Posted by
ARestlessMind on Monday, June 18, 2007 9:10:40 PM
In "Dark Science" (June 12, 2007) I implied modern scientific research is comparable to the suppression of science during the Dark Ages. That article started several weeks ago. The day before it was published evidence to support my argument appeared in papers across the country.
Robert Tanner, AP National Writer, published an article reporting academic studies concluding the death penalty may deter murders. One study went so far as to say that for every person executed for murder an average of eighteen lives might be saved.
The anti death penalty crowd is attacking the studies with all guns blazing. (Sorry, I could not help myself!). According to Tanner, they attacked the methodology, the results and the "second-tier journals" publishing the studies. After thirty-seven years of involvement with one of the largest universities in Texas, I am well aware of the shortcomings of academic studies. Still, the attacks on these studies, as reported by Tanner seem extreme.
Statistical studies based on a small number of cases are subject to criticism. Drawing conclusions from a handful of cases is dangerous. However, if researchers waited until they could obtain a sample large enough to assure statistical significance, many avenues of research would be stymied.
Consider the studies in question. If the relationship between capital punishment and murder cannot be studied until there are enough executions to assure statistical significance, then the study will never occur. If the relationship is to be studied, small numbers must be used.
The ironic aspect of this debate is that critics of the pro-deterrence studies are not worried about small numbers if the results support their beliefs. For example, anti death penalty forces quote studies that show death penalty laws have no discernible effect on homicide rates. However, these studies can be challenged on grounds similar to those used against the pro-deterrence studies. If a small number of executions annually cannot be used to show a deterrent effect, how can it be used to prove there is no deterrent effect?
The response to the pro-deterrence studies by anti death penalty scholars clearly illustrates the direction science has taken. Like their political counterparts, liberally oriented scholars, scientists and researchers discount opposing views as unworthy of serious consideration. Civil debate is not possible from their perspectives. They KNOW they are right, because they and all their cohorts agree on their theories.