Death penalty doesn't deter crime

The Jakarta Post ,  Jakarta   |  Thu, 06/29/2006 4:25 PM  |  Opinion

Peter G Johnson, Mirko Bagaric and Richard Edney, Melbourne

Like in many other countries in the region, people continue to be sentenced to death and executed in Indonesia because of a widely held but mistaken belief about the effects of capital punishment. The recent death sentences imposed on two members of the Bali Nine, Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, and Emmanuel O. Ihejerika from Sierra Leone should be used a catalyst to reconsider the use of capital punishment in Indonesia.

Indonesia is one of 74 countries in the world that continues to impose the death sentence. It has been abolished or never used in the other 120 countries. The principal reason that Indonesia retains the death sentence is because it is assumed that it will send a strong message to other people to not engage in criminal conduct. The supposed crime deterrent effect of capital punishment is meant to enhance community safety.

Common sense suggests that there is merit in this argument. No one wants to be executed and hence most rational people would presumably want to make sure that they don't commit criminal acts.

But common sense assumptions are often disproved by research. This is why governments and private organizations spend billions of dollars daily undertaking research based activities. If we relied on common sense, man still would not have invented fire-- there is no obvious reason to think that rubbing two sticks will result in combustion.

When it comes to capital punishment common sense again lets us down.

Research based evidence from a large number of countries all over the world now conclusively shows that capital punishment does not reduce crime. That's a fact. It is no less certain than that the world is round.

Countries with capital punishment do not have lower levels of serious crime and when countries abolish the death penalty the crime rate does not increase. When the death penalty is introduced by a country the crime rate does not fall. In fact when the death penalty is re-introduced in some cases this has even resulted in an increase in the rate of serious crime.

For example, following the reintroduction of executions in Oklahoma in 1990 there has been ""an abrupt and lasting increase in the level of stranger homicides"". The reason for this is unclear, but it has been speculated that the increase may be due to weakening of ""socially based inhibitions against the use of lethal force to settle disputes"".

Further data from the United States (where capital punishment studies have been undertaken most exhaustively) shows that states that execute criminals generally have higher rates of homicide than states that have abolished capital punishment. A recent study by Amnesty International revealed that the homicide rate in US states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

Why is this? It is not that people are irrational when they contemplate committing crime. Rather the evidence shows that to the extent that people make a cost/benefit decision about committing crimes, they generally only weigh up the risk of being caught, not what will happen if they get caught. The best way to reduce crime is to increase the perception in people's minds that they will get caught if they break the law. The size of the penalty does not impact on this decision.

Armed with this information, Indonesia should now abolish the provision of the old Dutch criminal code which provides for capital punishment. In pragmatic terms, it would not constitute a major change to the Indonesian legal system given that Indonesia executes very small numbers of prisoners. However, the symbolism would be profound. It would enable Indonesia to act as a moral beacon to the many other countries in South East Asia that still continue to execute criminals.

It would also mean that Indonesia's human rights record would surpass that of the United States (which still has capital punishment) on the very important issue of the capital punishment.

Law reform and policy making is of course not solely driven by logic. Cultural and historical considerations often stifle the rational development of the law, often resulting in unjust and cruel outcomes.

Yet, there is considerable cause for hope that the senseless and wasteful practice of capital punishment will be abolished in Indonesia. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is an intelligent, thoughtful leader who has the vision and leadership to implement legal changes which will considerably advance the interests of his county and people, by forging a more humane and just society. A decision to abolish capital punishment is no doubt one which he would take enormous pride in when he eventually reflects on his accomplishments as the country's leader.

The writer are three of the lawyers representing five members of the Bali 9, including the two members that have been sentenced to death.

A  |   A  |   A  |    |   |    |    |    |     |    

Max C. Onichak (not verified) — Fri, 03/13/2009 - 7:29am

Stating that death penalty does not deter crime is too generalized for comparison. It really depends on what crime and what punishment. For instance, in Singapore, if one is caught with any amount of drugs, i.e. cocaine or marijuana, the punishment is hanging. As a result, you will find no drugs in Singapore.

In the US and other countries the drug problem grows greater each year because the penalty is only a few years in prison. Once people learn to make the penalty severe as in Sinapore, you will find less crime.

MO