Issues Surrounding Death Penalty

The Death Penalty
Your Name
Subject and Section
Professor’s Name
April 23, 2023
1 The Counterdeterrent or Brutalizing Effect
In Chapter 7 of this book, Bohm (2017) argues that the death penalty may have a counter-deterrent or brutalizing effect. Rather than deterring violent crimes, executions may increase the likelihood of such crimes. This is because executions could serve as a model for violent behavior, leading to a desensitization of individuals towards killing. As a result, instead of preventing violent crime, the death penalty may encourage it.
Additionally, studies provide empirical evidence to support the brutalizing effect. In particular, research shows that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those without it. Additionally, evidence suggests that executions can lead to a short-term increase in homicides. This finding is particularly significant as it undermines the effectiveness of the death penalty in deterring crime, which is often cited as one of the main justifications for the practice.
Bohm's argument raises severe concerns about the impact of the death penalty on society. If the practice does not effectively deter violent crime, it is difficult to justify its continued use. Moreover, if the death penalty has a counter-deterrent or brutalizing effect, it may be contributing to the problem of violent crime rather than solving it.
Given the evidence supporting the brutalizing effect, policymakers and the public need to reconsider using the death penalty to prevent violent crime. Instead, alternative strategies that address the root causes of violent crime, such as poverty, inequality, and lack of access to education and mental health services, may be more effective in reducing societal violence. Ultimately, the brutalizing effect serves as a critical reminder of the complexities of the death penalty and the need for a nuanced approach to addressing violent crime.
2 The Economic Costs of Capital Punishment versus Life Imprisonment
Another issue discussed by the author in the chapter highlights the economic costs associated with the death penalty compared to life imprisonment. Capital punishment is often more expensive due to the extensive appeals process, the cost of maintaining death row facilities, and the high litigation costs. For example, the author noted that “The death penalty costs California taxpayers $137 million a year, compared to only $11.5 million per year for a comparable system that sentenced the same inmates to life without parole (LWOP)” (Bohm, 2017). These factors contribute to the death penalty's significantly higher cost than life imprisonment.
In contrast, life imprisonment can be less costly because it does not involve the costly legal process required in death penalty cases. While the costs of long-term incarceration can be high, it is still less expensive than capital punishment. This is because the costs associated with the death penalty are not limited to just the legal proceedings but also include the expenses of maintaining death row facilities and providing extra security measures to prevent escapes or attacks on staff.
These economic considerations are critical, especially given the budget constraints that many states and localities face. Policymakers and the public must weigh the costs and benefits of the death penalty when considering whether to continue its use. It is essential to consider whether the potential benefits of the death penalty, such as deterrence and retribution, justify the additional expense.
Bohm's analysis highlights the need for policymakers to consider the economic costs of the death penalty carefully. While it may appear to be a harsher punishment, the expense of the death penalty can be substantial and may not be justifiable, given the potential benefits. Instead, policymakers and the public should explore alternative strategies, such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, that can achieve the same goals at a lower cost.
3 Errors in Capital Cases
Third, Bohm (2017) also draws attention to the risks of errors in capital cases, including the possibility of executing innocent individuals. According to the author, several factors contribute to these errors, including inadequate legal representation, law enforcement officials or prosecutor's misconduct, and unreliable witness testimonies. These factors can lead to wrongful convictions, and the irreversible nature of the death penalty raises significant concerns about the potential for miscarriages of justice.
The risks of errors in capital cases are too high, and they point to fundamental flaws in the death penalty system. Given the possibility of wrongful executions, it is difficult to justify the continued use of capital punishment. The possibility of such errors also raises questions about the reliability and fairness of the criminal justice system as a whole, as well as the effectiveness of the death penalty in achieving its intended goals.