The Reintroduction of the Death Penalty and Deterrence Theory - Essay Example

The Reintroduction of Death Penalty and Deterrence Theory Death penalty, which was abolished in the UK in 1965, is once again being sought by a number of members of the public to be reintroduced. In order for a matter to be discussed at the commission stage, it should be endorsed by at least 100,000 members of the public. Recently, an online campaign reignited the debate on whether the government should reintroduce the death penalty (Café, 2011). HISTORY OF DEATH PENALTY IN THE UK Death penalty was used in the UK since the creation of the state. It was observed that the death penalty was rather being misused as it was the punishment for even the most undeserving of crimes. In 1810, Sir Samuel Romilly while speaking to the House of Commons declared that there is no other country in the world where there have been so many different offences punishable by death other than in England. The criminal code included around 220 crimes that were punishable by death and it could be inferred from the code that it was designed to protect the wealthy at the cost of the poor. Some of the crimes that were punishable by death were; being in the company of Gypsies for one month, using a disguise while committing a crime, and strong evidence of malice in a child of 7-14 years of age. A large number of death sentences were given even for minor crimes as stealing. The death sentences were at times postponed permanently for reasons such as official pardons and performance of military or naval duty. The death punishment was so common because there were no other punishments to be given. The common punishments were sending the offender to America, Tasmania or Australia or execution. The prisons were either unavailable or badly run. Later, new prisons were made and the old ones were reconstructed and the environment of the prisons was deliberately kept unpleasant so that the people would not commit crimes due to the resentment of the prisons. Reforms were made in the legislations over the years and a number of offenses were removed from the list of offences punishable by death. These reforms were made throughout the 19th century and gradually the number of crimes punishable by death was reduced. In 1861, the acts of Parliament reduced the number of crimes punishable by death to five that were; murder, treason, espionage, arson in royal dockyards and piracy with violence. A number of controversial cases in the 20th century brought the issue of death penalty to public attention and the public was in favor of abolition of the death penalty. As a result, the death penalty was abolished in the UK in the year 1965. ECONOMIC THEORIES AND DEATH PENALTY A number of criminologists are of the opinion that the mere presence of death penalty keeps the criminals from committing major crimes due to the fear of getting caught and executed. Some of the experts have presented theoretical models that help in explaining the behavior of criminals and the importance of deterrence in the rate of crime. Some of the theoretical models are presented by; Becker, Ehrlich and Sahs. The ‘Marginal Deterrence’ theory also helps in understanding the effectiveness of punishments. Becker’s Model The foundation upon which Becker’s theory regarding criminals is that potential criminals are normal individuals who have all the abilities to think and rationalize like everyone else. The theory puts forward the point that like rational individuals, criminals also consider the benefits, risks and costs of their acts before deciding whether to commit the crime. According to the theory, criminals also think in economic terms just like other rational individuals. Normal individuals consider a number of economic factors in order to lower the risks and costs of their acts similarly criminals also try to lower the risks by considering the timing, place and circumstances in which the crime would be committed. According to Becker criminals commit crimes even after being completely aware of the circumstances and consequences, because in economic terms they realize that the benefit derived from a criminal activity outweighs the benefit derived from a legitimate activity. Other factors considered by the criminals are; the circumstances in which the crime may be committed, the chances of apprehension and punishment and the extent of surveillance. Lack of surveillance provides a greater opportunity to the criminals to commit crimes and due to the lack of surveillance, the probability of the criminals getting apprehended also declines. One of the main reasons why criminals chose the illegitimate way of deriving economic benefit is the lack of moral and ethical constraint which keeps the normal people from committing illegitimate activities. According to Becker, the benefits that may be derived from crimes may be classified as; monetary and psychic. On the other hand the costs that may be considered by the criminals before committing a crime may be; monetary such as the opportunity cost of giving up legitimate work, punishment if the criminals gets caught, and psychic costs as the ethical values of the criminal get damaged. Becker concluded that the criminals can be deterred by increasing the probability of them being caught and by increasing the amount of punishment. According to the theoretical model, criminals consider the factors such as opportunity to commit crime and the punishment if they get caught. If the surveillance is increased, the probability of the criminals getting caught would be increased and they would be deterred from committing the crimes. In the context of reintroduction of death penalty, it can be said that the reintroduction of the death penalty may have some effect on the deterrence of crime but it would not be as effective as the increase in surveillance. Ehrlich’s Model This model describes the allocation of time by an individual towards the criminal and legitimate activities. According to this model, an individual makes a decision regarding the allocation of time towards the legitimate or illegal activity after acknowledging the economic factors. An individual considers the returns from both the legitimate and illegal activity in a given time. An individual with weak ethical values would opt for illegal activity if the return is higher in the given time. According to Ehrlich, other economic factors considered by an individual while determining which activity to opt for are; earnings in the legitimate work, rate of income tax rate on the earnings from legitimate work, returns in the illegal work and the probability of unemployment. From these economic factors, it can be inferred that an increase in income tax and unemployment results in the increase in the criminal activity. While considering all the factors, an individual would find an illegal activity to be more profitable due to the lack of taxes. However, an individual also considers the costs of carrying out both the legitimate and illegal activities. The risks and costs may be; the risk of getting apprehended, the cost of punishment and monetary fines. The risks and costs associated with illegal activities are higher therefore an individual may also consider it profitable to continue with the legitimate work. According to the empirical findings from the model it was concluded that; poor and less educated are more likely to commit violent crimes, teenagers are more likely to commit crimes than the prime aged, and more educated are more likely to commit white-collar crimes. In the context of reintroduction of death penalty it can be said that the crimes can be deterred by providing individuals more reasons to opt for legitimate work. Some of the factors may be reducing the income tax and providing more employment opportunities. Sah’s Model The theoretical model presented by Sah (1991) implies that the perception of individuals regarding the probability of being apprehended is directly related to the rate of crime and this perception is determined by the past detection rate. The model presents that an individual would be more likely to commit crime if he believes that the detection rate is low and there is less chance of getting caught. Thus, if the overall crime increases, there would be less detection of crime due to the constraints on the resources held by the regulatory authorities. Therefore, the overall detection rate would fall and the crime would increase. On the other hand, if the detection rate rises, the crime would decrease. The individuals would have the perception that the probability of getting caught is high and this perception would keep the individuals from committing crime. Thus, this model has a circular nature as the cycle presented in this model repeats. When there is increase in detection rate, there would be less crime. As a response, the regulatory authorities would investigate fewer crimes and as a result the detection rate would rise again and resultantly the crime would increase again. Thus, from this model it can be inferred that the crime can be deterred if the perception of high detection rate is developed among the individuals. When there is a perception among the individuals that there is high probability of getting caught, the individuals would not commit crime. Thus, the reintroduction of death penalty may be useful in deterrence of crime but the rate of detection holds more importance. Therefore, in order to decrease the rate of crime, the regulatory authorities will have to increase the detection rate by expanding their resources. MARGINAL DETERRENCE The marginal deterrence theory suggests that the mere presence of a punishment equivalent to the degree of crime keeps an individual from committing the crime. According to the theory, the punishment of a crime should be in accordance with the crime. If the punishment is too severe for an offense that is not that big, it may not be effective. Therefore, if a crime is too big, the punishment should be equally severe to ensure the deterrence of the crime (Freedman 2004). CONCLUSION Recently in an online petition, the public has showed significant support for the reintroduction of death penalty. It is also said that the reinstating of the death penalty has the backing of a number of MPs. Some MPs support the reintroduction of the death penalty for the most serious and significant crimes (Metro News). However, the support for reintroduction of death penalty seems significant among the public but it does not have as much support in the Parliament. Some of the members of the Parliament believe that if the opinion of the public was taken at large, a larger number of people would say ‘no’ to the reintroduction of the death penalty. On the other hand, polls conducted online suggest that a larger number of individuals favored for the reintroduction of death penalty for the most significant crimes. From the theoretical models considered earlier, it can be inferred that the deterrence of crimes can be done by increasing the probability of the apprehension of the criminals. The models suggest that the factors considered by the criminals before committing a crime include the probability of the individual getting caught and the opportunity cost. The opportunity cost is the earnings that the individual would make by doing legitimate work. Therefore, it can be concluded that the reintroduction of death penalty would help in deterrence of only significant crimes but for smaller levels, the regulatory authorities should ensure that there is higher surveillance and a higher rate of detection of crimes. Thus, death penalty should be reintroduced but only for highly significant crimes as it would only be helpful in deterrence of equally significant crimes. REFERENCES Becker, G. “Crime and Punishment”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 76 (2), March – April 1986, p. 196 – 217 Café, R. (2011). Does the public want the death penalty brought back? BBC News. [Internet]. Available from < http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14402195> [22 February 2012] Ehrlich, I; Liu, Z. (2006) The Economics of Crime. Buffalo: Edward Elgar Publishing. Freedman, L. (2004). Deterrence. New York: Polity Press. Metro News. (2012) Half of us back death penalty. Metro News [Internet]. Available from < http://www.metro.co.uk/news/747748-half-of-us-back-death-penalty> [23 February 2012] Sah, R. K. (1991) “Social Osmosis and Patterns of Crime”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 99 (6), p. 72 – 95 Read More