Effectiveness of death penalty for non-violent crimes

[Darth Wong]

The news that two men would be sentenced to death in China for the melamine tainted-milk fiasco got me thinking: there is plenty of research on the (in)effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to violent crime. What about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to non-violent crimes, such as corporate corruption?

Violent crimes are typically committed by people who "aren't thinking straight", to use a colloquialism. They're usually poor and uneducated. Many of them are on drugs. Many have a long criminal history, and have been in and out of prisons their whole lives. Many of them act on impulse, or while under the influence of a controlled substance.

Crimes like corporate corruption, on the other hand, are typically committed by wealthy, highly educated individuals whose behaviour is relatively rational. These people typically do not have a long criminal record, they did not come from violent-ridden neighbourhoods, and they are not typically under the influence of a controlled substance when they commit their crimes. Would the possibility of a death penalty deter them more than a typical violent criminal?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I think the argument that applies to violent crime, namely the one about the perp believing they'll get away with it, comes into play here still. How many of these powerful business bosses are arrogant enough to believe they can get away with something as highly fraudulent, not to mention lethal, as topping up milk with a toxic compound? The kind of people who okay these actions are typically not the kind who really think about the consequences because they're either sociopaths, or totally oblivious to the idea of actually being found and convicted.

Given China's harsh deterrence for just about any crime, it boggles the mind that this situation ever came about in the first place. Even if you weren't going to get taken to the wall and shot, you'd at the very least deal with a long sentence in a not-so-homely prison. I can only conclude that the potential pitfalls were outweighed by the sheer profiteering going on.

[Rye]

The news that two men would be sentenced to death in China for the melamine tainted-milk fiasco got me thinking: there is plenty of research on the (in)effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to violent crime. What about the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to non-violent crimes, such as corporate corruption?

Violent crimes are typically committed by people who "aren't thinking straight", to use a colloquialism. They're usually poor and uneducated. Many of them are on drugs. Many have a long criminal history, and have been in and out of prisons their whole lives. Many of them act on impulse, or while under the influence of a controlled substance.

Crimes like corporate corruption, on the other hand, are typically committed by wealthy, highly educated individuals whose behaviour is relatively rational. These people typically do not have a long criminal record, they did not come from violent-ridden neighbourhoods, and they are not typically under the influence of a controlled substance when they commit their crimes. Would the possibility of a death penalty deter them more than a typical violent criminal?

I wouldn't have thought so. They may fear death, but so long as they think they have a decent chance of getting away with it, they'll go for it. While it was more aimed at the poor (who would be more desperate), the formation of the prison itself arose in Victorian times because killing people for non-violent crimes like pickpocketing(!) wasn't working; the reason being that you were more likely to not get caught. This was back when there were public hangings and leaving heads on pikes to emphasise it, to really manufacture the public fear.

[Mayabird]

Singapore might be a better example, since they're more heavily policed and smaller so the policing is more effective, plus they have the death penalty for all sorts of things, like drug trafficking. In China, corruption can get you executed, but there's a good chance they can get away with it because of the sheer scale of everything; they may never get around to you.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I guess crimes of necessity can still happen on this tier of law breaking too, given even rich businessmen can feel like they are suffocating under debt and not being owed what they deserve. You couldn't commit a crime of passion in business, but feeling above the law and also justifying your actions to yourself can certainly happen. If the Credit Crunch has taught us anything, it's that even the super rich bankers can't accept they have enough and will bend the rules, or flat out break them, if it gets them a bigger cut. And that's while using life savings of whole groups of people, which may not be baby killing, just destroying the livelihood of adults instead.

[Darth Wong]

I guess crimes of necessity can still happen on this tier of law breaking too, given even rich businessmen can feel like they are suffocating under debt and not being owed what they deserve. You couldn't commit a crime of passion in business, but feeling above the law and also justifying your actions to yourself can certainly happen. If the Credit Crunch has taught us anything, it's that even the super rich bankers can't accept they have enough and will bend the rules, or flat out break them, if it gets them a bigger cut. And that's while using life savings of whole groups of people, which may not be baby killing, just destroying the livelihood of adults instead.

But these people also know that they won't be seriously penalized for their actions. It's common knowledge among the Wall Street criminal element that even if you get caught, you'll get special treatment. You'll go to a country-club jail for a few years, get out, and then get your money out of the Swiss or Cayman bank account where you hid it.

[Admiral Valdemar]

But these people also know that they won't be seriously penalized for their actions. It's common knowledge among the Wall Street criminal element that even if you get caught, you'll get special treatment. You'll go to a country-club jail for a few years, get out, and then get your money out of the Swiss or Cayman bank account where you hid it.

Sadly, all too true. That now makes me wonder how many such people exist in China. If we can find some stats on rogue traders from a nation thirsting for more economic power and with harsher sentencing for any and all crimes compared to the US or EU, then we may have an interesting comparison.

[ray245]

Another point of view can be asking ourselves, can a person who committed a non-violent crime and cause the death of people be allowed back into society.

Can we trust them to handle any other job?

In regards to life-imprisonment (meaning for the rest of your life till your are dead), perhaps we can view at it at a colder angle for instance? If we are going to measure a person by his ability to contribute to society, how is a person who has been imprisoned for life have any chance to contribute to society?

Say, if a person is such a huge threat to society(assuming he cause a violent crime such as murder with his bare hands intentionally) , where he must be kept away from society at all times, is there any reason for the community to sustain his life? Sustain his life, meaning should he be fed and have a shelter provided for him?

He can't contribute back to society if he is on a life imprisonment, so why should the society provide and sustain his life, when such a person has already taken one?

It might be a flawed argument.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Those would be the same questions that arise with violent criminals too. The only difference here is scale and how they affect their victims. A man who makes a dodgy block of flats by cutting down on high grade steel I-beams can potentially kill far more than the bunny boiler with a .22 rifle and a short fuse. Both aren't good for society, and both may be beyond rehabilitation, and both could be shown to have warranted the death penalty by judging their actions.

[Count Chocula]

even if you get caught, you'll get special treatment

And therein lies the rub. In the case of the Chinese executives, their deliberate decisions sickened at least 300,000 children, and 6 of them died very painful deaths. At the very least, their behavior constituted callous disregard for human life and voluntary manslaughter; given their motives (make $$ at all costs) a murder charge was justified. With something like a financial crime, the actual trail of motivation is more murky, and it's more difficult for the decision-maker to see the trail of harm from their actions (if they even care!).

Look at Bernie Madoff. He committed a $50 billion fraud, at least one of his investors committed suicide, and where is he? In a fucking PENTHOUSE APARTMENT, instead of waiting for his trial in jail. At the very least, he should be incarcerated for manslaughter or negligent homicide for causing the suicide of an investor, not to mention the raft of fraud and RICO charges he faces. But, he's not.

I believe that Mike's premise, i.e. non-violent crimes which cause death as an effect should be treated as capital offenses, is valid if those crimes are identified and enforced. There are people and companies that understand this: Keebler, for example, is recalling ALL of their cracker products that have peanut butter because there's a possibility of salmonella contamination. One reason drug companies spend so much time and money on new pharmaceutical development is so that they DON'T kill people with their medicines! They don't always succeed, but they do their absolute best to make sure their products are safe.

So, I think Mike's point is a good one, and there are a lot of businessmen who already understand this (in those companies that actually make things that people use). The picture gets a lot murkier in the financial and political arena, because it's much more difficult to trace deaths back to a politician's or banker's deliberate decision to do harm.

Too bad there's no death penalty for cruelty to animals - it was just in 2007 that tainted dog food made from Chinese melamine-cut wheat gluten killed dozens, if not hundreds, of pets in the US.

[Rahvin]

This also raises similar issues as in discussions of the death penalty for rape - the perpetrator is willing to go to greater lengths to cover up his crime because compounding his offenses can no longer worsen his sentence if caught.

[Darth Wong]

This also raises similar issues as in discussions of the death penalty for rape - the perpetrator is willing to go to greater lengths to cover up his crime because compounding his offenses can no longer worsen his sentence if caught.

The thing is that a rapist is typically in a very good position to escalate to murder, because he has physical control of the victim and is probably not under any kind of observation. A typical corporate criminal cannot possibly kill all of the people who know what he's done, because so much of the paper trail is generated automatically and institutionally, and his evasion of detection relies on the apathy, inadequate personnel, and ineptitude of the authorities.

[Rahvin]

The thing is that a rapist is typically in a very good position to escalate to murder, because he has physical control of the victim and is probably not under any kind of observation. A typical corporate criminal cannot possibly kill all of the people who know what he's done, because so much of the paper trail is generated automatically and institutionally, and his evasion of detection relies on the apathy, inadequate personnel, and ineptitude of the authorities.

He could, however, kill or arrange to be killed an individual having a crisis of conscience who is likely to report the illegal activities to the authorities. He may also lose any remaining barriers against committing even more destructive crimes - there's no difference in punishment, so long as the risk of being caught is similar.

[TheManWithNoName]

I wouldn't have thought so. They may fear death, but so long as they think they have a decent chance of getting away with it, they'll go for it.

I think he pretty much hit the nail on the head in regards to the original post. They're probably thinking something along the lines of "This is genius, I'll never get caught. I'm doing this."

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's quite obvious when you think about it. Would a rational person really consider death or life imprisonment acceptable risk for making a little more cash? Do the people who "snap" and kill out of provocation weigh up the drawbacks of killing their provoker prior to bashing their head in? No. And these are the cases whereby the law fails to be of any use as a deterrence, and where prevention by regulation, policing and so on comes to the fore.

[Kanastrous]

But these people also know that they won't be seriously penalized for their actions. It's common knowledge among the Wall Street criminal element that even if you get caught, you'll get special treatment. You'll go to a country-club jail for a few years, get out, and then get your money out of the Swiss or Cayman bank account where you hid it.

I only heard this in passing on the radio, and will have to find linkage later, but apparently there is movement toward compelling Swiss banks to either disclose American depositors' accounts, or simply close the accounts, return the $$$ to the client, and report the transaction to the IRS.

Good, if true.

[Samuel]

The thing is that a rapist is typically in a very good position to escalate to murder, because he has physical control of the victim and is probably not under any kind of observation. A typical corporate criminal cannot possibly kill all of the people who know what he's done, because so much of the paper trail is generated automatically and institutionally, and his evasion of detection relies on the apathy, inadequate personnel, and ineptitude of the authorities.

He could, however, kill or arrange to be killed an individual having a crisis of conscience who is likely to report the illegal activities to the authorities. He may also lose any remaining barriers against committing even more destructive crimes - there's no difference in punishment, so long as the risk of being caught is similar.

Most company heads don't have connections to the mob or an easy way to hire contract killers. Not to mention it is a different psychological rift.

[bobalot]

I think greater penalties for non-violent white collar crimes need to increase. I knew a friends who uncle held up a convenience store for not that much cash and got 10 years (I'm not defending him). Lets see the comparison to some white collar criminals who stole a shitload of money:

Alan Bond siphoned off 1.2 Billion dollars and served 4 years. The arsehole is back in high society, I'm pretty sure I have seen a photo with him hanging around with government ministers.

Rodney Adler the architect of Australia's worst corporate disaster (the HIH collapse), served 2 and half years.

Like seriously, what the fuck? How is this supposed to deter white collar crime? The problem is politicians know hobnob with a lot of these guys and are reluctant to "tough" of that sort of crime. Being "tough on crime" means being tough only on crime poor people do.

[fgalkin]

But these people also know that they won't be seriously penalized for their actions. It's common knowledge among the Wall Street criminal element that even if you get caught, you'll get special treatment. You'll go to a country-club jail for a few years, get out, and then get your money out of the Swiss or Cayman bank account where you hid it.

I only heard this in passing on the radio, and will have to find linkage later, but apparently there is movement toward compelling Swiss banks to either disclose American depositors' accounts, or simply close the accounts, return the $$$ to the client, and report the transaction to the IRS.

Good, if true.

The Swiss banks are no good for hiding embezzled funds, anyway- they ask too many questions, and there are forms you have to fill out for every penny. And if they don't like what they see, they can freeze your account just like that. Cyprus and the like seem to be the banks of choice for this sort of thing now.

What's the point I'm trying to make here? There are plenty of smaller banks who are dying to get that sort of business, and if you crack down on some, a bunch more will simply take their place.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Mayabird]

It's quite obvious when you think about it. Would a rational person really consider death or life imprisonment acceptable risk for making a little more cash? Do the people who "snap" and kill out of provocation weigh up the drawbacks of killing their provoker prior to bashing their head in? No. And these are the cases whereby the law fails to be of any use as a deterrence, and where prevention by regulation, policing and so on comes to the fore.

It's possible if they don't apply rationality equally to everything. Might be smart enough to think of a scam and rational enough to think it through, plan it, and implement it, but they might still think they can get away with it because they're special or something.

Hence why I brought up Singapore. I was hoping that one of the Singaporean members, or someone very familiar with the country, would tell us if the death penalty actually works for preventing nonviolent crimes. We can hypothesize all we want but this might be the only way to get actual numbers and hard data.

[PainRack]

It's possible if they don't apply rationality equally to everything. Might be smart enough to think of a scam and rational enough to think it through, plan it, and implement it, but they might still think they can get away with it because they're special or something.

Hence why I brought up Singapore. I was hoping that one of the Singaporean members, or someone very familiar with the country, would tell us if the death penalty actually works for preventing nonviolent crimes. We can hypothesize all we want but this might be the only way to get actual numbers and hard data.

I quote the Law Society publication. Data on the death penalty and other severe punishments is unavailable and inconclusive, preventing the lawyers from actually analyzing the impacts of our legislative policies.
Let the lawyers and the minister duke it out on whether the data is enough, relevant and etc.

Given ancedotes, the death penalty does appear to be a factor for drug smugglers in that they're aware of the severity. However, there is no evidence that this has aided the drug abuse situation, other than the push for designer and party drugs away from Singapore towards Malaysia and Thailand. The success of our anti-drug campaign may be better attributed to improved enforcement techniques, education and reduction in demand.

[ray245]

It's quite obvious when you think about it. Would a rational person really consider death or life imprisonment acceptable risk for making a little more cash? Do the people who "snap" and kill out of provocation weigh up the drawbacks of killing their provoker prior to bashing their head in? No. And these are the cases whereby the law fails to be of any use as a deterrence, and where prevention by regulation, policing and so on comes to the fore.

It's possible if they don't apply rationality equally to everything. Might be smart enough to think of a scam and rational enough to think it through, plan it, and implement it, but they might still think they can get away with it because they're special or something.

Hence why I brought up Singapore. I was hoping that one of the Singaporean members, or someone very familiar with the country, would tell us if the death penalty actually works for preventing nonviolent crimes. We can hypothesize all we want but this might be the only way to get actual numbers and hard data.

Perhaps one can look at the example of kidnapping case?

If I recall correctly, the massive amount of kidnapping case in the 70s resulted in a death Penalty for that Crime.

Now, the cases of kidnapping has dropped to a rather low level.

[bobalot]

It's quite obvious when you think about it. Would a rational person really consider death or life imprisonment acceptable risk for making a little more cash? Do the people who "snap" and kill out of provocation weigh up the drawbacks of killing their provoker prior to bashing their head in? No. And these are the cases whereby the law fails to be of any use as a deterrence, and where prevention by regulation, policing and so on comes to the fore.

It's possible if they don't apply rationality equally to everything. Might be smart enough to think of a scam and rational enough to think it through, plan it, and implement it, but they might still think they can get away with it because they're special or something.

Hence why I brought up Singapore. I was hoping that one of the Singaporean members, or someone very familiar with the country, would tell us if the death penalty actually works for preventing nonviolent crimes. We can hypothesize all we want but this might be the only way to get actual numbers and hard data.

Perhaps one can look at the example of kidnapping case?

If I recall correctly, the massive amount of kidnapping case in the 70s resulted in a death Penalty for that Crime.

Now, the cases of kidnapping has dropped to a rather low level.

Correlation does not imply causation. The rates of all major types of crime through out the western world have been dropping.

[ray245]

Perhaps one can look at the example of kidnapping case?

If I recall correctly, the massive amount of kidnapping case in the 70s resulted in a death Penalty for that Crime.

Now, the cases of kidnapping has dropped to a rather low level.

Correlation does not imply causation. The rates of all major types of crime through out the western world have been dropping.[/quote]


Hmm, true. I think I have to read up more about why did our level of police enforcement work. Although I fail to understand why do we have to view Death Penalty as a deterrence tool.

[Tribble]

All the law does is keep honest people honest.