The Brutalization of the Public by Use of the Death Penalty - Coursework Example

Criminal report The Brutalization of the Public by Use of the Death Penalty Student Name: Course Institution Date Abstract The composite words that make up the word criminology are “criminal” and “ology”. The literal meaning is the systematic study of criminals. The definition by Sutherland is that criminology is the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon. Several scientific methods are applied in studying criminology. The reaction of society towards a criminal and the disposition of a criminal towards the society are matters for investigation and help in understanding crime. Several arguments have been presented in support or against the brutalization of the public by use of the death penalty. Majority of people do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to crimes. A distinction must be drawn between two classical forms of deterrence; Specific deterrence is the use of criminal penalties to deter the defendant from reoffending. General deterrence is the use of criminal sanctions to dissuade other potential offenders from committing crime. It is possible that the use of capital punishment actually encourages homicide. Some scholars have suggested that violence in electronic media desensitizes people to violence and is responsible for the significant increase in homicide rates during the second half of the 21st century. The death penalty might conceivably send a message that the government condones violence. Qualitative research methods have a long and established history in criminological research and all researchers should draw on these invaluable resources when planning their projects. A key issue that needs to be addressed in qualitative research in their account of their findings is how they sought to address the central issues. These issues are concerned with whether or not what they report is a true representation of criminal life or simply their own subjective offering of what respondents say and do base on their personal selection of what is important; hence the need to adopt a reflective stance when conducting qualitative research. Introduction The composite words that make up the word criminology are “criminal” and “ology”. The literal meaning is the systematic study of criminals. Criminals are persons who break or offend a law unanimous to a specific social group. Since the offences committed by criminals are crimes, and occur in the society, it fully means the study of crimes as well as criminals in relation to the society. The causes are determined and the prevention measures sought. Several scientific methods are applied during the study of criminology. As a science, it also seeks to understand the structure and function of social laws, regulations and rules (Hawkins et, al., 1992). Scholars have come up with various definitions for the criminology. The most outstanding is by, Sutherland & Cressey (1978) where they state “criminology is the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon.” Siegel (2000) defines criminology as “the scientific study of crime and its treatment.” The reaction of society towards a criminal and the disposition of a criminal towards the society are important matters for investigation and they help in understanding the complex matter of crime. As the society gets to know more about these factors, the more they will learn to appreciate the importance of this institution. This paper seeks to analyze criminology. As indicated from the text above Criminology is a large topic to analyze as a whole therefore, this paper will be an in-depth analysis of the brutalization of the public by use of the death penalty. The writer will draw on various arguments and literature that has been documented on the topic. The arguments for and against the death penalty will be discussed in detail. Further research will look at the various quantitative methods used in the study of criminology (Liamputtong, 2013). The conclusions will give the writers opinion concerning the relevance and perceived importance of the death penalty. Discussion In some polls, the most often cited reason for supporting the death penalty is the belief that it deters crime. In a news week survey conducted in 2000, 34% of respondents cited deterrence as the main reason they supported the death penalty, ranking higher than all other reasons including “an eye for an eye” and closure of victims (Schiraldi, 2000). At the same time a majority of people, do not believe the death penalty is not a deterrent. Even among supporters of the death penalty, there is considerable doubt of its efficacy. One of the three death penalty supporters believes the death penalty is not a deterrent, and a substantial majority believes that it is at most a minor deterrent (Schiraldi, 2000). Some however, have questioned precisely how important a factor it truly is in shaping attitudes. Professors Phoebe Ellsworth and Lee Ross suggested that death penalty supporters claim their position is based on deterrence because it is more socially acceptable than retribution and has the appearance of being specific (Hood & Hoyle, 2008).  Deterrence is not a robust explanation of support for capital punishment. People say they support capital punishment because it deters, but in truth, they would support capital punishment even if it were proved to their satisfaction that it did not deter. The famous capital punishment defender Ernest van den Haag (Siegel 2000) reports that the known ambitions’ Hugo Adam Bedau told him in correspondence that he would oppose the death penalty even if it were proved that each execution deterred 100,000 murders. The inverse might also be true. Some ambitious people have candidly said they would oppose capital punishment even if it were shown it deterred murder (Levesque, 2006). Ambiguities’ in public opinion notwithstanding, whether the death penalty deters is crucially important question from a public policy standpoint, certainly more significant than cost. Criminal justice systems do not exist to save money; however, they do exist, at least in part, to deter crime. At the outset, a distinction must be drawn between these two classical forms of deterrence; specific and general. Specific deterrence is the use of criminal penalties to deter the defendant from reoffending; in other words, to teach him a lesson. General deterrence is the use of criminal sanctions to dissuade other potential offenders from committing criminal acts (Schiraldi, 2000). One of the few things that can be said conclusively about the death penalty is that it is an excellent specific deterrent. Executed defendants do not commit crimes again. Whether it is an effective general deterrent is a more difficult question to answer (Wilson, 1994). The intuition behind the use of capital punishment for deterrence is that the harsher the penalty, the more it deters. Professor van den Haag (1960) once said, “Our penal system rests on the proposition that more severe penalties are more deterrent than less severe penalties.” But it isn’t entirely clear how much the severity of the sanction contributes to deterrence. The certainty of punishment and the swiftness with which the sanction is delivered also enhance deterrence. The publicity of the punishment matters, too. Harsh punishment imposed in secret is no deterrent to others. It might be that a swift and certain punishment of moderate severity deters more than a delayed, uncertain harsher penalty. The death penalty is imposed infrequently in Australia, and when it is imposed, it is slow to be delivered (Schiraldi, 2000). Other possibilities can be imagined. It might that beyond a certain threshold; harsher penalties do not lead to increased deterrence. It is possible that at some point extreme punishment becomes incomprehensively extreme to a potential offender. Being executed seems dramatically harsh; being sentenced to prison for 50 years seems dramatically harsh too. The deterrence argument behind the death penalty is based on the notion that potential offenders will not commit capital crimes because of a marginal increase in penalty- from say; 50years in prison to death. Simple research suggests that potential criminals may not be responsive to incentives. In other words, the premise with which deterrence theory is predicated may be flawed (Vito, Maahs & Holmes, 2007).  It is possible too that the use of capital punishment actually encourages homicide. Some scholars have suggested that violence in movies, television, and video games desensitizes people to violence and it is at least partially responsible for the significant increase in homicide rates during the second half of the 21st century. The death penalty might conceivably send a message that the government condones violence (Vito, Maahs & Holmes, 2007). This is referred generally to as the “brutalization effect” of the death penalty. Scholars have found inconclusive evidence that homicide rates spike following executions, suggesting the validity of the brutalization hypothesis (Lerman, 1993). The deterrence and brutalization effects are not mutually exclusive. It might be that the death penalty deters some murders and causes some others. The question of deterrence then becomes whether the magnitude of one effect is greater. These questions do not lend themselves to convenient study. Prior to 1975, most researchers studied the deterrence question by comparative analysis. They compared murder rates in contiguous states that had different death penalty laws, or murder rates in an individual state before and after the implementation of the death penalty, or murder rates immediately following executions, theorizing that the deterrent or anti deterrent effect of the death penalty would be most pronounced during periods when capital punishment was most in the public consciousness (Mandery, 2011). Professor Thorsten Sellin (1955) conducted the most famous of the comparative studies on the issues of deterrence. Sellin compared the homicide rates in contagious states with and without the death penalty from 1920 through 1963. Sellin found no compelling evidence of deterrence. For the years in question Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio had aggregate homicide rates of 3.5 per 100,000 populations. Sellin found similar results in other contiguous states. He also found similar results studying police killings and prison murders. It is argued sometimes that the death penalty is useful in shaping the course of criminal conduct; it deters criminals from carrying weapons and discourages them from using the weapons in the face of arrest. In the case of prison murders, the thought is that because inmates have little to fear from the criminal justice system, they can only be deterred by the threat of capital punishment. Sellin found no evidence to support either of these two conclusions in his comparative analysis. Some other studies have approached the issue in a longitudinal fashion. One team of researchers examined whether homicide rates increased after the death penalty was abolished in various countries including Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Israel and Switzerland. The researchers found ambiguous evidence; in some countries homicide rates increased in other countries, the rates decreased (Scott, 1955). Comparative studies have obvious deficiencies. Geographical and temporal contiguity are built-in controls of sorts. States abutting one another as well as well as individual countries over different time periods presumably have similar economic conditions and racial demographics, but these are only imperfect controls; myriad variables have been hypothesized to affect crime rates, including unemployment, age demographics, and expenditure on police. To draw more definitive conclusions about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, a researcher must control the effect of these other variables. In 1975, Professor Isaac Ehrlich published the first study of deterrence that employed multiple regression analysis. Ehrlich controlled for the impact of unemployment, percapita income and age demographics in analyzing homicide rates between 1933 and 1969. Ehrlich concluded, “an additional execution per year over the period in question may have resulted, on average, in seven or eight fewer murders.”Professor Ehrlich’s study gained immediate influence. It is cited in the majority opinion in several published works (Vito, Maahs & Holmes, 2007). In 1989, the American society of Criminology, which is the largest association of criminologists in the US, adopted a resolution allying for the abolition of capital punishment, relying in part on its review of death penalty research and the absence of “consistent evidence of crime deterrence through execution. A large portion of the presidents of the American Society of Criminology said they believe the death penalty does not deter murder. This finding, by the American society of criminology replicates the results of a similar survey conducted by professor Radelet and Ronald Akers in 1996 (Radelet & Ankeres, 1996). Arguments for the death penalty The main argument supporting the brutal death penalty is that it deters future murders. It is aimed at discouraging those who would be criminals from the temptation. The death penalty presents the most resounding commitment by the society to prevent violent murders. Any potential murderer would have to think twice before committing the crime. The criminals are forced to consider the, would be, consequences. In the case of a serial murderer, killing the murderer will stop the individual from causing further havoc through murder. The basic principle applied in this case is similar in intent with jailing a robber to deter him from committing further robberies. However, some scholars argue to the contrary, no one has proved that the death sentence deters robbery. The presence of such a strict penalty makes the criminal to weigh his options and in most cases before committing the crime, they conceal their tracks. Why not have them in prison to serve a life sentence after all a life sentence is less ethically opposed but serves the same purpose. Moreover, research has also shown that prison officers find it simpler dealing with prisoners on a life sentence than prisoners who already have a death tag on their foreheads. The second argument is that; for justice to prevail in the society a death must be avenged with another death. Religion has often upheld the notion for revenge of an equal measure. The argument is that it is unfair to have a criminal resting in clean bed sheets in a prison while the family affected mellows in sorrow. However, the death penalty is not an equal response for taking away life. The initial response would be to instill an equal measure of pain to a criminal. A mature society has to institute a more measured response. The laws should enable us to demonstrate respect for human life. A murderer is still a human being and the criminal system should not be used as an object to cause pain and interfere with the human right to life. An example of Bud’s daughter, who was killed in a roadside bomb, in Oklahoma in 1995 the first reaction would have been to find the terrorist and execute. Nevertheless, on clear analysis and observation it would be prudent to jail the terrorist and examine why he was involved in the act (Radelet & Ankeres, 1996). . The risk of executing an innocent person is perhaps the worst scenario involved in criminal executions. Unless proven beyond doubt there is a likelihood that a person fronted for the death row is innocent. Several inmates have often been released while awaiting the death sentence whenever new evidence that can vindicate them comes up. The advent of DNA technology has vindicated several inmates (Beck et, al., 1988). Next, whenever the death sentence is applied in unfair circumstances it should not be used. The worst offenders are left to walk out scratch free courtesy of their ability to assemble very efficient legal teams. A time a criminal is given a lenient punishment because of the race. State sponsored defenses normally do not offer as much support as the private defense. It is illogical for a criminal in one state to receive a lesser punishment, while in another a death penalty is given. Prosecutors play a major role in such circumstances. As long as financial power, race and geography still influence criminal proceedings and judgments’, the death penalty should not be implemented (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992). Qualitative methods used in criminology Qualitative research methods seek to capture the social actors lived behaviors, experience and points of view on a topic. Individuals are thought to create their social worlds by organizing their own understandings of it and giving it meaning. Because, of this qualitative research is not as concerned with statistical sampling and generalization as in survey based research. Additionally, instead of attempting to predefine dependent and independent variables beforehand, qualitative researchers tend to highlight the importance of social context and seek to inductively build an understanding of causality in terms of the meanings people assign to their own and other people’s actions. As such, qualitative research can be concerned with what is happening and research questions. The key methods used by qualitative research are, interviews, observation, documents such as criminal records and media or visual content (Mauthner, 2002). Interviews can come in many formats, including one to one, telephone, online group and media technologies such as Skype. Whereas interviews are usually separated from the social action they are concerned with, exploring. Observations on the contrast may be put on a continuum in together with the amount of researcher participation involved. On one side of the continuum the researcher participates in the social activity and cultural ways of life belonging to the people they are studying while on the other side of the continuum they act as a complete observer not taking part in what is going on . Formal documents such as medical records or police reports are normally used in research to organize organizational administrative procedures and processes. Media and visual content include television, audio records, news paper articles, photos, e mail voice mail and webpage content. Such items can be invaluable when looking at the media representation of crime. The most common form of qualitative data used in analysis is text such as transcripts from interviews or audio recording, observational notes concerning behavior and talk as well as chat or contexts or webpage’s (Robson, 2002). A key issue that needs to be addressed in qualitative research in their account of their findings is how they sought to address the central issues. These issues handle matters of whether or not what they report is a true representation of criminal life or simply their own subjective offering of what respondents say and do base on their personal selection of what is important; hence the need to adopt a reflective stance when conducting qualitative research. A literature review is critical; Just how did the researcher try to make sure they let their informants own voices and experiences dominate the account offered and how far did they succeed in this task. Qualitative research methods have a long and established history in criminological research and all researchers can and should draw on these invaluable resources when planning their projects. An early example is” the professional thief “by Sutherland 1978 which gives a detailed account of various strategies employed by professional thieves, including pickpockets, conmen and shoplifters as reported by Sutherland’s chief informant, chic Conwell. Studies in the sociology of deviance done by Siegel (2000) offers as seminal account of the study of deviance, it focuses on marijuana users and Jazz musicians. In recent times qualitative methods have been applied in exploring and arrangement of criminological topics, including steroid abuse among bodybuilders, cop culture, court processes and sentencing procedures, subcultures and youth gang membership’s victim accounts of sexual abuse and rape, violence against police, domestic violence and organized crime. Mixing methods Criminologists are increasingly recognizing the value of mixing qualitative and quantitative methods when exploring a topic. One example of the value of mixing methods is provided by Tulloch (2000) and her study of age, gender and fear of crime in Australia. Reviewing the literature on her topic Tulloch noted that research in Western Nation states seems to show links between a person’s fear of crime and their gender and age. But she also noted the limitations of large scale data sets in terms of capturing shifting perceptions of social threats, which she argued could not be fully captured via answers to survey questions such as ‘I feel safe walking home at night’. Tulloch decided to use a series of follow up interviews and focus groups to supplement her questionnaire survey and statistical analysis. She noted that her questionnaire findings did indeed show that in the Australian context, much like in other western nations, age and gender appear to be important factors in play in shaping respondents risk perceptions. But her qualitative data allowed her to also build up a richer understanding of her topic through showing how research participants’ self reported perceptions of risk were shaped by nocturnal movement through neighborhoods using different modes of transport, as well as constructing different types of individuals as ‘others’ and potential threats to personal safety, for example older respondents tended to view teenagers as potential threats. Tulloch concluded that by mixing methods she has been able to capture a richer and more dynamic picture of fear of crime and how social categorization based on stereotypical ‘bothering’ informs perceptions of risk over different social spaces within urbanized areas (DeLaine, 2000). Conclusion Capital punishment’s contravention of the fundamental reason of punishment in the judiciary; deterrence, retribution, reformation, gives a compelling case to oppose this system. I do not support capital punishment. Irrespective of the death penalty being the only absolute way of offering an equal measure of punishment to a criminal, it is not ethical. It is not permissible for one to kill another human being. A large gap exists between the courts killing a criminal and the criminal killing an individual. The developing idea, which I subscribe to, justified resistance to capital punishment, may not be based on a worldly pacifism that refers all deliberate executions as wrong. It is not also against the state in its road to protect the innocent lives and property from the criminal. The reason for my perceived resistance is based on principle. Human life is sacred; no human being should have the authority over the life of another. The punishment of death should be left to the creator. The role of the justice system is only to deter a criminal from executing further crimes. The deficiency in the moral value of such a system comes up clearly in two ways; it has failed to deter violent crime and furthermore, it has hampered the path to reformation of the convicts. The argument is; why would a criminal reform while he knows that death waits? Similar to other violent remedies to challenges in the society, the social popularity is far much more than its necessity. References Beck, A.J., Kline, S.A., and Greenfeld, L.A. (1988). Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1992). Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. DeFrancesco, J.J. 1996. Delinquency and substance abuse: A brief analysis. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services 11(2):77-78. DeLaine, M. (2000). Fieldwork, participation and practice: Ethics and dilemmas in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Haag, E. (1960). Social Science Testimony in the Desegregation Cases: a Reply to Professor Kenneth Clark. New York: International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics. Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and Miller, J.Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin 112(1):64_105. Hood, R. G., & Hoyle, C. (2008). The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective(4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Lerman, R. I. (1993). A national profile of young unwed fathers. In R. I. Lerman, & T. J. Ooms (Eds.), Young unwed fathers: Changing roles and emerging policies(pp. 27-51). Philidelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Levesque, R. J. (2006). The Psychology and Law of Criminal Justice Processes. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Liamputtong, P. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods, (4th ed.). Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Australia. Mandery, E. J. (2011). Capital Punishment in America: A Balanced Examination (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Mauthner, M. (2002). Ethics in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Radelet, M., & Ankeres, R. (1996). Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Expert. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 87(1). Retrieved April 1, 2013, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1143970 Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Schiraldi, V. (2000, September 14). Prisons are no cure for crime. (Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service). Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, p. 34. Scott, F. D. (1955). The Causes and Consequences of Emigration in Sweden. Philadelphia: American Swedish Historical Foundation?. Siegel, L. J. (2000). Criminology (7th ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1974). Criminology (9th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. Tulloch, M. (2000). Administering Exchange Server. New York: McGraw-Hill. Vito, G. F., Maahs, J. R., & Holmes, R. M. (2007). Criminology: Theory, Research, and Policy (2nd ed.). Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett. Wilson, P. (1994). Recidivism and vocational education: Journal of Correctional Education, 45(4), 158-163. Read More