Short-Term Deterrent To Homicide: Article Analysis

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

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.

The use of the death penalty has brought peace of mind to our citizens. Though through the mid nineteen sixties until the early nineteen eighties only about six death penalties actually took effect. When the number of executions dropped, the murder rate rose from 5.6 per 100,000 people to 10.2 which is almost double the murder rate. A society cannot live in fear but needs to live in reassurance and protection. As of nineteen ninety-nine, the murder rate dropped dramatically to 5.7 because the execution rate increased to 47 executions. Pearce, Matt. "Counterpoint: Defending The Death Penalty." Points Of View: Death Penalty (2014): 6. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 23 Sept. 2014. This demonstrates the deterrent effect capital punishment has on society. The result is deterrence shows if one kills then one will be punished for their actions and crime.

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).

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.

Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a

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.

Over the course of the past fifty years there have been countless homicides across the entirety of the United States, all with their own purpose and methods of commission. While it is impossible to completely prevent homicides from happening in our current society by looking at the data as a whole and analyzing the various patterns and trends it follows we might be better able to explain and understand it. With understanding comes new ways of prevention and deterrence that should allow us to significantly decrease the rate of homicides in our nation for future generations to come. To demonstrate this, we will be looking at two datasets one of the National homicide rates of 1950-2010 and another dataset of homicide and Non-Negligent Manslaughter

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.

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.

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.

Groups that support the death penalty often say that it deters criminals from committing future crimes like murders or other heinous crimes. On the contrary, many criminals do not think of the consequences of their actions when they are committing a crime, nor do they care what happens

Four major issues in capital punishment are debated, most aspects of which were touched upon by Seton Hall’s panel discussion on the death penalty. The first issue stands as deterrence. A major purpose of criminal punishment is to conclude future criminal conduct. The deterrence theory suggests that a rational person will avoid criminal behavior if the severity of the punishment outweighs the benefits of the illegal conduct. It is believed that fear of death “deters” people from committing a crime. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives were at stake. When attached to certain crimes, the penalty of death exerts a positive moral influence, placing a stigma on certain crimes like manslaughter, which results in attitudes of horror to such acts.

Death penalty advocates argue that the execution of convicted murderers deter others from committing murder for fear that they will also be executed, and also that murderers will be incapacitated: once dead, they will have no opportunity to commit additional murders. Death penalty opponents dispute the deterrent effect of capital punishment, arguing that few murderers rationally weigh the possibility that they might face the death penalty before committing a murder. Finally, death penalty opponents do not dispute that execution incapacitates executed murders, but argue that life imprisonment without possibility of parole is equally incapacitating. (Jacob Sullum, Los Angeles)