Is Capital Punishment Ethical - Research Paper Example

Running Head: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Literature Review: Is the capital punishment ethical? Literature Review: Is the capital punishment ethical? Introduction The capital punishment has long been one of the most debated issues in the American justice system. Most advocates claim that the punishment protects society by deterring murderers from repeatedly committing their crimes. Additionally, proponents proclaim that criminals have a better chance of choosing not to commit murder if the death penalty is a possible sanction. However, research has shown that the practice of capital punishment has failed to provide deterrent effect. The racial bias that is rampant in the administration of the death penalty diminished the integrity of the criminal justice system (Bohm and Haley 2005; Stack 1987; Cochran 1994). Therefore, unethical practice of capital punishment must be stopped. In general, research has focused primarily on issues of deterrent efficacy, discrimination, and more recently, the question of innocence. The overwhelming majority of the empirical research has focused on the question of deterrence, largely as a consequence of widely held public beliefs and attitudes that the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent to murder. The following section will examine each of the foregoing areas of research with particular attention being placed on the question of deterrence since it comprises the largest portion of extant empirical research. Literature Review: Issues Concerning the Death Penalty Public Opinion Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans supports the death penalty (Senna & Seigel, 2002). High support triggers legislators to seek the death penalty; or it at least gives the appearance that it is in the best interest of society for them to seek the death penalty. Seeking the death penalty gives the impression that America is tough on crime; it gives the impression that America still believes in the harshest form of retribution; it gives the impression that nothing is wrong with the death penalty and its application; and, it gives the impression that America is in accordance with the American population that supports the death penalty. Although Americans show a high level of support for the death penalty, it can be argued that support is based on abstract or generalized question wording. For instance, even as late as 2002, most polls show strong support for the death penalty in the abstract with a seventy-two percent approval. When alternatives are given, support drops drastically. Support drops to 56% if the alternative is no parole for twenty-five years; support drops even further to 49% if the alternative is no parole ever; support for the death penalty decreases even further to 44% if the alternative is no parole for twenty-five years plus restitution; and support drops drastically from over seventy percent to only 41 % if the alternative is no parole ever plus restitution (Allen, Simeonsen, & Latessa, 2004). Thus, most people would not support the death penalty if a viable alternative is given. Yet, politicians and other influential leaders do not focus on or even discuss alternatives to the death penalty because this type of discussion would give the impression that they art soft on crime. Having a soft on crime perception can lead to the end of a political career. Interestingly, the United States is the only western world industrialized nation that uses the death penalty as a form of punishment (Inciardi, 2002). Deterrence One of the most frequently articulated arguments advanced in support of capital punishment is that it serves as an effective deterrent to those contemplating the commission of a capital crime. Stated differently, supporters of deterrence contend that the existence and application of the death penalty will prevent at least some murders from occurring, since most prospective killers do not wish to die themselves, and will therefore refrain from the commission of crimes punishable by death (Allen & Simonsen, 2001). An early study in this area was conducted by Dann (1935), who examined homicide rates in Philadelphia sixty days before and sixty days after well-publicized executions. One of the virtues of Danns work in comparison with many others is that he also incorporated another tenet of deterrence theory, publicity, into his research model. However, Danns findings revealed that homicide rates actually increased marginally after well-publicized executions, suggestive of a "brutalization" effect ofthe death penalty. In a partial replication of Dann (1935), Leonard Savitz (1958) also studied homicide rates in Philadelphia eight weeks before and eight weeks after the imposition of a death sentence. A key difference in his research was that he used death sentence imposition rather than executions as the independent variable. As with Dann, Savitz found that the imposition of a death sentence likewise produced no deterrent effect with respect to homicides. Phillips (1980) research method of using column inches devoted to executions as a measure of publicity remained unreplicated until the work of Stack (1987). In contrast to Phillips, Stack grouped total column inches devoted to executions into three categories (low, medium, or high), and then regressed these measures against the monthly murder rates over a thirty year period, from 1950-1980. Stacks findings indicated that highly publicized executions produced a significant deterrent effect, while low to medium coverage produced a statistically insignificant deterrent effect. Of course, these findings did not remain unchallenged. In a reconstruction of Stacks (1987) work, Peterson and Bailey (1989) found no significant deterrent effect to execution publicity when they recoded the number of high publicity cases to include additional cases meeting Stacks own criteria for inclusion which he had excluded from the analysis. Following studies conducted on the subject has not found any deterrent effect of publicized executions but instead found a brutalization effect (Cochran, 1994; Thompson, 1997). Cochrans (1994) study has remained one of the most influential and cited one on the effect of publicized executions on homicide rates. In 1990, the state of Oklahoma carried out the first execution following the reinstatement of the death penalty by lethal injection (DPIC, 2006). Due to the circumstances, the execution was the main focus of every media agency in the state of Oklahoma and therefore received very high publicity. Cochran (1994) examined the impact of that one execution on the rates of subsequent homicide rates in the state. Because previous research had suggested that crime rates published in official reports such as the Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs) tended to disparate types of behaviors in different categories, Cochrans study addressed this argument by simply dividing criminal homicides in two different categories: felony murders and stranger homicides, which were two of the most common types of murders (Chamblin, 1992, Cochran, 1994). Using autoregressive integrated moving averages, also known as the ARIMA techniques, from 1989 through 1991, Cochran concluded results showing no evidence of deterrence but strong support for a brutalization effect on the rates of stranger homicides. Discrimination Most examinations of the record of capital punishment dispensation prior to the 1960s clearly indicate a systematic disproportionate application of the death penalty against minorities, most especially in the southern states. Mangum (1940) for instance, examined executions conducted by nine southern states over a thirty-year period and concluded that blacks were subject to discrimination. One of the most serious indictments of the administration of the death penalty has been the continuing assertion that death sentences are dispensed in an inequitable and discriminatory manner. To be specific, it is contended that blacks in particular have been disproportionately sentenced to death vis a vis other racial or ethnic groups. Not surprisingly, this argument has been extensively examined by social scientists in an effort to determine empirically the accuracy of what is believed anecdotally. Another study indicated similar results. Keil & Vito found that in Kentucky blacks who killed whites had the greatest chance of getting the death penalty than any other race combination (Allen & Simonsen, 2001). The question was put another way. It read: In terms of the death penalty, are blacks who kill white victims more likely to receive the death penalty than whites who murder black victims? The answer is without a doubt, most certainly yes (Allen & Simonsen, 2001). Some may argue that the disproportionate number of black men receiving the death penalty is due to nonracial aggravating variables such as prior criminal records, use of more force, a history of committing additional crimes such as burglary or robbery, or either with the use of a weapon. These variables were all excluded from the study. They were not determining factors. Why is this the case? Why is there a pronounced difference in who gets the death penalty and who does not? Keil & Vito suggested that it is up to the prosecutor. The prosecutor has a gatekeeper function, and it is to his political advantage to seek the death penalty for blacks who kill whites, even if the murders of black on black or white on black have the same or similar legal attributes (Allen & Simonsen, 2001). Some people argue that the death penalty is given to black males at disproportionate numbers compared to anyone else. This is not to say that black men do not kill; this would be a ludicrous statement to make. However, just like in rape cases, the victim has to be white in order for him to be executed. For example, eighty-four percent of the perpetrators who kill white people get the death penalty, while over fifty percent of homicide victims in the United States are black (Allen & Simonsen, 2001). This is more proof that the race of the victim determines who gets the death penalty. A study done by David Baldus found that the imposition of the death penalty was greatly influenced by the race of the murder victim and the race ofthe perpetrator. Ofthe 2000 murder cases in Georgia, defendants charged with killing a white person had been sentenced to death seven times more often than those charged with killing an African American, although 60% of homicide victims in Georgia were African American (Baldus, 1983). This is more proof that the race of the victim determines who receives the death penalty. And lastly, Bohm and Haley (2005) suggested that it is a myth to believe that the death penalty does not discriminate based on race of defendant and race of the perpetrator. The fact is that the death penalty historically and presently continues to be administered in a discriminatory fashion against blacks and the killers of whites. So, according to the literature presented, one can make a strong argument saying that the death penalty has uniformally discriminated against black people for the crimes of rape and murder, historically and presently. If the victim is white and the perpetrator is black, the perpetrator has the strongest chance of receiving the death penalty because it was considered the most serious type of murder. However, if the victim is black and the perpetrator is white, chances of the perpetrator getting the death are almost nonexistent because this was considered the least serious type of murder. Innocence The last area of examination concerns innocence. One of the most repeated charges against the death penalty and one that certainly resonates with the public, is the claim that innocent defendants are being sentenced to death and ultimately executed. It seems certain that in the course of the American death penalty experience in this century alone, that some innocent defendants may have been executed. Some studies indicate that at least 23 people who were executed were later found to be innocent (Bedau, 1982). Other studies indicate that at least 16 people have been wrongly executed since 1976 (Bohm & Haley, 2005). However, there is little research done in this area (Bedau, 1982). So, there is a possibility that the number of errors may increase if more research is done in this area, if there is any validity to what was just said. Clear and Cole (2003) suggest that many mistakes have been made in the past in getting convictions. And, truthfully, each year at least one prisoner has been released from death row because of witnesses lying, evidence being withheld, or using mistaken identification. Albanese (2003) makes a similar argument: There have been cases in which offenders who were executed have later been found to be innocent… In 1999 and 2000, both Nebraska and Illinois put a hold on executions because of errors and possible prosecutorial misconduct that put innocent suspects on death row (p.393) Bohm & Haley (2005) make a similar argument. They state that as many as 16 people and likely more) may have been executed in error in the United States since 1976 when the death penalty was reinstated. Furthermore, the innocent project (2006) reported that, between 1989 and 2007, 190 people, including some on death row, had been exonerated for crimes. Conclusion As the foregoing review and analysis has attempted to demonstrate, an extensive body of empirical research on capital punishment has been compiled over the last several decades. Research has shown that capital punishment is unethical as it does not accomplish what many supporters claim. It does not deter crime. The racial bias that is rampant in the administration of the death penalty diminished the integrity of the criminal justice system. Race, class, and geography affect the decisions made as to who will be sentenced to death. The growing number of wrongful convictions has made the problem worse. I would agree with Coretta king, wife of Dr. Martin Luther King, who is an opponent of capital punishment and remarked that we couldn’t prevent all violence, but we could put some effort into stopping the violence permitted by our government in our name. We must stop this unethical practice. References Albanese S. (2002). Criminal Justice. 2nd Edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Allen RE., Simonsen, C.E., & Latessa, E. (2004). Corrections in America: An introduction. io Edition. USA: Prentice Hall. Allen, H E. & Simonsen, C (2001). Corrections in America: An introduction. 9th edition. Prentice Hall: America. Allen, H E. & Simonsen, C (2001). Corrections in America: An introduction. 9th edition. Prentice Hall: America. Baldus, D.C., Pulaski, A., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Comparative review of death sentences: An empirical study of the Georgia experience. Journal of criminal law and criminology. 74: 661-685. Bohm, Robert M., & Haley, Keith M. (2005). Introduction to criminal justice (4th ed.). New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. Chamblin, M. (1992) Time aggregation and time lag in macro-level deterrence research. Criminology, 30: 377-395. Clear, T.& Cole, G. (2003) American Corrections. 6th Edition. New York: Wadsworth. Cochran, J., Chamblin, M., Seth, M. (1994) Deterrence or brutalization: an impact assessment of Oklahomas return to capital punishment. Criminology 32, 1: 107. Dann, Robert H. 1935. The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment. Friends Social Services Series 29: 1. Death Penalty Information Center. (2006) Information Retrieved from http://www.Deathpenaltyinfo.org. Inciardi, J.A. (2002). Criminal Justice. 7th Edition. New York: Oxford. Innocence Project. (2006). Innocence Project case profiles. Retrieved from www.innocenceproject.org Mangum.Charles S. 1940. The Legal Status of the Negro. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: North Carolina Press. Peterson, Ruth and William Bailey. 1988. Murder and Capital Punishment in the Evolving Context of the Post-Furman Era. Journal of Social Forces 66(3), March: 774-807. Phillips, David P. 1980. The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: New Evidence on an Old Controversy. American Journal of Sociology 86, July: 139-148. Savitz, Leonard. 1958. A Brief History of Capital Punishment in Pennsylvania. Prison Journal 38: 50. Stack, Steven. 1987. Publicized Executions and Homicide, 1950-1980. American Sociological Review 52: 532-540. Thomson, E. (1997) Deterrence versus brutalization: the Case of Arizona. Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2. Read More