In their story, “States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates”, The New York Times did their best to illustrate that the death penalty was not a deterrent, by showing that the average murder rate in death penalty states was higher than the average rate in non death penalty states and, it is. (1)
 
What the Times failed to observe is that their own study confirmed that you can’t simply compare those averages to make that determination regarding deterrence.
 
As one observer stated: “The Times story does nothing more than repeat the dumbest of all dumb mistakes — taking the murder rate in a traditionally high-homicide state with capital punishment (like Texas) and comparing it to a traditionally low-homicide state with no death penalty (like North Dakota) and concluding that the death penalty doesn’t work at all. Even this comparison doesn’t work so well. The Times own graph shows Texas, where murder rates were 40 percent above Michigan’s in 1991, has now fallen below Michigan . . .”. (2)
 
Within the Times article, Michigan Governor John Engler states, “I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago,” referring to the state’s abolition of the death penalty in 1846.   “We’re pretty proud of the fact that
we don’t have the death penalty.”(3)
 
Even though easily observed on the Times’ own graphics, they failed to mention the obvious. Michigan’s murder rate is near or above that of 31 of the US’s 38 death penalty states. And then, it should be recognized that Washington, DC (not found within the Times study) and Detroit, Michigan, two non death penalty jurisdictions, have been perennial leaders in murder and violent crime rates for the past 30 years. Delaware, a jurisdiction similar in size to them, leads the nation in executions per murder, but has significantly lower rates of murders and violent crime than do either DC or Detroit, during that same period.
 
Obviously, the Times study and any other simple comparison of jurisdictions with and without the death penalty, means little, with regard to deterrence.
 
Also revealed within the Times study, but not pointed out by them,: “One-third of the nation’s executions take place in Texas—and the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation’s executions.” (4)
 
And, the Times also failed to mention that the major US jurisdiction with the most executions is Harris County (Houston, Texas), which has seen a 73% decrease in murder rates since resuming executions in 1982 — possibly the largest reduction for a major metropolitan area since that time.
 
Also omitted from the Times review, although they had the data, is that during a virtual cessation of executions, from 1966-1980, that murders more than doubled in the US. Any other rise and fall in murders, after that time, has been only a fraction of that change, indicating a strong and direct correlation between the lack of executions and the dramatic increase in murders, if that is specifically what you are looking for.
 
If deterrence was measured by direct correlation’s between execution, or the lack thereof, and murder rates, as implied by the Times article, and as wrongly assumed by those blindly accepting that model, then there would be no debate, only more confusion. Which may have been the Times goal.
 
Let’s take a look at the science.
 
Some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as South Africa and Mexico lead the world in murder and violent crime rates. But then some non death penalty jurisdictions, such as Sweden, have quite low rates. Then there are such death penalty jurisdictions as Japan and Singapore which have low rates of such crime. But then other death penalty jurisdictions, such as Rwanda and Louisiana, that have high rates.
 
To which an astute observer will respond: But socially, culturally, geographically, legally, historically and many other ways, all of those jurisdictions are very different. Exactly, a simple comparison of only execution rates and murder rates cannot tell the tale of deterrence. And within the US, between states, there exist many variables which will effect the rates of homicides.
 
And, as so well illustrated by the Times graphics, a non death penalty state, such as Michigan has high murder rates and another non death penalty state, such as North Dakota, has low murder rates and then there are death penalty states, such as Louisiana, with high murder rates and death penalty states, such South Dakota, with low rates. Apparently, unbeknownst to the Times, but quite obvious to any neutral observer, there are other factors at play here, not just the presence or absence of the death penalty. Most thinking folks already knew that.
 
As Economics Professor Ehrlich stated in the Times piece and, as accepted by all knowledgeable parties, there are many factors involved in such evaluations. That is why there is a wide variation of crime rates both within and between some death penalty and non death penalty jurisdictions, and small variations within and between others.  Any direct comparison of only execution rates and only murder rates, to determine deterrence, would reflect either ignorance or deception.
 
Ehrlich called the Times study “a throwback to the vintage 1960s statistical analyses done by criminologists who compared murder rates in neighboring states where capital punishment was either legal or illegal.” “The statistics involved in such comparisons have long been recognized as devoid of scientific merit.” He called the Times story a “one sided affair” devoid of merit. Most interesting is that Ehrlich was interviewed by the Time’s writer, Fessenden, who asked Ehrlich to comment on the results before the story was published. Somehow Ehrlich’s overwhelming criticisms were left out of the article.
 
Ehrlich also referred Fessenden to some professors who produced the recently released Emory study. Emory Economics department head, Prof. Deshbakhsh “says he was contacted by Fessenden, and he indicated to the Times reporter that the study suggested a very strong deterrent effect of capital punishment.” Somehow,
Fessenden’s left that out of the Times story, as well. (5).
 
There is a constant within all jurisdictions — negative consequences will always have an effect on behavior.
 
copyright 2000-2004 Dudley Sharp
 
1)  “States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates”,  The New
York Times 9/22/00   located at      www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22STUD.html  andwww.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/national/22DEAT.html
2) “Don’t Know Much About Calculus: The (New York) Times flunks high-school
math in death-penalty piece”, William Tucker, National Review, 9/22/00, located
at   www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment092200c.shtml
3) ibid, see footnote 11
4) “The Death Penalty Saves Lives”, AIM Report, August 2000, located atwww.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2000/08a.html
15) “NEW YORK TIMES UNDER FIRE AGAIN”, Accuracy in Media,  10/16/00, go to www.aim.org/
 
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail  sharpjfa@aol.com,  713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Pro death penalty sites
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.dpinfo.com/
www.prodeathpenalty.com
http://www.prodeathpenalty.org/
http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15525046/ny_sida_1.htm
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
www.vuac.org/capital

My focus has been on violent crime issues and what can be done, within the criminal justice and legislative systems, to lessen injury to the innocent and to prosecute the guilty.  To accomplish that goal, involvement in community education, elections, legislation, victim’s rights issues, including assistance in individual cases are all important.