Criminal Control Policy - Term Paper Example

?Criminal Control Policy Introduction Various crime control policies have been put in place by government ities. These policies have always been meant to control or even prevent the commission of crimes. With the commission of crimes still registering at high numbers however, these policies do not seem to deter or control crime commission. Nevertheless, to some extent, the fear of punishment and retaliation are still major deterrents in the commission of crimes. This paper shall now critically analyze and evaluate the death penalty as a crime control policy. Death penalty is a form of punishment, one which seeks to impose equivalent penalty for heinous crimes, including murder, homicide, and murder/rape. This paper will assess this policy, specifically evaluating its efficacy, as well as its actual deterrent impact on the commission of crimes. This critical analysis is being undertaken in the hope of establishing a thorough assessment of capital punishment, providing guidance for government authorities on considerations for its application. Body Capital punishment as a deterrent The primary purpose of crime control policies is to deter the commission of crimes. One of the foundations of deterrence is founded on the corresponding punishment or consequences of a criminal act (Lambert, Clark and Lambert, 2004). The fear of being punished or of suffering some pain or incarceration is said to be a major consideration for individuals pondering the commission of any crime. The moral compass and conscience may be generally present for most individuals and may indeed effectively prevent them from committing any crime, however, not all individuals possess such moral qualms (Lambert, et.al., 2004). Instead, they are ruled more by the impositions of government authorities in terms of crime commission. The laws of man are more or less supported by the notion that for every action, there is a reaction. Hence, for every violation of the law, some form of corresponding punishment must be imposed against the criminal (Lambert, et.al., 2004). The fear of punishment is the primary means by which crime is controlled. Certainly, the fear of being punished severely in the form of death is a strong means of controlling crime (Lambert, 2004). However, there are various indicators which would indicate the fact that capital punishment is not an effective means of controlling crime. Capital punishment is not imposed by all US states, and in the global community, it is also not considered general policy. In the US, 33 states have adopted it as a form of punishment for crimes which they define to heinous (Evans, 2012). The definition of heinous is related to the depravity and the gravity of the crime, mostly those which result in a person’s death (Donohue and Wolfers, 2005). Hence, aggravated murder, felony murder, contract killing, murder with rape, murder with robbery, are just some of the crimes which carry the death penalty. There have been various executions which have been carried out throughout the years – from ancient societies to the contemporary settings. It is a form of punishment which is authorized by the state and while many countries in the west have abolished it, the US has carried out this punishment in many instances, and hundreds more are awaiting their execution (Donohue and Wolfers, 2005). In considering the efficacy of capital punishment, it is crucial to study the nature and underlying concept of deterrence. Deterrence is seen when the threat of punishment would make an individual who would have committed a crime to refrain from actually committing it (Lambert, et.al., 2004). Deterrence works in various ways. As discussed by Zeisel and Gallup (1989), deterrence may act through simple deterrence, whereby the threat of punishment would cause a person to change his mind about committing a crime. The change is based on the potential criminal assessing the pleasure of committing the crime in relation to the pain of punishment (Lambert, et.al., 2004). The punishment is also based on a moral determinant, where the possibility of being punished will likely earn the disapproval of society; consequently, such disapproval has an impact on the moral behavior of people (Lambert, et.al., 2004). The punishment may also be a habit builder, where the possibility of punishment can further support favorable behavior to the point where the people become followers and where they develop a habit of complying with the imposed behavior (Chan and Oxley, 2004). Punishment also establishes respect for the law. The possibility of punishment for one’s wrongful and criminal actions sends the message to the people that they have to respect the law and they are not free to do what they want. Punishment is also considered a justification for conformity (Lambert, et.al., 2004). The fact that punishment exists will indicate a justification for conformity, especially where individuals are under group pressure. The government-imposed death penalty as a means of controlling crime has presented with much ambivalence in terms of efficacy and crime deterrence. Various studies have been carried out in order to determine whether or not this capital punishment is indeed the more effective choice (Manski and Pepper, 2011). Earlier studies have revealed that white people generally believe that the death penalty is an effective means of controlling crime (Arthur, 1998). These studies however also indicate that this perception is often influenced by white prejudice against Black people (Aguirre and Baker, 1993). In terms of gender, there are more males than females who believe that the death penalty is an effective means of controlling crime (Ellsworth and Gross, 1994). Older Americans are also likely to support this form of crime control. Various studies also associate level of education to the perceived efficacy (or lack thereof) of the death penalty (Borg, 1997). Three ideologies relate to the perceived impact of the death penalty on crime control. These ideologies include: retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation (Lambert, et.al., 2004). Deterrence is related to the belief that society can prevent the commission of crimes by imposing more severe or harsher punishments. Where the goal is specific deterrence, individual offenders are targeted (Blumstein, et.al., 1978). In imposing harsh penalties, specific offenders would likely not repeat the commission of crimes. General deterrence on the other hand is directed to the general public. In effect, as a single offender is made an example with the imposition of capital punishment and other individuals are expected to learn their lesson and therefore not commit the crime committed by the person executed (Chan and Oxley, 2004). Supporters of the death penalty argue that for deterrence reasons, capital punishment is a more effective form of punishment as compared to life imprisonment (Ellsworth and Gross, 1994). These supporters also argue that the death penalty has proven to be an effective deterrent to the commission of murder (Whitehead and Blankenship, 2000). When respondents to a research by Tyler and Weber (1982) were also asked to express a reason for their support of capital punishment, majority of them indicated that deterrence was their primary reason. Retribution theory The retribution theory or principle is also used by supporters of capital punishment. At present, various individuals believe that retribution is the best response against violent crimes (Bohm, et.al., 1990). The attitude of the public against crime in recent years has become tougher and the public has now been more accepting of retribution being imposed on criminal acts, especially the violent and heinous crimes (Durham, et.al., 1996). Retribution basically calls for the punishment imposed on wrongdoers with the punishment being commensurate to the crime committed, very much like the biblical “eye for an eye” ideology. In effect, support for the death penalty is founded on traditional reasons, mostly based on the notion that if one takes the life or another person, one must also have his life taken away. Retribution is considered the most emotional consideration in the imposition of penalties and where the support for the death penalty is based on emotional reasons, such support is often strong (Lambert, et.al., 2004). For various individuals, the basis of retribution is revenge by the family of the victim and by society as a whole. In using emotional elements for assessing capital punishment, retribution is likely the reason used to justify the imposition of the death penalty (Whitehead and Blankenship, 2000). As a means of controlling crime, capital punishment may therefore also work well based on the fear of being punished in ways commensurate to one’s actions. Incapacitation As a crime control policy, capital punishment is also considered in terms of its impact on the criminal, mostly that of incapacitation. Based on this principle, the criminals will be incarcerated and be kept under strict police and state control in order to eliminate their ability to harm other individuals (Donohue and Wolfers, 2005). Incapacitation can be imposed in various ways, including imprisonment, house arrests, supervision probation, and death. An individual who has been executed would naturally be unable to cause more harm to other individuals, and in general would be unable to cause harm or disruption to society (Blumstein, et.al., 1978). This capital punishment in other words is the most superior form of incapacitation. In addition, some individuals believe that even when life imprisonment is imposed, this sentence may not always be imposed as life imprisonment, and that the criminals, in the future, would be released to society (Ellsworth and Gross, 1994). Supporters of capital punishment under this ideology therefore believe that executing individuals who committed violent and heinous crimes would definitely ensure that these individuals would never be released and would never cause harm to other people. Fear of crime and punishment Aside from the above ideologies, there are also other reasons in considering how the death penalty works as a form of crime control. For one, individuals who fear crime are often in favor of the death penalty (Arthur, 1998). These individuals believe that crime rates are rising and that imposing the death penalty would help control the increase of such crimes. The imposition of capital punishment as a means of controlling crime however has been faced with various issues (Arthur, 1998). Even with the tough and strict stance on the commission of crime, deterrence and crime control has still not been effectively achieved (Finckenauer, 1988). Such frustration has caused a knee-jerk reaction which has led to the greater increase for the death penalty despite its general inefficacy (Lambert, et.al., 2004). The support for this form of penalty seems to be linked with the need to use violence as a means of social control (Rankin, 1979). Different studies indicate that such support for the death penalty is founded on an instrumental viewpoint (Arthur, 1998). This perspective argues that individuals who are afraid of crime also view it as a major social issue and therefore are more likely to seek severe punishments or penalties for its commission (Arthur, 1998). It also points out that individuals’ attitudes on the death penalty are based mostly on their need to eliminate crime and secure a peaceful society, and in order to reach that end, the death penalty becomes a means to that end (Maxwell and Rivera-Vazquez, 1998). This instrumental perspective is also linked to the concept of deterrence. In using harsh punishments, like the death penalty, the desire to impose and ensure law and order as well as putting fear into prospective criminals is the ultimate end goal. Abolitionists There are however various gaps and issues in the imposition of capital punishment as a means of crime control. One of the primary reasons is morality. Those who oppose the imposition of the death penalty argue that it is an immoral and uncivilized punishment (Firment and Geiselman, 1997). Based on this argument, it is wrong to answer violence with violence and that the punishment itself is a cruel and inhuman imposition. Issues on the imposition of this penalty also relates to the risk of possibly executing an innocent individual (Dezhbakhsh, Rubin, and Shepherd, 2003). And such possibility is not an improbability because the courts are based on human processes which may be prone to errors. The possibility of convicting innovent individuals is a strong possibility; in fact, innocent individuals have actually been executed by the system (Radelet, et.al., 1992). Capital punishment as a means of controlling crime also runs into issues which relate to risks of the minorities and the poor suffering from this penalty more than their majority or their rich counterparts (Manski and Nagin, 1998). Statistics indicate that the percentage of ethnic minorities, most especially the African-Americans given a death sentence is much higher than the percentage for the majority population (Lambert, et.al., 2004). Moreover, those who are also poor may not be able to attain strong legal representation; in the end, their inadequate legal defense may be the reason the death penalty is imposed on them. Abolitionists argue that capital punishment as a crime control policy has not been significantly proven to be a deterrent to the commission of violent crimes (Firment and Geiselman, 1997). States in the United States which do not have the death penalty actually have lower rates of murder as compared to the states that do employ the death penalty. In relation to other countries, the trend is more or less similar, with the United States having higher rates for murder as compared to other states that do not impose the death penalty (Michigan State University, 2000). Under these conditions, the death penalty does not seem to be a deterrent because most individuals who commit murder are not exactly weighing the possible imposition of the death penalty before they would commit a violent crime. They are often driven by anger and their judgment may sometimes be compromised by alcohol and drug intoxication (Michigan State University, 2000). As compared to life imprisonment, there is no definitive proof which would indicate that the death penalty is a better deterrent to the commission of crimes. Based on a survey of criminological organizations and their previous presidents, most of them have rejected the idea that capital punishment has deterred the commission of violent crimes (Michigan State University, 2000). They point out that once murderers and other criminals are put in prison, they often settle into prison life and become less of a threat to society. Brutalization effect The abolitionists also argue that instead of deterring crime, the death penalty promotes violence. This apparently is attributed to the brutalization effect (Bowers and Pierce, 1980). These abolitionists further argue that the brutalization effect is based on the fact that violence is answered by violence, and when a person’s violent act is also punished by another violent act, then it creates also a scene of justified violence for other people (Bowers and Pierce, 1980). In effect, it can create a cycle of violence. This brutalization effect in relation to the death penalty has not been adequately studied, hence, and so has not received much support from supporters of the death penalty. Most crimes punishable by death are carried out in the heat of the moment, in moments of emotional stress and under the influence of drugs and alcohol when their judgment is compromised (Manski and Pepper, 2011). In these instances, they are not thinking of the consequences of their actions. If harsh penalties can prevent the commission of crime, then long-term jail terms are sufficient to fulfill such goal of deterrence. The weight of evidence indicates that capital punishment is not more effective than imprisonment in the deterrence of murder (Manski and Pepper, 2011). In the states with capital punishment, police officers are said to suffer more lethal assaults as compared to states with no capital punishment. There is inadequate evidence to support the view that the death penalty has a more significant deterrent impact on homicides and murders, and for every year that the death penalty has been in place, no significant improvement in murder rates has been seen (Chan and Oxley, 2004). If capital punishment does have any impact on homicide and murder rates, such impact would likely be minimal. In some instances, it may even impact in a wrong or opposite way. In some instances, it has even spurred violence rather than deterred it. In one case, an Oklahoma truck driver was gunned down by a farmer who later said that he was just tired of living (Michigan State University, 2000). In other words, he was courting the imposition of the death sentence on himself. As mentioned above, the brutalization theory also indicates how capital punishment is legitimizing violence and revenge on one’s enemies. Studies have also indicated how murder rates would often increase after highly-publicized executions (Michigan State University, 2000). In effect, it is important to note that although capital punishment does serve a purpose in imposing penalty, its ultimate goal of deterring the commission of murders and other violent crimes is not actually being met. While it may effectively eliminate a threat to society, the same effect can be met with the criminal’s lifetime incarceration. Conclusion The above arguments present a critical evaluation of capital punishment as a crime control policy. This policy has been in effect for many years in 38 states in the US. However, despite such imposition, murder and homicide rates are the highest in the western world. Nevertheless, the concepts behind capital punishment are also based on logical arguments, mostly in relation to deterrence and retribution. Crime control policies are meant to control the commission of crimes and prevent recidivism. Most people in theory fear the commission of crimes for moral reasons, and for fear of being punished for such acts. The harshest punishment of all – death – should therefore ideally strike the most fear from potential criminals. However, at the very point where crime is committed, logical processes are often not in place, and regardless of the possible punishment involved, murders and other violent crimes are still committed. There are therefore major considerations which concerned authorities have to reconsider in the imposition of capital punishment. While it may indeed eliminate a threat to society, its moral as well as practical impact on a society already ridden with violence is very much significant. In the end, the cost to society may be heavier than the relief it may actually bring to the victim’s families. Consequently, greater societal considerations should serve to outweigh personal considerations, especially where there are unavoidable risks, including wrongful convictions, involved in the imposition of capital punishment. References Aguirre, A. & Baker, D. (1993). Racial prejudice and the death penalty: A research note. Social Justice, 20, 150-155. Arthur, J. (1998). Racial attitudes and opinions about capital punishment: Preliminary findings. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 22, 131-144. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J. & Nagin, G. (1978). Deterrence and incapacitation: estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Bohm, R. Clark, L. & Aveni, A. (1990). The influence of knowledge on reasons for death penalty opinions: An experimental test. Justice Quarterly, 7, 175-188. Borg, M. (1997). The Southern subculture of punitiveness: Regional variation in support for capital punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 25-45. Bowers, W. & Pierce, G. (1980). Deterrence or brutalization: What is the effect of executions? Crime and Delinquency, 26, 453-459. Donohue, J. & Wolfers, J. (2005). Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Review, 58, 791-841. Dezhbakhsh, H., Rubin, P. & Shepherd, J. (2003). Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? New evidence from post moratorium panel data. American Law and Economic Review, 5, 344-76. Durham, A., Elrod, H. & Kinkade, P. (1996). Public support for the death penalty: Beyond Gallup. Justice Quarterly, 13, 705-736. Ellsworth, P. & Gross, S. (1994). Hardening of the attitudes: Americans views on the death penalty. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19-52. Evans, B. (2012). The death penalty in 2011: three things you should know. Amnesty International. Retrieved from http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/the-death-penalty-in-2011-three-things-you-should-know/ Finckenauer, J. O. (1988). Public support for the death penalty: Retribution as just deserts or retribution as revenge? Justice Quarterly, 5, 81-100. Firment, K. & Geiselman, E. (1997). University students’ attitudes and perceptions of the death penalty. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 15, 65-89. Lambert, E., Clarke, A., and Lambert, J. (2004). Reasons for supporting and opposing capital punishment in the USA: a preliminary study. Internet Journal of Criminology (IJC). Retrieved from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Clarke%20Lambert%20-%20Reasons%20for%20Supporting%20and%20Opposing%20Capital.pdf Manski, C. & Nagin, D. (1998). Bounding disagreements about treatment effects: a case study of sentencing and recidivism. Sociological Methodology, 28, 99-137. Manski, C. & Pepper, J. (2011). Deterrence and the death penalty: partial identification analysis using repeated cross sections. Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/workingpapers/2011/IPR-WP-11-12.pdf Maxwell, S. & Rivera-Vazquez, O. (1998). Assessing the instrumental and symbolic elements in Attitudes toward the death penalty using a sample of Puerto Rican students. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 22, 329-339. Michigan State University. (2000). Arguments for and against the death penalty. Retrieved from http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/arguments.PDF Radelet, M., Bedau, H. & Putnam, C. (1992). In spite of innocence. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Rankin, J. (1979). Changing attitudes toward capital punishment. Social Forces, 58, 194- 211. Tyler, T. & Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty: Instrumental response to crime or symbolic attitude? Law and Society Review, 17, 21-45. Whitehead, J. & Blankenship, M. (2000). The gender gap in capital punishment attitudes: An analysis of support and opposition. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 1-13. Zeisel, H. & Gallup, A. (1989). Death penalty sentiment in the United States. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 5, 285-296 Read More