Death Penalty: Social Attitudes and Modern Alternatives

Introduction

The issue of the death penalty raises deep emotions on all sides of the debate. Many feel that the death penalty no longer holds value as a tool for society to prevent heinous crimes. In the past, the prevalence of the death penalty created a measure of deterrence on social behaviors. However, in modern life, there is no longer a measurable deterrence felt in the public consciousness. Like a magnet that is too far from a piece of iron to draw the metal toward it, the distance between the commission of a crime and a death penalty execution has diminished deterrence in all but theoretical discussions.

Many feel that the death penalty contains a measure of justice — that criminals "deserve" to die, and that society "deserves" to see justice served through the death of the convicted. Those who present this argument also do so largely on theoretical terms. Often, those who espouse the death penalty on the basis of justice have their philosophical roots in religious traditions and seek to use sacred texts as the foundation of their position. However, in today's world, a significant portion of society does not see itself as strictly adhering to a particular religious group. Religion is still highly honored in the nation, but religious practices tend to be tempered by social pressures rather than challenge them. As a result, the religious argument for the death penalty is finding fewer supporters.

Modern and postmodern culture questions whether we, as a people, want to be known as a society that must seek retribution in order to feel good about itself. In the case of the death penalty, many in our society have difficulty personally identifying with a system that cannot work toward the rehabilitation of criminals. Since modern social justice theory arose in the early twentieth century, individuals inside and outside of the criminal justice system have worked to develop a system that addresses the root causes of crime and moves people toward rehabilitation, rather than settling for punishment or retribution as socially acceptable goals.

Finally, the rising demands on our prison system to house, feed, and care for an ever-growing prison population have created significant economic pressures. These economic realities have forced those in the criminal justice system to consider carefully the costs and benefits of incarceration.

This paper will evaluate a number of modern factors regarding the death penalty debate. First, we will examine social and psychological theories regarding crime. The theories behind crime serve as a foundation because, if the criminal justice system is to correct or rehabilitate those who are incarcerated, it must have an accurate diagnosis of the problem. In this section, we will consider some of the arguments for the death penalty and some against.

Second, we will examine the issue of deterrence. Deterrence is measured in two different aspects. The first is retribution — society seeks justice by exacting a punishment from the criminal. The second is prevention — society hopes to diminish the occurrence of capital crimes by attaching a high cost to those actions. The issue of deterrence revolves around influencing a person to change a behavioral choice because a high personal cost will be applied to them. In this case, that cost is the loss of their own life.

Finally, we will examine alternative theories. Society must have a plan for addressing criminal behaviors, and the theory of restorative justice is one such framework. Restorative Justice (RJ) insists that the criminal must repay both the individual victim and society for his or her crime. RJ is built on the foundations of repentance and restitution — values that also have roots in religious ethics. By engaging the individual accused of a crime in a process of restitution, RJ believes that both the offender and society as a whole can move toward healing and restoration.

According to Bedau (1964), there are three current social theories that support the idea of capital punishment. Primary support for the death penalty tends to come from law enforcement groups — that is, the police and prosecutors. Their position is built on the belief that society has the right to exact retribution from lawbreakers. They believe that the best way to do this with murderers and other violent criminals is through capital punishment, and these groups tend to defend the view that the death penalty is the only effective deterrent for capital and serious crimes.

Social Theory Supporting and Opposing the Death Penalty

A secondary line of support for the death penalty arises from some theologians. Whereas police officers rely mainly on their personal experiences with criminals to support their claims, these theologians rest their case primarily on biblical interpretation and religious dogma. Reverend Jacob Vellenga is representative of this outlook:

"Capital punishment is a controversial issue upon which good people are divided, both having high motives in their respective convictions. But capital punishment should not be classified with social evils like segregation, racketeering, liquor traffic, and gambling. These evils are clearly antisocial, while capital punishment is a matter of jurisprudence established for the common good and benefit of society. Those favoring capital punishment are not to be stigmatized as heartless, vengeful, and lacking in mercy, but are to be respected as advocating that which is best for society as a whole. When we stand for the common good, we must of necessity be strongly opposed to that behavior which is contrary to the common good. From time immemorial the conviction of good society has been that life is sacred, and he who violates the sacredness of life through murder must pay the supreme penalty. This ancient belief is well expressed in Scripture: 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image' (Gen. 9:5–6, RSV). Life is sacred. He who violates the law must pay the supreme penalty, just because life is sacred. Life is sacred since God made man in His image. There is a distinction here between murder and penalty." (Vellenga, 1959)

Only a century ago, when our nation was considerably more religious in both practice and social paradigm, this kind of argument was dominant among those favoring the death penalty. Religious people understood and believed that a measure of justice and punishment for wrong behavior was an important foundational principle on which civilized society was built. Orthodox Presbyterian and Congregationalist clergymen constantly advanced this perspective against the more humanistic theology pressed by Unitarians, Universalists, and Quakers. Because this argument was once so important, and has by no means disappeared today, it belongs at the head of any survey of pro–death penalty thought.

Finally, a sophisticated and moderate defense of capital punishment has been constructed by secular moralists. These individuals do not turn to religious writings to support their beliefs, nor do they resort to a position of simple retribution. Even so, modern times have all but silenced the voices of previous generations who lobbied for the death penalty on the basis of social theory. Very few correctional officials have risen to defend capital punishment in recent years, and few prison officials with responsibilities that include capital punishment uphold the need for executions. A larger majority of contemporary psychiatrists, criminologists, penologists, and social workers have become opposed to the death penalty. The result is that, in recent decades, there has been nothing approaching a full-scale justification of capital punishment from the standpoint of modern social science — in marked contrast to the writings produced fifty to one hundred years prior.

A dichotomy currently exists within the criminal justice system between those who are on the outside — responsible for sending criminals into the penal system — and those who work inside penal facilities, caring for criminals. The difference in opinion revolves mostly around the gap between theory and practice. On the outside, looking in, law enforcement officials and judges feel that incarcerating a criminal is an act of responsibility toward the community at large. The community must be protected, and the criminal must be punished for his or her deeds. On the inside of the walls, however, officials and researchers observe that the stated goals of justice and deterrence have not been achieved through capital punishment.

Donal MacNamara, in his 1961 piece against capital punishment, cited ten distinct reasons why capital punishment should be opposed by modern society. Although he was writing for the Church of Christ as a minister, his argument was based on social realities, and only one reason was grounded in religious doctrine. His reasons include:

1. Capital punishment is criminologically unsound — it is the antithesis of the rehabilitative ideal.
2. Capital punishment is morally and ethically unacceptable. The law of God is "Thou shalt not kill," and every system of ethics and code of morals echoes this injunction.
3. Capital punishment has demonstrably failed to accomplish its stated objectives, in that it neither deters nor prevents recurrent crime.
4. Capital punishment in the United States has been and continues to be prejudicially and inconsistently applied, with a vast majority of those executed belonging to one racial minority.
5. Innocent people have been executed.
6. There are effective alternative penalties, and the argument that the only option is no punishment is fallacious.
7. Police and prison officers are safer in non–death penalty states, and as a result, prison wardens overwhelmingly support abolition of the death penalty. (Taken from MacNamara, 1961)

MacNamara's final reasons include some questionable data, but as can be seen from this list, there is an extensive social basis for reconsidering the validity of capital punishment.

From a religious perspective, many ministers have come out against the death penalty on the basis of other biblical references and a more socially oriented interpretation of religious teachings. The heart of their message is belief in every person's capacity for change, and in the universal application of God's goodness and forgiveness. These groups oppose capital punishment as an unjust action and as the expression of an extreme justice system, not as an act grounded in religious ethics. In the following statement, a number of religious organizations formalized their opposition to the death penalty:

"Because the Christian wholeheartedly supports the emphasis in modern penology upon the process of creative, redemptive rehabilitation rather than on punitive and primitive retribution, and because the deterrent effects of capital punishment are not supported by available evidence, and because the death penalty tends to brutalize the human spirit and the society which condones it, and because human agencies of legal justice are fallible, permitting the possibility of the executing of the innocent, we, therefore, recommend the abolition of capital punishment and the re-evaluation of the parole system relative to such cases." (Friends Conference, 1961)

Retribution against the criminal no longer plays the predominant role it once did. In the past, the criminal faced a sure and swift execution of the punishment enacted against them, and when a potential criminal knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that action A would lead to Reaction B, that person was likely to allow Reaction B to influence their behavior. However, in America's modern justice system, which grinds ever so slowly, Reaction B can be removed or even eliminated from the causal chain by years of delay. When the potential criminal has no assurance of punishment, he or she feels no deterrence. Unfortunately, the effect of this slow process is that deterrence is all but removed from the concept of capital punishment.

Conclusion

Capital punishment carries with it a sense of finality and unforgiveness that modern society has a difficult time accepting. Today's social systems want to see justice and restoration, but also hope for rehabilitation. With the increasing costs associated with prolonged incarceration, our society needs to examine the purpose of capital punishment and reconnect the goals of social justice to the decisions made in courts and in political policy, in order to continue to justify — or ultimately to reconsider — the practice of capital punishment.