Here's why the death penalty and longer prison sentences don't really deter crime
EMMANUEL OCBAZGHIMAR 20, 2018, 11.44 PM
Does the death penalty deter crime?
Business Insider
·
Here's why the death penalty and longer prison sentences don't really deter crime.
Narrator: So what can be attributed to the drop in crime over the years? In 1994, President Clinton signed the three strikes bill. It mandated life sentences for offenders who had more than two prior convictions. Since then, the amount of violent crimes has been cut by nearly half. However, experts say only a modest amount of the drop in crime could be attributed to Clinton's bill.
A Government Accountability Office report in 2005 found that the biggest reasons for the drop in crime were increased employment, increased police presence, and an aging of the population. To fully understand why harsher and longer punishments don't really deter crime Cholbi says we need to understand how criminals think.
Cholbi: I think, again, we assign much more significance to the probability of the punishment occurring than we do to the severity of it.
Narrator: Take John, for example. John wants to steal this apple. According to Cholbi, John isn't thinking about how long he'd go to jail for theft. But instead he's thinking about whether or not he'd get caught stealing the apple. To deter John from stealing apples in the future it might make more sense to increase the probability that he'd get caught, rather than increase the severity of his sentence.
But would something as severe as the death penalty be a deterrent?
Cholbi: Probably not, except in atypical or very specific circumstances.
Narrator: It turns out that states with the death penalty have had higher murder rates. And studies have shown that if capital punishment has any deterrent affect at all, it may be too small to be detected. So why do politicians insist on longer and harsher sentences when there's no proof that they actually deter crime?
Jim Copland: It's important to realize politicians are voted maximizers.
Narrator: Jim Copland is the Director of Legal Policy for the Manhattan Institute.
Copland: And so they're not policy wonks who are trying to go through policy studies and come up with the optimal policy. What they're trying to do within their viewpoint is push policies that they think they can sell to their constituencies. So being tough on crime is something that has been a political selling point by and large.
Narrator: From 1999 to 2012 New York decreased their state prison population by 26%, while the nationwide state prison population increased by 10%. During that time the violent crime rate in New York dropped by 31%, while the national rate only dropped 26%. New York accomplished this with a combination of changes in policy and practice. Mandatory minimums were reduced, and in some cases eliminated, and parole approval rates grew significantly.
So if politicians are serious about being tough on crime they should focus on catching criminals, rather than longer sentences.
死刑や量刑を厳しくしても犯罪の予防効果は薄い、と。
クリントン大統領のとき、三回目の有罪宣告は終身刑という三振制にして、たしかに、犯罪は半分に減ったが、犯罪が減ったのは量刑が厳しくしたということより、雇用が増えて、警官の街での常駐率を増やしたこと、それと人口が高齢化したという要因のほうが大きい、と。
犯罪を犯そうとしている人にとっては、どれだけの罪になるかより、捕まるか、捕まらないかのほうが関心事であって、だから、例えば、万引き防止のために、量刑を長期化するより、店に監視カメラをおいたほうがいいわけである。
死刑の抑止効果についても、死刑がない州より死刑がある州のほうがかえって殺人率は高いという統計がでている。
また、NYのように、犯罪者の拘留期間を短くしても犯罪率は下がったというデータもある。
にもかかわらず、政治家が、犯罪者には厳しい処分をするぞ、と公言するのは、そのほうが地元の有権者のウケがいいからだろう、と。
ーーなるほど