Daniel Nagin Death Penalty

From the statistics used by Mulhausen in the article, “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, it seems that the goals of the death penalty were achieved to begin with, but since then it looks as if the death penalty threat is no longer a threat at all. In observing statistics provided to us by the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1990, murder rates have steadily declined; a very good sign for the nation as a whole. What interests me about the statistics is that even when the numbers were just beginning to be taken in 1990, the murder rates in states that do not enforce the death penalty are lower than those in states that do. This observation is very significant in correspondence to the debate regarding the effectiveness and need, or lack thereof, of the death penalty. The numbers back up my claim that the death penalty is not the best method. You cannot make the case that the death penalty itself is destroying crime because the states without the penalty have a declining crime rate, or the case that it destroys crime at a higher or faster rate because the numbers tell a different story. It cannot conclusively or confidently be said that the death penalty does not destroy crime whatsoever, but the facts of the matter do inspire doubt in my mind. Criminals who know they are likely to face death, if caught, are more willing to commit crimes than criminals who know for a fact that the death penalty is not, and cannot be invoked upon them if caught and convicted. This tells me one of two things: the criminals committing these crimes in death penalty states are so good at what they do, they do not fear getting caught, or that these criminals know even if they do get convicted and sentenced to death they are getting the easy way out. These death row convicts do not have to go to prison and suffer

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

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies – which took

“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.”

On the other hand, Greenberg, Reiman, and Gray argue against deterrence and how it is not a leading factor for justifying the administration the death penalty. “Because of the goals that our criminal justice system must satisfy - deterring crime, punishing the guilty, acquitting the innocent, avoiding needless cruelty, treating citizens equally, and prohibiting oppression by the state - America simply does not have the kind of capital punishment system contemplated by death penalty partisans” (Greenberg 1670). Greenberg argues how due to the American system of capital punishment, deterrence is not a factor due to the “infrequent, random, and erratic executions” of this system

A review was conducted from the Law and society Association, American society of criminology and the Criminal Justice sciences Academy and it revealed that a big majority concluded that capital punishment was not a deterrent to homicide. More than 80 percent of those interrogated believe that the survey doesn’t hold up the effect of deterrence for the death penalty. Other criminologists suggest that more homicides are caused due to the fact that there is death penalty. The outcome of brutalization argues that the rates of homicides will increase because of the example served by state executions.

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.

Description of the Article “A deterrence theory holds that criminal punishment is justified because punishment reduces or deters crime” (Lee, 2). This is the core idea of deterrence theory, where if the punishment is harsh enough it would in turn hope to deter other potential criminals. However, Lee believes that this scope it too narrow because of its lack to recognize its shortcomings.

Over the years a theory known as the deterrence effect has been proposed to the world of capital punishment. People believe that if you do something wrong, in this case, kill someone, then you will be put to death therefore preventing you from committing that wrong act again. This theory also states that by viewing or hearing about your punishment then others around you will not follow in your footsteps which will decrease the number of criminal acts committed. Econometric studies have started a panel data in order to view the validity of this theory. One of their hugest studies examines the validity of this theory. One of their hugest studies examined 3,054 counties in the United States from 1977 and 1996. The studies concluded that

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.

2. Many researchers say deterrence data is “fraught with technical and conceptual errors, including inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, and failures to consider all relevant factors that drive murder rates.”

How capital punishment affects murder rates can be explained through general deterrence theory, which supposes that increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment for crime deters individuals from committing crime. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker's seminal 1968 study of the economics of crime assumed that individuals respond to the costs and benefits of committing crime. According to deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals [economist Paul H. Rubin writes] "rationally maximize their own self-interest (utility) subject to constraints (prices, incomes) that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere." Individuals make their decisions based on the net costs and benefits of each alternative. Thus, deterrence theory provides a basis for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates. Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between executions and decreases in murder rates. In fact, studies done in recent years, using sophisticated panel data methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents.

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

In contrast, the question of deterrence can be answered objectively using common sense and statistics. By analyzing different arguments for and against the death penalty, such as the "fear of death" myth, the cost of the death penalty, and the racial and economic bias of the death penalty, it can be shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent of crime.

Deterrence has played a sizeable role in the capital punishment argument for both sides. Author of “The Ultimate Punishment”