The Deterrent Effects of the Death Penalty: Tangible or Mythical - Research Paper Example

The Deterrent Effects of the Death Penalty: Tangible or Mythical? Introduction The death penalty, or capital punishment, is the act of granting the state power to execute an individual convicted of certain crimes. Deterrence is the idea that the example of punishing one crime can prevent future commission of crimes by the criminal or other would-be criminals (Melusky & Pesto, p. 109). General deterrence works by convincing the general public that engaging in criminal activity will be harshly punished, thus discouraging them. Specific deterrence is whereby identified criminals are prevented from committing criminal acts again. The knowledge that a certain act would lead to death is supposed to scare people from crime and act as a deterrent. The reality, however, is far from the truth. The deterrent effects of the death penalty are not as tangible and beneficial as purported. This essay explains why through argumentative reasoning, case studies and statistics. Background Capital punishment has existed throughout history. Common methods of executing criminals in the past included; crucifixion, drowning, flaying and beheading. The method of execution of traitors in England up to the 19th century was a painful and gory mixture known as hanging, drawing and quartering. In these times, executions were often a public spectacle (Melusky & Pesto, p. 2). The public was invited to witness the often excruciatingly painful death of the criminal. No mercy was shown to the condemned, and no measures taken to ease the brutality of the executions. The brutality, publicity and frequency of executions were intentional and may have served as deterrents, if only by keeping the populace in fear. The idea of executing people in a humane way began to take root in the 17th century. The guillotine, now a symbol of blood, terror and barbarism, was introduced as a merciful way of swiftly and painlessly dispatching its victims. There have been numerous efforts since to make executions less painful (Kronnenwetter, p. 105). The electric chair was introduced as a substitute to hanging, though the smell of burning flesh and the victims’ expressions of pain dismissed notions of it as painless (Melusky & Pesto, p. 3). Gassing and lethal injections are the currently accepted “humane” execution methods, though evidence from some executions indicates that victims do not drift gently into death as intended. The legal system in modern times, unlike that of past centuries, is wary of handing down death sentences left, right and center. By the time a death sentence is proclaimed, years may have passed since the crime was committed, erasing it from the public’s collective conscious. The carrying out of the sentence is not a public act, either, but mostly a private and secretive affair. Executions in modern times are not the horrific, scary events that they were in the past. With all these concerns about humaneness in executions and the long, drawn-out trials, does capital punishment still act as a deterrent? Are people afraid of committing horrible murders if the punishment that awaits them is a drug-induced, painless death? These are some of the arguments against the effectiveness of the death sentence as a deterrent. Proofs There are several arguments against the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. A common argument of proponents of the death penalty is that people who commit some heinous crimes such as serial murder and child murders do not deserve to live. The idea here is that the death of the killer is a form of reparation to the deceased and their families. By depriving them of their lives, they lose what they deprived others of. This just desert, “eye for an eye” approach to justice does not consider rehabilitation as a possibility. Beccaria, in his 1764 treatise, On Crimes and Punishment, gives timeless arguments against this line of reasoning. For one, capital punishment deprives the criminal of an opportunity to suffer in shame and public condemnation for their acts. This “death is too good for them” argument views a lifetime imprisonment as a far worse fate (Beccaria, p. 50). The offender has an entire lifetime of confinement and deprivation of freedom to mull over their actions. Lifetime imprisonment without possibility of parole may act as a better deterrent than the death penalty for hardened criminals or psychopaths who may view death as getting off too easy (Beccaria, p. 50). This is because incarceration involves a lifetime of paying for the crime one committed. The other argument against the deterrent effects of the death penalty takes a functional approach. The lengthy trials, retrials and delays before the modern justice system passes the maximum sentence of death are inevitable. This is because such sentences are not passed lightly, and the guilt of the convicted and the weight of his or her crime need to be carefully deliberated and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. The average time convicted felons spend on death row in America is twelve years. This lengthy period between arrest, trial, sentencing and the actual execution results in a diminishing of the cause-effect relationship in the mind of the public. The details of the case may be lost or forgotten in the public conscious by then. The public may fail to associate the crime with the punishment due to these long delays (Beccaria, p. 55). Modern executions are also, as mentioned above, fast and painless in an effort to be humane. The fear induced by methods such as guillotining or electric chair is lost. As Beccaria reasons, punishment can only be associated with a crime if it is delivered swiftly and without delay. If there is need to deter other, make the execution public (Beccaria, p. 55). Statistical data gives a strong argument for the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. Statistics indicate that the South has the highest murder rate in the country at 6.0 per 100,000. Southern states also account for most of the executions since 1976, with 1,023 people executed. The Northeast has the lowest murder rate in the country at 3.8 per 100,000. It also has the least number of executions carried out during the same time period, having carried out only 4 executions since 1976 (Melusky & Pesto, p. 52). This data indicates a reality contrary to that espoused by capital punishment enthusiasts, that the threat of the death penalty lowers the rate of murders. Statistics of research conducted on capital punishment in states that practiced the death penalty indicated that the murder rate there was low thanks to the high number of executions (Haag and Conrad, p. 48). These statistics and the conclusions derived from them were proved erroneous (Hanks, p. 92). The correlation between high execution rates and low crime rates is therefore weak. Such correlations are based on incorrect assumptions such as the rationality of criminals. They take it for granted that criminals rationalize their actions before they undertake them, weighing options carefully before choosing the rational path (Haag and Conrad, p. 68). They also fail to take into account accidental killings and crimes of passion, considering each murder a cold-blooded, premeditated action. The argument that the death penalty reduces crime rates by instilling a sense of fear and respect of the law is also oft-quoted. States that carry out executions are not immune to violent crimes. The rate of crimes such as rape, manslaughter and robbery are still as prevalent in these states as they are in states with no capital punishment (Zimring, p. 52). The rate of police killings is also in no way affected by the capital punishment laws of that particular state (Potter, p.1). The argument that the state should implement the death penalty as a measure to protect citizens’ lives and safety is therefore nullified. The death penalty instead creates an environment where people feel justified to take others’ lives because the law does it (Potter, p.1) The other common pro-capital punishment argument is that perpetrators of some crimes are not fit to live among fellow human beings. Society cannot comprehend people who commit grisly acts such as murder and necrophilia or cannibalism. The only recourse is to label them “evil incarnate” and remove them from society, leaving the world a better place without their presence in it. The idea that some offenders should be removed from society is termed expiation (Melusky & Pesto, p109). Disorders such as psychopathy and sociopathy have been established by science as reasons for some of the worst crimes committed. For deviants, death is not a major fear and neither would it have deterred them from their actions. Other people may commit these crimes due to mental retardation or some other like form of mental incapacity. Most people who kill are not cold-blooded, pre-meditated killers. Rather, murders are often committed by normal, sane people on impulse, in a moment of passion or by accident. Categorically stating that such people deserve to die, regardless of the circumstances that caused them to act, is to deny them a chance to atone for their actions Criminals do not often pause to deliberate and weigh the consequences of their actions. (Pojman & Reinman, p. 105) This is not to excuse their actions, however, but to demonstrate that a complex interplay of factors affect criminal behavior. Wielding the death penalty as the ultimate deterrent does not leave room for consideration of other methods. The “brutalization effect” is another argument against the deterrent effect of capital punishment (Hanks, p. 79). The brutalization effect is a theory that suggests that the rate of murder increases in states that frequently carry out executions in the time period surrounding an execution. This brutalization effect has been noted in several states including Arizona, Georgia, California and Illinois. In Georgia, a study found that highly publicized executions were followed by a 6.8% increase in homicide rates. California studies found that executions were followed by a two-to-threefold increase in the number of homicides (Potter, p.1). The brutalization effect has been attributed to several factors. The public may be desensitized to the notion of murder due to a widely publicized trial. The gory details of a killing may also spur public interest in committing such crimes (Potter, p. 1). Publicized trials and executions thus create an atmosphere of violence. The utility of executing one individual to teach others a lesson is reduced if it in fact leads to deaths of more innocent individuals. The notion of capital punishment as a deterrent for would-be criminals is also refuted by the cases of copy-cat criminals. These are people who are inspired by murderers and other criminals on death-row to commit the same crimes as their role models. The sensationalization of serial killers by the media contributes to glorification of these deviants. The deterrent effect does not work in these cases, as the fact that their idols were caught and sentenced in no way deters these budding deviants. Some states retain the death sentence in the legal aspect but have not carried out an execution in years. The sentence is therefore present in theory only, but not in action. The commonsense defense for the death penalty is lost in such cases. The commonsense defense states that it is better to retain the death penalty because criminals are afraid of death. Thus the presence of the death penalty acts as an effective deterrent for would-be criminals (Haag & Conrad, p. 65). Haag takes this reasoning to its conclusion by stating that, on the off-chance that it may prevent murders by would-be criminals, it is commonsense to have the death penalty than not to have it. This argument does not take into account the weakening effect of not conducting executions (Pojman & Reinman, p. 106). This is a situation whereby the deterrent effects of executions are lost in the concurrent brutalizing atmosphere. A way of avoiding this situation is to conduct a high number of executions, such as Texas, in order to offset the brutalizing effect and obtain a deterrent effect. The effect of conducting a large number of executions, however, is detrimental as a whole. Refutations It would be remiss not to state that convincing arguments have been made for the deterrent effects of capital punishment. Indeed, some of the very arguments used above to argue against it can be turned the other way around. For example, the prevalent use of “rehabilitative methods” in the United States in the 1960s led to an increase in crime. This method was at the time touted as a humane and constructive way of dealing with offenders (Haag & Conrad, p. 34). The belief was that crime was curable, and no one, no matter how hardened, could not be redeemed. This led to criminals being let out on parole after undergoing “treatment”. The prominent case against the rehabilitative effect was the sexual abuse and murder of a young girl by a convicted sex offender and murderer who had been pardoned. Public outrage was understandable, and demands for reinstatement of capital punishment were outspoken. It could be reasoned, however, that the rehabilitative system was not implemented discerningly. Death is also seen as the ultimate deterrent. Execution of a person who has committed atrocious crimes ensures that they will never commit that crime again. The argument here is that life sentences can, and have been, appealed. Pardons granted to people who committed crimes such as murder, for example spark outrage and fear that the person will go back to their old ways. There is also a sense of justice not having been done when a convicted murderer walks free. The death sentence, it is argued, does away with the chance of such miscarriages of justice occurring. The legal system, however, works hard to ensure such miscarriages do not occur. (Kronnenwetter, p. 97) Some criminals use loopholes in the legal system to commit crimes specifically in states without the death penalty. This may also seem as a viable argument for its effectiveness in deterring crime. Crossing a state line to commit a crime such as murder in a state without the death sentence was a tactic used by criminals. One robber confessed that her gun was unloaded because she did not want it to accidentally go off and kill someone. Another criminal, a twice convicted murderer involved in an escape attempt, stated that he ensured no guards were killed because of the death penalty in that state. He had no qualms about the other murders because they were in non-capital punishment states. These cases may well be considered the rare exception to the rule, criminals who carefully and rationally weighed their options and chose not to commit murder. It is also important to note that these people were engaged in committing other crimes at the time. They wisely chose not to add murder to their rap sheets. Such anecdotes and individual case studies should not be considered strong arguments for enforcing the death penalty (Blumstein & Nagin, p. 3). Conclusion The continued existence of the death penalty in our legal system is perplexing in light of the convincing arguments against it. There is already sufficient statistical, anecdotal and ethical evidence against the utility and efficiency of the death penalty. Defending capital punishment as a means of deterring others from committing crimes is, however, unacceptable as a convincing argument. The deterrent effects of this system are minimal at best and non-existent at worst. Of all the arguments that are made in support of the death penalty, the least convincing is that it deters crime. A society convinced of its progress from archaism and barbarism cannot afford to retain an archaic practice such as the death penalty as part of a modern legal system. Whitewashing and sugarcoating the process of state-sanctioned killings using “modern” and “painless” methods does not make the deed any more acceptable. The death penalty may seem like the only way to deal with perpetrators of horrendous crimes and unredeemable, unrepentant criminals. A society that has moved beyond the superstitions and senseless killings of the past eras can find better ways to deal with its deviants and encourage a law-abiding citizenry. Works Cited Beccaria, C. On Crimes and Punishment. Trans. Henry Paolucci. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1963. Print. Blumstein, A, Cohen, J and Nagin, D. Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences. 1978. Print. Haag, E & Conrad, J. The Death Penalty: A Debate. New York: Plenum.1983. Print. Hanks, G. Against the Death Penalty. Christian and Secular Arguments against Capital Punishment. Herald. 1997. North Carolina. Print. Johnson, R. Death Work: A Study of the Modern Execution Process. California: Wadsworth. 1997. Print. Kronnenwetter, M. Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook. Westport: ABC-CLIO. 1993. Print. Melusky, J., Pesto, K. Historical Guides to Controversial Issues in America: Capital Punishment. Westport: ABC-CLIO. 2011. Print. Pojman, L & Jeffrey, H. The Death Penalty: For and Against. Rowman & Littelfield. 2000. Print. Potter, G. Cost, Deterrence, Incapacitation, Brutalization and the Death Penalty: The Scientific Evidence. The Advocate, Vol. 22, No. 1. 2000. Accessed on 14th April at: http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/pubs/Public_Adv/jan00/dppotter.html Zimring, F. The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University. 2003. Print. Read More