Death Penalty is Ultimately Justified by Deterrence Theory - Literature review Example

Death Penalty is Ultimately Justified by Deterrence Theory Death Penalty is Ultimately Justified by Deterrence Theory Capital punishment is a controversial issue that includes religious, ethical and psychological considerations. Concept and practices of punishment had been evolved to prevent future crimes by warning criminals in a fearful manner so that they can quit criminal activities. Death penalty is considered as capital punishment because after complete legal judgmental procedures a culprit is put to death. Criminals are given death penalty mostly in case of murders. A murderer should be punished with death penalty is a fundamental law in every state. However, critics believed that states should not uphold rights to kill people as a punishment. Capital punishment is cruel and intolerable and it should be replaced with other type of punishments. Nevertheless, in the economic studies of crime, it has been observed that the deterrence theory ultimately justifies death penalty. In this paper, we shall analyze the contribution of deterrence theory in justifying death penalty through suitable examples and evidences. Death penalty has various forms, which can kill a person within no time. Most common types of death penalty include hanging, squad firing, lethal injection and electrocution. These are some common types of death penalties given to those, who murder someone, brutally kill or sometimes to those who attempt to escape from jails (Bohm 2011). In the US, people believe that death penalty is an unfair practice against people and no theory justifies it. Additionally, it involves various unjust matters such as complexion of the victims and it is does not deter criminal activities in the society. ACLU, (2011) report shows that the system of serving culprits with capital punishment is an unethical way of taking money from tax payers and public is getting no safety from such laws (Jansen 2012). It is claimed because no decline has ever been observed in the crime rates and criminal activities are increasing in the US society with the passage of time. The major concern of death penalty or capital punishment is that either it deters criminal activities or not (Jansen 2012). It is the main concern because the one, who is being killed for committing crime, would not be learning any lesson after death. Nevertheless, this practice has been evolved to give fearful awareness to others, who intend to commit the same crime; they might quit the idea after knowing about the capital punishment (Phillips 2005). Present literature shows that there have been several debates against death penalty. One debate illustrates that it goes against eighth Amendment rights, which is explicitly against cruel punishments to criminals (Phillips 2005). Additionally, studies of Henning field (2006) have shown that critics says capital punishment involve risk of killing innocent victims. Poor legal counseling and false eye witness can lead an innocent person to death (Henningfield 2006). Thus, this notion should be eliminated from the legal regulations and policies of punishing criminals. This group suggests that there should be some other alternative sets of punishments for dangerous criminals in order, to stop them and others from crimes like murders and other severe illegal actions (Henningfield 2006). At one hand, we have people who are against capital punishment while at other side there are many people who favor death penalty in order, to give lesson to other emerging criminals. Many theories related to crime and punishments have been presented to demonstrate ethical and legal practices, those should be fairly followed by states in order to ensure justice in the country. One theory related to crime and punishment is termed as deterrence theory (Finkelstein 2002). According to deterrence theory, a criminal should be treated in the same manner as he/she has done with someone else. Thus, from this theory it could be clearly understood that a person who will kill someone, should also be hanged till death. Moreover, this theory upholds the notion that threat of punishment can help prevent other criminal activities in future and ultimately crime rate can be reduced from the societies (Tyree 2007). Additionally, the punishment should be monitored carefully so that new culprits would clearly observe the worst consequences of the crimes and it could weaken their relationships with criminal activities. Not only sociologists or law practitioners, but religion authoritative bodies have also imposed death penalty for various crimes considering it as the best deterrence practice (Shepherd 2000). Nevertheless, opposition to death penalty strengthens while European enlightenment because of some reformer called for eradication of the capital punishment. Many modern and developed countries have intended to obsolete the concept of death penalty (Shepherd 2000). In 1972, it has been observed that Georgia Supreme Court banned death penalty considering it harsh and an inhuman practice. However, in 1976 the situation got changed and capital punishment once again became an important part of legal policies, but along with particular specifications and conditions (Latzer and McCord 2010). In 1977, it was noticed that out of 2000 sentenced criminals only 638 were executed in more than 30 state of the United States. Despite, this ratio many states have not accepted the law of capital punishment and they still argue that law making organization are needed to review the policies by considering all pros and cons of this crucial matter (Latzer and McCord 2010). The current argument about death penalty includes various vital debates that based on ethical laws or societal welfare issues. This matter is not like morally-based debates that are theoretical in nature, but this argumentation mainly based on empirical evidences (Latzer and McCord 2010). The crucial matter along with welfare inference is whether death penalty deters inhuman crimes; an effective reply will involve that capital punishment can possibly aid to decrease crime rate. Ehrlich (1977) has found in his research that states where capital punishment is allowed and frequently practiced have higher crime rates as compared to those where capital punishment has been outlawed. In the microeconomics studies, Ehrlich has invented deterioration examination as a device for analyzing the crime issues related to deterrence. Another study of economics called as plethora has followed findings of Ehrlich (Paternoster, Brame and Bacon 2007). These micro-economics studies intend to comment on Ehrlich`s research where as other studies provide an alternative examination. Many studies have utilized variant data from Ehrlich`s econometric model. For instance, Yunker (1976), explore a stronger influence of deterrence than Ehrlich`s findings (Fagan 2005). Moreover, Cloninger and Gibbons (1977) further investigated their studies based on the fundamental findings of Ehrlich and found that the reintroduction of capital punishment is clearly justified by deterrence theory (Lamperti 2011). His work grab great attention of people in the US and his findings were put forward in the Supreme Court for favoring the reintroduction of capital punishment in the entire state. His research inspired various econometric analysts who aimed to find out the link between deterrence theory and reality behind objective of death penalty laws (Lamperti 2011). In addition, the economic approach to crime and punishment initiated by the scholars known as Benthan and Becker, their research and theoretical framework has followed various sorts of legislation processes, which include participation of punishment and resources used to punish criminals (Glaeser and Sacerdote 2000). Becker based his research on fundamental implantations of the economic model and claimed that death penalties should be intense, if anxiety rates observed low. He included in his study that deterrence theory also recommend that penalties should be inflexible in the criminal activities, where the deterrence possesses greater elasticity (Glaeser and Sacerdote 2000). Moreover, after Ehrlich`s research Becker`s (1968) studies related to economic model of punishment offers a theoretical foundation for various deterioration examination in this particular context (Glaeser and Sacerdote 2000). This economic study develops a provision of crimes for a predictable usefulness, increasing the participants (Dezhbakhsh and Rubin 2000). However, Ehrlich (1975) further modified the model to brutal criminals` activities of man slaughter that he has discussed are committed by criminals as a result of some personal conflicts or accidents. He has explored out many theoretical aspects, expecting that a raise in distinguished possibilities of nervousness or implementation provided assurance would de-motivate criminals to commit crimes (Dezhbakhsh and Rubin 2000). For instance, he has provided evidence in his research, according to which murderers are deter by capital punishment. Such as in 1971, the Los Angeles Police Department found that various groups of robbers, who had been arrested as the suspects told officials that they did not intend to carry any harmful weapon with them because they do not want to harm or kill anyone, in fear of being punished (Lamperti 2011). Despite, remarkable research by Ehrlich and noteworthy findings, deterring effects of punishment are still confusing for many individuals and they do not agree with the result oriented influences of capital punishment. They say it because no change in crime rate has ever been observed in the state, where capital punishment is allowed (Lamperti 2011). For instance, Sellin studies show that the re- introduction of the death penalty failed to disclose rate of deterrence impact, within a specific region. Furthermore, in 1953, Dann has studied homicide rate in Philadelphia before and after implementing capital punishment laws and concluded that no change has been seen (Lamperti 2011). After two decades similar study has been conducted by Savitz n Chicago and California and he observed the same situation, means no change in the crime rate before and after implementation of execution laws in the state (Lamperti 2011). However on other hand, Bedau and Cassell (2004) discussed that extremists who religiously support death penalty believe that deterrence theory justifies re-introduction of death penalty because death sentences are ultimate sources of providing life safe guard to the citizens, who always face fear of being caught and killed without any reason (Bedau and Cassell 2004). Nevertheless, it is difficult to provide evidence to prove the claim that punishment can greatly contribute to reduce crime rate in the society, but still it is evident that capital punishment is an alarming fact for the criminals that they would not get a reward if they hurt or kill someone (Bedau and Cassell 2004). The re-introduction of capital punishment in the Supreme Court and acceptation of the law in various states gives message to people that if they commit serious crime they would surely be treated in the same manner in order, to avoid similar incidents in the future (Bedau and Cassell 2004). Researchers further found that abolitionists of deterrence theory partially agree to its positive outcomes in the crime rate and partially disagree with this fact, thus supporters of the theory claim that as abolitionists fail to disprove the positive consequences of re-introduction of capital punishment (Bedau and Cassell 2004). Therefore, conclusive statement supports the theory and its role in justifying the implementation of capital punishment law. Moreover, if we consider supporters` claim then, econometric model of Ehrlich also highlights perceptions of supporters. According to which supporters believe that deterrence theory is accurate because of certain factors such as fear of punishment with the resources that frightens the criminal most can help alter criminals` behavior towards manslaughter (Grant 2004). Additionally, fear of death is also heartbreaking that can compel criminals to quit their idea of murdering someone. Death penalty is not inhuman by any means because when a person kills some else, he deserves to taste the same (Grant 2004). In addition, supporters suggested that exposing capital punishment through media sources can create more intensified influence on the criminals. For example, Costanzo (2004) studies disclose a psychological aspect of this matter. According to psychologists` suggestions, crime can be greatly deterred, if people will see it through naked eyes rather than imaginations of being hanged till death (Costanzo 2004). In addition, Ehrlich concluded his research by quoting that approximately eight lives were spared because criminals fear death and they thought twice before making a serious attempt. Members of society need security and they want to discourage such criminal activities around them. Most specifically, people consider safeguard of their lives from governmental authorities as their basic right (Costanzo 2004). Thus, they strongly believe that there should be stronger punishments in the country in order, to discourage criminals and deter crime effectively. From the above discussion, it could be clearly understood that despite various argumentative debates the deterrence theory has justified the re-introduction of capital punishment in various states including, the United States. However, no proper evidences are present in the current literature, but still from every perception claims of theory supporter are stronger than those of abolishers. This has been the main reason behind successful re-introduction of death penalty law in almost every society of the world irrespective of consistent crime rates. List of References Bedau, H. and Cassell, P., 2004. Debating the Death Penalty-Should America have Capital Punishment? New York: Oxford University Press. Bohm, R., 2011. DeathQuest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States. Waltham: Elsevier. Costanzo, M., 2004. Psychology applied to law. Belmont : Thomson Wadsworth. Dezhbakhsh, H. and Rubin, P., 2000. Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-moratorium Panel Data. Clemson University and Emory University, pp.2-40. Fagan, J., 2005. Deterrence and the Death Penalty:A Critical Review of New Evidences. Testimony of Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D., pp.1-12. Finkelstein, C., 2002. Death and Retribution. [Online] Available at: Read More