Death Penalty Deters Crime?

Has it taken them so long to figure it out? That only when you give the death penalty to someone for their crimes, is there a deterrent from performing the crime itself, or at least make them think twice before they perform it. It needed a study as proof to show that the statistics drop once you implement the death penalty. This century is big on these things now - studies and statistics.

I know that all around the world, all European countries (except Belarus), Australia, New Zealand, Timor Leste and Canada have abolished the death penalty (aka capital punishment to some). Also in Latin America, most states have completely abolished the death penalty, while some countries like Brazil still allow for it only in exceptional situations like treason committed during wartime.

Does this violate some form of human right (what utter rubbish!)? Perhaps in these areas, especially in Europe people tend to be more docile, where there's more open space, more family, more entertainment. They're not so stressed and high-strung as say in Asia.

In Asia, the population density can be much higher than usual because of growing urban societies and a competition to have a job and stay out of the unemployment sector. Stressed, homeless and unemployed, people will turn to crime to survive, it's genetic and built into us to survive no matter what. But does having a death penalty in that country really deter the criminals from performing the crime? Is the crime rate higher or comparable in Europe than in Asia?

Not having a death penalty in itself is a crime. Remember the good old days of public executions? Guillotines, hanging, flogging (not capital punishment but it helped and some died from it!) and beheading? Well, there are some countries in the Middle East that still practice the latter, but perhaps for a completely different reason altogether.

Countries without the death penalty have their justice system twisted (NOT the same as corrupted) to suit reform, but can one really reform? They always believe that this criminal can be redeemed, that he saw the light and saw God and will repent from his sinful ways. Perhaps to a certain extent, but the seeds for crime have already been planted, the experience and rush of the crime is already there and it is addictive! Without the death penalty, once criminals serve out their sentence and are released from prison (or a correctional facility), they would want to experience this rush all over again, even if it means them landing in prison again with a harsher punishment and longer prison time. Without the death penalty, it doesn't end there, it just becomes a vicious cycle and when they're released, it starts all over again.

Which brings me to the subject of temptation. Temptation is always a flashy nice sports car, a new computer, an expensive watch, jewellery, an iPod or something that people want but cannot have. Dangling the carrot always leave us with a certain temptation to want but unable to have, therein lies the seeds of crime.

There were several conclusions to the study (they just love statistics!):

• Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders pe execution at 3, 5, and 14).
• The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over 4 years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.
• Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, 1 murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

These professors, all theory and number but nothing really practical, I really wonder if these findings are even remotely accurate. So far, I've known of nothing accurate when it comes to predicting the human condition.

Will these findings really push governments around the world to rethink their stand on the death penalty?

Only time will tell.