The Death Penalty is NOT an Effective Deterrent Essay

     One argument from death penalty supporters is that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to prevent other people from committing murders. It is the belief that people will think out the consequences of their actions before murdering, and consider the

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

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.

Capital Punishment has ended the lives of criminals for centuries. People have debated whether the government should have the power to decide one person’s life. On one side, people think the government does not have the right to play God as well as believe that the death penalty is simply unethical. Forty-eight percent of a half sample survey stated that life imprisonment was a better punishment for murder while forty-seven percent stated that capital punishment was a better punishment (Newport). However, capital punishment should be enforced throughout the country to help deter crime, benefit the economy, and ensures retribution.

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.

“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.”

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.

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 argument is a popular among politicians and the public in response to the escalating fear of violence. They believe that with the death penalty gives a great strength to police officers because potential offenders fear capital punishment which de-escalates violence. Another factor many believe is that criminals will be more compliant to cooperate because they will try to get a lesser punishment which in turns makes the death penalty deter further crimes that could be committed. Many believe that since the death penalty deters crime, it is a great tool for law enforcement as a

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.

I would characterize the public opinion on the death penalty as being an uninformed opinion. More people are in favor of the death penalty, now then back a few decades ago. People are not well informed on the statistics of the death penalty, like the number of prisoners, or the racial discrimination etc. I think that if more people were informed that some opinions would be changed.

I found a chart on the website http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state. The chart on the site shows that murder rates were actually higher in states with the death penalty than in states that did not have the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center, 2010). If the death penalty is a deterrent, wouldn’t these rates be reversed? In an article published in the New York Times entitled ABSENCE OF EXECUTIONS: A special report.; States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates, states that states who do have the death penalty actually have higher murder rates than the national average and in the past twenty years the rates have been found to be 48 to 101 percent higher than the states who do not have the death penalty (Bonner, Raymond and Fessenden, Ford, 2000). The article also states that as of 1998 Hawaii had the fifth lowest homicide rate in the nation and Hawaii is one of the states in which no death penalty is enforced (Bonner, Raymond and Fessenden, Ford, 2000). This illustrates to me that the death penalty in fact does not act as a deterrent for one to not commit violent crime. If it were a deterrent it would show that states with the death penalty had lower homicide rates than those states without the death penalty. There is also a statement in the article from John O’Hair, a Detroit District Attorney, that basically stated that

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)