In Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd’s (2006) article reviewing the study on the deterrent effects of capital punishment, the results suggested that capital punishment does have a deterrent effect. Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd used panel data for 50 states during the 1960-2000 time period to examine the deterrent effect using the moratorium as a “judicial experiment.” They compared murder rates for each state immediately before and after it suspended or reinstated the death penalty. There are many factors that affect crime-for example; law enforcement, judicial, demographic, and economic variables change only slightly over a short period of time (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd, 2006). Therefore, changes in a state's murder rate quickly following a change in its death penalty law can be attributed to the legal change (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd, 2006). Also, there are considerable cross-state variations in the timing and duration of the moratorium that began and ended in different years in different states, ranging from four to thirty years (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd, 2006). These variations can strengthen our comparison-based inference, because observing similar changes in murder rates immediately after the same legal change in different years and in various states provides …show more content…
Shepherd (2004) used monthly murder and execution data that measured deterrence more precisely than the annual data of most capital punishment studies. Results from least squares and negative binomial estimations indicate that capital punishment does deter: each execution results in, on average, three fewer murders (Shepherd, 2004). In addition, capital punishment deters murders previously believed to be undeterrable: crimes of passion and murders by intimates (Shepherd,
There is a common knowledge that capital punishment would prevent people from committing crime. But until now, there has not been any actual statistics or scientific researches that prove the relationship between the capital punishment and the rate of crimes. According to Jack Weil, “criminals, who believe that their chances of going to jail are slight, will in all probability also assume that their chances of being executed are equally slight. Their attitude that crime pays will in no way be altered” (3). Most people commit a crime when they are affected by the influence of drugs, alcohol or even overwhelmed emotions, so they cannot think logically about they would pay back by their lives. Also, when criminal plan to do their crime, they prepare and expect to escape instead of being caught. Some people believe that the threat of severe punishment could bring the crime rates down and that capital punishment is the ultimate crime deterrent. However, in fact, the rate of ...
Deterrence theorists view murder as rational behavior, and assume that in calculating the gains and losses from killing, potential offenders are aware of the death penalty and regard it as a more severe sanction than imprisonment. Because the threat of one's own death presumably outweighs the rewards gained from killing another, murder is not an option for most people and always discouraged. In addition, some noted proponents assert that capital punishment provides an important educative function in society by validating the sanctity of human life (Berns, 1979; van den Haag, 1975; van den Haag & Conrad, 1983). Despite this logic, some challenge the applicability of deterrence to murder. Rather than being a product of deliberation and calculation, it is known that most murders are emotionally charged and their crimes are spontaneous events; they are "acts of passion" or result from a situated transaction rather than from deliberation (Bowers & Pierce, 1980; Chambliss, 1967; Luckenbill, 1977). Indeed, a significant proportion of homicides may not be intended. The situation escapes calm discussion, or due to some extraneous factor, an assault victim dies. Under such conditions, it is unlikely that perpetrators ("killers") give serious thought to whether they reside in a death penalty jurisdiction, or the possibility of execution.
According to Radelet & Borg (2000), deterrence was, in the past, the most frequently-cited reason for arguments in support of the death penalty. The claim stems from a belief that potential criminals will be less likely to commit severe acts of violence if they know that those who carried out similar crimes before them were put to death – in much the same way that heads on pikes at the gates of a city were intended to deter criminal activity in the Middle Ages. Recently, however, many studies have concluded that the death penalty offers no significant deterrent effects, and the few which claim to find support for these effects have received substantial criticism (Radelet & Borg, 2000). The majority of both criminologists and law enforcement officers surveyed expressed that they do not believe the death penalty offers any difference in the amount of violent crimes committed (Radelet & Borg, 2000).
This country is determined to prove that killing someone under certain circumstances is acceptable, when in all reality there can be no rationalization for the taking of another human life. Killing is murder. It is as simple as that. There have been so many different controversies surrounding this debate that often, the issues become clouded in false statistics and slewed arguments. The basic fact remains that killing is morally and ethically wrong. This fact does not disappear by simply changing the term "murder" to "capital punishment". The act is still the taking of a life. On these grounds, the death penalty should be abolished.
Capital punishment has as its aim not only the punishment of criminals but also the prevention of similar crimes. Unfortunately, capital punishment does not in fact deter criminal acts, as most supporters of the death penalty expect. Michael Meltsner points out that "capital punishment was justified as a deterrent to crime, yet the killing [has been] done infrequently and in privacy" (3); these factors lead to the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent. The infrequent administration of capital punishment stems from the vast differences in each case and the legal variations among the states that permit capital punishment. Currently, t...
The study by Edwin Sutherland, which gave a confirmation that the death penalty does deter crime, however criminologists have started to prove this wrong, even calling it a myth. Michael L. Radeltt & Traci L. Lacock’s 2009 survey of the members of the American Criminology Society found that 88% of criminologist at ACS did not believe the death penalty was capable of deterring murderers and lowering crime. This belief begins the multitude of questions as to why criminologist believe the death penalty does not deter crime. Thus brings the question of if the death penalty deters crime back to step one along with a multitude of questions; do other factors contribute to the deterrence of crime? The stance, albeit varied, ranges from two spectrums of the opposite of the argument concerning the death penalty; the death penalty doesn’t deter crime, or there is no concrete evidence that proves that the death penalty does deter
During the 1970s, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence. This argument suggests that we must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses; we punish past offenders to send a message to potential offenders. In a broad sense, the deterrent effect of punishment is thought to b...
A review of the available evidence recently led a National Research Council committee to conclude—again—that we still do not know whether the legal status or use of capital punishment has any influence on homicide (Siennick, 2012). Research methods have shown that a short-term deterrent effect holds true only for non-felony homicides. Felony homicides actually increase slightly after an execution (Siennick, 2012). According to research done in Texas, felony homicides are the only type of homicides that are eligible for the Death Penalty. This does pose a problem for determining whether or not the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent or not. Land et al. suggests that their findings point to subtypes of potential murderers who might respond differently to the threat of execution (Sien...
Death penalty supporters believe that capital punishment is the only sure way to deter murderers from committing murders again. “The argument that murderers are the least likely of all criminals to repeat their crimes is not only irrelevant, but also increasingly false. Six percent of young adults paroled in 1978 after having been convicted of murder were arrested for murder again with six years of release” (Death Penalty Paper).
Capital punishment, a topic that is constantly debated, is questioned on whether or not it serves its purpose which is to deter criminals and if it is morally acceptable. It is my goal to evaluate arguments that promote or reject capital punishment and its deterrence factor. It would be beneficial comparing crime statistics for states that uphold and states that abolish capital punishment. Finally, an investigation of criminals facing the death penalty and their thoughts as well as modern prison conditions will provide insight to this debate. Capital punishment could be a great deterrent to crime or it may have no effect at all.
Jacoby believes the death penalty protects society by threatening future murders with fear. Gaes believes the death penalty is necessary because the overpopulation in prisons causes emotional and physical distress. The stronger side of the debate seems to be that the death penalty does not discourage crime at all nor does it help the victim’s family heal. It would be useful to know whether or not death-penalty states as a whole have lower rates of crime than non-death penalty states when arguing for the death penalty.
Capital punishment, or otherwise known as the death penalty, is death sentenced upon a person by the state as a punishment for a crime. These crimes are known as capital crimes or capital offenses. Capital punishment has been practiced in many societies; now 58 nations practice the death penalty, while 97 nations have abolished it. In the past, it was common for the ruling party to make the offender known throughout the community for his or her criminal act. Thus, if the community were made aware of the consequences for breaking the laws, the crime rate would reduce. Such criminal penalties included: boiling to death, disembowelment, crucifixion and many more. As time went on the movement towards more humane treatments took hold. In the US, the electric chair and gas chambers were introduced but have been almost entirely superseded by lethal injection. Nevertheless, capital punishment has been a part of human history and will always continue to be a controversy and a debate. (Bedau)
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.
The death penalty greatly discourages citizens from committing crimes like murder. The greatest fear for many people is death. If they know that execution is a common consequence for their actions, they are going to think twice before committing them. Even in jails, the fear of death can deter an inmate already serving a life sentence from killing a guard or another inmate. When a potential murderer realizes that a murderer’s punishment is execution, then that person is discouraged from going through with the murder. The first studies were conducted in 1973 by Isaac Ehrlich linking executions to a lowered murder rate, and for every murderer executed a potential of three people were saved from murder (insert citation). A more modern...
Schonebaum, Stephen E. "A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be An Effective Deterrent." Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: David L. Bender; Greenhaven Press Inc. 1998. 18.