Endless Plea Deals Prove The Death Penalty Is A Powerful Deterrent

The U.S. military last executed a convicted criminal on April 13, 1961. But if anyone deserves the death penalty, it is former U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan. On Nov. 5, 2009, Hasan murdered 13 people and an unborn baby and wounded or injured 32 others at Fort Hood, Texas. The Trump administration has now scheduled his execution for December 3.

Hasan is hardly the only murderer whose crimes raise questions about capital punishment. President Biden commuted the death sentences of 37 federal inmates, including people like drug kingpin Kaboni Savage, who murdered 12 people, including four children.

The death penalty debate has rekindled after Christa Pike’s recently botched execution in Tennessee. After initial concerns, she has regained consciousness and her ability to speak. By Oct. 8, she had started walking again with assistance, and she was released from the hospital on Oct. 10.

Some people support the death penalty because they believe it delivers justice. Others argue that it deters murders and saves lives. But we don’t have to rely solely on statistical studies to see that murderers fear execution more than life without parole. Just look at the choices they make when facing trial.

Time and again, accused mass murderers plead for life without parole to avoid execution. Without the threat of the death penalty, prosecutors would lose a powerful incentive for defendants to negotiate.

In 2025, Bryan Kohberger, accused of brutally murdering four University of Idaho students in 2022, accepted life in prison rather than risk the death penalty, just weeks before his trial. Other notorious murderers have made similar choices.

Patrick Crusius, who murdered 23 people in a racially motivated shooting at an El Paso Walmart in 2019, wanted a plea agreement in March 2025 that spared him execution. Other killers who requested plea agreements or pleaded guilty in efforts to avoid the death penalty include:

• Jared Lee Loughner, who murdered six people and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, in 2011.
• Eric Rudolph, who carried out the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing and other attacks.
• Francisco Oropeza, who murdered five neighbors in San Jacinto County, Texas, in 2023.
• Joseph James DeAngelo Jr., the notorious Golden State Killer, who pleaded guilty in 2020 to 13 murders and multiple rapes across California to avoid execution. He received 11 consecutive life sentences without parole.

Other notorious mass murderers also sought, if unsuccessfully, to avoid execution. James Holmes, who murdered 12 people and injured 70 in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting, offered to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence, but prosecutors rejected the proposal. Dylann Roof, who murdered nine people at a Charleston church in 2015, offered to plead guilty if prosecutors dropped the death penalty.

The list goes on.

Nidal Hasan also sought to avoid the death penalty through a guilty plea, but military law prevented him from entering the plea he wanted.

These cases reveal something important: Even murderers who show little regard for their victims’ lives often fight desperately to save their own.

Critics argue that capital punishment costs taxpayers too much. But the threat of execution can also encourage plea agreements that avoid expensive trials and lengthy appeals. When defendants waive their appeal rights as part of those agreements, taxpayers can avoid additional legal expenses. For example, with Francisco Oropeza, the county district attorney estimated that a capital trial could cost up to $2 million, excluding appeals.

Academic research also supports this deterrent effect. Indeed, most peer-reviewed studies estimate that each execution prevents eight and eighteen murders.

If an execution prevents even eight murders, how much are those eight lives worth?

Although many Democrats oppose capital punishment, a 2026 survey shows Americans support it by more than a 2-to-1 margin. A Rasmussen survey also found stronger support when respondents considered more timely executions. Lower-income Americans, who often face greater exposure to violent crime, have expressed particularly strong support.

The death penalty debate should focus not just on the lives of convicted murderers, but also on the innocent lives that might be saved. The willingness of even the most brutal killers to accept life in prison rather than face execution demonstrates how much they fear that ultimate punishment. Eliminating the death penalty would sacrifice a potentially powerful tool for saving innocent lives and reducing the costs of bringing murderers to justice.

John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He served as the senior advisor for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice during 2020-21.