Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
the effectiveness of death penalty
theories on deterrence
impact of capital punishment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: the effectiveness of death penalty
Akers, Ronald L. "Deterrence and Rational Choice Theories." Criminology Theories Introduction and Evaluation. 2nd ed. New York: Roxbury, 1999. Print. Akers tells of how punishment and the deterrent of crime are related. He states that all individuals have the free will to choose whether or not they are going to commit a crime, some of the things keeping them from committing those crimes are the legal penalties and the likelihood of one being caught. He continues to explain how some punishments for crimes are too severe and are simply unjust, they do nothing to deter crime, as well as punishments that are not severe enough. There were also many studies done concerning as to how capital punishment influenced the number of homicides when the law was and was not abolished, they found no change in homicide rate. …show more content…
The studies shown before and after the abolishment of capital punishment show no change in the number of homicides committed during those times. This may be a case where the punishment is a bit too much, or in other words, unjust. The studies given on capital punishment support part of the idea as to the fact that capital punishment should be federally banned in the United States, due to the fact that the punishment is supposed to be enforced in order to deter crime, but the studies show that it has no effect. We have alternative punishments that can be enforced rather than capital punishment, in order to deter and contain the crime rate. Bedau, Hugo, ed. Death Penalty in America Current Controversies. Oxford: Oxford U, 1997.
Situational crime prevention is an idea criminologists use in order to reduce the chances of crime initially taking place. This theory does not aim to punish criminals after the crime has taken place like the criminal justice system does, but however the opposite, it aims to reduce the chances of the crime taking place to start with. Ron Clarke (2005) describes this theory as an approach that aims to reduce the opportunities out there for crime, involving rational choice theory. Clark focuses on three methods within this theory, directing at specific crimes, altering the environment we live in and aiming to reduce the benefits of committing crimes.
“Death penalty is a deterrent,” by George E. Pataki and “The Death Penalty Should Not Be Abolished,” by David B. Muhlhausen are two articles that support capital punishment as a deterrent of crime. “Legalized Murder: The Death Penalty Serves Revenge and Does Nothing to Solve Crime,” by Michael J. Ring and “The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished,” published by Amnesty International, are two articles that oppose capital punishment as a deterrent to crime by discussing the risks of the “inhumane” form of punishment. The following discussions show the contrasting point-of-views that make capital punishment one of the most controversial topics of today’s society.
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
One aspect in the Rational Choice theory that relates to deterrence and classical theorists is Routine Activity theory. Routine Activity Theory is when people are victimized because of everyday interactions. These three factors that cause people to be victimized include people that seem vulnerable enough to be victimized, places where there aren’t a lot of police activity and proper guardianship are places where people will most likely be victimized, and when a person wants to commit or is thinking about committing a crime, that person will most likely commit that crime. This theory is based off of people’s rational choice to and their free will to commit a crime. Classical criminologists like Cesare Beccaria, believed that people who made rational choices to commit a crime, their punishment should
Since 1976 there have been 1,434 executions in the United States, and additionally of those executions since 1973, 156 of those on death row were exonerated (Facts About the Death Penalty, 2016). In 2012 the National Research Council released a report titled Deterrence and the Death Penalty, citing that studies claiming there was a correlation with the death penalty and lower homicide rates. However this is not true, the death penalty has no effect on crime especially homicide rates. Additionally it is negligent of policy makers to rely on such reasoning in determining the continued validity of the death penalty for a wide variety of capital crimes.
The death penalty has been backed by statistical analysis that has provided arguments for and against the sentencing based off deterrence methods. People against the death penalty have documented states that do not have the death penalty and have shown a decrease in murder rate. David Cooper’s statistical article provides information for non-death penalty states showing lower murder rates by stating, “When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6,” (Cooper, p.1). The statistics have shown that the death penalty ha...
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.
The death penalty has never deterred crime. When the death penalty was reinstated in the 1970’s crime rates were sky high. In research conducted for the United Nations in 1996, crime rates were the same as those in the 70’s. Depending on the exact year since the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S. crime rates have dipped or risen 10-15%. Normally the ladder. In the United Sates we call the death penalty, capital punishment. The word capital speaks of the head. This is because throughout history the most common way of executing criminals was by severing the head. Now when I hear capital punishment I will be reminded of something even more grotesque and morbid than previously. In a survey taken by prisoners serving life terms, 55-60% said that they would have rather received the death penalty than life terms.
As justification for capital punishment, deterrence is used to suggest that executing murderers will decrease the homicide rate by causing other potential murderers not to commit murder from fear of being executed themselves and obviously the murderer who is executed will not kill again. This position may seem initially correct, and indeed, in a USA Today Poll, 68% of respondents agreed that the death penalty is an effective deterrence for crimes. However, some research suggests that rather than deterring homicide, state executions actually may cause an increase in the number of homicides (Stack, 1990). This phenomenon has been called the "brutalization hypothesis" and it suggests that through proposition, modeling, or by legitimizing killing, the death penalty actually causes an increase in homicides. Thus, the brutalization hypothesis is a reason for opposing the death penalty.
In the course of their research, they found that some researchers conclude that there is strong evidence of capital punishment on murder, but through further examination of other research, the results varied which has led to uncertainty regarding whether the research is useful for policy makers. They concluded that, “the connection between the theoretical reasoning underlying general deterrence and the regression models typically specified in the literature is tenuous” (Chalfin, et al 2013). Overall, they found that the current research literature that uses panel data to test whether capital punishment is an effective deterrent is not helpful to determine policy or for a judicial audience. They state that this is due to minor issues of appropriate model estimation and also unconvincing causal effects and justification for the model specifications that were
From the articles reviewed, there is no clear answer to the subject matter. Whereas most authors argue that capital punishment deters homicide, some scholars have also proven that this is just a mere coincidence. Since both sides, including the proponents of capital punishment and those that disagree with it, have justified their claims with statistics and proven evidence, further research needs to be carried out to know whether or not the sentence deters homicide.
Society often uses death penalty to prevent future murders. If murders are sent to execution, potential murders would think twice before committing any crime for the fear of losing their own lives. According to a study conducted by Isaac Ehrlich in 1973, he employed a new kind of analysis which formed results showing that for every murderer who was executed; seven lives were spared because others were discouraged from committing murder (Center, 2000). Moreover, another study by the professors Adler and Summers, examining twenty six years period (from 1979 to 2004). It was clear that as the executions in America increased, murder decreased (Death Penalty Deters Future Murders, According to Remarkable New Empirical Study, 2007) . Since society has high concern in avoiding murder, it should use the toughest punishment presented to deter murder, and that is the death penalty (Center, 2000). The fact that countries with no executed death penalty has lower crime rate, doesn’t mean that it’s a failure of deterrence. In fact, countries with high crime rates would have increased more wit...
Fagan, Jeffrey. “Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Critical Review of New Evidence.” Testimony to Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D. Columbia Law School. 21 Jan 2005. Web. 14 Mar 2011.
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 lesson whatever action that participated in. Specific deterrence is founded on a principle called hedonistic calculus meaning, “an assumption that human nature leads people to pursue pleasure and avoid pain” (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2010, p 155).
There are many reasons why capital punishment is a good thing, and should be enforced and used more. First off, capital punishment is a good thing because it deters crime. For example, in the 1960s while the number of executions was decreasing, the homicide rate was increasing. As execution started to increase, statistics show that the homicide rate slowly decreased or stayed the same, but it did not increase. Fear of death deters people from committing crime. The...