The Death Penalty and its Effectiveness in Relationship with the Economics of Crime - Coursework Example

The death Running head: ARGUMENT ON ECONOMICS OF CRIME The death penalty and its effectiveness in relationship with the economics of crime of Client Name of University Name of Class The death 2 The death penalty and its effectiveness in relationship with the economics of crime Introduction The death penalty is used as a tool for the prevention of crime as a deterrent to the most heinous of crimes. However, the definition of heinous crime varies from nation to nation. An understanding of the use of the death penalty at a global level allows for an overall understanding of how this penalty is viewed in the worldwide community. As well, understanding the concept of the economics of crime and how the death penalty works in relationship to this theory allows for a better understanding on the effectiveness of this deterrent. How the death penalty is used is also a question that must be raised in order to examine the effectiveness of this penalty. There are two aspects to consider when undertaking a study of the death penalty. The first aspect is whether or not the penalty is effective as a crime preventative measure. The second is whether or not the effectiveness of the prevention, no matter how effective it may or may not be, is worth the immorality of the taking of another’s life. The question relates to whether or not the right of the state to forfeit a life falls within the expectation of moral and ethical behavior that the worldwide community believes is fair and just. In considering the final nature of the death penalty and the lack of truly effective prevention from the threat of the death penalty, the forfeiture of life by the state does not seem to have merit. Statistics on the Death Penalty World wide opinion on the use of the death penalty as an effective tool for the prevention of crime has been diminished over the last two decades. According to Amnesty International (2010), two-thirds of the countries of the world do not have the death penalty and of the 58 remaining countries, most do not use the death penalty although they have it as an option. The The death 3 United States, an economic and social leader in the world, still uses the death penalty as a punishment for crime. According to the American website Death Penalty Information Center (2010), 2009 saw 52 executions, all but one of which was done through lethal injection. Larry Bill Elliot was executed in the state of Virginia through the use of an electric chair. It has only been in recent history within the United States that the death penalty for juveniles was abolished. A sum total of 228 juvenile offenders were sentenced for life ending measures between the years of 1973 and 2004 with 22 of those ending in executions and 134 received commuted sentences (Lawrence & Hemmens, 2008, p. 34). A United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Roper v Simmons abolished the death penalty for all those under the age of eighteen at the time of the commission of the crime. Seventy-two inmates were relieved of their death penalty burden when this decision was handed down (Neuberger & Meinhold, 2010, p.296). The decision was based on the Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution which holds that there should not be excess in regard to punishment for crime. Cruel and unusual punishment must be interpreted by the court system in order to have an effect across all of the states (Cole & Smith, 2007, p. 135). Although the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the death penalty when used on juvenile offenders is considered cruel and unusual punishment, public opinion on the overall use of the death penalty within the United States seemed to be favorable. According to a Gallop poll, two thirds of all U. S. Citizens think the death penalty should be used and almost one half think it is not used often enough (The Age, 14 Oct. 2009). Popular opinion sways the actions of the U. S. governing parties in how legislation and judiciary decisions are made concerning topics that have emotional value. The death 4 China also has a death penalty, but keeps the records of such penalties a secret from the general public records. According to Amnesty International (20 March 2010), 2001 people across 57 countries were sentenced to death in 2009 and at least 714 people were executed, but this does not include figures from China where the death penalty is not publicly recorded. Amnesty International (20 March 2010) estimates from general records that infer that this penalty might have taken place that possibly thousands of people were put to death by the state in China. According to the same report, the top five nations to impose the death penalty are China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. The Economics of Crime and the Death Penalty Gary Becker developed a model on criminal behavior that accounts for the association between the costs and benefits of committing a crime in relationship to the rationality of the incentive to commit a crime. According to the theory, the commission of a crime takes place when the perceived benefit outweighs the perceived cost and risk (Becker, Mar-Apr 1968). The rationale contends that moral choices fit into either the costs or benefits of a choice to commit a crime, thus creating an economic paradigm. Mehlkop and Graeff (2007) utilize a similar model in that opportunity presents the challenge for which sociological factors are then used to weight the benefit of taking the opportunity. According to Becker (1968), “This approach implies that there is a function relating the number of offenses by any person to his probability of conviction, to his punishment if convicted, and to other variables, such as the income available to him in legal and other illegal activities, the frequency of nuisance arrests, and his willingness to commit an illegal act.” (177). Becker (1968) has suggested that these choices are made without the influence of desperation, however, The death 5 and does not take into consideration the irrationality that accompanies some criminal acts. Mehlkop And Graeff rely on the impact of social norms in order to define the rationale of a criminal act which also does not take into consideration desperation and the irrational impulse. They said that “If one belongs to social groups in which tax fraud is regarded as a self-evident, popular behavior or the resistance against laws or civil disorder is considered to be socially obligatory, such norms loose their functions as perception filters or assessment factors for opportunities of law-abiding behavior.”(p. 9) This also does not take into consideration that desperation can overwhelm all of these factors and obliterate the filters that would otherwise not allow for behavior that was illegal. It is the very desperation of an act that most often times creates the heinous nature of it that allows for the death penalty to be considered. It is the desperation factor, the factors that no longer take into consideration penalty, social considerations or the world beyond a certain act that create such circumstances that allow for an act that is so horrible that the law deems it necessary to take a life. Therefore, it is certain that considerations of the death penalty as a deterrent have no merit during the commission of such acts. The concept that a rationale of cost and benefit comes into the mind of an offender while such acts are committed allows for the idea that heinous acts are committed by minds that care about the outcome and penalties of such acts. To consider that the penalty of death is considered by an offender as a factor when a crime such as the rape and murder of children, an act that in the United States that might warrant the death penalty, is to bring into consideration that some who would rape and murder children do not simply because they would rather not face the consequences. In other words, there are potential offenders who have thought about committing heinous acts, but do not do so because The death 6 they might be put to death as a consequence. This does not seem rational. An economics of crime theory has merit in a cost versus benefit factor when social considerations are weighed against the benefits of the crime. This does seem to have merit even when considering heinous crime. As an example, a rape and murder might have the benefit of the immediate satisfaction of doing so and the risks involved, the costs, would then not weigh more than the immediate benefit to the offender. However, the death penalty as a deterrent could not be considered as a factor because it would not deter any more than any other risk that is considered in the moment. A deterrent would only work during the rational thought process, not during the moment of commission. Since the offender has already considered the risk of getting caught does not outweigh the risk of commission, the nature of the consequences of the risk of getting caught no longer has importance. Conclusion In the year 2000, Illinois Governor George Ryan instituted a moratorium on the death penalty in the state of Illinois in the United States citing 13 cases of the false imprisonment and sentencing to death of alleged offenders who turned out to be innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted (Turow, 2004, p. 119). The finality of the death penalty means that any human error in the conviction of the person who is sentenced to death no longer is afforded an opportunity to be rectified. As in the example of new technology, DNA testing has exonerated numerous would be offenders who were convicted before this possible technology could save them from wrongful conviction (Turow, 2004, 122). If execution had taken place, this rectification would not be possible. The use of the death penalty is quite clearly used world wide most often in countries that The death 7 are not particularly viewed as having fair justice systems. Furthermore, Amnesty International (2010), an organization that has defined human rights on a world wide level, has declared that this form of punishment is cruel, inhumane and degrading. This would fit into the United States Eight amendment denial of the use of cruel and unusual punishment. The economic model for criminal behavior does not seem to clearly fit into the commission of the type of crimes that are typically considered for death penalty sentencing. The rationale that a criminal on some level weighs the risks against the benefits of committing the crime has merit, but not in the sense that the death penalty would be considered as a deterrent in regard to the decision to commit the crime that warrants such a penalty. The idea that a person who would commit the type of heinous crime that is considered worthy of this penalty in the United States suggests that there are those who would commit these crimes that do not because the penalty is too high. This consideration is too frightening to consider, and while a study to prove or disprove such a theory would have merit, until such proof was given it should be assumed that there are no such minds that choose not to commit heinous acts only because of the penalty. The majority of the countries within the world do not utilize the death penalty. The use of the death penalty appears to be more vengeful than punitive as the punishment is final and without rehabilitation factored into the sentence. There is no room to remedy errors in prosecution after an execution is enacted. As a deterrent, the death penalty has little effect when considered under a theory of criminal rationale through a cost benefit analysis. The use of the death penalty is considered inhumane under the guidelines of Amnesty International. There are more reasons not to use this punishment than to continue its use in a humane society. The death 8 References Amnesty International. (2010). Abolish the death penalty. Retrieved 18 April 2010 from http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty Amnesty International. (30 March 2010). Death penalty in 2009: Amnesty International challenges China’s Secrecy. Retrieved 17 April from Becker, G. S. (Mar. - Apr., 1968). “Crime and punishment; An economic approach“. The University of Chicago Press. 76 (2) pp. 169-217. Cole, G. F., & Smith, C. E. (2007). The American system of criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth Death Penalty Information Center. (2010). Executions in the United States in 2009. Retrieved on 17 April 2010 from http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-united-states-2009 Lawrence, R., & Hemmens, C. (2008). Juvenile justice: A text/reader. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Mehlkop, G. & Graeff, P. (2007). “How to model a rational choice theory of criminal action? Subjective expected utilities, norms, and interactions”. Dresden University of Technology. Retrieved 17 April from http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_ apa_research _citation/1/8/2/8/1/pages182818/p182818-1.php Neubauer, D. W., & Meinhold, S. S. (2010). Judicial process: Law, courts, and politics in the United States. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. The Age. (14 October 2009). Two-thirds back penalty in U. S. poll. the age.com.au. Retrieved on 18 April 2010 from http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/twothirds-back- death-penalty-in-us-poll-20091014-gwnl.html Turow, S. (2004). Ultimate punishment: A lawyers reflections on dealing with the death penalty. New York: Picador/Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Read More