that. Maybe you like thatidea, but I don't.

• Reply •

Guest • 5 months ago

I find it troubling that many posts critical of this article are being deleted by self-appointed zealots for the cause of death penalty. It reflects poorly on NationalReview and the openness of debate supported by William F. Buckley, Jr.

• Reply •

Guest • 5 months ago

I find it troubling that many posts critical of this article are being deleted by self-appointed zealots for the cause of death penalty. It reflects poorly on NationalReview and the openness of debate supported by William F. Buckley, Jr.

• Reply •

Th_Ph • 5 months ago

@Lee You're loon pooping from the Phantom Zone. Nothing you poop lands onthis forum.

1

• Reply •

Guest • 5 months ago> Th_Ph

No, I'm a paying customer, whose posts are being unreasonably deletedby thought police hijackers who consistently violate the policies of thisforum.

wombat1951 • 5 months ago

I could support the elimination of capital punishment, IF -- I could be convincedthat life without possibility of parole AND at hard labor could not be changed atany time in the lifetime of the sentenced individual without positive PROOF thatthe individual had been wrongly convicted.

Honest question: is there any State in the union that has these guarantees in

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

10/14/2014 The Shaky Case against the Death Penalty | National Review Online

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377488/shaky-case-against-death-penalty-john-r-lott-jr 12/12

Load more comments

• Reply •

Honest question: is there any State in the union that has these guarantees inplace as a substitute for capital punishment?

1

• Reply •

Rob Hobart • 5 months ago> wombat1951

NOPE.

• Reply •

Bubba Jones • 5 months ago

Perhaps you could provide a link to the data showing that the death penaltydeters crime. I haven't seen any in the times I have looked for it. Freakonomicscertainly painted a skeptical picture.

• Reply •

John Lott • 5 months ago> Bubba Jones

In the article I provided a link to a literature survey that I did on this topic.The vast majority of peer reviewed research by economists finds adeterrent effect.

• Reply •

Rob Hobart • 5 months ago> Bubba Jones

1. There;s a link right there at the bottom of the article... or didn't you readit?2. Freakonomics is bullsh*t.

3

• Reply •

silencedogoodreturns • 5 months ago> Bubba Jones

personally, the fact that it can act as a deterrent isn't very important tome. I look upon it as punishment for crime committed.

6

Subscribe Add Disqus to your sited Privacy

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

© National Review Online 2014. All Rights Reserved.

Home | NR / Digital Home | Donate | Media Kit | Site Problems | View Mobile Site | Contact Us | Privacy Policy