Is The Death Penalty A Crime Deterrent?

The death penalty has been implemented since ancient times and punishes criminals. Some people wonder if it deters violent crime in the states it is legal, but does it have a noticeable effect on violent crimes in these places? Is it even moral, and should it be abolished altogether?

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

Then two decades later, in 1993, the capital punishment statutes had been reinstated and performing executions, once again striking the thing criminals fear most, death (Tucker). During the 1990s as more states began to reinstate capital punishment statutes, murder rates began to plummet. They went from 9.6 people per 100,000 in 1993 dropping to 7.7 in 1996 and as low as 6.4 in 1999, which was the lowest rate since 1966. In other words, as the author observed during his study of the forty year period, homicide rates have risen when the rate of execution went down and as the execution rates had risen, the rate of homicides had decreased (Tucker). Not only does the death penalty engender an aversion amongst criminals and people who are considering performing heinous actions, it additionally promotes a positive influence towards themselves and others around. The mandate of capital punishment establishes the attitude of abhorrence toward criminals, and causes people to think about what they are doing because of the possible consequences. With people believing that living the criminal life is not the best of decisions, they are deterred away from making the decision of performing the crime (Caldwell 598).

“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.”

This criminal code is one of the most sophisticated in the country and has become a model for other states to follow. But research studies conducted to compare effects of the death penalty nationwide have shown some conflicting results. Comparison studies done to show homicide rates of retentionist and abolitionist jurisdictions from 1999 to 2001 (Sorenson & Pilgrim) have shown that death penalty states tend to have a higher murder rate than abolitionist states. This result creates the argument of the overall deterrent effect of execution. Texas is still in the top 20 of states with the highest homicide rate even though it is the highest in death penalty executions. “If the death penalty were a deterrent, the argument goes, then Texas should be located among those states with the lowest homicide rates” (Sorenson & Pilgrim, P. 25).

The death penalty has existed in different forms dating back to Eighteenth Century B.C. Burning, hanging, beating, etc. were all means to an end to achieve this retribution. In today’s society, the debate over whether the death penalty is a viable punishment is still to be determined. Many scholars suggest that it fails to act as a deterrent and should be abolished while others cling to the idea that it continues to serve as retribution to those affected by the acts of criminals. Within this paper I will study the changing attitudes towards the death penalty as well as look into Texas and California as examples as they both portray interesting cases of the death penalty. While both actively sentence criminals to death row, California rarely executes while Texas has the highest execution rates in the country. Do these states have lower crime rates because of this or will this prove that the death penalty is unnecessary and violates the eighth amendment and is out of line with current views.

State executions influence the potential and active criminals by the simple “you kill, we put you to death”. A conclusion drawn from that idea could be that punishment by death would be a prevention of crime. Regrettably the information does not get along with the proposal of deterrence being effective. The truth of the matter is that the death penalty does not affect potential criminals physiologically; the effect brought about by brutalization does not deter criminal activities. An economic writer and Professor Isaac

Attention Getter: Attention Getter: Is it moral? Is it an efficient deterrent to crime? Is it allowable under the U.S constitution? These are questions one should ask when

To determine the deterrent effect of death penalty, an author examined cross-state variation and used three standard groups of control variables. The author concluded that each additional execution deterred thirteen murders (Winter, 2008). While there may some bias in this research, such as the personal perspective before the

The other sides of people think that death penalty should be permitted because it deters crime rate and there exists the death penalty in the constitution. Death penalty prevents crime because people are scare to die. In the article “Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data”, it shows that death penalty “has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders with a margin of error of plus or minus ten.” It means that the capital punishment has a power to decrease the murder rate because people are afraid with the death penalty. Death penalty helps people to stop doing unlawful happening, because they know that they will receive death if they try to murder

Defenders of the death penalty often claim that the execution of criminals will teach others not to do bad, initially decreasing crime rates. This hasty form of generalization statistically proves to be wrong. “When it comes to criminals, Texas has the toughest punishments along with a strict court system. The state of Texas spent four hundred and seventy million dollars in 2001 just for punishing convicts. Despite all that money and stern punishment, the crime rate is still twenty four percent higher than the national average, according to 2003 data” (Gonzales). This supports the fact that tough punishment doesn’t necessarily help crime. Ironically, the harshest state in the U.S continues to house the maximum number of criminal acts. The death penalty, a harsh form of punishment, clearly doesn’t lower crime rate.

1. The views presented by the Catholic social teaching regarding capital punishment present some challenges for me. The teaching references and explains that “since punishment involves the deliberate infliction of evil on another, it is always in need of justification” (McKenna, 12). The three traditional justifications for capital punishment include retribution, deterrence, and reform (McKenna, 12). Considering these justifications, the teaching explains that none of these are viable reasons for enacting capital punishment. Reform as a justification does not make sense. If a criminal is being executed he would not have the chance to change his behavior much less the desire to do so knowing that it would not change his/her ultimate fate. Deterrence of criminals or potential criminals from doing future violent acts assumes “many crimes of violence are undertaken in spirit of rational calculation” (McKenna, 12). The teaching believes that this may be false, therefore not making capital punishment a deterrent. The teaching does acknowledge that retribution is needed, however it does not “require taking the life of a criminal” (McKenna, 12). The teaching further points out that there is a possibility of a mistake being made and that someone who is innocent could be executed. It cautions capital punishment not only causes avoidable anguish in the criminal, but also to his/her family and those who must witness the execution. The teaching also advises that many times those who

The death penalty has been going on for many years, though out the years it has changed the ways things have been getting done. According to Death Penalty Information Center (CPIC) ( http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org ), the first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. Many kings would see the death penalty the best way of punishing them for any type of crime. Death sentencing at that time carried out by mean of crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement. By the Tenth Century A.D, hanging become the usual method of execution in Britain. Britain used the death penalty for many capital crimes. As the crime rate grew the more death there was. Britain influenced Americans to use the death penalty more than other countries. The first recorded execution in the new

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.