Law
Topic:
Deterrence with the death penalty
Deterrence is commonly cited as a justification for the death penalty. Do you agree with this? Why or why not? Can you think of additional ways to address the issue of violent offender recidivism, especially in cases of violent crime that do not require the death penalty? Are these alternatives similarly suitable? Why or why not?
Deterrence with the death penalty
Deterrence is a theoretical idea build on the basis that if the state-imposed sanction costs tend to be severe enough, swift, and certain, it will discourage criminal activities. The essence of the theory is that people will restrain from engaging in the heinous crime that they had the intention of conducting if the threat of being executed in the future is sufficient. Different methods of deterrence exist; however, deterrence with the death penalty as a method of deterrence has developed intense debate in the criminal correctional sector. This paper provides reasoning in support of deterrence being cited as a justification for the death penalty. The paper also provides additional ways that can be used to address the issue of violent offender recidivism for crimes that do not merit the death penalty.
Punishment has always been used in society to discourage individuals from engaging in criminal actions. Prevention of murder is one of the most important aspects of crime prevention that society keeps high interest in. Therefore, most societies tend to provide the strongest punishment for crimes such as murder as a deterrence mechanism. The best option of preventing would-be murders from taking other individuals’ life is through sentencing to death and executing them, which makes them to think twice before killing since they will properly lose their life too. Several types of research have been conducted on the impact of the death penalty as a deterrence mechanism. Isaac Ehrlich’s research of 1973 concluded that the execution of one inmate convicted for murder resulted in the saving of seven lives since the death penalty deterred others from committing murder. The effectiveness of deterring crime cannot be separated from the death penalty, especially in recent studies, which have consistently linked the use of the death penalty with reduced murder rates in most states in the United States.
Another justification for the death penalty deterrence is based on the study that was conducted in the United States from 1979 to 2004, which established that each death penalty conducted correlated with about 74 fewer murders the year that followed. The study that was based on the FBI data sources indicated that as execution increased, there was a decrease in homicide cases. The decrease of executions corresponded with increased murders. The study indicates that the use of the death penalty in the early 1980s saw the drop in the number of murder crimes. In the late 1980s, the death penalty had stabilized to incorporate about 20 death penalties a year, which in turn increased crime (Summers & Adler, 2007). An increase in the death penalty was recorded throughout the 1990s, resulting in the number of numbers of murders to plummet. Since 2001, society has experienced a fall in the death penalty, which has been linked to the increase in homicide in the United States. Therefore, from the study, deterrence can be justified for the death penalty since the increasing use of the death penalty tend to deter individuals from conducting murder in fear of execution as a punishment.
Despite the lack of conclusive statistical demonstration regarding the death penalty impact on deterrence, the use of capital punishment tends to have a high likelihood of deterrence than other forms of punishment since death is the most feared thing among humans. Therefore, the deliberate infliction of scheduled death will deter a criminal more than anything else (ProCon.org, 2017). The death penalty also applies to deter the criminal from being executed from recidivism. The death penalty considered in that form is a form of incapacitation that is based on preventing the criminal from repeating the same crime. Therefore, vicious murders must be executed to deter them from killing again, which reduces threats against society and saves lives. The failure to use the death penalty as deterrence will not achieve the protection of life, which then lives the justification of the use of the death penalty as a deterrence mechanism the best option.
However, other additional ways to address the issue of violent offenders’ recidivism exist. Since most violent crime offenders find it difficult to change even after a long period of incarceration, alternatives methods must be developed to address their probability of recidivism when they integrate back into society. One of the methods that can be applied to prevent relapse into violent criminal behavior is the use of the prison-based program. The prison-based program incorporates various rehabilitation programs that include physical health care, mental health care, and psychological support, substance abuse treatment, addressing behavior and attitudes, education and vocational training, and work experience programs. The prison-based programs are to ensure that the offender desists from violent crime. Several activities are used as a distancing aspect of criminal life, such as the acquisition of new skills and full-time employment. The prison-based programs provided needed skills to criminals and, through community-based programs, help them integrate back into the community with the ability to support themselves (UNODC, 2018). However, the prison-based programs as an alternative cannot be considered similarly suitable for deterrence like the death penalty. As much as prison-based programs play a significant role in reducing recidivism, they tend to lack the capacity to act as deterrence from violent criminals since they do not hold a punishment that an individual might fear enough to deter from criminal acts.
Another form of reducing recidivism that can be applied for violent criminals is the victim-offender mediation (VOM) practice. VOM is a community-based program that allows interested victims to meet the offenders in a safe and structured environment under the guidance of trained mediators. Implementing VOM with violent offenders is challenging, but its benefits in the reduction of prison recidivism have proved it as a worth method. VOM’s ability to cultivate a sense of responsibility and to humanize the offender regarding his or her actions to the victim (Radinsky, 2016). The concept behind VOM is to ensure that the offender and the victim can tolerate each other and developed an understanding that the offender had already faced the punishment of their acts, and the victims should offer forgiveness. However, when compared to the VOM alternative to the death penalty in terms of deterrence, VOM is unsuitable for enabling individuals to deter from conducting crime. Since victim-offender mediation is based on mutual understanding and willingness of both parties to participate in the program, lit becomes hard to capture those offenders who are not willing.
References
ProCon.org. (2017). Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime? Retrieved from https://deathpenalty.procon.org/questions/does-the-death-penalty-deter-crime/
Ravinsky, L. (2016). Reducing Recidivism of Violent Offenders Through Victim-offender Mediation: A Fresh Start. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 17:1019. https://cardozojcr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CAC310_crop.pdf
Summers, M., & Adler, R. (2007). Capital Punishment Works. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119397079767680173
UNODC. (2018). Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/18-02303_ebook.pdf

Published by

Essays

View all posts