My 3 exchanges with Prof. Guy Hochman
1) Subject: Death Penalty Deterrence? Yes, of course
From: Dudley Sharp <sharpjfa@aol.com>
Re: Full Rebuttal: Opinion Death penalty: a promise of deterrence that delivers nothing, Prof. Guy Hochman, ynetGlobal, 11.26.25,
https://www.ynetnews.com/opinions-analysis/article/h19y1e4bbl
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2026 11:04 PM
To: To: All Members, The Knesset
Yedioth Group, ynetGlobal
All at the Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology,
All at the Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology,
Reichman University
news@ynetnews.com; sharon-sh@ynet.co.il; karen-s@ynet.co.il; ilan-l@yedioth.co.il; ilan-l@ynet.co.il; service@ynet.co.il; Business-ynews@ynet.co.il; ynews@ynet.co.il
Please forward to the National Security Ministry, Shin Bet and all media within Israel
Subject: Death Penalty/Execution Deterrence? Yes, of course aka Hochman's Promise of Academic Certitude, That Delivers Nothing
Re: Full Rebuttal: Opinion Death penalty: a promise of deterrence that delivers nothing, Prof. Guy Hochman, ynetGlobal, 11.26.25,
https://www.ynetnews.com/opinions-analysis/article/h19y1e4bbl
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Preface
Prof. Hochman's article appears the anti-death penalty norm, use only anti-death penalty sources, do not fact check, nor vet nor use critical thinking, with those (1), very common within academia and media (2,3).
Based upon his specialty, Hochman needs to evaluate himself.
I rebutted Prof, Hochman, here, for his TOI article, which, also, rebuts the referenced, herein.
It appears that ynetGlobal will not allow such rebuttal on their site, anti-death penalty journalism ethics? I entered two rebuttals and a third wondering when they would be published, with no posting nor response.
Worldwide, there is an anti-death penalty bias which destroys journalism and academic ethics (2,3).
=====
method: I quote Hochman and rebut as Sharp
1) Hochman: "There is not a single thing that supports (the deterrent effect of (the death penalty/executions.)."
Sharp: Hochman's statement is, utterly, absurd.
Nobel Prize Laureate (Economics) Gary Becker:
“the evidence of a variety of types — not simply the quantitative evidence — has been enough to convince me that capital punishment does deter and is worth using for the worst sorts of offenses.” (NY Times, 11/18/07)
"(Becker) is the most important social scientist in the past 50 years (NY Times, 5/5/14)
The death penalty/executions protect and save innocent lives, in six ways, better than does a life sentence, here:
The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
then
Deterrence, Death Penalties & Executions
and
Death Penalty Deterrence: Defended & Advanced
12 more here, but those three should cover nearly all
2) Hochman: "(No one has) produced even one piece of evidence that the death penalty deters more than a long prison sentence, at least not in any case where facts matter more than populism."
Sharp: Hochman is unaware that he contradicts himself. Within his sentence, he concedes that both life sentences and executions, deter some, a rational conclusion, both of which I review in the above links.
Some reason: 1) Nearly 100% of those murderers subject to the death penalty do all they can, pre trial, at trial, within appeals and seeking executive sentence reduction to avoid death and embrace life. No, they were not deterred, at least not for that murder, but they reflect what nearly all of us do, which is
2) For most 27 year olds, life is preferred over death and death is feared more than life. What we prefer more, deters less, What we fear more, deters more. Rationally unchallenged.
3) We are all aware that criminals "case" potential sites and persons for their criminal activity and are aware of lights, cameras, witnesses, police, DNA, fingerprints, prisons, etc. and they will abandon some criminal activities because of those. Why? Deterrence and deterrence only, the perceived or confirmed increased probability of being caught and sanctioned. Unchallenged. and
4) the deterrents effects of severe criminal sanctions, severe negative prospects and severe negative incentives have, never, been negated and cannot be. Historically and logically confirmed, with the death penalty/executions the most severe sanction, the most severe negative prospect and the most severe negative incentive, also unchallenged.
What Prof. Hochman wants you to believe is that the most severe sanction, the most severe negative incentive, execution, is the only one which deters none. More within links.
3) Hochman: "Countries with the death penalty, such as Iran, the United States and Japan, do not experience fewer murders. Countries without it, such as those in Europe, Canada and Australia, do not suffer more."
Sharp: Based upon Hochman's lack of knowledge, he has no idea. Hochman is unaware that gross murder rates cannot determine deterrence. If Iceland and her capital, Reykjavik, have the lowest crime rates in the world, does that mean that laws, law enforcement and sanction don't deter anyone in all other countries and cities? Of course not, its ridiculous on its face, which is why gross crime rates and murder rates cannot determine deterrence.
Also, very well known, is that culture, economy, laws, law enforcement and sanctions are all, slightly or hugely, different in neighborhoods, villages, towns, zip codes, cities, states, counties, and/or countries, all of which, individually and collectively, effect crime rates as Hochman must be aware, as we all are. More detail within the links.
4) Hochman: "The more tense, divided and violent a country is, the more people believe the death penalty is the solution. Not because it works, but because it feels good."
Sharp: Are there two countries less tense, less violent, less divided, with or without the death penalty, than are Singapore and Japan, two counties with the death penalty?
Most of the populations in Western Europe supported the execution of Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein. Why? Justice. 86% of those in the US support the death penalty for murder, always or sometimes (all within links). Why? Justice.
5) Hochman: "What is astonishing is that official bodies too, the National Security Ministry and the Shin Bet, entrusted with our security, are relying on feelings instead of data." " No data, no facts."
Sharp: Data and facts are within the 24 studies finding for death penalty/execution deterrence, since 1997, as well as much more (within links), which is what Nobel Prize Laureate Becker is alluding to Hochman?
6) Hochman: ‘To err is human, to forgive divine,’ Alexander Pope wrote.
Sharp: Anti-death penalty leadership/scholars would, knowingly, sacrifice 9 million more innocents to murder, if it was the price that had to be paid to spare the lives of 1600 murderers (links).
Not an error, a choice. ‘whoever saves one life in Israel.’
In the US, the death penalty/executions protects and saves innocents, in six ways, better than a life sentence (links). ‘whoever saves one life in Israel.’
7) Hochman: "In the United States alone, 195 people sentenced to death were exonerated before execution, thanks to appeals and new evidence.
Sharp: Does Hochman fact check or vet, anything?
The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent"/"Exonerated" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
8) Hochman: The law would " . . . impose the death penalty by a simple majority, unlike the unanimous requirement set in law today."
Sharp: In a democratic society that would be seen as fair. A unanimous requirement means, using the US, that if 1 juror votes against the death penalty (8%), that would overwhelm the 11 juror votes for the death penalty (92%), the most anti-democratic system in a democratic republic. Very clear. Hochman?
9) Hochman: " . . . once the military court hands down a death sentence, there is no possibility of appeal."
Sharp: Of course there should be appeals, with strictly enforced time lines.
10) Hochman: "But research and practice agree. Deterrence is achieved through uniform and equal enforcement, through a rapid response to every incident, whether a trickle or a flood, a balloon or a missile. It is achieved by improving intelligence and strengthening law enforcement agencies . . .".
Sharp: None of which exclude the death penalty/executions and which would include the deterrence of the death penalty/executions, in that same system, as Hochman just described. Hochman, of course, leaves out the severity of the sanction. Would a balloon or a missile be more of a deterrent?
11) Hochman: " . . . the death penalty . . . is irreversible."
Sharp: The death penalty/executions save and protect innocent lives, in six ways, better than does a life sentence (links), meaning, of course, not having the death penalty/executions will sacrifice more innocent lives, all irreversible.
In Closing
1) Hochman's article is the anti-death penalty norm.
2) Especially with the soft sciences, it's a tough call if the individual terrorist, who contemplates a murderous terrorist act, will be deterred by execution. If not a suicide bomber, it might, which is all that is needed to support the proposed law. It is morally and legally justified to include all of those who orchestrated a murderous terrorist act, also, to be subject to the death penalty, within the proposed law. These are people who are not putting their lives on the line, who might re-think their involvement, another reason to support the proposed law.
FN
1) Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims. The media/academic norm is to use anti-death penalty material, refuse to fact check, vet or use critical thinking and avoid all pro-death penalty research and experts or pretend that is the case. How will you know that is true? Read on.
a) The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
and
b) Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)
and
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families & 3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history http://prodpquotes.info/
2) See Media Disaster here
3) Academic Disaster: Law Professor Corinna Barrett Lain
======
Partial CV
======
2) A reply from Prof. Hochman
Hochman Guy
From: ghochman@runi.ac.il
To: Dudley Sharp , news@ynetnews.com , sharon-sh@ynet.co.il , karen-s@ynet.co.il , ilan-l@yedioth.co.il , ilan-l@ynet.co.il , service@ynet.co.il , Business-ynews@ynet.co.il , ynews@ynet.co.il
Sat, Jan 10 at 5:11 PM
Mr. Sharp,
You cite "24 studies since 1997" as evidence of deterrence. The most authoritative review of this literature—the 2012 National Research Council report—concluded that these studies "should not be used to inform policy decisions" due to fundamental methodological limitations including endogeneity, model sensitivity, and unrealistic assumptions about offender behavior.
My claim is not that severity never matters, but that the empirical literature does not support confident claims that executions deter more effectively than long-term imprisonment. This applies equally in terrorism contexts.
Regarding deterrence theory: Gary Becker's economic framework is historically influential, but extensive experimental and field research in behavioral science—including my own work—demonstrates that real-world deterrence operates primarily through psychological mechanisms (norms, moral identity, perceived legitimacy) rather than cost-benefit calculations. Academic credentials do not override systematic empirical findings. I
If you believe the National Research Council's conclusions or the behavioral science evidence base is incorrect, the appropriate response is a peer-reviewed synthesis that directly addresses the methodological critiques. Rhetorical certainty and personal attacks may resonate with some audiences, not with me. I only respond to evidence.
Prof. Guy Hochman, Associate Professor
Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology
ghochman@runi.ac.il, phone-9602422
======
3) Further rebuttal of Prof, Hochman
Dudley Sharp
From: sharpjfa@aol.com
To: news@ynetnews.com , sharon-sh@ynet.co.il , karen-s@ynet.co.il , ilan-l@yedioth.co.il , ilan-l@ynet.co.il , service@ynet.co.il , Business-ynews@ynet.co.il , ynews@net.co.il , Hochman Guy
Sun, Jan 11 at 11:43 AM
Dr. Hochman, sloppy, again and again
Sent to all, as before, at top, PLUS to all the researchers within the 24 studies finding for death penalty/execution deterrence.
Dr. Hochman:
You had multiple reasons to reconsider your non fact checking, non vetting and non critical thinking and you threw them all, away . . . again.
You declare that you "only respond to evidence". Laughable. You can't, even, see how that is contradicted by your article and your response, here, just above.
How do you know when evidence is credible or not , if you don't fact check and vet it, prior to you using it, to make your points, which is what you did?
Your evidence: 1) Did you read the 24 studies finding for deterrence? Based upon your non fact checking and non vetting, likely, no. Circumstantial, but . . .
2) which is supported by your reference to the 2012 National Research Council report which was written by anti-death penalty authors, who did a very embarrassing job, this time, just as prior, as I detailed and presented to you and all and you did not read, evading presented evidence, again and again, a report which lacks credibility. Why do you keep evading credibility?
3) You declare "There is not a single thing that supports (the deterrent effect of (the death penalty/executions.)." Ludicrous and yet you included two comments which, rationally, not only could not exclude the death penalty/execution from being a deterrent, but must include them (above).
4) You didn't fact check nor vet the exonerated claims, thus presenting fraudulent material, known since 1998.
5) You are unaware that simply reviewing gross murder rates can not tell one about the deterrent effects, which is not just your poor evidence standards but poor reason as well.
6) As, already, detailed, life is preferred over death and death is feared more than life. What is preferred more, deters less. What is feared more, deters more. Rationally, unchallenged. You left severity out. I had to bring it in, as you well know. I doubt it was accidental. and more as detailed, earlier, collectively, showing us your additional lack of standards for evidence.
Within economics and crime and deterrence, it is more positive and negative incentives, than cost to benefit, but both support deterrence of the death penalty/execution, as I detailed and you did not rebut.
Why would I take any of your research seriously, when you are so incredibly sloppy, over and over, again? Do better.
Why won't you do better?
It appears, if the "evidence" is anti-death penalty you will accept it, with no research, no fact checking and no vetting, nor critical thinking. If the "evidence" supports the death penalty it's no good, for you. The evidence for that is within your article and within your reply. Clear.
I am a former anti-death penalty guy, who researched the debate for two years, with fact checking and vetting (which has not stopped) after which I changed my view, as fully detailed, for you and all.
In Closing
I agree with Dr. Gary Becker (above) that with the soft sciences, as well as multiple other evidence and reasoning, that executions, the most severe of sanctions and the most severe of negative incentives, deters enough potential murderers that it should be used, with justice the primary goal, with saving innocent lives, in multiple ways, close behind.
======
Sincerely, Dudley Sharp
