Execution Exaggeration

The execution gurney in Terre Haute, Ind. How's that working out for you?

The hang 'em high crowd got terribly excited recently over a study in the American Society of Criminology journal Criminology suggesting that murder rates drop after executions. Which sounds great, except it ignores the fact that death penalty states generally have higher murder rates than non-death penalty states.

Just before the three executions scheduled around the US for yesterday, the Abolitionist Action Committee issued a comparison of the murder rates in the top 14 executing states versus the 14 states that do not practice execution. On that chart, only four non-executing states (Alaska, Michigan, New York and New Jersey) had more than four murders per 100,000 population in 2008, and every single one except Michigan has a lower rate than any of the executing states.

The national average in 2008, according to their statistics, was 5.4 murders per 100,000 population. For the last decade, the rate in non-executing states has consistently been close to four, in executing states closer to six.

In their accompanying statement, the committee wrote, "The execution states in the US believe that the threat of death will stop murders so continue with putting inmates to death. However, with over 25,000 murders in the US each year, the death penalty does not seem to be an effective prevention technique."

So, even if the Criminology report is accurate in its conclusions about a deterrent effect (even though what they have reported is a statistical correlation with no conclusive causal process apparent), the question should remain: What is it that Iowa, Maine, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Wisconsin (all of whom have substantially lower murder rates than Texas) doing right that the Lone Star State can learn from?