Criminology - Research essay on capital punishment

Evidence determining the effect capital punishment has on criminal behaviour is somewhat questionable. However in saying this, the deviation between the two hypothesis of research must be considered. As significant reasons against tolerating the death penalty appear to outweigh the ambiguity of the deterrence effect, it cannot be used to justify capital punishment.

Right to Kill?
Killing is a destructive act and those who manifest such gruesome conduct must be looked down upon, even if the killer is the state. Life is priceless - who can and cannot live should not be determined by the state. Although crime, in particular murder, is offensive, two wrongs do not make a right. Therefore, those who cause scandal to arise in society, should not have the ability to undermine compassion, mercy and forgiveness that the state curtails.  This leaves us questioning, how can we face the injustice in executing criminals if there is no sound evidence that this will save innocent lives by deterring criminal behaviour in the future? Executions do not only devalue human life, they “demonstrate that it is correct and appropriate to kill those who have greatly offended us”.

Incorrect Sentencing
There is always a possibility of human error or judgment when dealing with any criminal justice system. A decision may fall short of justice, as once the death sentence has been executed, it is too late to compensate the victim for a miscarriage of justice. This is illustrated in the case of Timothy Evans, who was hung in 1950 for murders that were consequently found to have been committed by John Christie. In Australia, with the sentence of life imprisonment currently imposed on those convicted of murder, those wrongly accused have subsequently been released and pardoned.

Between 1900 and 1985, innocent lives were taken due to 23 fallacious executions taking place. Although this may not seem like a large number for injustice to be ascertained, it represents a significant number of lives and families destroyed. It has been proposed that capital punishment should not be reintroduced, as the errancy of human judgment is a “self destructive failure of nerve”. As research suggests, these risks cannot be ignored and safeguards have been imposed in the past in order to diminish the number of unwarranted executions, however the risk was not eradicated. Ledewitz expresses,  “if the empirical effect of deterrence is uncertain, and the pervasiveness of the mistake unknown, deterrence cannot serve to justify the death penalty”. Given the notion of irreversibility and the risk of specious conviction, I allege that this sufficiently outweighs the possibility of any deterrence. As a result of the “severity and irreversibility of the death penalty”, plausible arguments would need to be made in order to justify reintroducing capital punishment as a means of deterring criminal behaviour.

Recommendations
Although the death penalty will ultimately disenable those from conducting further criminal activity, it is an excessive form of punishment and there is insufficient evidence to prove deterrence will arise from executions. Although society purports to focus on retribution rather than rehabilitation, a life sentence without parole arguably provides a punishment as severe as the death penalty, discarding the moral costs associated with taking individual lives. This was confirmed in a recent survey of death-row inmates, where a majority believed that life without parole was a harsher punishment than the death sentence. Therefore, execution is not only immoral, but also an unnecessary means of satisfying society’s thrift for revenge. Permanently extinguishing the life of criminals by taking away the prospect of release, constitutes another form of death. Life without parole signifies a sufficient punishment, without physically incapacitating criminals.

There are two justifications present which encourage a life sentence without parole to be a sufficient means of punishment. Firstly, reoffending may be an issue worth considering. Murder, being one of the most heinous crimes in society, will be given specific attention to. Acting on information gathered within Australia, the majority of murderers released behaved appropriately and were not likely to misbehave upon their release. If these corroborated facts are correct, life imprisonment appears to be a sufficient means of deterring criminal minds.

Furthermore, rehabilitation is not achieved through capital punishment.  People change with time and this may apply to criminals who can change their attitudes towards crime through an ‘ageing process’. It seems unjust to deny this chance to those individuals who commit crime, by affording them the death penalty. Instead, prisoners have the opportunity to be released back into society, without posing any risk to the welfare of the community.

Without an informed judgment which considers the costs and benefits of capital punishment, this policy cannot be considered to alleviate the social problem of criminal behaviour.  Although some commentators have suggested that this policy may discourage further criminal activity, there is no adherent research determining this deterrent effect. On the contrary, arguments have been made suggesting that capital punishment may increase crime rates as these acts of execution spur violence. The costs and confrontation that capital punishment advocate are also undesirably high. Not only is there a chance of misapplication, placing innocent lives at risk, but killing is a destructive force that the state should have no such right to. Based on the evidence available, the application of life sentence without parole should suffice society’s thrift for revenge without facing any moral dilemma. Although it stands that those conducting anti-social behaviour should be rightly punished, there are no reasons for this to be carried out through capital punishment. As the death penalty presents a barbaric form of penal measure, simply creating a chaotic atmosphere accepting of violence, the policy should not be reintroduced. The deterrent effect of this policy cannot be proven, whilst it remains incompatible with human rights in contemporary society.

REFERENCE LIST

Australian Institute of Criminology, Capital Punishment: Report 3 in Trends and Issues (February 1987).

Bowers, W, Pierce, G, and McDevitt, J, Legal Homicide: Death as Punishment in America (1984), 333.

Bruce Ledewitz and Ernest Van den Haag, ‘The Morality of Capital Punishment: An Exchange’ (1991) 29 Duquesne Law Review 719, 727.

Catherine Appleton and Brent Grover, ‘The Pros and Cons of Life Without Parole’ (2007) 47 British Journal of Criminology 597.

Cesare Beccaria, On crimes and Punishments, (Bobbs-Merrill, 1963)

Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet, ‘Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases’ (1987-88) 40 Stanford Law Review 21.

Joanna Shepherd, ‘Deterrence v Brutalization: Capital Punishment’s Differing Impacts Among States’ (2004) Working Paper Series, Emory School of Law, 33.

John Cochran, Mitchell Chamlin and Mark Seth, ‘Deterrence or Brutalisation? An Impact Assessment of Oklahoma’s Return to Capital Punishment’ (1994) 32 Criminology 107.

John Rutledge, ‘The Definitive Inhumanity of Capital Punishment’ (1998) 20 Whittier Law Review 283, 310.

Leon Sheleff, Ultimate Penalties: Capital Punishment, Life Imprisonment, Physical Torture (1987), 138.

Michael Radelet and Ronald Akers, ‘Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of Experts” (1996) 87 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1, 8.

Ruth Peterson and William Bailey, ‘Felony Murder and Capital Punishment: An Examination of the Deterrence Question’ (1991) 29 Criminology 367.

Stephen Hicks, ‘The Only Argument For Capital Punishment in Principle – A Frank Appraisal’ (1991) 18 American Journal of Criminal Law 333.

Stephen Markman and Paul Cassell, ‘Protecting the Innocent’ (1998-99) 41 Stanley Law Review 121, 138.

William Bailey, ‘Deterrence, Brutalisation and the Death Penalty’ (1998) 36 Criminology 711, 711.

William Bailey and Ruth Peterson, ‘Murder and Capital Punishment: A Monthly Time Series Analysis of Execution Publicity’ (1989) 54 American Sociological Review 722.

William Bowers and Glenn Pierce, ‘Deterrence or Brutalisation? What is the Effect of Executions?’ (1980) 26 Crime and Delinquency 453, 456.

Zhiqiang Lui, ‘Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Hypothesis: Some New Insights and Empirical Evidence’ (2004) 30 Eastern Economics Journal 237.

---