Simply put, the death penalty serves a function. The functionalist theoretical approach suggest that death penalty serves a certain function, that is, deterring crime (Weisberg, 2003; Gamson, 1988). This may also be referred to as manifest function. Unfortunately this theory is somewhat debunk, as there is little hard evidence supporting the notion that the death penalty successfully deters crime. In this case a functionalist may in turn look for latent functions the death penalty might serve including revenge or victim appeasement (Weisberg, 2003). Functionalists support strong condemnatory action because weak or less severe penalties may suggest that the underlying conduct "is not genuinely worth condemnation" (Weisberg, 467).
Social Conflict Theory and the Death Penalty
Social conflict theory typically connects deviant behaviors with power. It suggests that within society certain populations are more vulnerable to crime and subsequent punishment, in part perhaps due to disparate values (Aguirre & Baker, 1993). Conflict theory may support the idea that minority populations, more often than white members of society subject to the death penalty, may not accept societal values which in turn increases the likelihood that they will commit a crime and subsequently deserve severe punishment (Aguirre & Baker, 1993). This theory is supported by factual data showing that race is a strong characteristic among both death penalty opponents and proponents, and that public support for the death penalty is often linked to "personality characteristics" which include racial prejudice (Aguirre & Baker, 150). This suggest that minorities have less power.
Summary of Literature
There are many different theories and perspectives regarding the death penalty. At this time a variety of perspectives from opponents and proponents attempt to both explain the logic behind and use or dysfunction of the death penalty. By far the most logical argument is that of functionalist social theorists who suggest the death penalty serves a function, to deter crime. However opponents continually site studies that this is not the case. Regardless the death penalty still...
Social conflict theory helps explain the lack of balance of
power that seems to exist with
respect to death penalty. Studies suggest that racial prejudice may be a prime factor in death penalty cases. This theory suggests that those in power are more likely to dictate what is deviant and what punishment is most appropriate for those engaging in socially deviant behaviors. Social interactionist theory seems more to support the idea that people are a product of their environments and interpretations of their relationships with one another. The death penalty is justified for individuals who create their reality and subject themselves to deviant behaviors.
References
Aguirre, A. & Baker, D. (1993). "Racial prejudice and the death penalty: A research note."
Social Justice, 20(1-2): 150
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Enblewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Galiher, J.M. & Galiher, J.F. (2001). "A commonsense theory of deterrence and the ideology of science: The New York State death penalty
debate." Journal of
Criminal Law and
Criminology, 1: 307.
Gamson, W. (1988). "A constructionist approach to
mass media and
public opinion."
Symbolic Interactionism, 11(1): 161-174.
Jelen, T. 1990 "The Impact of Home Ownership on White's Racial Attitudes." American
Politics Quarterly 18: 208 -- 214
McClelland, K. (2000 - Feb). "Symbolic interactionism." 26, Sept. 205:
http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/soc/s00/soc111-01/IntroTheories/Symbolic.html
Ulmer, J.T. & Wilson, M.S. (2003 - Fall). "The potential contributions of
quantitative research to symbolic interactionism." Symbolic Interaction, 26(4): 531-552.
Weisberg, R. (2003). "Norms and criminal law, and the
norms of criminal law scholarship." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 93(2-3): 467.
Death Penalty
