Death Penalty as a Deterrent

Death Penalty as a Deterrent - Opposing Viewpoints

One of the most controversial issues in today's America has to do with the question as to whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Many of those that support the death penalty argue that execution, whether by lethal injection, the electric chair or hanging, is the most suitable penalty for persons who have committed atrocious crimes like first-degree murder, rape or the murder of a child. The main contention for these supporters is that the convicted person deserves punishment that is comparable to the crime; in addition, supporters of the death penalty argue that such an action demonstrates society's adherence to moral principles. According to Robert Bidinotto, such crimes as premeditated murder "is a crime in a class by itself," for it "negates the highest moral end of a civil society," being human life (156).

In contrast, those that are against the death penalty argue that even when a person commits murder, such an act does not justify death. This argument is supported by several examples -- first, the mental anguish that a condemned person experiences is a form of torture which has been denounced by many nations. Also, when a state or the federal government executes a person, it undermines its moral authority and subtracts from the value of human life.

The supporters of the death penalty have traditionally applied several reasons why civilized society is justified in putting to death those that commit horrendous crimes. One reason is retribution which allegedly satisfies the demands of society for punishing the criminal in accordance with the severity of his/her crime. With deterrence, those that support the death penalty point out that such an action deters would-be criminals from committing various crimes, especially murder. However, in the case of retribution, human beings naturally tend to want some kind of revenge against those that commit horrible crimes; thus, the supporters of the death penalty consider retribution as a viable reason to put someone to death.

In the case of deterrence, the death of a criminal who has committed murder obviously ends the criminal's opportunities to commit another murder. Conversely, as maintained by John O'Hair, a district attorney in the city of Detroit, "I do not think the death penalty is a deterrent of any consequence in preventing murders, (for) most homicides... are impulsive actions (and) crimes of passion in which the killers do not consider the consequences of what they are doing" (Espejo 18), meaning that before a murder is committed, the perpetrator does not normally consider the possibility that he/she could face the death penalty as a result of their actions.

The overall popularity of the death penalty in the United States is generally due to frustrations over violent crime and the attitude that capital punishment is needed in order to discourage people from committing murder or other violent crimes. But as shown in a survey conducted in 1995 by Richard Dieter, less than one percent out of 350 police chiefs and sheriffs from across the U.S. when asked if the death penalty was an effective deterrent to violent crime responded that it was a good way to reduce violent criminal activity (Pojman 256). However, as Hugo Bedau relates, when one examines the effects of the death penalty in those states that utilize it for punishment, "five states (show) the greatest relative improvements," namely, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Delaware and Texas, all of which "have aggressively (applied)... The death penalty" (192).

In contrast, other data, compiled by state and federal agencies within the last twenty years, failed "to demonstrate any deterrent value to the death penalty" and according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "when states with the death penalty (were) compared to those without the death penalty," it was shown that "a majority of death penalty states have homicide rates higher than non-death penalty states" (Espejo 58).

The death penalty has also come under other criticism, especially in relation to executing innocent persons on death row in America's prison system. Of course, with the advent of DNA testing, many death-row inmates have been exonerated after tests revealed that they could not have been involved in their alleged crimes. Yet some death penalty advocates still believe that the possibility of executing innocent people does not justify the abolition of the death penalty. As Stephen Markman puts it, "the death penalty serves to protect a vastly greater number of innocent lives than are likely to be lost through its erroneous application" (Pojman 216). Amazingly, a 1995 Gallup poll revealed that 57% of Americans would still favor the death penalty even if one out of one hundred of those executed were undeniably innocent (Pojman 267).

In conclusion, the death penalty continues to be a highly controversial issue with most Americans and its deterrent effect has still not been absolutely determined. Yet it is clear that the death penalty does serve society quite well under certain circumstances, but in reality, society must begin to understand the reasons why people commit violent crimes and determine how to change a person's violent tendencies which in the end will make the death penalty unnecessary.

Annotated Bibliography

Bedau, Hugo a. And Paul G. Cassell, Eds. Debating the Death Penalty. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. (Contains the viewpoints of seven experts who debate the death penalty in a clear and thought-provoking way).