The Death Penalty: Fair Solution or Moral Failure - Literature review Example

? LAW Final Essay Questions …………………………………… College ………………………………………... Provide an argument for the death penalty using rational choice/deterrence theory. Death penalty is an old idea as it dates back to 1700 BC where Code of Hammurabi has contained the first known death penalty laws. Under this law, around twenty five crimes were treated as punishable by death penalty (Guernsey, 2009, p. 9). Both Bible and Quran have set down rules of law considering death penalty as a punishment for one who takes a life. Both these scripts have almost similar concept that an offender should give “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand and foot for foot”. Many old scripts and various religious dogmas have considered death penalty as an effective punishment and have justified that death penalty only can give greatest justice to the victim who has been murdered or killed. Arguments against the death penalty emerged only in 1700s, when few writers and philosophers including Italian scholar Cesare Beccaria began to question whether the death penalty is justice and ethical. They argued that capital punishment is unethical and barbaric. According to their arguments, killing a criminal makes a nation more brutal (Guernsey, 2009, p. 10). Crimes that are punishable by death are called capital punishment. Murder is the only capital crime many countries that apply death penalty. Child rape, treason, aircraft hijacking etc are also considered to be capital crimes in some countries. At the very forefronts of the debate of death penalty lies deterrence theory, that has long been a cornerstone that many researchers and scholars have used to argue for the death penalty. Deterrence theory have several times been quoted by judges, persecutors, officials and legal authoritative people to justify death penalty (Gerber and Johnson, 2007, p. 62). The basic consensus of the deterrence theory is that death penalty serves a general deterrence to crime. Based on studies, Mandery (2005, p. 49) concluded that there is wide consensus among America’s top criminologists that the death penalty does or it can reduce the rates of criminal violence among the society. People are more likely to be afraid of punishment. Strong punishment remains to be stronger shield for the criminals to get rid of their common criminal attitude. As Marzilli (2008, p. 21) observed, a strongest argument for the death penalty is its deterrence value that is based on common sense. People are afraid of dying and hence people will be discouraged by the possibility of being sentenced to death for committing certain crimes that will cause them death. US Criminal Justice system has supported this straight forward logic. Almost all the people who were sentenced to death were appealing their sentence and this showed that they did not wish to die. Death penalty is morally correct because it is an effective method to provide the greatest justice for the victim and to alleviate the psychic pain of the victim’s family and relatives or friends etc. Alleviation of the psychic pain is more evident from family members and political followers etc. Death penalty circulates a moral statement to the public that there is a common behaviour that is more unacceptable to the community that one who indulges in killing, murdering or raping a child will be forfeited his right to live (Siegel, 2009, p. 513). When a criminal is killed by the law due to his criminal behaviour of killing others, the community will be safe and the society will no longer be afraid of his mischief, and this supports the argument that death penalty is morally correct. Death penalty not only deters others people from doing such behaviors, but also saves community from people who are threats to social life as well. Rational Calculator Model Gerber and Johnson (2007, p. 63) found that supporters of the death penalty including Professor Pojman claims that death penalty circulates an economic warning to the society to a calculating potential murderer. According to this theory, the law abiders and murderer will calculate in advance the costs and benefits of the anticipated criminal conduct. If there is a credible message that appears to be a strong penal punishment for the contemplated behaviour, the murderer will be more likely to be away from doing crimes. According to the rational calculator theory, the murderer is more likely to calculate the potential benefits and costs before he commits a crime. His may think whether the anticipated penal punishment and costs associated with it outweighs the anticipated benefits of committing the homicide. This theory can also be applied to most other crimes and punishments. A thief may calculate the benefits of his doing as well as risks and punishments he is likely to be subjected to if he is caught. Does death penalty deter more effectively than life imprisonment? The debate over deterrence is considered to be a debate over marginal deterrence, because all human beings including murderers rationally calculate like benefits against the likely costs of a contemplated course of conduct (Gerber and Johnson, 2007, p. 63). Death penalty, as described in many religious books and other scripts, deters people from committing serious crimes. If no such penalty is warned to the people, the rate of homicides and other serious crimes will increase. If no serious punishment is given to the criminal, people won’t recognize difference between criminal and others. 2- Can the concept of rational choice involve passionate crimes? Explain and defend your answer. Rational choice theory says that people who commit crimes are doing the same only after considering the risks of detection and punishment for the crimes and the rewards of doing the same acts successfully (Gottschalk, 2009, p.77). Rational choice theory can be used to explain individuals who are suffering from low-income conditions and commit crimes along with groups or combined with corrupt police force. Some times, people find it rational to move in to organized crimes which they individually never like to get indulged in. Crimes and law-violating behaviors occur when an offender decides to risk breaking the law after considering personal factors like efficiency of local police force, strictness of the legal system and likelihood of the target to be processed. Rational choice theory suggests that a criminal evaluates and assesses the risk of apprehension, seriousness of expected punishment, potential value of the criminal enterprise and the immediate benefit he gains form the crime etc (Siegel, 2009, p. 94). Rational choice theory has been applied to a number of different types of crimes or criminal fields like shoplifting, robbery, commercial burglary, drug addiction etc. Gottschalk (2009, p. 77) asserted that both economists and psychologists consider general theoretical issues in theoretical criminology. But, crime of passion or passionate crime cannot be explained with the theory of rational choice. Rational choice theory suggests that a criminal commits a crime after considering and evaluating or rationally calculating the risks of detection and punishment for the crimes. Passionate crime is a crime that has been committed by a person when his passion is at peak. This may be a crime prompted by jealousy or love tragedy. For example, a murder of a wife or husband for adultery (Adeleye, Acquah-Dadzie and Sienkewicz, 1999, p. 85). Passionate crime is a sudden crime that a perpetrator commits, like assault or murder, against some one because of a sudden impulse like heartbreak. A good example that a husband kills her wife when she has been found to have engaged with some other in adultery. In such cases, the perpetrator did not commit the same after considering the risk of detection and punishment for it. Rational choice theory talks about those crimes that are very similar to planned crimes. Criminals do plans or rational thinking in mind, but one who commits crimes for passion never thinks rationally of benefits or costs of the crime. Lilly, Ball and Cullen (p. 343) stated that there is a danger is rational choice theory that it considers and treats offenders as they were only decision makers. Evaluating the risks or benefits, calculating the likely costs and assessing the risks of detection and punishment are closely related to one’s decision making and planning mental aptitude. But, this never happens in those who commit crime for passion. Passionate crimes are sudden, promoted by a sudden impulse of rage or stronger heartbreak. It occurs mainly by an immediate shock of mind. In such cases, the criminal is not in a condition of planning, or calculating or evaluating the likely costs and benefits of detection and punishment and therefore the concept of rational choice does not involve passionate crime. Simpson (2002, p. 33) described that different effects vary by crime types. For example, tax non-compliance falls in to rational choice, but crime of passion is not so. Crimes of passion involve more emotion that calculus, addictive or compulsive acts like shoplifting. No calculation is found in crime of passion as is involved in other crimes like burglary and therefore rational choice theory doe not involve crimes of passion. The concept of rational choice cannot be directly applied to the crimes of passion, or more specifically, the theory of rational choice does not involve passionate crimes because of the following:- Rational choice theory suggests that a person commits a crime like murder or assault only after considering and calculating the likely costs of detecting and punishing him and the benefits of the activity that he likes to do. Different effects vary by crime types. Therefore, most types of crimes are carried out by people after considering the costs and benefits associated with committing the same. People do through different stages like planning, thinking and decision making before doing most of the crimes. Crime of passion or passionate crime is one that a person commits against some one because of a sudden and strong impulse of heartbreak, like wife killing her husband when he is found to have done some thing serious mistake. In crimes of passion, there is no calculation, no consideration and evaluation of likely costs and benefits of detection, punishment etc. Crimes of passion happens because of a sudden impulse and therefore it does not contain thinking or decision making conditions. Crime of passion not considered to be as punishable as other types of crimes. 3- What are the implications that critical criminology brings to society? Critical criminology questions the rightfulness of criminal laws and questions the practicability of some acts to be defined as crimes while some other acts that are often equally harmful are not treated as crimes. Critical criminologists deal with criminal acts completely different from other criminologists (Smith and Berlin, 1988, p. 13). Critical criminology provides two different perspectives on the criminal act, they are a) the labeling perspective and b) the conflict perspective. First one is about the attention to a specific manner that societies define criminal activities and deviant behaviors. The conflict perspective identifies a specific manner in which the definition of criminal acts is a product from the struggle among competing social groups (Smith and Berlin, 1988, p. 13). Hagan (2010, p. 176) found that critical criminology consists of five major types of theoretical approaches, they are 1) the labeling, 2) conflict theory, 3) the feminist, 4) new critical and 5) the radical or the Marxist view points. Based on these theoretical concepts, the common characteristics of the critical criminology can be summarized as below: Crime is a label that is attached to a behavior, usually less powerful people in the society get labeled to it. More powerful groups in the society can control the labeling process so that their personal interests can be protected. The conflict model explains the criminalization process, Crime is a rational response to some inequitable conditions in capitalistic societies (Hagan 2010, p. 176) Critical criminologists emphasize their attention towards a number of themes and basic concepts. Critical criminology is concerned about few concepts like use and misuse of power, ability of individual or groups to determine and control others’ behavior, and power to influence public opinion to meet their specific interests. The critical criminologists criticize the traditional criminologists about its support to status quo and helping the oppression of poor people who are relatively less powerful (Siegel, 2009, p. 234). Critical criminology defines crimes as a political concept that is designed to protect the power and position of the upper class people at the expenses of the poor people. Crimes also include list of those activities that violate human rights due to racism, sexist and imperialism etc (Siegel, 2009, p. 234). According to the theory of critical criminology, criminals are not social misfits but are the products of social system and economic conditions and therefore societies require to remove those conditions or economic systems that create criminal attitude among the society. The direct implications of the critical criminology on society can be understood from the concept that crime is a label usually attached or given to a behaviour that is usually attached to less powerful people. As Hallett (2006, p. 25) pointed, the critical criminology emerged with a narrow focus on only one primary type of oppression and developed to include examinations of racial, gender and other issues. The critical criminology is related to the limitations of reliance on formal legal rights in order to ensure social equality among people from various groups. Each Society produces specific types of crimes, numbers of crimes, and the societies have their specific ways of dealing with crimes as well as criminals. Societies get some amounts of crimes that they are deserved to. The major implications of the critical criminology on the society can be summarized as follows: 1- Each society produces its very own types and numbers of crimes. 2- each society has its own specific and unique ways of dealing with criminal behavior that arise from the its people. 3- Each society gets some specific amounts of crimes and types of criminal behavior that the society deserves. 4- In the society, poor and less-powerful people are more likely to be labeled to criminals. 5- Powerful people are those who determine and control the labeling process in a way that the personal interests of the powerful people are to be well protected. 6- crime is rational response to some critical and inequitable conditions. References Adeleye, G, Acquah-Dadzie, K & Sienkewicz, TJ 1999, World dictionary of foreign expressions: a resource for readers and writers, Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers Gerber, RJ & Johnson, JM 2007, The top ten death penalty myths: the politics of crime control, Greenwood Publishing Group Gottschalk, P 2009, Policing Financial Crime: Intelligence Strategy Implementation, Universal-Publishers Guernsey, JB 2009, Death Penalty: Fair Solution Or Moral Failure?, Twenty-First Century Books Hagan, FE 2010, Introduction to Criminology: Theories, Methods, and Criminal Behavior, Seventh illustrated edition, SAGE Hallett, MA 2006, Private prisons in America: a critical race perspective, Illustrated edition, University of Illinois Press Lilly, JR, Ball, RA & Cullen, FT 2005, Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences, Fifth illustrated edition, SAGE Mandery, EJ 2005, Capital punishment: a balanced examination, Illustrated edition, Jones & Bartlett Learning Marzilli, A 2008, Capital Punishment, Illustrated second edition, Infobase Publishing Siegel, LJ 2009, Introduction to Criminal Justice, Twelfth revised edition, Cengage Learning Simpson, SS 2002, Corporate crime, law, and social control, Illustrated edition, Cambridge University Press Smith, AB & Berlin, L 1988, Treating the criminal offender, Illustrated third edition, Springer Read More