Theoretical Perspectives on the Death Penalty

Overview of Social Theory and the Death Penalty

According to Aguirre and Baker (1993), support for the death penalty has steadily increased since the 1960s, particularly for individuals convicted of murder, as documented in Gallup Reports (p. 150). Despite this trend, capital punishment is often considered one of the most "contentious public policy debates in the US" (Galiher & Galiher, p. 307). There are claims and counterclaims regarding the death penalty that social theorists have well documented in an attempt to identify whether capital punishment is just, and whether it should be continued or abolished. Many of those who support the death penalty state that they would continue to support it whether or not it actually deterred crime (Aguirre & Baker, 1993; Galiher & Galiher, 2001).

Proponents often argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Social constructionist theorists suggest that human beings construct their own reality and that criminal behavior results from a lack of conformity or from cultural conflict (Galiher & Galiher, 2001). Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that people attempt to avoid inconsistency through "selective perception," and that disagreements often persist because people vary in their assessments of how effective the death penalty is (Galiher & Galiher, 2001). Many theorists simply apply commonsense theory, which holds that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime, regardless of whether empirical evidence confirms this (Galiher & Galiher, 2001).

Much of the literature that does not support the deterrence viewpoint was, according to some theorists, published "by liberal social scientists opposed to capital punishment" and therefore may not be ideologically neutral nor conclusive (Galiher & Galiher, 2001). Of course, an equal number of supporters publish data that reflects their own biases. This is part of the reason the debate over capital punishment has been so long-standing. Legislators, citizens, and social theorists alike have struggled to reach consensus on whether capital punishment is justified or effective. There are simply too many competing interpretations of the issue, and it is unlikely that this will change over time.

Symbolic Interactionism and the Death Penalty

One major theoretical perspective explaining support for the death penalty is symbolic interactionism. Interactionist theorists believe that human beings continually adjust their behavior in response to others because they interpret or "denote" those actions symbolically, treating them as meaningful rather than purely mechanical (McClelland, 2000). According to this theory, people habitually regard their own personas as symbolic performances and understand individuals as capable of constructing their social world, rather than as passive recipients of social forces (McClelland, 2000). "Organized and patterned interactions" should, under this framework, dictate social order. People essentially create their own reality; hence, anyone committing murder creates a negative reality for themselves and deserves punishment, since action breeds reaction (Ulmer, 2003). Symbolic interaction theories are sometimes referred to as labeling theories, suggesting that certain actions are inherently wrong and therefore warrant punishment.

The death penalty is not "color blind" (Aguirre & Baker, p. 150). Studies have shown that white persons are more likely than Black persons to support the death penalty. From a symbolic perspective, some studies suggest that white persons' support "is a form of symbolic racism" (Aguirre & Baker, 1993; Jelen, 1990). Still others argue that certain social rules and codes are transmitted through socialization and govern how people should act. These same rules socialize most people to avoid crime because law-abiding conduct is normalized and valued in society as a whole (Gamson, 1988). Negative behaviors should be restricted and controlled, a function the death penalty is said to serve.

The functionalist theoretical approach to the death penalty is the longest-standing explanation for why capital punishment is maintained. Simply put, the death penalty serves a function. The functionalist approach suggests that the death penalty fulfills a specific purpose — namely, deterring crime (Weisberg, 2003; Gamson, 1988). This may also be described as a manifest function. Unfortunately, this argument is somewhat undermined by the available evidence, as there is little hard data supporting the notion that the death penalty successfully deters crime. In this case, a functionalist may instead look for latent functions the death penalty might serve, including retribution or victim appeasement (Weisberg, 2003).