research paper

Capital punishment is the imposition of the death penalty on persons condemned of a crime. (Americana, 596) Killing condemned criminals has long been a type of criminal punishment in the United States. Capital punishment has been a punishment for brutal offenses from the initial stages of documented history. The first evidence of death penalty in the United States dates back to the colonial period in 1608 in Jamestown. There is no other public policy matter connected to management of crime, which has been reviewed and evaluated in higher degree than the death penalty.
The truth is that the argument is much greater than an issue of different viewpoints, morality, ethics and values. (Potter, 2000) Though its application has constantly differed from one state to the other, it was in vogue on a regular basis right through most of our times past until 1967, when a short-term prohibition was enforced while the Supreme Court analyzed its constitutionality.
During 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Furman v. Georgia stating that the death penalty policies of 39 states were not constitutional. This judgment affirmed that capital punishment gave “brutal and bizarre punishment” under the current state laws. (Policy Debate: Is the death penalty an efficient crime) However, in four years following the Furman decision, many people had been given the death sentence in light of the new death penalty ruling written to render assistance to judges while sentencing. These rules normally need a two-stage trial process, where the judge first finds out the offense and innocence and then decides in favor of detention for life or death sentence based on the gravity of the situation. (Deterrence and Incapacitation) In Gregg v Georgia, 1976, the Supreme Court said that state death penalty acts could be constitutional if these acts gave unambiguous and objective principles in which the death penalty might be applied. Thirty-eight states currently have that type of functional death penalty laws. However, for the states having the death penalty, it has been a subject of discussion for several years. Does death penalty in fact prevent crime and killings? Among the principal objectives of punishment for crimes are avoidance, preclusion, rehabilitation and payback. Among the four, avoidance is regarded as the most vital, because hypothetically, it can have the largest influence on society at large. Many researchers have questioned if the death sentence is any more effective for preventing crime than life-imprisonment. Despite these studies, prosecutors commonly side in favor of the death penalty by insisting that the death penalty surely prevents crime. Others debate that no criminal punishment can prevent crime, and for the death sentence to be operative, the prospective offender should consider its consequences. (Dayan, 2002). The argument regarding the death penalty contains a debate on a range of principled, philosophical, moral and financial matters. Advocates of the death penalty take a stand that justice necessitates capital punishment in particular matters and the idea of an “eye for an eye” stems from the country’s shared religious principles. They go on to argue that a death sentence can prevent capital crimes and perhaps spare lives in the process. Apart from any restraining causes, followers maintain their viewpoint that an extra effect is there--executed lawbreakers will not repeat committing one more capital offense. The primary causes of the hardliners favoring the death penalty are for taking revenge, to prevent other like crimes and for punishment. They are most worried for the security of the society about treacherous offenders. Despite this, the death penalty is not a superior type of criminal punishment for a lot of causes: it is morally erroneous, it never acts as a preventive for crime, it is irrevocable and can be imposed on innocent persons, it is costlier than imprisonment and condemned people usually employ the procedure of appealing the verdict and there is no mechanism to make compensation to the sufferer and/or the sufferer’s family. “People supporting the death penalty agree that the death penalty is a remnant of savage times, but since the act of murder in itself is savagery, they assert that death is the appropriate punishment for it” (Bedau, 1988)
Hardliners for the most part favor this vengeful attitude and consider that execution is the sole means to gratify the general public and also themselves. Who doesn’t become pleased to learn for example, when someone robs you of ten dollars and he/she in turn meets the same fate? Hardliners think in the same manner about the murderers who are awaiting a death sentence. As far as they are concerned, the offender invited his punishment upon himself; they deserve what they receive. When the supporters of the death penalty are told that capital punishment is a dreadful culmination of a human life, most reply that there are degrees, but that it is sadder for the innocent to have his life taken away than it is for the State to take the life of an offender condemned in a capital offense. (Bedau, 1988) Advocates of the death penalty hold that fear of loss of one’s life prevents individuals from committing crimes. They also consider that if connected to particular offenses, the penalty of death takes on a positive moral spin by putting an emphasis on certain crimes such as homicide, followed by attitudes of aversion to such acts. Maybe this is the desired objective of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It creates constitutional processes for the imposition of the death penalty for federal offenses. It relates to federal laws, which earlier had the death penalty and generated a lot of new capital offenses. (Bedau, 1988)
As an outcome of the Act, the death penalty might be enforced on about sixty federal offenses. Recently included capital offenses take into account the killing of a federal inmate with a life term, and drive by shootings in the commission of certain offenses such as drug trafficking. Advocates of capital punishment believe that making ideal citizens and a superior society occurs by terror and threats. Hardliners never consider the death penalty as morally incorrect. In their case, the most probable source of constitutional problems with capital punishment is banning “cruel and unusual punishment” also known as the Eighth Amendment. When told by the opposing side that the death penalty is gruesome, heartless and degrading, a majority of the supporter’s debate that the crime of murder is also. In fact, some hardliners believe execution is more generous than life imprisonment because it is fast and immediate. Those who favor capital punishment feel that making the convict experience suffering in prison for the remaining part of his life is more tormenting and brutal than execution. In the fundamental views of the supporters, jailing is not enough protection against the future activities of the criminals as it gives the probability of running away and release on parole. “We consider that criminals should pay for their crimes with their lives, and we believe the survivors of the world they dishonored, may rightfully exact that compensation, as we are also sufferers of their actions” (Bedau, 1988)
The American citizens have for a long time supported the death penalty for convicted killers, and this support continues to increase. In a 1981 Gallup Poll, two-thirds of the American public expressed support for capital punishment. The support increased to 72 percent in 1985, to 76 percent in 1991, and to 80 percent in 1994. The explanation put forward was that killers should be executed as punishment for killing somebody. On the flip side of the coin, a majority of the community and political approval for the death penalty is based on its assumed value as a common deterrent: capital punishment is necessary for us to persuade potential killers to keep from killing people. (Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts) Presently, the states not having the death penalty are Maine, Kansas, Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Jersey, and North Dakota.
Deterrence is dependent not only on the type of punishment, but also of its surety and swiftness. The standpoint most frequently illustrated in favor of death penalty is that the fear of execution controls criminal conduct more efficiently than putting someone behind bars does. As reasonable as this assertion might appear, in real life, a death sentence is unsuccessful as a deterrent for many cases. (Dieter, 1995) Yet, in the matter of killing a police officer, the death penalty is not a deterrent. Texas, until now the leader in death penalty cases, over the last six years has also been the foremost state regarding the killing of police officers. In contrast, during the previous year, New York, without death penalty, had about one third as many officers killed as Texas. A look at the restraint value of capital punishment reported in the Journal of Social Issues made an assessment of a 13-year period of police murders. The researchers came to the conclusion: We did not find any reliable substantiation that the death penalty decreased the killing of policemen during the 1976-1989 period. Police do not seem to have benefitted for an additional means of safeguarding against murder by the death penalty. (Dieter, 1995)
Figures from the FBI Uniform Crime Report say, in areas of the country not having the death sentence, things are safer for policemen. The greatest peril for officers is the south, which is responsible for 80% of all executions. From the period 1989-1998, 268 law enforcement officers were murdered in the south, 125 in the western region, 121 in the Midwest area and 80 in the northeastern part, the area with the lowest execution rate- fewer than 1%. The three important states where law enforcement officers were murdered in 1988 were California, the state having the largest death row population; Texas, the state having the most executions since 1976; and Florida, the state which stands in the third position in executions and in death row population. (Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty)
As it relates to crime in general, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent to crime to society in general. Numerous expert and studies have stressed the deficiency of the relationship between the risks of the death penalty and the incidence of violent criminal activities. (Meador 1975) Isaac Ehrlich’s research about the deterrent effect of capital punishment in America indicates this. It extends up to 25 years from 1957-1982, and reveals that in the initial year the research was done, there were 8,060 killings in 1957 and 65 executions. But in the final year of the study, there were 22,520 murders committed and 1 execution done.
The main point of view against the death sentence – pronounced by the state –are usually for the causes given below: First, a number of people consider that it is not a deterrent against offenses and quote figures revealing that states having stopped death sentences have lesser rates of murder in general. Several other’s viewpoint that the hazard of taking the life of a person not guilty offsets all other aspects. There are many those who assert that it would be cheaper to confine convicted murders in prison than imposing death sentences due to the eccentricity of our judicial setup. Several even state that a large number of death-sentenced prisoners are impoverished and belong to the minority community; hence the structure is innately unjust. Even more people consider that a rehabilitation program can be good for the killers. Lastly, a small number opposing the death penalty genuinely consider that the method of execution per se is a type of murder, when the state looking for “vengeance” is ethically no more superior than the damned murders. (Kalellis, 2004)
Adversaries of capital punishment state the death penalty is unnecessary. Other nations that have banned death penalty long ago have not seen any increase in the numbers of murders. The idea remains that the death penalty does not prevent crime. Nations like Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, and Belgium have not performed any executions since the initial part of last century, but these nations have not seen any rise in rates of crimes (Block, 1983). For many adversaries, capital punishment is a euphemism for legalized killing of people and none, not even the State, has the power to act like God.
Those against the death penalty will argue that though it is considered to be existent as prevention for crime, in actual practice, it does not have any influence on crime at all. Present day advocates of capital punishment no longer consider the death penalty as a preventive, but as an appropriate punishment for crime, a change from the approach from the earlier generations (Norman, 1994). Earlier the prevention argument laid the burden of proof on the advocates of the death penalty, but of late this debate has become less effective because of what according to a source, in the present years the appeal of prevention has been replaced by a candid wish for what large majorities see as just revenge. (Dionne, 1990)
Detractors of the death penalty regard the death penalty as an inadequate type of punishment, as it is unkind and brutal. No evidence exists that it prevents aggressive crime, it can be imposed on persons not guilty of any offence, the expensive procedure of appealing makes the death penalty expensive and having imposed the death penalty, the ability to make compensation to the victim and/or the victim’s family does not take place. The crux of the abolitionist viewpoint is this: The death penalty has been a disgusting failure. Outside its dreadfulness and coarseness, it has failed to safeguard the innocent or prevented the evil. The continuing exhibition of openly approved killing has demeaned human life and self-esteem without the redeeming charm that comes from justice delivered quickly, consistently and compassionately. (Draper, 1985)
As the acceptance of the death penalty slows from disappointment of the people over violent offenses, one of the most accepted arguments in support of the death penalty is its accepted importance as a prevention issue. The common perception is that we want capital punishment to stop people from committing murder. Politicians frequently refer to the prevention factor as the explanation of the death penalty. When Governor George Pataki signed a regulation that restored the death penalty in New York during 1995, he declared: This bill will be saving lives. Ex-Governor William Weld, in his efforts to restore the death penalty in Massachusetts said: I feel capital punishment is a preventive measure. However, more scientific approaches appear to infer that capital punishment is not a preventive. (The Gospel of Life vs. the Death Penalty - Part II)
Abundance of well-established, scientifically recorded details is available with the general public and lawmakers. This information has emerged from examinations, which have been repeated many times and have been prone to the most scrupulous scientific review procedures in place. These particulars cannot be argued. In total, it is reasonable to say that to a point that more than exceeds the most scrupulous standard of proof in any court of America that the death penalty, as currently created and governed, is appallingly bad public policy. In research employing totally separate methodologies, at different periods, in different places, creating research questions in different manners, the facts are unassailable and static. The scientifically established facts of the death penalty are obvious that death penalty has no deterrent value to society. No proof sustaining either a general preventive or a specific preventive impact exists and no proof supporting a deterrent exists. The death penalty does not obtain any crime control in any manner. (Potter, 2000)
It is usually stated that the American citizen tremendously supports capital punishment. Further analysis of public perception shows that a majority of Americans favor an option; they would counter the death sentence if condemned murderers were given life sentences without possibility of parole and were required to render certain types of economic compensation. In the opinion of Bedau, the media in general makes it appear like Americans are tremendously in favor of the death penalty. Still, if Americans had to make a choice between the death penalty and life imprisonment without parole and the condemned had to do an occupation instead of sitting idle in a prison cell; in that case they would not favor the death penalty. As stated in a Field Institute survey, only 26 percent of the American population would be in favor of the death penalty if condemned killers were compulsorily given life imprisonment with some compensation. (Blumstein; Cohen, 1978)
A countrywide assessment in 1993 showed that though 77% of the public supports capital punishment, the numbers decreases to 56% if the option is life with parole entitlement before 25 years behind bars. The support even decreases further, to 49%, if the choice becomes no parole under any circumstances. And when it is chosen as no parole coupled with compensation, it goes down to 41%. A small number of the American public would subscribe to the death penalty if presented with such choices. (Dieter, 1993) In its detailed findings on the effects of criminal sanctions on crime statistics, the National Academy of Sciences came to the conclusion: It appears ridiculous to us in basing conclusions on the use of the death penalty on similar delicate and unsure outcomes. Besides, several reasonable clarifications for these results accept the theory that the death penalty prevents murder. (Blumstein; Nagin, 1975)
In addition to that, recorded cases are available wherein the death sentence in fact encouraged the capital crimes it was expected to prevent. These contain examples of the so-called suicide-by-execution syndrome- people who wished to expire, but were afraid to kill themselves and performed murder so that the state would take their lives. (West; Diamond, 1976) Though imposing the death penalty ensures that the convicted person will be unable to commit any crimes, it does not possess a verifiable preventive effect on other people. (Bedau, 1988) Researchers inspected the jail and post-release data of 533 inmates on death row in 1972 whose judgment was lowered to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court’s judgment in ‘Furman’. This study revealed that seven had done another murder. But the identical study revealed that in four other cases, a blameless man had been sentenced to death. (Marquart; Sorensen, 1989)
Adversaries of capital punishment frequently argue in favor of life imprisonment as a substitute to the death penalty, as imprisonment typically is cheaper and could be overturned if acquitting proof is found afterwards. Using life imprisonment in place of capital punishment would free up funds that could be dedicated to other effective modes of crime prevention. People who are convicted of capital crimes often possess less education and might not have enough information regarding the possibilities of detection and condemnation to sensibly estimate the expenses and profits involved with capital crimes. The restraining effect in this matter might be little or absent. The discrepancy in the manner of treatment of minorities and persons having fewer earnings in the death penalty also raises several issues of evenhandedness. (Allen, 2002)
The University of Columbia on June 11, 2000 published a research paper, which revealed that among 4,578 death penalty petitions in the U.S. within 1973 and 1995, a total of two-thirds were granted. In the opinion of Professor James Liebman, the main writer, several petitions were approved since the originals had severe defects. The reality that lives of innocent people have been and will continue to be taken by the death penalty is debated in this nation. Governor George Ryan of Illinois and Governor Parris Glendening of Maryland both enforced suspension of capital punishment throughout the state. On 1 July 2002 U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff gave the verdict that the Federal Penalty Act was unconstitutional due to an unwarranted chance of killing innocent persons, and the Supreme Court even reminded us that during the current period an alarming number of prisoners on death row have been acquitted. Rivals debate that only a miniscule percentage of those condemned of capital crimes in reality are given the death penalty, and those who are executed have no funds or their cases are inadequately advocated. (Death penalty: Almanac of Policy Issues)
The legal expenses of the death penalty are very high. The amount expended on public defenders, district attorneys, judges, legal paperwork and separation of inmates on death row could without difficulty cover the expense of life-imprisonment; Time magazine stated in 1971 that the commutation of the death penalty of 15 Arkansas inmates saved the state roughly $1.5 million, and The Sacramento Bee calculated that California expended $1 billion on death-row cases between 1977 and 1993, just to execute two persons in that period. Time and again race is stated as a probable cause. For example, while African Americans only constituted around 13 percent of the U.S. population, they comprised 43% of the prisoners on death row in 1999, and a bit more than one-third of those were really executed that year. (Death penalty: Almanac of Policy Issues)
Detractors debate that increased rates of inaccuracies in the criminal justice system render it fairly probable to execute somebody who is innocent, making the state itself guilty of murder. From the period 1973 at least 88 persons on death row were freed after proof surfaced supporting their innocence. Those in favor state that there is no proof that any innocent person has ever been executed from the time death sentences were restored in 1977, and that freeing of innocent people on death row at that time was either due to legal technicalities or established that the system’s checks and balances functioned properly. (Death penalty: Almanac of Policy Issues)
Currently, the greatest complaint on the death penalty – People commit errors. Due to this, several innocent persons have been executed in this nation. Two distinct projects conducted in 1987 by The Stanford Law Review and Tufts University established that 350 people given the death sentence were proved to be innocent at a later stage, inclusive of 23 who were in fact executed. Wish to have some examples? Timothy Evans, who was executed resulting in a fury in Great Britain that eventually led to the banning of capital punishment there; Llyod Eldon Miller, awaiting death for 11 years in Illinois, found innocent a day before his execution was to take place; Freddie Pitts and Wilbert Lee, sentenced to be electrocuted in Florida in 1963, proven innocent in 1975 after 12 years in prison; Randal Dale Adams, having remained in a Texas prison for 12 years and James Richardson spending 25 years in a Florida jail, both on death row for crimes not committed by them, were released similar to Pitts and Lee though a suspension imposed by the court. At times the Government alters its stand: in 1977, the Supreme Court gave a ruling that capital punishment is excessively severe punishment for rape when already 455 men have already been sent to the gallows for the crime since 1930. (Allen, 2002)
Separate proof exist that counter the efficiency of capital punishment as a deterrent. During the 1930s the federal government, under the instruction of Jack Gibbs, examined the efficiency of the death penalty in preventing severe crime. The outcome of Gibbs exploration is that capital punishment did not prevent crimes. But during the 1970s Prof. Isaac Ehrlich came out through his research that capital punishment did not prevent crimes (Van den Haag, 1975). Several supporters of capital punishment stand their ground on his results, but what many of them have no knowledge of is that no one else besides Ehrlich has emerged with identical results (Blumstein, 1975). The inference, which the researchers have taken during the previous decade, is that the death penalty does not affect severe crime in any manner.
During January, 1995, Peter D. Hart Research Associates took up a nationwide opinion poll of arbitrarily chosen police chiefs in the United States. The chiefs had in the opinion poll the chance to convey the matters they think is truly effective in combating crime. They were asked where they ranked death penalty in their preference as far as being a preventive measure. The view of the police heads might be surprising to several lawmakers and to a majority of the general public.
The Hart Poll revealed that: Police chiefs categorized the death sentence as the very last method of decreasing brutal criminal activity, keeping it after restriction of drug abuse, increased police officers on the roads, lessening the technical blockades, extended verdicts, and a enhanced economy with increased employment; The death sentence was ranked as the least feasible manner for tackling offenses; Inadequate utilization of the death sentence is not taken to be a significant problem by most of the police chiefs; Improving families and surroundings, imposing penalties on the criminals quickly and certainly, curbing illegitimate drugs, and firearm control are regarded much more vital than the idea of capital punishment; Even though most of the police chiefs subscribe to death sentences conceptually, when asked to choose between sentences of life without parole and compensation against the death sentence, hardly 50% of the police chiefs support the death sentence; Police chiefs do not suppose that capital punishment brings down the number of murders considerably; Police chiefs do not consider that killers imagine the consequences prior to murder. Arguments about the death sentence divert Congress and state legislatures from concentrating on genuine answer to crime.
In total, while several police heads support the death sentence theoretically- a large number do not consider it to be an efficient instrument for law enforcement in actual practice. Among the reasons that some in law enforcement do not support capital punishment is because of the fact that they do not consider it to be a deterrent. Law enforcement officials consider that the most effectual prevention to an offense is swift and sure punishment. Police also wish to have greater control on illegal drugs, more autonomy for the adjudicators in criminal matters, more economic prosperity, and a decrease in the number of firearms in the hands of people. Escalating the capital punishment on the other side of the coin was not considered to have a greater influence on lessening of crime. More than two-thirds of the police chiefs did not think that capital punishment lowers the number of killings in any way. Around 67% stated that it was not a primary law enforcement tool. And more than 80% of the respondents stated that killers never consider the series of probable punishments prior to committing murders. (Dieter, 1995)
A finding by the New York Times in 2000 revealed that states not having the death penalty show decreased murder rates than states having imposed the death penalty. It has been carried in the Times that ten of the twelve states not having the death penalty show murder rates lower than the national average, while half of the states having the death penalty show rates above. In the preceding 20 years, the murder rates in states with the death penalty have been 48% - 101% more than in states not having capital punishment. “I consider Michigan took a prudent step 150 years back” said governor John Engler, referring to the state’s banning of the death penalty in 1846. He further stated that “we are surely proud for not having imposed capital punishment”.
In “Deterrence, Brutalization, and the Death Penalty: Another Examination of Oklahoma’s Return to Capital Punishment” a study by William Bailey theorized that if executions had a preventive influence in Oklahoma, it would be worthy of observation by comparison of murder rates and rates of categories of murder, like delinquent -murder, stranger theft-related murder, stranger non-delinquent murder, and murders resulting out of arguments, prior to and after recommencement of executions. Bailey studies the time between 1989 and 1991 for the total murders and its categories. Taking into consideration numerous variables, Bailey established that there was no substantiation for a deterrent effect. Harries and Derral Cheatwood undertook studies on the variations in murders and violent crime in 293 provinces. Provinces were matched in pairs based on the geographical situation, regional context, historical development, population and financial variables. (Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty)
The pairs shared an adjoining boundary, but varied on the imposition of the death penalty. The authors did not find any restraining effect of the death penalty at the county level comparing corresponding counties inside and outside states with the death penalty, having and not having death row population and having executions and not having executions. The authors found increased violent crime statistics in counties having capital punishment. Yet again, Authors John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer, and James Marquart analyzed executions in Texas within 1984 and 1997. They theorized that if a deterrent effect were to be present, it would be available in Texas due to the increased number of death sentences and executions in the state. (Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty)
With the use of samples in executions across the study and the relatively stable rate of murders in Texas, the writers did not find any proof of a deterrent effect. The report made its conclusion that the number of executions was not related to murder rates and also felony rates on the average. A survey of specialists from the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association revealed that the vast majority did not agree that capital punishment is an established deterrent to murder. More than 80% think the existing research does not approve a deterrent explanation for capital punishment. Likewise more than 75% of those polled do not consider that hiking the number of executions, or lowering the time on death row before execution, will bring about a common deterrent effect. The typical rates of murder per 100,000 population in 1999 in capital punishment states was 5.5, while the rates in states not having death penalty was a mere 3.6. (Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty)
In the last 10 years, the number of executions in the US has been on the rise whereas the murder rates have decreased. Some observers like W. Tucker in Wall St. Journal, June 21, 2002 have affirmed that the decline in murder rates is due to the executions. Nevertheless, in this decade, the murder rate in states not having the death penalty has stayed constantly lower than in the states having the death penalty. When there were gradually more executions, states not having the death penalty showed much better results than states having the death penalty in lowering their murder rates. The difference between the rates of murder in states having death penalty and non-death penalty states was higher. In 1990, the difference in the rates of murder within these two categories was 4%. (Deterrence: States without the Death Penalty Fared Better Over Past Decade, 2004)
By 2000, the rate of murder in the states having the death penalty was 35% higher compared to the rates in states not having capital punishment. During 2001, the difference between states not having death penalty and states having death penalty once again rose, reaching 37%. The figures for 2002 were 36%. (Deterrence: States without the Death Penalty Fared Better Over Past Decade, 2004) In the FBI’s Preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 2002, the rate of murder in the South raised by 2.1% whereas the murder rate in the Northeast came down by around 5%. The South is responsible for 82% of all executions since 1976; the Northeast stands for less than 1%. (Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty. The statement that the death penalty is more of a deterrent to crime as opposed to life imprisonment is false. In 1974, states having death penalty had murder rates that averaged 9.3 per 100,000 populations, whereas states not having it reported an average rate of 5.8. Not any of the states with the six minimum rates of murder had the death penalty. The last few decades had many researchers examining crime figures to corroborate that the death penalty affects the crime rate but without any success. After examining some of these works in 1976, the Supreme Court of United States did not find any conclusive proof that the death penalty prevented brutal crime. The United Nations had already concluded similarly in their 1968 report ‘Capital Punishment’ that noted: Analysis of the number of killings prior to after banning of the death penalty does not support the hypothesis that death penalty has a distinctive preventive effect. In no place has eradication been followed by an otherwise incomprehensible increase in the murder rate; in no area has reintroduction resulted by an otherwise incomprehensible fall in murder rate. (Allen, 2002)
It is apparent from the information offered that Capital Punishment is not the solution to our crime problem. It raises murder rates, and puts an end to the lives of people who were not destined to die. So, the questions remain, does Capital Punishment makes society safer and does it make our police officers safer? The answer appears to be a resounding NO. In fact it might be making things more hazardous. Capital punishment is defiance of civilian freedom, and is opposite the basic principles of our democratic system. Punishment is supposed to be for the safety of society, and for the removal from society of the offender. It claims to shield society by stopping the same criminals from repeating the same crimes, and by standing as a deterrent to other potential criminals. Capital punishment is a failure on these points.
Capital punishment does not prevent crimes. People engaged in killing employ caution to ensure that they are not detected; they devise strategies to ensure that they are not culpable for criminal acts. A person who is held for killing another person is generally somebody whose intention was not to murder initially. These people are placed in the category of crimes of passion. Crimes of passion are stated to be unlawful acts of persons that are not pre-planned and explode as a consequence of a state of wrath or annoyance. These activities generally arise from a spell of drunkenness or a temporary loss of reasoning that can be attributed to annoyance. The death penalty would reasonably prevent crime, but the difficulty remains that a majority of murderers are not preplanned and are not a consequence of reasoning. (Against Capital Punishment: A Summary of Arguments Presented at a Meeting of the Men’s International Theosophical League of Humanity, 1998)
Death Penalty certainly prevents the particular criminal from performing the crime again; but this is of very little consolation taking into consideration that murder is rarely a crime of repetitive acts, but one of solitary acts committed by different persons. The person whom we eliminate from the picture is not the man, who if allowed to live, might have probably risked our safety. As a deterrent to other murderers, similarly, the death penalty has shown a collapse, as might be visualized by comparing the criminal figures of countries where the punishment is functional with those nations where it has been abolished. Neither is the cause of this disappointment hard to find out. Murders are virtually committed in abrupt hysterics of craze or momentary madness, when no concern of explanation or self-interest can be tracked to the murderer. Besides, such doubts dampen the intended result of the death sentence – because of the normal vacillation and penchant for clemency of the judge and adjudicator, to the chances of amnesty and commutation – that this punishment is far less preventive than those punishments which, although less brutal, are also more sure.