Effectiveness of the death penalty

Running Head: Effectiveness of the Death Penalty Effectiveness of the Death Penalty [Writer`s Name] [Institution`s Name] Effectiveness of the Death Penalty The death penalty has become one of the most sensitive topics under public discussion with increasing demands from human rights organizations for its complete abolition. On the one hand the international opinion is increasing shifting towards a world without death penalty, on the other many nations and some states in the United States are not ready to abolish it and still consider it a strong toll in reducing the number murder cases. The history of crime in the United States and other parts of the world has proved that death penalty has always been an effective deterrent against it. The effectiveness of the death penalty is a reality. For the United States which is always criticized by many countries in the developed world and human rights organizations for its support to capital punishment, controlling crimes has always been a daunting task. Obviously the criticism of the country by its closest allies, especially its partners in Europe, — where nations cannot become components of either the Council of Europe or the European Union unless they agree to abolish death penalty — is an embarrassment. The major issue in the death penalty is that whether it is useful in reducing the cases of murder cases or not. The United Nations, Amnesty International and many other international organizations in their reports often criticize the United States for its support to capital punishment and the country has suffered a loss of prestige which is big blow to its image as a world leader. But the continuous application of death penalty in the country is not without a reason. And this shows that death penalty has its effectiveness in creating a society where people do not find it easy to hurt other people. Extensive empirical research has been carried out on the effectiveness of death penalty as a deterrent. Capital punishment has always been an interesting subject for legal experts and they have always tried to discover whether the death sentence serves a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment for murders and other heinous crimes. Cole and Smith (2006) examined arguments both in against and support of death penalty. According to them supporters of capital punishment argue that society should apply swift, severe punishments to people who are involved in heinous crimes to address the continuing problems of crime and violence. The authors find that supporters of death penalty want execution soon after the conviction and believe that this will result in greatest deterrent value. The author find following arguments in support of death penalty. "The death penalty deters criminals from committing violent acts. The death penalty achieves justice by paying killers back for their horrible crimes. The death penalty prevents criminals from doing further harm while on parole. The death penalty is less expensive than holding murderers in prison for life." (Cole & Smith 2006, 405) The arguments Cole and Smith examined in opposition to death penalty reject the effectiveness of this punishment. They say opponents of this punishment believe that it lingers a barbaric practice from a less civilized age. The arguments included: "No hard evidence proves that the death penalty is a deterrent. It is wrong for a government to participate in the intentional killing of citizens. The death penalty is applied in a discriminatory fashion. Innocent people have been sentenced to death. Some methods of execution are inhumane, causing painful, lingering deaths." (Cole & Smith 2006, 405) While ending a nationwide moratorium on capital punishment with the ruling in the famous Gregg v. Georgia case in the 1976, the US Supreme Court declared retribution and deterrence two important reason behind its decision for imposing death penalty. The court ruled in this case that state death penalty laws that include features as bifurcated trials separating the guilt and penalty phases, a list of aggravating and mitigating factors to decide just punishment, and other factors permitting guided jury discretion and appellate review of death sentences is according to the standards of the Eighth Amendment as determined in Furman v. Georgia. Claxton (2011) sees the capital punishment as one of the most enduring elements of legal system in the United States. He also calls it one of the most controversial elements of American legal system. "From the colonial era until this very day, its use as what presumably is society's ultimate punishment for criminal conduct has generated endless debate of ten akin to intellectual warfare. The debate is an amalgamation of constitutional analysis, theological reflections, moral imprecations, and sociological and demographic facts presumably (although perhaps not always) derived from legitimate research methodologies." (Claxton 2011, 1) Though the US Supreme Court in the Gregg v. Georgia case emphasized that the constitutionality of the death penalty does not depend on its effectiveness as a deterrent, the effectiveness of this punishment in controlling the crime rate cannot be ruled out. People in support of death penalty argue both that the deterrent effect of the punishment is clear. They are of the opinion that the people who sought abolition of death penalty in the Gregg v. Georgia case missed the point in their attempts to discount the deterrent effect. However, the Supreme Court too does not seem convinced on this point because it ruled: "There is no convincing empirical evidence either supporting or refuting the deterrent effect of capital punishment." (law2.umkc) Deterrent Effect of Death Penalty There are no two opinions that capital punishment is an effective deterrent against crime and the great support for the death penalty`s deterrent effect comes from statistical analysis. It appears that abolitionists have little time for investigating this issue. When they trouble to do so, they typically do little more than emphasize that the states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than states with the penalty. Harsher punishments play a very important role in reducing the crime rate in any society and it has long been demonstrated that the view that harsher penalties are effective is not based on illusion. Though this is also right that the punishment prescribed plays its major role in specific rather than in general prevention, harsher punishments create a feeling of fear in society against the commitment of heinous crime. This is also a reality that the general preventive objectives of harsher punishment are understood only within the bounds defined by specific prevention, and cannot go beyond them. However, their impact on society cannot be ruled out. The history of crime has witnessed that harsh punishments have always worked as important tools in preventing people from lawbreaking. Though death penalty affects only a very negligible proportion of potential lawbreakers, it has its effects on general public. Deterrence can be considered as the most important benefit of harsh punishments and the analysis that it has a general preventive and restraining force is one base that supports the principle that death penalty is essential. The effectiveness of death penalty in reducing the rate of crime is based on mythical notions. It is general argued that the rate of lower crime rate in a society is largely depended on the harshness of punishments it has for heinous crimes. This is the reason that despite all the opposition to capital punishment by the international human rights organizations and its abolition by a number of countries, a large number of legal experts are still in support of this punishment. Even though they agree that death penalty has little effect on potential lawbreakers and that its possibilities are limited, they are in favor of retaining it. A great support for death penalty rests on its presumed value as a general deterrent. It is generally argued that societies need the death penalty to encourage potential criminals to avoid engaging in homicides and other heinous crimes. Legal experts and politicians, particularly, are often quick to use some version of the deterrence rationale in their argument for more and quicker executions. Bailey (1978) examined the deterrence hypothesis of an inverse connection between the certainty and harshness of punishment and homicide rates. For the purpose he fitted the punishment and socio-demographic factors into a series of stepwise multiple regression analyses examining different models of the sanction-offense-rate connection. For these analyses, Bailey used three-stage regression procedure — first, introducing the socio-demographic variables into the analysis, second, the certainty of imprisonment factor was brought into regression; this was followed, third, in their relative order of importance, by the severity of imprisonment and execution rates. Bailey`s results found quite inconsistent with the deterrence argument. "First, after the socio-demographic factors were taken into consideration, severity of prison sentence and homicide rates proved to be only slightly negatively associated throughout the analysis. Second, and inconsistent with the deterrence hypothesis, certainty of imprisonment consistently proved to be either positively, or slightly negatively, associated with homicide rates. Third, no evidence whatsoever was found in support for the deterr...