The Death Penalty: Its Relation to Murder & Suicide

• DOI: 10.1177/104398628900500403
• Published date: 01 December 1989
• Date: 01 December 1989
• Author: M.G. Neithercutt
• Subject Matter: Articles

199
The Death Penalty:
Its Relation to Murder &
Suicide
by
M. G. Neithercutt
ABSTRACT
Despite volumes of commentary on the topic, capital
punishment remains a thorny issue. Data analyses and
other observations are marshalled to enlighten regarding
the interplay of Murder, Suicide, and Execution, variously
defined. It is concluded that supporters of capital punish-
ment have some explaining to do. Murder and Suicide
track Execution in the same pattern. Therefore, to argue
that executions depress murders would seem to require
insistence that executions reduce suicides, too. The
dynamics of this latter relationship boggle the mind.
Another version of this paper was presented to the
annual meeting, Western Society of Criminology,
f~range, CA, February 1989.
INTRODUCTION
Otterbein makes the startling statement:
All peoples use capital punishment when they believe that
it is necessary to dispose of an individual who threatens
them and their community. (1986:111)
Why, in the face of such permeadon, would one analyze its functioning?
Essentially, it reduces to personal curiosity (Scott, 1950: viii), perhaps. We
undertake herein to compare the relation between executions and murders,
pointing out that the high negative correlation leads many people to say that
executions suppress murders. However, there is no time span in the data
where executions have been escalating and murders declining. We then
proceed to demonstrate that the same correlations can be generated between
executions and suicides. Would one - logically - then want to argue that
executions suppress suicides?

---

200
A. Punishment without Conviction
Elliston (1985) asserts deadly force used by police amounts to a form4f‘
punishment, &dquo;unofficial&dquo; though it might be. Griswold uses the phrase
4’summary execution&dquo; (Fall, 1985:93,103). We
contend that the presence
of executions as a legal remedy encourages killings by police, which occur
at far greater frequencies [as Table 1 (Neithercutt, April5,1988:21,31ff)and
succeeding text amplify]. &dquo;That’s the only ’justice’ there is&dquo; and such
utterances are familiar &dquo;explanations&dquo; in this sphere.
While they fluctuate mainly independently―Rp~p= .12 (the corre-
lation between Police Killing and Death Row Population, see Tables 3.1-
3.3)-the presence of a large death row population can invite officers to
shoot; RpKDRP78-8S= -.66 seems to say that in recent years Police Killings have
decreased while Death Row Population has climbed, and suggests other
~orces at work currently, though. Among the~e fo~ces mlght~ unemployment,
poverty, relative deprivation, fear, drugs, and so forth.
B. Responses ~3neorrelated with Aims
Table 1 presents the raw data, 1930-1988, subject to several caveats.
Note that Murders and Homicides (cols. b and d) track almost as closely as
is possible: ~ = .995. Further, Murder Rates and Executions for 1932-87
correlate at about -.52; Murders and Executions ( 1936-8?) show similar
patterns (R~ = -.75).
There is a sense in which Murder and Execution &dquo;should&dquo; reciprocate;
as Murder
counts rise, the pool fueling executions enlarges. Thus, to achieve
an
inverse relation some substantial counterforce(s) is needed. This kinship
is weaker over the past 25 years (P,~).~ -.56). The joinder to that, of
course, is that no real variation in executions has occurred (&dquo;Death in the
U.S.A.&dquo;, February 15, 1988: 1, 30-33).
But: 1) Homicide and Execution were not correlated during the time
executions proceeded apace: ~30-67 = .08 ; and 2) Murders correlate poorly
with Police Killings and Executions combined (Rwm = .04). This latter
index may be the more pertinent, since these deaths at governments’ hands
more
closely estimate &dquo;executions&dquo;, they occur in far greater volume than
official executions, and the correlations here &dquo;wash out&dquo;. Our conclusion is
that the data do not confirm a connection between Murder and Combined
Executions.
In fact, murders (Geller, 1983: 322) rose rather steadily through the
years since 1964 while executions declined to irrelevance by 1964 [Figures
1 and 2], the movement of both variables influenced far more by other factors
than by each other (Lawes, 1969: 65). And, Police Killings counts are the
product of yet other impacts, like Tennessee v. Garner ( 198~: 1694), [the
current leading case on when officers may shoot] the extent of some of which
we
will have to wait a few years to assess.

---

201
~n t~
multiple studies that discount the utility of the cieath pmdty,
~aser
a~ ~:ei,gl~, looking at executions and state homicide rates 19~0-’I0,
f4Dund hrsmicide rates typically highest in states using execution most
pervasively (1974: 333-338). Since state and regional variations mock
consistency (Hitchens, August 29, 1987: 150) one could hardly hope for
deterrence in this penalty.
C. Actual Meanings
We
opine that the usual analysis of execution impacts is flawed in
several ways: &dquo;having the death ~ty&dquo; does not&dquo;mean&dquo; execu~ng wo/
men; it means holding several on death row. The popula~on there &dquo;should&dquo;
correlate with murder incidence. Table 1 includes such a correlation Ot..
=.63) but its direction does not support a deterrence argument.
Further, the correlation between Death Row
Population and Execution
is inverse and rather small; %Rm = -.35. This suggests the two attributes of
having capital crimes-executions and death row occupants-~vor~ against
each other. Death penalty supportersmightbetemptedto say: &dquo;~o, what did
you expect? You think it doesn’t reduce death row populations to execute
its occupants?&dquo; In fact, not since death row population censuses began in
1953 has there been a timeofsustainedincrements in executions accompanied
by decrements in tallies of the condemned. The Furman decision (practically
outlawing...