The death penalty as a deterrent for violent crime

Death penalty is one of society's most significant issues. It has been discussed and debated for many years, and there are always pros and cons to the issue. However, whether the death penalty is effective and how it is addressed as a matter of public policy is something that needs to be more closely scrutinized. Moral issues and ethical issues are at the forefront of many death penalty discussions, but taxpayer cost and other concerns hover closely in the background, as well.

The purpose here is not to say whether the death penalty is right or wrong from a moral or spiritual standpoint, but to examine it, based on pros and cons, from the standpoint of whether it works for its intended purpose and is a just representation of human justice. The issue will be introduced, the pros and cons of it will be discussed, and conclusions will be drawn based on that information, providing a better idea of whether the death penalty works as public policy and if it is deemed effective as a deterrent for violent crime.

The Death Penalty

Introduction

Capital punishment, which some also call the death penalty, has been around in society for hundreds of years. Ever since it began, there have been arguments as to whether it is morally right, and as to whether it actually deters crime. Some believe that the prospect of being killed often prevents criminals from undertaking violent acts. Others believe exactly the opposite, stating that those who undertake violent crimes are driven to do so for many reasons, and whether they have the chance of being killed or not will not prevent them from doing what they feel they must do.

Some serial murderers and other violent people believe that they will never be caught. Others think that they are doing God's work, or they cite other 'significant' reasons for the killings and violent acts that they partake in. Sometimes this is due to mental disorders, but there are other reasons that people undertake acts of this nature. Regardless of these reasons, however, violent acts can and do occur and whether these people should be killed for their crimes remains a hotly discussed issue.

On one side of the discussion, there are those who believe that killing is morally and ethically wrong, whether it is the murderer and his victims or the government and the murderer. The ethical dilemmas that are faced by this issue are not designed to be discussed here. They are significant and worthy of discussion and thought, but the scope of this paper does not allow for space to discussion the ethical issues that involve capital punishment as it pertains to violent people and their reasons for their actions.

The purpose of this paper is to leave those issues aside and determine whether there is a basis of truth in the statement that capital punishment deters violent criminals. This statement is used by many who believe in capital punishment, and they argue that these criminals will not be able to do any more harm, which is certainly true, and not a question for discussion. What is debatable, however, is whether the idea of capital punishment affects those who might undertake violent crimes, and whether it prevents them from doing so. There are many that believe this, and others that insist that there is little to no effect.

Both sides of the argument will be addressed here, so that conclusions can be drawn from the information presented that will hopefully shed some light on the discussion and determine which side is correct. There is, however, seemingly much more information available that is against capital punishment than for it. It is also possible that a determination will not be able to be made due to the fact that there are so many issues and beliefs that surround each side of the issue, and statistics can be made to show many things, depending on who is utilizing them and how the numbers are manipulated. It is for this reason that statistics will not play a large role in the scope of this paper, as numbers often vary.

Argument Against Capital Punishment

There are many different arguments against capital punishment, and some of these come from law enforcement. Polls of police chiefs in many areas of the country indicate that a large majority of them believe that capital punishment is no deterrent to violent crime. It ranks last on their lists of how they should go about reducing violent crime, and studies have shown that it is no better at reducing crime than the possibility of life in prison without any chance of parole (Cook, 1999). This is interesting, in the face of the argument that capital punishment reduces the amount of violent crimes that are undertaken. Studies have also shown that, contrary to the popular opinion that capital punishment brings closure, most people do not feel that watching someone else die helps them to move on in any way. Sometimes it seems to profane the name of the lost loved one by associating yet another death with it. The death of the loved one is painful enough without adding to it (Cook, 1999).

Mainly, opponents of capital punishment argue that (Policy, 2003):

those contemplating criminal activities do not rationally weigh the benefits and costs of their actions, the costs associated with obtaining a death penalty conviction are larger than the costs associated with providing lifetime imprisonment, in a world of imperfect information, innocent people may be convicted and executed before exonerating information is discovered, and capital punishment has disproportionately been applied in cases in which the defendant is nonwhite or the victim is white.

There are several effective arguments against capital punishment, including the fact that some people have been executed, and the government has later discovered their innocence. There is not much to be done at that point, and instead of deterring violent crime, it makes capital punishment seem unjust and unfair. It also draws into question once again whether capital punishment is such a good idea, since it can sometimes be used incorrectly and innocent people are made to suffer for the mistakes of the police, prosecutors, and government. It would seem that many criminals would find this more amusing than frightening. They do not take their chances of being caught and subjected to capital punishment seriously enough to be frightened by the penalty like many assume they will be (van den Haag, 2001).

According to some who believe in God and feel that capital punishment is acceptable under the scriptures, there is one main point, which is that "This is not an issue that may be measured accurately in terms of statistics. No one can ever know how many potential murderers have refrained from taking human life due to their fear of prosecution, conviction, and ultimate execution" (Jackson, 2003). It is also questioned during this same argument, though, by those who conclude that capital punishment is not a deterrent to violent crime, whether they should also be able to conclude that prison is not a deterrent either, since people seem to keep undertaking crimes, whether or not they think they will go to jail.

Another concern over capital punishment and violent crime is the issue of the mentally handicapped. They, along with juveniles, also undertake violent crimes on occasion. These mentally handicapped people, not to be confused with mentally disturbed or insane people, often have low IQs and do not realize what they have done. Capital punishment in their cases is not any deterrent. They do not even realize what they have done. One mentally handicapped man actually asked the jailers to save his dessert for him so that he could eat it after his execution. It was clear that he did not understand what the execution was about, no more than he understood the crime that he had undertaken. Executing people like this does nothing for society. Many people find it cruel, and even if it is not, it is certainly senseless. There are no significant lessons about not undertaking crimes that are learned by executing someone who is mentally handicapped (Reforms, 2002).

The same is true for juvenile offenders. Some juveniles who are convicted of violent crimes are locked away in prison until such time as they are old enough to be executed, which really does not teach juveniles anything valuable about capital punishment or avoidance of violent crime. More often than not, these juveniles are not executed, and most juveniles know that they will not receive capital punishment, even if they are tried as adults, so they are not deterred by the possibility (Radelet & Akers, 1996).

There are other arguments, but the most effective argument against capital punishment as a deterrent for violent crime appears to be the fact that crime has not gone down simply because capital punishment is out there (Death, 2000). States that have it do not have lower crime rates on average than states that do not have it, and that would indicate that capital punishment in and of itself is not preventing people from undertaking violent acts (Ikramullah, 2003).

Conclusion

Crime, including violent crime, has been with society virtually since the beginning, and it will remain with society until it ends. Nothing will prevent some people from undertaking violent acts, and capital punishment does not appear to be the answer. Sometimes, innocent lives are lost to this process, and many times the families of the victims do not experience the kind of closure that one would hope for simply because the offender has been executed. Since it would appear that even law enforcement does not see capital punishment as an answer to the problems of crime in society, one wonders why it is allowed to continue.

It is possible, however, that capital punishment would be a deterrent if it were used more swiftly and more often. Many people who are sentenced to death spend years in prison appealing their conviction and appealing their sentence, and this is a large waste of taxpayer money, as well as a huge burden on the court system. Those who are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt often wait a long time for their sentence to be carried out. Even when DNA evidence shows that they were the guilty party, the execution is still not swiftly carried out, and this allows many criminals to find some way to avoid it.

Instead, they end up spending their life in prison, where they get hot meals every day, are allowed to exercise, and have a bed to sleep in every night. They watch TV and read books, and this is more than many of the hungry and homeless in today's society get. Criminals are treated better than many of these people. The criminals have lost their freedom, but they get a lot of things in return for that, and society is required to pay for them through taxes and other avenues that fund the prisons.

One is left to wonder why this is so, and whether capital punishment actually would work if everyone found guilty of a violent crime and proved guilty with DNA evidence and/or a confession was executed within a very short period of time. There would be less prison overcrowding, and appeals would not be allowed. Enacted in this way, capital punishment might be a better deterrent against violent crime, because the stakes would be much higher than they are now, and the chances of being executed would be much greater. It would give criminals more to think about when they were contemplating their violent crimes, and society (at least that part of society that supports capital punishment) would feel better about not supporting these criminals while they appealed and worked to save themselves.

It is also possible that more people would come to see capital punishment as a good idea if they could be shown that there was less prison overcrowding and that the amount of violent crime was actually dropping because of it. This might help society out in several ways, but it is unlikely that this will come to pass. There are always those who will fight for the rights of convicted prisoners, and argue that they are misunderstood.

There are also those who will maintain the opinion that killing is wrong, no matter who does it. Every individual is certainly entitled to their opinion, and it would appear that those who feel capital punishment is wrong are winning their battle, at least in some states, because executions do not take place very often. Even when they do occur, it is usually after a lengthy appeals process lasting many years and costing much money.

Since society will never be free of crime, dealing with that crime and controlling it has become the focus of law enforcement. If capital punishment can be improved and made to work, it should remain. If it cannot be changed so that it actually deters violent crimes, than perhaps it should be done away with in favor of a system that will actually lower the crime rate and work to prevent violent crimes in the future.