In a stunning piece of contrarian journalism, today's Gray Lady publicizes recent studies arguing that the death penalty does indeed deter murders. Statistical links are shaky, of course, since it's a big country and there aren't lots of executions. And cause-effect relationships can't be proved solely on the fact that event Y (fewer murders) happens after event X (an execution).
But at least a few brave economists, some not fans of the death penalty, have argued that statistics coupled with the economic postulate that people choose against things that are costly make the conclusion secure.
We'll anticipate an objection by some noble and gentle reader: so if executions deter murders, maybe we should execute people for other crimes, like auto theft. Well, let's recall that deterrence is only one issue in punishing crimes. Retribution is another, and it demands that the punishment fit the crime. A life for a car isn't just. A life for a life is another matter.
This debate isn't over. But we're still not exactly sure that the NY Times is still the paper we thought it was when it puts articles like this in its fabled Sunday edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment