Criticism of Death Penalty Argument

[Tom Foppiano]

Good day Ian, Mark, and the rest of the FTL crew. I am a new listener to your program and am very pleased with what I have heard so far. Despite my not agreeing with some of the ideas presented on the show, I find the vast majority of the pro-liberty message broadcasted daily to be quite refreshing. Simply put, where else can I hear a radio show consistently rejecting the statist spin and accurately describing taxation as theft and reminding us all that the democratic process simply entails the use of violence against peaceful persons? Answer: nowhere…..at least not for three hours every night on stations across the country. So, please understand that I love the show.

Normally, when I disagree with something said on the air, I pay little attention to our differences and don’t think about it much, but some statements regarding the death penalty were too important for me to disregard. While attempting to convince callers that the death penalty did not deter murder, Ian repeatedly referred to some type of documentation, or study, or something similar, that correlated high murder rates with states that use the death penalty. Basically, there appears to be more murders per capita in states that use capital punishment. Now I do not dispute these facts and I agree with Ian that the government should not be allowed to kill persons who are already in custody, but this study does not prove anything and contrary to Ian’s claims “science” is not (necessarily) on his side.

My objection to this type of reasoning is that it is not scientific and offers no proof whatsoever. Using the scientific method to discover truth, one can use logical deduction or set up a scientific experiment. If a scientist wants to create an experiment, he or she can only have one independent variable that changes while all else remains the same. If this person wants to test the impact, or lack of impact, of putting 100cc’s of sulfuric acid on one month old tomato seedlings, he must keep all other variables constant. The temperature of the air, the humidity, the atmospheric pressure, the soil used, the type of tomato plant, the watering amount and schedule, the quantity of lumens (light) per square meter, and all else besides the application of acid must remain the same.

The problem with comparing murder rates in Texas to those in New York, or Delaware, Nevada, or any other state is that the use of the death penalty is not the only difference, meaning that there are numerous independent variables. There are literally millions and millions of differences between all of the states and no correlation can prove anything. Imagine if a person claimed that high income taxes do not reduce GDP per capita, but increase it. This person could compare California to Utah. California’s 2009 GDP per capita was $42,325, while Utah’s was $30,875 and California’s income tax topped out at 9.55% and Utah’s income tax rate was 3%. Does this mean that income taxes have a positive effect on GDP per capita? Of course not, but if one makes the death penalty argument using this type of reasoning, he or she would be inconsistent if they did not argue that state income taxes increase wealth.

One thing that sets Austrian economists apart from other schools of thought is that they don’t believe that statistical analysis can be used to deduce economic laws. Rather than looking at numbers to discover truth, they approach the science of economics using logical deduction. Using this type of reasoning, it is hard to think that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Austrians think that an increase in price will lead to a reduction in quantity demanded (there are some debates over Giffen goods). Think about the death penalty as being an increase in the price of murder. Under these assumptions, fewer murders will occur than there otherwise would have been if capital punishment was not used. Now, it may be true that the law will deter only one person every 100,000 years and a utilitarian may think that the law does more harm than good……and I would agree. But, to say that it does not deter murder seems illogical to me. Again, I am anti-death penalty, but I think that any increase in punishment price (ceteris paribus) will lead to fewer of acts being punished.

Thanks for reading and please feel free to criticize my arguments. I have been wrong many times in my life and I may be wrong again.

[LTKoblinsky]

Your reasoning is sound, but ultimately short. While correlation does not equal causation, the study Ian cited does lend to the discussion at hand. As for the "Austrian" point, not presenting practical evidence for your claims is arrogance. I've studied the difference between the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics and found that both sides can offer to a discussion, but neither is the ultimate solution. (I think applying logical reasoning to "numerical" evidence is the ideal solution). Now, for the discussion at hand, Penn & Teller did a wonderful death penalty episode on their showtime series, Bullshit!. They cover the study and other points on both sides of the argument.  Highly recommend it. I'll see if I can dig up some links. Otherwise, its on Netflix instant streaming and DVD as well as various shady websites.

[Andy]

OP is correct. Additionally, even if you could somehow correct for all the other variables in society high crime rates might just as easily be a factor in promoting support for the death penalty rather than the other way around.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Yes, the OP is correct, in more concise terms, on the basis that correlation is not causation.  Then again, the better point stands: the odds indicate that innocent people have been put to death, and it's not a given that "just" government (if such government exists) executes anyone, guilty of a crime, or not.

Just to be clear, I'm not implying the OP would disagree with my stated opinion--it appears he agrees.

[Tom Foppiano]

I am guessing that OP means original poster?

Anyways, thanks for the posts guys.