I find no conclusive evidence to support the view that the death penalty is or is not an effective deterrent in controlling crime. Opponents of capital punishment argue that it is not a deterrent, because in some states where capital punishment is allowed the crime rate goes up. Others argue that capital punishment deters violent crime, though it is difficult to provide numerical evidence. Dozens of studies have examined the relationship between murder and the death penalty comparing murder rates in areas with the death penalty to those in areas without the death penalty. Murder rates have been examined when the death penalty was added or removed in various areas and countries. None of these studies establish that the death penalty …show more content…
Studies have suggested that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring others from committing violent crime.
General deterrence is the idea that punishing an offender deters others from committing similar crimes. Specific deterrence refers to the fact that executing a known offender prevents that person from killing again, deterring at least that specific offender.
Certainly, capital punishment will not deter all crime. Evidence suggests that psychotic and deranged killers, members of organized crime, and street gangs do not appear to be deterred from committing acts of murder by the implementation of capital punishment. A person who is irrational or wants to commit a murder will do so whether capital punishment exists or not.
Homicides are an act of passion, an impulsive act committed under tremendous stress and/or the influence of alcohol or drugs by individuals prone to aggressive, impulsive behavior. These people do not make rational calculations of pain and gain at the time of their acts. There are, of course, some carefully planned, premeditated murders. However, people committing these murders usually do not expect to be caught.
For deterrence to work, the potential offender must see the penalty as a significant threat. But some people commit murder as a way of
The idea of capital punishment deterring crime is difficult to determine; some could rationalize that the death penalty should in theory stop potential murders from committing crimes. However, this rationalization has never been concretely proven. The research into capital punishment’s effect on deterrence is immense; however, the majority of research on this issue has differential findings. Although some research suggests conclusively that capital punishment deters crime, others found that it fails to do this. Understanding deterrence, the death penalty, and the results of
Another issue related to the subject involves whether or not capital punishment actually deters criminals from committing crimes. Most people think that the death penalties primary function is to deter others in the future from committing similar crimes. There is evidence that at times capital punishment does deter. However, there are those or cite evidence or opinion that the capital punishment does not achieve its desired effect. The majority of this paper will focus on whether capital punishment actually deters crime.
Many people who are supporters of the death penalty say that it’s a successful deterrent. But this isn’t true because the death penalty is administered very inconsistently and arbitrarily. “Only a small proportion of first-degree murders is sentenced to death, and even fewer are executed” (Bedau). There are also several states that have a lower criminal rate without using capital punishment. For example Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan all get along just fine without the use of the death penalty. Also “…all other Western industrial countries get along quite well without killing their citizens” (Ryan). There are many judges that are against the use of capital punishment as well.
Of course, people think death penalty is not just about the punishment. People who believe in death penalty show the reason why they do is that death penalty for sure is a deterrent to homicide. They also take this as a justification of supporting death penalty system (2010). So people actually expect something out of this system other than just killing the murderers simply for what they did. This is supposed to be a great solution to make better society by lessoning the potential crime. In theory, the fact that society has a death penalty system should somewhat scares the potential murderer and prevents them from committing murder. But the percentage of murder crime shows the otherwise. Do potential murderers consider the death penalty before they the murder? The answers are likely to be No. "Most deterrence research has found that
“A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The study, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concluded, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” A previous study in 1996 had come to similar conclusions.”
All of the research that I have done suggests that the death penalty is not a major source of deterrence for criminals to commit severe crimes such as homicide. In a 2009 survey of America’s top criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and written by Professor Michael Radelet, eighty-eight percent of the expert criminologists stated that they do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent for criminals to commit homicide. Respondents to this survey were asked to base their answers on research, rather
Those that are for the death penalty claim that it will serve as a deterrent and is the only way for retribution against murderers. Both issues are highly debatable and have even been a subject of criticism. Punishment as a deterrence has been used for ages. This concept does work, however it should not be applied to all criminals, in my opinion. Some pro capital punishment individuals claim that it is an efficient deterrence against criminals. In an article “Death penalty is a deterrence”, the authors claim that by practicing the death penalty, violent crimes will decrease.”violent crime has declined eleven percent, with murder showing the largest decline at even more than twenty two percent. We believe that this has occurred in part because of the strong signal that the death penalty sent to violent criminals and murders.” These statistics taken from this article may be inaccurate and should be closely examined.
A. People commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts.
Another fact is that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Reports have shown in 2008, the 14 states that did not have active capital punishment had surprisingly low homicide rates. They were actually at or below the national homicide rate. So, there is no documentation or proof that having capital punishment deters criminal acts of violence. In fact, in 2009, a survey showed that over 88% believed that the death penalty was not a deterrent for heinous criminal acts. Thomas Sowell, a columnist at the Hoover Institution couldn’t have made a deterrence case any better when he said “We know that the death penalty deters those who are executed. The fact this this is obvious does not make it any less important. It is certainly not less
However, no individual has ever been able to present any credible evidence that supports the theory of deterrence. Decades of research across the country has failed to produce signs of a higher murder rate in states that have abolished the death penalty. The theory of deterrence assumes that a murderer is examining the costs and benefits of the anticipated criminal act and taking a moment to think rationally. In the United States, the death penalty is only handed down for about one out of every one hundred homicides. A murderer has a greater chance of being killed by the planned victim or in a confrontation with the police, and therefor has no reason to fear the death penalty if there is only a one in a hundred chance they will actually receive it (Jackson, Jackson, and Shapiro 33). Moreover, most homicides are unplanned, impulsive acts and to imply that a murderer is thinking calm and cooly outweighing their options in such an emotionally charged environment is simply idiotic.
The death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crime. Most criminals who commit crimes do not have intentions of being caught and believe that they are invincible from the repercussions of their actions. Because of this, the death penalty really does not deter criminals from committing a crime. In fact, the death penalty could be considered an “easy way out” because the criminal does not have to spend several months, years, or even the rest of his or her life behind bars with little contact with the outside world. The criminal can just die and no longer have to suffer with knowing what he or she did, how it has affected others, and how it will continue to affect his or her life. Also, many criminals end up committing suicide in prison because they do not want to have to spend every day locked in a jail cell for extended periods of time.
The first argument that I shall contend with is that capital punishment does not deter crime. Opponents of capital punishment say the death penalty is not necessary. Other countries that no longer have the death penalty have not experienced an increase in the number of murders. The idea is that the death penalty does not deter crime. Countries such as Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, and Belgium have not carried out executions since the early part of the century, yet these countries have not experienced a rise in crimr rates (Block, 1983). However, deterrence is not the question when you are looking at the retributive value of capital punishment. In short, deterrence can only work if the threat of punishment is combined with the conviction that the forbidden acts are not only illegal and therefore punishable but immoral. Without the conviction of morality, the easily frightened will not break the law, but the fearless will break the law, the irrational will break the law, and all others will break the law.
My assumption is that the death penalty does not deter people from crime. I do not believe that the fear of receiving punishment or justice will deter murder. When people commit crimes, they do not think or care about the consequences at that time. If that were true, people would not speed on highways or do drugs in fear that they would be prosecuted. I believe that with or without capital punishment people will still commit crimes. I believe that the death penalty does not have conclusive evidence to be a tool in the criminal justice system to deter people.
The test for deterrence is not whether executions produce lower murder rates, but that executions produce fewer murders than if the death penalty did not exist. For example, the fact that the state of Delaware executes more people per capita (1/87,500) than any other state and has a murder rate 16 times lower than Washington, D.C. (5/100,000 vs 78.5/100,000) is not proof, per se, that the death penalty deters murder in Delaware or that the lack of the death penalty escalates murders and violent crime in Washington, D.C., which has the highest violent crime and murder rates in the U.S. Be careful how you explain and understand deterrence.
Studies of the deterrent effect of the death penalty have been conducted for several years, with varying results. Most studies have failed to produce evidence that the death penalty deterred murders more effectively then the threat of imprisonment. The reason for this is that few people are executed and so the death penalty is not a satisfactory deterrent. If capital punishment were carried out