The Incapacitation and the Deterrent Effects Essay

According to capital punishment supporters, many of these reasons of the anti-death penalty movement are false and are now wrongly accepted as fact. The argument that the death penalty does not deter crime is debatable. By executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again. If these people no longer exist then they obviously cannot commit more crimes. In addition, criminals have admitted, in thousands of fully documented cases, that the death penalty was the specific threat which deterred them from committing murder (Pro-Death Penalty, 2014). The opponents of capital punishment claim that the death penalty has caused and can cause the execution of innocent people. However, according to the supporters, no evidence indicates that innocent people have been executed. Upon reviewing 23 years of capital sentences, a Wall Street Journal study indicated that they were unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed (Eddlem, 2002). Furthermore, advocates note that the

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.

“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

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.

About two thirds of the countries around the world have abolished capital punishment in law or in practice on the grounds that it really isn’t effective to crime (opposingviews.com). But a 2008 comprehensive review of capital punishment research since 1975 by Drexel University economist Bijou Yang and psychologist David Lester of Richard Stockton College of New Jersey concluded that the majority of studies that track effects over many years and across states or counties find a deterrent effect (usnews.com).

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.

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

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

The deterrence argument states that, "although executing the murderer neither prevents the death of the victim nor restores their life, instating the death penalty effectively prevents the deaths of other victims" (Nathanson, 1987). On the surface, this seems like a convincing argument, because of course, if the murderer is dead, then he/she will not kill again. The question is, though, does the death penalty prevent the potential killer from ever killing in the first place? Is it more effective than other forms of punishment? Supporters of the death penalty argue that the death penalty ensures that the murderer will not strike again. But doesn't life in prison without parole do the same?

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