Was Abhijit the first casualty in this crime spree? Good to see that the Durham police seem to have got results quickly, unlike in the LSU murders.

two juveniles, both 14... 70 robberies

What Rahul said.
Let's not rush to judgment (not that anyone is--just want to hopefully head off a crazy turn in the comments), but--good news!!

Bittersweet news indeed. I now wonder what went through the children's heads when they decided to snuff out this man's life. Anyways let the speculation begin!

70 Robberies since Jan 1? Isnt that a lot. It is very much possible a lot of the victims never reported the crimes to the police. BUt some would have. They should have been patrolling that area a lot more. Does anyone know if any notices were given warning the public about a trend of robbing Latinos in that area? If they didn't find this foursome by accident, I wonder how long the cops would have been clueless. Another month?

And those mofos were not children. 14 is old enough for them to fry in my opinion. They shot an unarmed person. It wasn't a case of the 14 year olds panicking. They just killed the guy in cold blood because they got their kicks that way. They killed other unarmed victims too. The effort it would take into reforming these mofos could be used to rescue 20 potential muggers from becoming criminals.

I agree with Pravin in post 5. Those "kids" are old enough to know right from wrong. Hope the killers are thrown in jail for life with no parole but that probably won't happen.

Bittersweet news indeed. I now wonder what went through the children's heads when they decided to snuff out this man's life. Anyways let the speculation begin!

Please let's not let the conversation devolve into an argument over whether you should try 14 year olds as adults or the death penalty, especially since it sounds like they're connected with robbery, not murder.

Were there other murders? I thought it was 70 armed robberies and one murder, but perhaps I'm misreading?

I'm glad this case is heading towards the right direction. But I have a little bit of sympathy for the suspects too. 14, even 20, is a very young age to get involved in a murder and robbery scenario.

Shlok (#8), thank you for being a voice of reason. I feel terrible, terrible beyond words for Abhijit and his family, but let's not turn this into a public stoning of the accused. What they did is incredibly serious and heartbreaking, yes, and I'd be in hell if they were my kids. But about 14 being "old enough to know right from wrong" -- I don't know. 14-year-olds are usually naïve and immature and impressionable. I know I was at that age, but I grew up in a culture that valued nerdiness above all else. Nobody had guns, and our worst transgressions were, well (to bring in another post), reading Mills & Boon romances, or, at worst, sneaking off to meet members of the opposite sex at the library (yes, the library) on the weekends. But it's all circumstance, isn't it? Some of us are lucky enough to grow up in healthy, positive environments, and some of us aren't. Please, let's remember that victims and criminals -- they're all somebody's kids.

Can the author of this post please explain the last sentence?

Horrendous crimes, plunging friends and family into grief, are committed for money. Some years ago, I read of a New Yorker forced to part with his bank card and reveal its pin number, before being fatally shot. The robbers were two students he had been mentoring; they were quickly apprehended. One cannot be too careful.

I go back and forth on this, with loss of life, from a judicial and essentially moral point of view, I believe equal punishment can be meted out. However, from a practical point of view, how much of it is actually preventative?

Shlok (#8), thank you for being a voice of reason. I feel terrible, terrible beyond words for Abhijit and his family, but let's not turn this into a public stoning of the accused. What they did is incredibly serious and heartbreaking, yes, and I'd be in hell if they were my kids. But about 14 being "old enough to know right from wrong" -- I don't know. 14-year-olds are usually naïve and immature and impressionable. I know I was at that age, but I grew up in a culture that valued nerdiness above all else. Nobody had guns, and our worst transgressions were, well (to bring in another post), reading Mills & Boon romances, or, at worst, sneaking off to meet members of the opposite sex at the library (yes, the library) on the weekends. But it's all circumstance, isn't it? Some of us are lucky enough to grow up in healthy, positive environments, and some of us aren't. Please, let's remember that victims and criminals -- they're all somebody's kids.

I agree; that is one reason that child soldiers make effective killers (numerous studies on civil strife have found this); they have very little conscience and are relatively more likely to follow orders to please superiors. Also this is one reason that the marines (and the army) try to recruit students straight out of high school (though I am not implying that both are on equal normative footing; just noting the fact)...

However, from a practical point of view, how much of it is actually preventative?

Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs

CASS R. SUNSTEIN ADRIAN VERMEULE

Abstract:
Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many eighteen or more murders for each execution. This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death. Capital punishment thus presents a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. Moral objections to the death penalty frequently depend on a distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is misleading in this context, because government is a special kind of moral agent. The familiar problems with capital punishment - potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew - do not argue in favor of abolition, because the world of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form. The widespread failure to appreciate the life-life tradeoffs involved in capital punishment may depend on cognitive processes that fail to treat "statistical lives" with the seriousness that they deserve.

Are you asking if severe punishment has a deterrent effect?

That's what I was asking.

potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew because the world of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form.

I agree for the most part with the quote, but not this part. It's clear which race is disproportionately disenfranchised by the judiciary process, and capital punishment by extension. but is it enough of a disparity in the capital punishment world to outweigh the deterrent effects? Not sure.

Even looking at it from an aggregate POV, states that have the death penalty, eg texas, nc, virginia, etc.. don't necessarily have lower murder rates.

I am glad that the perps were apprehended. And my condolences to the family of Abhijit. I cannot fathom the horror faced by his family that is so far away. BUT I hope we dont descend into such medieval cries to 'fry' these juveniles. I dont buy that the death penalty deters murders. A person committing a violent crime is obviously not in a state of mind that is weighing the ramifications of his actions.

Condolences to Abhijit's family & friends. A needless loss of life.
When law enforcement produces results quickly (accidental/deliberate), it not only provides some measure of comfort to the family, but has an significant impact in the neighborhood. This ought to be backed up by education within the university system and, among folks that may have grown up not trusting law enforcement, that any crime should be reported.

Well forget the minors. The fact is this group has committed other murders. This is not a spur of the moment panicky killing. If we have a perfect society, then we can look at utopian ways of reforming killers. But there is a younger generation that could use some of that attention to reduce the likelihood of future killers. That's my philosophy anyway.

Just to clarify, I only emphasized the fact they were children to point to the greater fundamental issue at hand: what kind of backwards environment are these kids growing up in? With that being said, I don't believe it is necessary to view them as minors where the law is concerned. I throw my vote for the chair.

The killing of desi grad students in the last few weeks got me thinking of my own days of slumming it. And I don't use that word lightly. I stayed in dump for some six months, before on-campus housing opened up. The house was at the edge of the Univ. Cincinnati campus - not a neighborhood I would walk through if given a choice.

I agree that universities must do more to secure student housing. I would even argue that universities should subsidize better housing for grad students, or increse their stipends/assistantships etc. That said, here is the paradox... most grad students finish their degrees and get well paying jobs. Why don't they monetize those future earnings earlier and pay for better, safer housing?

I can think of a reason I didn't borrow from relatives, other than that conservative work ethic of not going into debt. Which is stupid, because debt seems much less important than personal safety.

Any thoughts?

10 · Radman said

Can the author of this post please explain the last sentence?

The last thread about this murder disintegrated in to an unfortunate "conversation" which was essentially stereotypes about first generation and second generation desis being shoved back and forth, with qualifiers. I was directly addressing that. It does not matter whether someone looked "meek" or not, a life was lost, so conjecture about how to address crime (as to whether DBDs should arm themselves with guns, whether it's better to fight back than comply with robbers, etc) was out of place on a thread which will possibly be visited by members of Abhijit's family or his friends. No disrespect was intended.

They also said Oates, of 2302 Anthony Drive, is charged with other robberies dating back to November, in which many victims are Hispanic.

The fact is this group has committed other murders.

What is your source for this claim?

I think the SM commenters do care deeply about what's happened to Abhijit Mahato. Some identify with him. It's too bad it devolved into a DBD vs ABD debate. Though some of the comments were insensitive, I can't help but think it's due to wanting to understand and prevent what happened to Abhijit.

Liberal compassion rears its ugly head. The first question in liberal minds is to as "is Capital punishment morally required" while people concerned with truth what culture and values produces such violent individuals.

Bess, I agree. I know it was done out of frustration on behalf of or sympathy towards Abhijit, but I think even a commenter on that thread said that they would feel bad if the victim's F/F read some of that. Let's have a collective NYR to be more sensitive in 2008. :) People (especially those who are related to a victim of a violent crime) find these threads years after we debate our way through them; I think we all forget that while typing, which is understandable.

Liberal compassionates are not people concerned with truth? This sounds more like deja poo all over again.

ABD, DBD, bespectacled or not

Ha Ha Ha.. Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them

I goofed big time. I reread that article. For some reason, I thought they committed other murders. Sorry guys.

15 · HMF said

I agree for the most part with the quote, but not this part. It's clear which race is disproportionately disenfranchised by the judiciary process, and capital punishment by extension. but is it enough of a disparity in the capital punishment world to outweigh the deterrent effects? Not sure.

HMF, the theorists claim that it is black people whose lives are not being valued appropriately if we fail to mete out capital punishment if it has a deterrent effect. Since black people happen have a greater vulnerability to be victims of violence (by other black persons even, when we fail to punish the perpetrators in way that has the maximum deterrent effect, we are endangering the lives of those innocent/non-violent black persons whose death could have been avoided. So the authors are saying that if we care about black people's lives, we should re-examine the effectiveness of deploying capital punishment as a deterrent. According to the empirical evidence in this paper, many more black lives will be saved if capital punishment is meted out to murderers. Obviously, the authors are not arguing that we should punish people without the most robust evidence - "Death penalty = more lives saved in the future." Others can still point to normative reasons as to why we should not have capital punishment, regardless of the lives it saves. The authors do address some such arguments in the paper, particularly why the state is a different kind of moral agent. You and I may not kill murderers, but a state can. I don't have the time to go into this, but those interested in why the state is a special kind of moral agent can read the paper.

25 · Deja vu all over again said

people concerned with truth what culture and values produces such violent individuals.

Ah, I see being "liberal" automatically denies you access to "The Truth."
I do not see how an empirical study about the efficacy of capital punishment equals "ugly liberal compassion." If anything, a study indicating that capital punishment is effective, contradicts the standard (non-consequentialist) garden-variety American liberal's anti-capital punishment position. Then again, I can't help your Pavlovian response to the phrase, "Is Capital punishment morally required?" In this case, people were generally curious about this question, and looking for hard evidence.
But, of course, they are documented liberals, they must have an ulterior motive. Down with the liberals! Nobody dare install a gay-black-transgender-anti-life-anti-gun-latte-swilling-aura-reading-dread-head-prius-driving-yuppie in the White House. Not on your watch.
Indeed, deja vu all over again :)

1 · Rahul said

Good to see that the Durham police seem to have got results quickly, unlike in the LSU murders.

Yes, true.

You and I may not kill murderers, but a state can.

but when a state has shown a clear history of errored biased information, even when a "robust" case is built, and it happens to disproportionately affect certain people, then the author's argument has holes in it.

A state can be a moral agent, however, when that happens to be one of the united state, then any such morality will have a tint to it.

But he said racism is more acute in the world of homicide, which I don't agree with, the entire concept of institutional racism is just that, application at a state & institutional level, that is unachievable at a personal level (ie I can't just kill person A because they're so and so, or I can, but have to face dire consequences) A state can wrongfully execute someone and who's ultimately accountable is not known. And we know who it affects more.

sorry, HMF, it wasn't clear from the post, but I was summarizing the authors' POV. i actually haven't thought about the state as a moral agent or how different it is from individual actors (that it is different seems to be obvious according to my intuitions) and what sort of powers it gets and what justifies its monopoly on violence. i have some views in this matter, but not enough to have a coherent framework.
i agree with you that the state is biased in the way it acts wrt certain groups, although the authors claim that one way to counter this bias (against the groups you mention) is to enforce capital punishment so that violence and crime can be reduced. such an action would actually have greater benefit for blacks taken together; although, of course, it will not address the causes of violence, only change the incentives which make violent crime attractive to people. and the problem regarding sketchy evidence is a real issue for those who are pro-capital punishment. second, you are right about the various potential acts of discrimination that taint the judicial process (biased juries, inadequate legal defense for the poor etc etc). those are definitely very legitimate concerns, but if in a particular case, we could be convinced that the in fact the evidence is incontrovertible, then c-p may be an option. i am not committed to it either way, although i am sure deterrence would figure in my moral calculus. i do care about future deaths as a result of violent crime. i also care that the criminal "pay the price" for her actions, to the extent that she is responsible for it.
but c-p and its morality is a big and fascinating question, and requires a lot of thought before i can make firm commitments to any stand(s).

but if in a particular case, we could be convinced that the in fact the evidence is incontrovertible, then c-p may be an option.

I agree with you here, especially when the assailant shows no sense of remorse or compunction. (ie the al qaeda guy who claimed he was right and he won, then 2 days later filed an appeal saying, 'oh your system might be kinda ok')

portmanteau, the recent papers about the deterrent effects of capital punishment could make a very compelling case for it, if they are shown to be sound (I personally believe that retribution should not be a reason for capital punishment, so the only argument would be a utilitarian one like Sunstein et al make). The problem is that I think the number of executions, paroles, pardons etc. is relatively small compared to the total number of sentenced criminals to be able to make a statistically significant comparison, and even their papers have such low threshold numbers as 9, probably as an artifact of the current low numbers. I think other people have made this statistical argument to question the conclusion, for example, here.

And those mofos were not children. 14 is old enough for them to fry in my opinion.

Those "kids" are old enough to know right from wrong.

This claim is very tenuous scientifically, and the discussion of adolescent brain processes, impulse control, and their notion of responsibility was quite central to the entire Roper v. Simmons case. A more extensive article on the justice implications of neurobiology is here.

34 · portmanteau said

i agree with you that the state is biased in the way it acts wrt certain groups, although the authors claim that one way to counter this bias (against the groups you mention) is to enforce capital punishment so that violence and crime can be reduced. such an action would actually have greater benefit for blacks taken together; although, of course, it will not address the causes of violence, only change the incentives which make violent crime attractive to people.

Complicated sentence :) but you are right - the U.S. govt kills black people disproportionately and black people are the victims of capital crimes disproportionately. While your inquiry is valid and complex, don't these questions become irrelevant, if the bottomline question of the failure of capital punishment as a deterrent to capital crime, has been settled years ago? Other than Islamic states, India & China, there are a handful of outliers who don't buy this broken connection, none in the league of the U.S.

A good picture of capital punishment, with exigencies.

14 should not be old enough to be tried as an adult; Rahul is right about teenage brain development. The 19-yo and the 20-yo legally are, even if they are young, but you know what, most violent criminals are young, most likely because they either get thrown in jail or killed eventually. I'm also kind of stunned that they committed 70+ robberies in less than a month- perhaps what someone suggested in the last thread about them targeting Latinos because they're less likely to go to the cops applies here? Also, I don't have opinions about the death penalty one way or the other, but I'm kind of surprised by the calls of sympathy for the robbers and the murderer. Not that I advocate a 'Fry them!' mentality, I agree that nothing is ever so black-and-white, but I feel like the calls for understanding are often selectively applied (by people all over the political spectrum). Besides, doesn't anyone believe in good old-fashioned retribution nowadays?

Nala (#40):

Besides, doesn't anyone believe in good old-fashioned retribution nowadays?

Are you for real? I'm not sure why I'm even typing this response since I'm all but speechless right now, but I suppose it is to say that I thought the principle point of human progress was to move past "good old-fashioned retribution." And you say you "agree that nothing is ever so black-and-white" and therefore do not advocate a "Fry them!" mentality, but if you do see that nothing is ever black-and-white, how then could you be against *any* calls for understanding? If you feel these calls for sympathy and understanding are "selectively applied" -- I, for one, don't think I apply them selectively, and I think everyone would benefit from being able to put themselves in the shoes of so-called "monsters" -- then isn't the solution to apply them consistently, rather than not to apply them at all? It really sounds as if you're saying we shouldn't preach understanding and sympathy for *anyone* because *sometimes* we don't preach it where it is deserved. Is that what you're saying? If so, your argument makes negative sense to me. As in, less than zero sense.

Are you for real? I'm not sure why I'm even typing this response since I'm all but speechless right now, but I suppose it is to say that I thought the principle point of human progress was to move past "good old-fashioned retribution." And you say you "agree that nothing is ever so black-and-white" and therefore do not advocate a "Fry them!" mentality, but if you do see that nothing is ever black-and-white, how then could you be against *any* calls for understanding? If you feel these calls for sympathy and understanding are "selectively applied" -- I, for one, don't think I apply them selectively, and I think everyone would benefit from being able to put themselves in the shoes of so-called "monsters" -- then isn't the solution to apply them consistently, rather than not to apply them at all? It really sounds as if you're saying we shouldn't preach understanding and sympathy for *anyone* because *sometimes* we don't preach it where it is deserved. Is that what you're saying? If so, your argument makes negative sense to me. As in, less than zero sense.

Um, I was being partly tongue-in-cheek with that comment. And by 'retribution' I didn't mean the death penalty, I meant punishment in general, I see that that was unclear. I hope you don't have a problem with punishing criminals in general? Though for many people it would mean the death penalty, if that criminal has taken another person's life. I'm not sure I would say that it is antithetical to human progress; I was taught that Hammurabi's Code was a step forward for humankind in that it institutionalized human nature.

I'm not against calls for understanding, I'm against the selective application of them to suit anyone's political agenda. But that doesn't really belong on this thread, apologies for bringing it up. And of course no one believes that they are selective in their application of it, everyone would like to believe that they've got it all figured out (and that includes me). I also never made any references to 'monsters' - I believe that many criminals start out as scared little boys. But if they can be held legally responsible for their actions, then they should be.

retribution, in this context, means "paying the price" of your crime, ie for violating the rules of the legal system you're bound to, not "revenge" in the common way we use it. it is (the state's/leviathan's responsibility to punish those who transgress the law), according to some theorists, a necessity for a rights-based political and property-ownership legal system to work, otherwise the most powerful would exploit the weakest and violate rights (imagine a scenario where people basically stake a claim to whatever is in their power to hold on to because only someone more powerful can you can dislodge you). how this system of rules comes about or who has the monopoly of violence or how we become signatories of the social contract or property owners is filled in differently by different folks. this is a very simplified version, but i have to rush and i'm an amateur anyway. where is camille, when you need her?
correct me if i'm wrong, nala, or misrepresenting you.

whoops, sorry nala, i didn't see your comment. it took me that long to post :)

correct me if i'm wrong, nala, or misrepresenting you.

correct - i'm not advocating vigilante action, but punishment by the state of convicted criminals. i'm being honest here - i don't understand what makes the death penalty that much worse than life imprisonment, for someone who has been charged with murder.

I hope you don't have a problem with punishing criminals in general?

I don't. And this might sound outrageous, but I believe in cases of willfull, ending of life, the family of the deceased should have most of, if not all say in what that punishment is, but I'm open to other forms of punishment - ie, if the family wants him to stay in jail for rest of life, or only eat green M&Ms for the rest of his life, or whatever the family of the deceased decides.

death penalty that much worse than life imprisonment, for someone who has been charged with murder.

life imprisonment is rarely that, with appeals up the wazoo. and of course there's always the chance of evidence at some point arriving that reverses the decision.

i'm opposed to CP for epistemological reasons. you can't know everything with certainty and if you make a mistake you can't correct it. this puts an annoying nuance in my otherwise consistent pro-death (abortion, assisted suicide, war) stand.

Then just take the accused, force him in the military, and send him to whatever country the US is trying to "liberate" at that time.

48 · Manju said

i'm opposed to CP for epistemological reasons.

that is the most beautifully written objection to the death penalty i've heard in recent times. very parsimonious :)

i'm opposed to CP for epistemological reasons.

Well said. And agree fully.

i'm opposed to CP for epistemological reasons. you can't know everything with certainty and if you make a mistake you can't correct it. this puts an annoying nuance in my otherwise consistent pro-death (abortion, assisted suicide, war) stand.

Manju - you're hilariously consistent. that argument is different from the one of 'we'd be savages if we kill criminals' one, which is opposed to the death penalty altogether, though.

I'm opposed to CP for epistemological reasons.

Then you should be opposed any kind of imprisonment for the same reason, once you've say, locked someone in jail for 22 years wrongly, you can't give him that time back. sure it's not as drastic a level of irreversibility, but a life altering one nonetheless.

Someone like Ted Bundy. There is no value to keeping him alive. OK, so I am that 100% serious when I say fry the 14 yr olds. It was more of a sentiment than a serious call to kill those bastards. BTW, I am also for prosecuting those prosecutors who have stonewalled inquiries to fix a bad verdict and it is shown that the prosecutors willfully disregarded any new evidence. THere have been a few outrageous cases in the news over the last decade.

Besides, doesn't anyone believe in good old-fashioned retribution nowadays?

If you are old enough to kill you are old enough to be 'fried'. If you are old enough to use a gun, then you are old enough to be shot. No mercy from me. Fry the buggers - I say bring back the chain gangs and hard labour. Maybe shipping these chaps to Antartica will be a good idea ;)

The arrests of William Dozia Smith, 20, Stephen Lavance Oates Jr., 19, and two juveniles, both 14, may bring investigators a step closer to solving some of the more than 70 robberies that have been committed since Jan. 1.

The recent debate over a case involving a juvenile killer might have some elements in common with with this present situation, in terms of charges and sentencing:

13 Year Old Serial Killer to Stay in Prison

Craig Price was a brawny teenage football player with a baby face and winsome smile, who lived with his parents in a small ranch house in the Buttonwoods section of town.

One summer night in 1987, he crept across his neighbor's yard, broke into a little brown house and stabbed Rebecca Spencer 58 times. She was a 27-year-old mother of two.

He was 13.

Two years passed before Price struck again.

Joan Heaton, 39, was butchered with the kitchen knives she had bought earlier that day. The bodies of her daughters, Jennifer 10, and Melissa 8, were found in pools of blood, pieces of knives broken off in their bones; Jennifer had been stabbed 62 times.
...

Price's current scheduled release date is December 2020. He will be 46.

link

there is a big difference between sociopaths and felony-murderers. that probably should be brought to bear on how the criminal justice system treats those cases, shouldn't it?

"Bittersweet news indeed. I now wonder what went through the children's heads when they decided to snuff out this man's life."

Durham local news reports only the 19-year-old is being charged with the murder.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2347244/

Very sad story.

I strongly caution against accepting Sunstein & Vermeule's analysis carte blanche. I have a long litany of critiques, but I think a much better source for reframing the conversation is:

The Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate
(John Donohue & Justin Wolfers)

Does the death penalty save lives? A surge of recent interest in this question has yielded a series of papers that purport to show robust and precise estimates of a substantial deterrent effect of capital punishment... We conclude that existing estimates appear to reflect a small and unrepresentative sample of the estimates that arise from alternative approaches. Sampling from the broader universe of plausible approaches suggests not just reasonable doubt about whether there is any deterrent effect of the death penalty, but profound uncertainty - even about its sign.

60 · Camille said

I strongly caution against accepting Sunstein & Vermeule's analysis carte blanche.

thanks for the link. hope to check it out soon.

why must law review articles be so long? i wish salon/slate/some legal theory blog would summarize it for me already :)

camille, here is the critique of the critique, if you are interested. some professor who seems to have used the same dataset, but comes to conclude that -

As usual, I do not mean to suggest that this evidence proves that executions serve as a deterrent to murder. I do mean to suggest that the attempted debunking by Donohue and Wolfers is a little misleading. In addition, these authors reach a downright preposterous conclusion when they say:

"As to whether executions raise or lower the homicide rate, we remain profoundly uncertain."

The idea that the evidence is equally consistent with these two possibilities cannot be taken seriously by anyone who is interested in the truth of the matter. Uncertainty about the deterrent effect of the death penalty is certainly warranted, but there is simply no basis to suggest that executions might actually increase the murder rate. Such a claim gives their game away (i.e., they do not appear to be seeking truth so much as pushing an ideology) and, ironically, their stance could be regarded as an abuse of the evidence.

it only goes to show that most studies under-determine what is actually happening and in fact, contradict each other. maybe in the absence of good evidence, either ethical commitments should guide policy or a moratorium until people know for sure either way. it may turn out that the deterrent effect is quite marginal anyway, which is my intuition. but you can't run regressions on a woman's intuition as an explanatory variable, otherwise i'd have flooded the world with publications.

Port, there's also a critique of the critique of the critique :) Regardless of the "do they increase murders?" question, I do think, in general, the statistics around the death penalty research in Law & Econ is often suspect at best.

Agreed. JD and JW wrote a very eloquent (and persuasive) conclusion to their piece, though. As far as numbers go, I have no a priori reason to think that they will be more convincing than various studies on the topic.

I do think, in general, the statistics around the death penalty research in Law & Econ is often suspect at best.

either ethical commitments should guide policy or a moratorium until people know for sure either way.

65 · portmanteau said

As far as numbers go, I have no a priori reason to think that they will be more convincing than various studies on the topic.

The abstruse, elegant, emotive, epistemological and other 5-syllable adjective characterisations of this issue become moot, and appear flimsy and contrived, once you work within the capital punishment system, as it is currently implemented in most states. This isn't a dig at portmanteau or others (ok maybe at HMF@47: life imprisonment is rarely that, with appeals up the wazoo. and of course there's always the chance of evidence at some point arriving that reverses the decision. -- so you don't approve of evidence-based criminal justice?? Think I'm getting the hang of HMF logic!), rather it reflects the arbitrary, nolens volens processes of jurisprudence, evidence, appeal and outcomes in the U.S. capital system.

If this issue holds interest for mutineers I would suggest a)reading about the well defined and documented paths of judicial systems outside the U.S. (the U.K., Canada, Spain, France, Australia, Italy, South Africa have all banned capital punishment in the last three decades) which have looked at the punitive, deterrent and yes the epistemological angles exhaustively before banning the death penalty. And b) befriend the public defender's office in your hood. The chances of a capital case coming through may be slim, but he/she may be able to connect you with nonprofits that work various angles of this issue. My introduction to the law was through the Texas Innocence Project during vigils at Huntsville back in '02 when the chair would steam to life every weekend.

I don't. And this might sound outrageous, but I believe in cases of willfull, ending of life, the family of the deceased should have most of, if not all say in what that punishment is, but I'm open to other forms of punishment - ie, if the family wants him to stay in jail for rest of life, or only eat green M&Ms for the rest of his life, or whatever the family of the deceased decides.

Thats Islamic Criminal Law 101. Who knew HMF was an Islamo-fascist!

Truman Capote, accused of being a bit attracted to one of the killers he documented in In Cold Blood, opined that capital punishment does deter murder, but only if it is known to be THE penalty and is carried out with unambiguous conviction by the institutions set up for that purpose, in direct retribution and on the heels of the crime and with no apologies. Or words to that effect.
As Rahul says, there is something about the development of the teenage brain that is not quite what the brain is a little bit later. However, an enormous amount of adult human activity is carried out, and has always been carried out, by persons in the 13-19 age bracket. The average age of soldiers in most conflicts on record has been 17-19. Marriage? Most people, or at least most brides through history, were teenagers. Religions usually put the "age of reason", but the age of personal responsibility--that is, the ability to control those impulses--has usually been set by law at about 15. At seven a child could understand the concept of evil, but not necessarily to be responsible for resisting it. By the time a person was adult size and capable of reproducing, civilization's very existence depends on his/her impulse control. We haven't really had the luxury of treating brawny teenagers with the leniency of little children. They can murder, rape, rob and destroy only too efficiently.

Should they be jailed or sent to rehab day camp? What to do? Yes, many were abused but many abused people do not commit crimes because they have people to guide them, or perhaps the mentality to concentrate on other interests than crime. They may be neurotic and act out in other ways, but the world is not their oyster to murder. However, if you take limited intellect, combine it with adolescent hormones, childhood abuse, peer pressure and a sense of jail as a right of passage, well, I think you're past the day camp rehab stage. For a lot of hard criminals jail is not a bad life, and safer then a street corner, unless they get sent to Guantanamo. A lot of the killers will get out eventually. In the Moor murders case in England, the woman was still petitioning in 2001 35 years later. Only the efforts of the mother of one of the victims kept her in jail and fortunately she died soon after. Whether out of jail or in, most criminals spend their days paid for by the tax-payers (no one will hire them), and end them by natural causes, in a hospital bed paid for by tax-payers, including the taxes of the murder victim's family.

so you don't approve of evidence-based criminal justice?? Think I'm getting the hang of HMF logic!),

No, I don't approve of poorly crafted arguments masquerading as comedy. What I was doing however, was explaining to nala the differences between life imprisonment and the death penalty, although I agree with her, that the difference is small.

I do think, in general, the statistics around the death penalty research in Law & Econ is often suspect at best.

is this not the case for any emotive issue.

This is extremely relevant when it comes to policy prescriptions; for example, when the US Supreme Court re-authorized the death penalty in the 70s, it's argued today that a weighty part of what drove their decision to overturn precedent was the heavy use of statistical data that claimed that executions save lives -- a claim made by scholars in the then-new field of Law & Econ. My point is that it's not the issue, per se, that drives suspect analysis, but often the motivations of those conducting the analysis... and that that varies, substantially, by discipline and field.

Aside from the stats debate, there are, in my opinion, huge moral and philosophical issues which underlie the actual outcomes/functioning of both the death penalty and the criminal "justice" system in the U.S. as well. Another conversation for another day, but the hyper-growth of the prison industry is, again in my opinion, a cancerous drain on the lives and economies of poor neighborhoods (rural and urban) and states throughout this country, and the punitive model has produced quite a bit of harm and expense.

truman show, are you trolling, or do you actually have data to back up any of the claims you make? (e.g., most killers get out) Are you arguing that teenagers are "beyond repair," as are convicted criminals, and thus to avoid the burden on taxpayers we should simply exercise the death penalty? Please clarify.

oops, Religions usually put the "age of reason",

should read "religions usually put the "age of reason" at the age of seven.."

I do think that people in life imprisonment should earn their quality of food. You get decent food if you work hard to pay the family of your victims some sort of damages with the stuff you make in some prison work camp. If you don't , fine, just suffer with some nutritional packets astroanauts have to eat. If you turn out to be innocent, then the state will be forced to pay you a very good backwages and damages for all the suffering you went through. I am shocked that a few states lack any mechanism to reward wrongly convicted prisoners with megadamages. In a sue-happy country, who is more deserving of damages than a wrongly convicted prisoner?

i think penalties should be increased on prosecutors who have ignored evidence or refuse to review cases when new evidence comes up.

But I am not interested in rehabbing people who are going to spend a life in prison as much as using some of those rehabbing resources to actually help out juveniles from going to the next stage of a troubled life. Prevention is always more cost effective.

"truman show, are you trolling, or do you actually have data to back up any of the claims you make? (e.g., most killers get out) Are you arguing that teenagers are "beyond repair," as are convicted criminals, and thus to avoid the burden on taxpayers we should simply exercise the death penalty? Please clarify."

Oh come on Camille. Yes, I'm a freakin' troll. Must be since you say so.
True, I don't have chapter and verse, but some things are common knowledge. The whole victims' rights movement was started by such occurrences as I described and that movement has a pretty solid base of information. Evebody has read where somebody has gotten out of jail after killing a spouse, for example, after a couple of years. I know one case personally that happened in Belize because I met the killer's son (she was his mom), I recalled reading of a similar case in the U.S. Perhaps "most" killers don't get out, but most get a chance to die a natural death denied to their victims. The death penalty, who knows, but it makes sense some times. What I'm saying is, we're all screwed when crime occurs and I sure as hell know that cold blooded killers are rarely rehabilitated. With encouraging statistics in hand, perhaps those who passionately disagree could start a group home where they could volunteer their compassionate services.

67 · HarlemSun said

the arbitrary, nolens volens processes of jurisprudence, evidence, appeal and outcomes in the U.S. capital system.

HarlemSun, I have had some access to lawyers who work for a death penalty appeals center in Charlottesville, and two others who write about various aspects related to capital punishment. So I do have some idea about the issues you mention. With all due respect, I do think that econometrics/legal empiricists could help with the deterrence issue (and that is basically what I was trying to say in my posts: If it turns out that capital punishment does have a significant deterrence effect, then that claim should influence our assessment of capital punishment). Camille's post # 71 mentions some general advantages related to statistical analysis.

It is true that fancy econometric pyrotechnics have not settled the issue. But like you point out, people who work in the criminal justice system and are anti-cp advocates (especially lawyers who deal with the conviction and appeals process), could point out that it doesn't matter what the deterrence studies reveal. They could (and do say) that our system is so broken that we cannot guarantee the justice is being done. So even if the deterrence effect is robust, the capital punishment should be stopped until (at least) we can guarantee due process. Second, there are other objections to cp that do not all hinge on the deterrence effect - and so again, the results of these studies do us no good even if they are acceptable in theory. Sorry if my posts in this matter were gauche - you know more about the justice system than I do, and do some pretty courageous (and perhaps somewhat discouraging) work.

My opposition to cp is usually met with a retort on why people dont want to be taxed to keep these criminals alive. Does anyone have any data on how much it actually costs to keep death row inmates alive? Maybe a $ per tax payer metric?

truman show, I apologize if my questions came across stridently. I wasn't accusing you of being a troll -- because I'm unfamiliar with your comment history I was asking in the off-chance that you might be stirring the pot. I was genuinely curious about your points -- hence the "please clarify." Again, no harm or slander intended.

My question about "most killers get out" -- in the context of the U.S. -- was intended because murder is relatively rare (compared to other crime, violent and "non-violent"), and so there IS information on time to parole, etc. Oftentimes folks take "exceptional" cases and try to argue for police prescriptions for the whole system on that basis. For example, does it really make sense to frame our entire sentencing structure on murder, when it constitutes less than 1% of total violent crime (in most years)? Does it make sense to argue for the death penalty if, after serving 50 years in prison, 10 out of 1000 convicted murderers are released? And what about those who are convicted, then exonerated because they were falsely charged?

There are a LOT of misconceptions about a) what prison life is like, b) what your "odds" in the justice system are (of arrest, conviction, sentencing, parole), and c) what happens when a person is going through the process of appeals. I understand your point re: victims' rights groups, but with respect, they're hardly an unbiased source.

My opposition to cp is usually met with a retort on why people dont want to be taxed to keep these criminals alive. Does anyone have any data on how much it actually costs to keep death row inmates alive? Maybe a $ per tax payer metric?

Did you have a specific locality in mind, or the national average?

A national average (or national total) for the annual cost of maintenance of death row. I can just divide that by number of taxpayers to get an annual cost per taxpayer. (I am not sure if this is being too simplistic.). So if this is something like a few dollars per tax payer per year, it then removes the perception of undue burden on the taxpayer. Also, I didnt think of the cost of executions as you mentioned. So then I guess a net number would be most effective.

(Annual cost of nationwide death row maintenance - cost of executions nationwide) / number of taxpayers.

We could then compare this to things like (cost of war in Iraq per year)/number of taxpayers

for non-seq. "According to a study by the Justice Policy Institute, taxpayers spend about $30,000 a year to imprison each person, including medical care. This amount increases with the age of each prisoner. People over the age of 55 cost approximately $50,000 to $75,000 a year to incarcerate. If they sit in prison from the age of about 20 and live a "full life" to 79.5 the cost would be ~$2,535,000. That of course is just an average. Now multiply that buy the number of men/women sitting in prison for life. http://www.justicepolicy.org/

Now even if the death penalty is imposed, it drags it out for 10-20 years, so what with the legal fees, it probably costs more in the long run than life-imprisonment."

Camille. No problem Camille--I think you are a lawyer, n'est-ce pas? I have seen your comments and you do lay your positions out clearly and objectively, though I don't always agree. You are absolutely right about concentrating too much on murder, but let's face it, that's what brings out the cold sweat and attempted murder is something I personally experienced (not as perp). Few of us fret as much over the possibility that some corporate nonentity will steal our 401K. One reason there isn't more murder is because a lot of people arrange their lives around avoiding it. One must not let personal opinions cloud one's judgment and if my kid turned out to be a cold blooded remorseless killer, I'd feel the same justice should apply as to any cold blooded, remorseless killer. In fact if I ever kill anybody in cold blood, I hope they off me quickly.
When you ask for stats I can only go so far because frankly looking too much at this subject is upsetting to me and perhaps I should not have engaged in this discussion. I go by what I have read in the past.

No problem Camille--I think you are a lawyer, n'est-ce pas?

for non-seq. "According to a study by the Justice Policy Institute, taxpayers spend about $30,000 a year to imprison each person, including medical care. This amount increases with the age of each prisoner. People over the age of 55 cost approximately $50,000 to $75,000 a year to incarcerate. If they sit in prison from the age of about 20 and live a "full life" to 79.5 the cost would be ~$2,535,000. That of course is just an average. Now multiply that buy the number of men/women sitting in prison for life. http://www.justicepolicy.org/

Based on your numbers, it costs $2.5 million per person over 60 years (if they start at 20 and are in prison till 79.5 or 80. This is overstating it since all death row inmates dont start at 20 and all do not stay till 80). The cost per year is then $2.5 million/ 60 years or $41,667 per year. There are 3,350 death row inmates in the US as of Jan 2007 (deathpenaltyinfo.com). So the total cost per year to maintain death row inmates is $41,667 per year x 3,350 inmates per year = $140 million. As of Jan 2003 (the best data I could get quickly), there were 131 million americans who filed income taxes. So then cost per taxpayer is $140 million per year / 131 million taxpayers = $1.09 per taxpayer per year. The cost of a value meal at McDonalds.

YOu can argue for cp based on other ethical/moral factors but dont tell me it costs too much to keep them alive.

If you turn out to be innocent, then the state will be forced to pay you a very good backwages and damages for all the suffering you went through. I am shocked that a few states lack any mechanism to reward wrongly convicted prisoners with megadamages.

This is actually a good point, there should be some retribution other than "sorry, we messed up" Like remember at the end of the movie Sneakers, where they all ask for free sh*t.

"I'm sorry if I caused additional distress. I'll look forward to future exchanges, perhaps on topics that don't hit quite as close to home."
You didn't cause the distress Camille. The murder of poor Abjihit Mahato caused my distress. I know I need to make myself more clear if I am going to comment however. We all have our touchy buttons. I've been lurking around Sepiamutiny and will continue to. It's one of the blogs that really does rate as debate and conversation and not irrational soundbites.

Yes and no, melbournedesi. I hope I don't start an academia-based flame-war,

"YOu can argue for cp based on other ethical/moral factors but dont tell me it costs too much to keep them alive."
Those aren't my figures, they are from Justice Policy Institute, an org that seems to be quite anti-cp. Since they are projected stats, of course they subject to adjustment. I think a better estimate would be what has already been spent on them. Thousands of perps have spent their last years on earth in jail. Quite honestly, when it comes to the type of criminal we're discussing, I don't care if they live or die as long as they don't get to do any more harm to the rest of us. I think the universe takes care of the rest, but that's the way I handle the sense of injustice.
And yes, I think you could argue there are better uses for the money than keeping alive people like: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/moors/index_1.html. For instance, if environment is responsible for at least some of the crime, then maybe putting kids in a better environment, with people who can guide them. It does take money.

Somewhat related:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Student_found_dead_in_Kentucky_house/articleshow/2765590.cms

please visit my blog investigating grad student violence. i'm trying to compile a definitive list. any help is much appreciated.

http://mr-hoju.blogspot.com/