Policy Analysis Paper Outline: The Death Penalty and its Effectiveness
Abstract
The death penalty is a contested issue that has gotten debated for centuries. Questions and doubts exist about the effectiveness of the death penalty in accomplishing the four fundamental goals of punishment, i.e., deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Furthermore, the morality surrounding this policy issue raises questions about the proportionality of the crime. This paper uses these four tenets to analyze the effectiveness of the death penalty and gives recommendations for alternative forms of punishment.
Introduction
The death penalty is the most divisive and contentious social issue relating to criminal justice in modern societies. The policy issues surrounding this hot topic have gotten debated for thousands of years. When the consequences and implications of any issue are far-reaching and permanent as the death penalty, then tempers are bound to arise on both sides. Also, the policy issues, such as racial discrimination and sentencing of the innocent, make it more significant to the social sciences and people in general. However, the question of whether this form of capital punishment is effective or whether it should get abolished is not straightforward as it seems. According to an article offered by the National Policy Committee, the effectiveness of the death penalty should get evaluated based on four factors. The paper states that the keystones and foundations of any criminal justice system are deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and incapacitation (National Policy Committee, p.2). The most important of these factors is retribution. Most supporters of the death penalty point to the vast research that shows that it is an effective crime deterring technique, especially in the reduction of homicides. A research done by the National Research Council more than forty years ago proposed that existing studies did not provide valid proof that capital punishment (death penalty specifically) is an effective crime deterrent (NRC, p. 9). As the death penalty cannot serve the function of rehabilitation to a dead man, the only two underpinnings that the death penalty accomplishes are retribution and incapacitation. As such, most countries have started moving towards abolishing capital punishment, with only eight-four nations still using the death penalty (Dieter, p. 1). Those countries that still practiced it utilized it for major and atrocious crimes like murder, genocide, espionage, among others. Based on the above factors, together with the costs (economic and capital) associated with this practice, there are doubts about the effectiveness of capital punishment. This paper explores the vast literature and data available on the issue to analyze the legalities of the death penalty and its effectiveness.
Methodology
This section outlines the methods used in the collection of data and information used while conducting this research. As the issue of capital punishment is a historical problem, there is sufficient data and information available in print or online to help in my analysis of the effectiveness of the death penalty. As such, there was no need to collect any new data, and the report is based on readily and publicly available information provided by academic sources, official government sources as well as other trustworthy sources like internationally recognized institutions. Data from various countries was also used to make a comparison between the countries where it was still legal and where it was banned. The information collected from these sources was instrumental in helping me to make an informed decision on the policy issue.
Literature review
This section of the article explores previous work and research conducted regarding the death penalty and its effectiveness in meeting the four keystones of criminal justice. There exists research on the capability of capital punishment in meeting the principles of retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. For example, Thomas Brook, in ‘Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy,’ explores the relationship between capital punishment and retribution. He proposes that: opposite to the precise statements made by retributivists like Kant, fans of this concept should be against capital punishment for murderers (Brooks N.P). A study by the Death Penalty Information Center (2019) suggested that universal data and information pointed to a decline in homicide rates after abolishing capital punishment. A report by the NCJRS titled, ‘Reevaluating the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment,’ also suggests that there is no sufficient information and evidence to show capital punishment as an effective deterrent (Cole et al., p. 4). Finally, Beccaria, in crime and punishment, 1764, also argued against capital punishment and torture.
Theoretical Framework
This section of the report relates established theories, concepts, and ideas, in laying out the groundwork for the hypothesis against capital punishment as an effective deterrent to murder and other capital crimes. It also explores the Retributivist approaches to punishment that supports the death penalty. The chapter also explores the issue of capital punishment through the Utilitarian approaches, which oppose it as a method of punishment, pioneered by Beccaria. The Retributivist approaches got popularized by Immanuel Kant. These theories justify the use of capital punishments for crimes that match the punishment in proportionality. The law of retaliation is a significant component of the retributivist approach that proposes capital punishment for murderers (Hoag, Chapter 2). The law is popularly represented by the expression, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
The Utilitarian approaches, in contrast to retributivist theories, are forward-thinking perspectives that analyze the effects and consequences of capital punishment for atrocious crimes, including murder and genocides. The theory suggests that the adverse effects arising from the death penalty ought to be outweighed by the positive impact like the reduction of crime through incapacitation or deterrence (Hoag, Chapter 3). Beccaria, therefore, uses the principles of this approach to argue against the use of the death penalty. He defends his position by pointing to its failings in crime prevention and reduction. Beccaria further explained that the sole purpose of punishment should be deterrence, and therefore, the effectiveness of capital punishment should be evaluated based on its deterrent effect.
Analytical Framework/ Methods
This chapter uses the available information and data on capital punishment to statistically analyze the effects of the death punishment in crime reduction. The chapter uses the information from the US Justice Department on the crime rates (capital crime). It applies it to the theoretical approaches to gauge the effect and impact of capital punishment in reducing and deterring crime. The chapter focuses on the crime information from states that have done away with the death penalty and compares it to the murder rates in states where the law is still active. For example, the DPIC research exhibited that the homicide rate in states that had abolished the penalty in the United States exceeded that of states where it was still active in 2016 (Death Penalty Information Center 2019). Key judgments and rulings on the issue are also reviewed to determine the impact on the topic. Additionally, information on the cost of executions accessed from government sites and other academic sources is used to define the cost-effectiveness of the death penalty. The section contains a cost analysis to determine the marginal effects and the marginal costs of capital punishment.
Results/ Findings
This section presents the findings and results arrived at from the statistical analysis of the effectiveness of administering the death penalty to control homicides. The information established in previous chapters is used to defend my position against this backward practice in reducing criminal activities in a country. For example, the comparison that got done by the DPIC between the homicides rates of the states that were still using the death penalty and those that abolished it came to the findings that it is not an effective deterrent. This chapter also looks at the results arising from the cost analysis to determine its usefulness and efficiency.
Recommendations
Based on the findings, this section focuses on recommendations for alternative forms of punishment that are more suitable and effective compared to the death penalty based on the four keystones of retribution deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. This paper recommends life imprisonment without the option of parole as a substitute for the death penalty. According to the analysis, a life sentence is more effective in deterring crime while also serving the other functions of retribution, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Furthermore, the life sentence also satisfies the retributivists that are supporters of the death penalty.
In conclusion, the death penalty is an outdated and ineffective form of punishment in the reduction of crime. Although the practice has had success in previous years, the world is modernizing, and backward practices like capital punishment have no place in the new world. The form of punishment is too costly, with little or insufficient results. Rather than use capital punishment, there is a more effective, proven form of punishment that meets all the criteria for assessing the impact of punishment. Furthermore, research has proven that the arguments for this form of punishment as a deterrent are insufficient and inconclusive to support the claim for the death penalty. Therefore, more research needs to get done on the policy implications of capital punishment with a view of understanding its effectiveness.
Works cited
Brooks, Thom. “Retribution and capital punishment.” Retributivism: Essays on Theory and Policy, edited by Mark D. White, 1st ed., Oxford UP, 2011, pp. 213-253.
Death Penalty Information Center. “Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to the Non-Death Penalty States.” Death Penalty Information Center, 22 May 2019, deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states#stateswithvwithout. Accessed 19 June 2020.
DPIC. “Study: International Data Shows Declining Murder Rates After Abolition of the Death Penalty.” Death Penalty Information Center, 3 Jan. 2019, deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/study-international-data-shows-declining-murder-rates-after-abolition-of-death-penalty. Accessed 19 June 2020.
Cole, Ethan C., et al. “Reevaluating the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Model and Data Uncertainty.” National Criminal Justice Reference Service | NCJRS, U.S. Department of Justice, Dec. 2006, www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/216548.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2020.
Dieter, Richard C. “The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International Law.” death penalty info.org, Death Penalty Information Center, files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/files/pdf/Oxfordpaper.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2020.
Hoag, Robert. “Capital Punishment.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | An Encyclopedia of Philosophy Articles Written by Professional Philosophers, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011, www.iep.utm.edu/cap-puni/#H3. Accessed 19 June 2020.
National Policy Committee. “The Use of the Death Penalty.” ASC – The American Society of Criminology, Nov. 2001, www.asc41.com/policies/ASC_Policy_Paper_The%20Use%20of%20the%20Death%20Penalty_2001.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2020.
National Research Council. Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. Edited by Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, and Daniel Nagin, 1st ed., National Academy of Sciences, 1978.