The Threat of Death-
As the war on crime continues, two truths hold steady: eliminating all crime is
impossible, and controlling it is a must. The main weapon used to control crime in this
war is deterrence. The government's deterrent for committing murder is the death
penalty. The fear of death will not deter every person who contemplates murder from
doing it. Whether it is for religious reasons and the hope of salvation or something
else, stopping some people is not possible (Cohen 48). The intent is not to stop those
people, but instead every other would-be killer. Capital Punishment has been in the
national spotlight for many years and the center of the debate still remains whether it
actually deters would be offenders. Does this age-old penalty for the ultimate sin
achieve its goal? There are many lofty and rational arguments on both sides of this
issue.
Advocates of the death penalty claim that the primary reason for this harsh punishment
is that the fear of death discourages people from committing murder. The main ways in
which they support this theory are: the severity of the punishment, various polls of
citizens and prisoners, and two in particular studies.
The most obvious deterring justification is the severity of punishment (Calebresi 19).
This means, put simply, to punish for a crime in a way that the punishment outweighs the
crime. If the punishment for robbing a bank is to spend one day in jail, then bank
robbing would become a daily occurance. On the same note, if there is a reward for a
lost item of jewelry and the reward is less than the selling price for that jewelry, the
finder has no reason to bring it back. On the other hand, if the reward exceeds the
value of the jewelry, the new owner will bring it
back very promptly. In the case of capital punishment, if a person wants someone dead
badly
enough, and the punishment for murder is a short stay in prison, what will possibly keep
that person from doing the unthinkable (Van Den Haag 68). If a person is afraid for
their life, then the stakes for their actions are much higher, probably even too high for
most people.
Many psychologists believe that these "stakes" do not even have to be in conscious
thought for them to work. The theory is that a person's conscience weighs out many
factors in all instances. While a would-be offender might be contemplating the deed, the
death penalty imbeds itself into that person's subconscience as a possible consequence
of their actions, and thus the conscience of that person begins to tilt to one side
(Guernsey 70).
Another argument for the side that says capital punishment deters is the majority
opinion. New York, until recently, had been one of the few states left that had yet to
employ a death penalty for murder. In a recent opinion-poll, fifty-seven percent of the
respondents say that they believe that the death penalty deters other criminals from
killing (Kuntz 3). As it turns out, the citizens of society are not the only ones that
think the death penalty deters. The death-roll inmates also feel this way. Through
voicing their opinions on how they feel and their actions (i.e., appeals, more appeals,
etc.), they make it clear that losing their life scares them badly.
There are two main studies that the proponents of the death penalty refer to as proof
of capital punishment's deterring qualities. The first such study is by New York
University professor Isaac Ehrlich. Through Professor Ehrlich's research and studies of
statistics that span sixty-six years, he concludes that each execution prevents around
seven or eight people from committing murder (Worsnop 402). In 1985, an economist from
the University of North Carolina by the name of Stephen K. Layson publishes a report that
shows that every execution of
a murderer deters eighteen would be murderers (Guernsey 68). While the numbers from
these
studies might seem minute compared to the large number of murders committed every day in
the United States, the numbers become quite large when discussed in the terms of the
nearly four thousand executions that occurred in this country over the last sixty-five
years (Guernsey 65).
While advocates of the death penalty are putting forth extremely strong arguments that
support the proposition that capital punishment prevents murders, opponents of the death
penalty are putting forth arguments that are just as weighty saying that the death
penalty does nothing of the kind. Atypical instances of murder, such as ones dealing
with juvenile or mentally deficient offenders, statistics make up the bulk of the
opponents' arguments against the deterring effects of capital punishment.
Most Americans believe that juveniles are exempt from capital punishment. This is not
true. As of recently, over thirty people are on death row for crimes they committed
before they turned eightteen (Guernsey 25). The opponents to the death penalty argue
that juveniles do not have the moral responsibility to bring a deterrent effect to them
(Bazan 17). As Richard L. Worsnop writes in his article entitled Death Penalty Debate
Centers on Retribution:
Peer pressure and family environment subject adolescents to
enormous psychological and emotional stress. Adolescents
respond to stressful situations by acting impulsively and without
the mature judgement expected of adults. These characteristics
are shared by all adolescents....Thus, the possibility of capital
punishment is meaningless to juveniles and has no deterrent effect.
Mentally deficient offenders are in the same situation that juveniles are in. "As many
as 30 percent of the 2,300 prisoners on death row may be retarded or mentally impaired
(Guernsey 30)." For a person that does not know what is right or wrong, or even more,
does not understand that he or she could face death for what he is doing, capital
punishment is not very likely going to have a deterring effect.
Another situation that the opponents build their platform upon is in the case of
offenders impaired by drugs or alcohol or in an emotional rage. If a person is not
thinking straight, then chances are very good that they are not going to be dwelling on
what the consequences of their actions might be (Van Den Haag 63). One simple instance
could be a man goes down to the local bar, drinks a few beers, and gets in a fight and
someone ends up dying. This situation classifies two different ways. First, the man has
alcohol in his system and is not in full control of his decision making processes.
Second, because of the fight or flight response in his body, the emotional rush from
adrenaline will overcome his rational thought. Capital punishment obviously does not
deter this man in the least by the thought of ending up in an electric chair or taking a
lethal injection. Another example of emotional rage might be when someone "sees red."
For instance, a man (or woman) comes home to find his spouse sleeping with another
person. The man loses control, pulls a gun, and shoots his spouse and her lover dead.
The man is overcome with emotion and is very doubtfully contemplating the thought that he
himself could face the same fate (Guernsey 68).
Statistics are on the side of the opponents to capital punishment. In the early 1960's,
a study by Thorsten Sellin compares statistics of side-by-side states, one with the death
penalty and one without. Sellin picks apart just about every detail he can find and
concludes that there is no evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty
(Worsnop 398). Hans Zeisel, a law and sociology professor, theorizes that "if executions
deter murderers, those states that
stopped executions in the late 1960's would have experienced a greater increase in the
murder rate than those states that stopped executions decades ago." Zeisel finds no
sudden increase in the murder rate and concludes that the death penalty has no deterring
value (Worsnop 2).
Murders will continue, it seems, no matter what is done about it. The proponents of
capital punishment say that this is true, but the deterring effects of the death penalty
control it somewhat. Opponents to this say that the death penalty holds no deterring
effect of any kind. They believe that capital punishment is just useless killing with no
inherent value. This debate is likely to continue for years to come.
|