The Foreign Service Journal, October 2003

the admissibility of certain evi- dence. But reversals of this sort are not indicative of the execution of innocents. With respect to that issue — factual errors resulting in the execution of an actually inno- cent defendant — no case has been identified since the U.S. re-institut- ed the death penalty in 1973. Thus, though the risk of error is certainly real, the likelihood of it happening is sufficiently small that we ought not let that small risk that innocents might die prevent us from taking action that would save other innocents. For that, precisely, is what the death penalty does. It is a deterrent that dissuades people from killing. Indeed, it would be illogical to assume that, as a group, murder- ers are ignorant of the negative consequences their act could bring. And so it would be equally illogical to assume that some potential murderers are not deterred by the threat of a more severe punishment — namely, execution. Evidence substantiating the deterrent effect of the death penalty is stronger than that against it and supports this intuition. As long ago as 1975, economist Isaac Ehrlich published a study concluding that each additional execution deters seven or eight murders. More recently, three economists from Emory University conducted a study using multiple regression analysis to isolate the deterrent effects of a death penalty from other factors affecting murder rates. They calculated a deterrence rate of between eight and 28 murders for each execution. Given the overwhelming evidence that criminals do respond to the potential of negative conse- quences, reason supports the conclusion that executions do deter and that they deter more than lesser punish- ments do. And what that means is simple — without a death penalty you condemn innocents to death at the hands of murderers. Opponents of the death penalty claim a life sentence is just as harsh a punishment and effective a deterrent as a death sentence for murderers. Not so. Some life sen- tences come with the possibility of parole. And all sen- tences short of capital punishment involve the risk that a convicted murderer will escape and prey upon other victims. Furthermore, those who are locked up for life without any possibility of parole have no incentive to refrain from killing fellow inmates and guards. (If they can’t possibly be punished any more severely than they already have been, noth- ing deters them from turning their aggression on others confined with them.) Other convicts sent to prison to serve out sentences, and not to die, should not be subject to the “death penalty” at the hands of fellow inmates who have no reason to behave. International Criticism Besides complaining about the unfair nature of the death penalty, American critics also say it isolates us from other countries who oppose it. Despite the over- whelming support for the death penalty among the American public, our continued insistence on it has become a bone of contention with many of our allies, particularly those from Europe, who see it as an anti- quated, inhumane policy. It is true that virtually all European nations have abolished the death penalty. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has drafted resolutions several times over the last few years, asking nations to impose a moratorium on the death penalty. Many nations around the world already refuse to extradite any criminals to the U.S. who might face the death penalty. Some international organizations are even get- ting involved in U.S. capital punishment cases by filing legal arguments in support of the defendants. But should we care that some countries object to the death penalty and thus are turning up the pressure on the U.S. to abandon the practice? No. European views shouldn’t control American law. To begin with, yielding to such criticism would require a significant reversal in the course of American history. From the time of our nation’s founding, Americans have recognized that the concept of “just deserts” allows for the ultimate punishment of those whose malevolence demands it. More fundamentally, we long ago rejected the premise that American thought should be bound by European, or international, convention. (After all, that is why we had a revolution.) Rather, the European view should control only to the extent it has the power to persuade. F O C U S 28 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / O C T O B E R 2 0 0 3 Those outside America who oppose capital punishment urge, in effect, moral equivalency between murderer and victim.