"As I said to you earlier, knowing the exact number is not necessary and expecting it is a useless red herring."

I didn't give any precise numbers because there is no way of knowing them or even if they exist.
However I do know that the fear of the death penalty would influence me, to me it is a deterrent,

Just as the fear of getting caught and fined makes me very aware of the financial dangers of speeding and I don't doubt that there are many others that are also deterred.
The speeding conviction rate in NSW, high as it is, is no indication that fines are not a deterrent.

If there is any sure way of measuring the deterrent effect of the death penalty then I, for one, would like to be directed to a link.

We can not be sure that the death penalty stops repeat offending as there is no way that we can know that those executed would re-offend but we do know the results of lenient parole boards where a criminal, who ought to have been executed for the good of society, has been released and has killed again.

Am I just taking to myself here?

I bet no-one would park illegally if the penalty for it was death. But we live in a society that is more civilised than that and so it should be enough to simply say, “The death penalty doesn’t deter” rather than having to qualify it every time with “...in cases of [insert serious crime here]” and having someone, who doesn’t care to know the facts, come along and equate the deterrence effect that punishments have on relatively minor infringements with something that usually requires desperation, a high state of emotional arousal, and specific life-course pathways and trajectories to even put them in a situation where it’s contemplated.

The less serious an offense is, the more rational thought that goes into it.

Furthermore, there are two ideas being conflated in this thread: (i) no more of a deterrent than LWOP, and; (ii) not a deterrent at all. Which one a criminologist will be talking about at any given point in time can depend on the crime and/or the situation and/or the individual and/or a specific scenario as opposed to ‘in general’.

Is Mise,

<<I didn't give any precise numbers because there is no way of knowing them or even if they exist.>>

No-one claimed that you gave precise numbers. What on earth are you talking about here?

I have already addressed the rest of your post, so there’s no need for me to go through it all again. You're just on 'repeat' now.

Dear AJ Phillips,

I agree circumstances are certainly the defining parameter but to say the death penalty doesn't deter some people from committing some crimes would be a misnomer. Of course it does, there will be people who, given the opportunity to be a mule, will decide it is not worth the risk in part based on the worst case outcome.

The real question is whether it is capable of deterring enough people that drugs will not be smuggled from Bali? The answer? Of course not, as the Bali 9 showed. Given an appropriately high enough reward and a reasonable chance of succeeding there will always be those who will take the punt which is exactly the scenario in this case.

After time in the navy as a clearance diver my father worked as a saturation diver in the oil industry. In one particularly horrific year in the North Sea over 30 divers lost their lives, a figure which represented close to 10% of the diving workforce. Did the risks of the game deter many from becoming a saturation diver? Naturally, but there were always so many young men attracted to the money, and probably the dangers of this incredibly demanding work, who were waiting in the wings for their chance.

And that work always got done.

The measure of deterrence to drug mules of the death penalty can not be found in the numbers refusing to go but in the amount of drugs that reach our shores.

Would my father have been safer smuggling drugs? More than likely.

The conundrum is that scarcity created by intercepting imports drives up prices and therefore the reward offered to mules. We should start recognising that those wealthy enough to be shovelling cocaine up their noses at high end office parties or the middle class, middle aged Australian women who now make up the highest demographic for heroin use are the ones ultimately responsible for luring Australian teenagers to risk death. Indeed surely that is where the bulk of our derision and condemnation should be directed.

David f: Legalise them to get some measure of control. One thing it would do immediately is to lower the price and the crimes to get the money to pay the price.

So you don’t mind a hit or so David. Still what happens at work or driving around all drugged up. Work Place Health & Safety might have something to say about that. I certainly wouldn’t want to be working alongside someone using a welder or Grinder or an Electrician wiring up my home. The only thing would be to increase the penalties for working Drugged up & hurting someone. When it all boils down to it, it works out the same. Dun’it.

AJP: What about retribution, incapacitation, restoration and rehabilitation? Do they not count?

Didn’t they try that in the States & the High Court “?” squashed the idea. The case I remember was, Some guy burgled a house & stole a blokes car & a lot of other stuff. The Judge said that anytime in the future, giving no notice or warning, the Victim could appear & take whatever he wanted of the Criminals.

CH: His insinuation was clearly the threat of the death penalty inspired him to do things properly.

Ahh... but in China they do it right. Once the Court hands down the Death Sentence the Criminal is taken straight outside to the wall & shot, within minutes. Now that is a deterrent.

IS: we do know the results of lenient parole boards where a criminal, who ought to have been executed for the good of society, has been released and has killed again.

& Raped & Burgled. AJP, would the Parole Board be able to be sued for their decision to release such a person? If not, Why not?

AJP: A peer-reviewed paper can’t just be someone’s personal opinion. It needs to be backed up with a lot of evidence.

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of Pseudo Academics like the Vocal Greenies, & other PC do-gooders. ;-)

I think the Chinese have the right idea. "I find you Guilty, Bang!"

Dear Jayb,

Sure I mind somebody next to me all juiced up on drugs. That is a very common sort of objection to keep drugs illegal. If you want to legalise the usage of drugs you must be for the usage of drugs. That is plain wrong. Legalising drugs could actually cut down on the usage. Some addicts become pushers. They have an incentive to turn other people onto drugs so they can have a market. If drugs were legal they would not have that incentive. When the US had Prohibition there was a great amount of alcoholism. I am very much against the usage of drugs. I don't smoke, and I haven't had an alcoholic drink this year. I am not a reformed alcoholic I just don't care much for the stuff.

Banning something that people want has simply been shown not to work.

From http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure

"Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition."

Legalising drugs IMHO would cause the usage to decline. Legalising alcohol has done so, and I think the same thing would happen with drugs. If drugs were legal addicts could get treatment like alcoholics do without being treated as criminals.