Pro-death-penalty defenders concede deterrence evidence is weak

Evidence

Ernest Van Den Haag (1986) accepted some inequality as “unavoidable as a practical matter in any system.” He disputed reported evidence that execution is costlier than life imprisonment. In putting a more benign face on execution, he contended that life imprisonment degrades an individual’s humanity more than execution does. In his view, an individual convicted of murder is unworthy of living. Any degradation, he argues, is self-inflicted. Van Den Haag acknowledged that there is no consistent evidence that execution is a better deterrent than lifetime imprisonment, but argued contradictorily that execution is more feared than imprisonment, so it deters some prospective murderers. The fear of lifetime imprisonment probably deters some likely murderers as well. The issue in dispute is not whether fear of execution or of lifetime imprisonment may deter some murderers. The dispute concerns marginal deterrence gain. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2088 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Criminal punishment patterns lack deterrence or retributive logic — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 710; Skepticism about deterrence does not reduce support for executions.; Pro-death-penalty advocates concede execution lacks proven deterrent superiority over imprisonment — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2088 (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Pro-death-penalty advocates concede execution lacks proven deterrent superiority over imprisonment #expands (0.96) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2088