death penalty does not deter crime essay

March 19, 2024

Evidence Does Not Support the Use of the Death Penalty

Capital punishment must come to an end. It does not deter crime, is not humane and has no moral or medical basis

By The Editors

A death penalty vigil, held in 2021 outside an Indiana penitentiary.

Bryan Woolston/Reuters/Redux

It is long past time to abolish the death penalty in the U.S.

Capital punishment was halted in the U.S. in 1972 but reinstated in 1976, and since then, nearly 1,600 people have been executed. To whose gain? Study after study shows that the death penalty does not deter crime, puts innocent people to death , is racially biased , and is cruel and inhumane. It is state-sanctioned homicide, wholly ineffective, often botched, and a much more expensive punishment than life imprisonment. There is no ethical, scientifically supported, medically acceptable or morally justifiable way to carry it out.

The recent execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith demonstrates this barbarity. After a failed attempt at lethal injection by prison officials seemingly inexperienced in the placement of an IV, the state of Alabama killed Smith in January using nitrogen gas . The Alabama attorney general claimed that this method of execution was fast and humane , despite no supporting evidence. Eyewitnesses recounted that Smith thrashed during the nitrogen administration and took more than 20 minutes to die.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Opposition to the death penalty is growing among the American public , and the Biden administration must follow through on its promise to end this horror. The Department of Justice must heed its own admission that the death penalty doesn’t stop crime, and our legislators must continue to take up the issue on the congressional floor. The few states that still condemn people to death must follow the lead of states that have considered the evidence and rejected capital punishment.

Programs such as the Innocence Project have shown, over and over, that innocent people have been sentenced to death. Since 1973 nearly 200 people on death row have been exonerated, based on appeals, the reopening of cases, and the entrance of new and sometimes previously suppressed evidence. People have recanted testimony, and supposedly airtight cases have been poked full of evidentiary holes.

Through the death penalty, the criminal justice system has killed at least 20 people now believed to have been innocent and uncounted others whose cases have not been reexamined . Too many of these victims have been Black or Hispanic. This is not justice. These are state-sanctioned hate crimes.

Using rigorous statistical and experimental control methods, both economics and criminal justice studies have consistently found that there is no evidence for deterrence of violent crimes in states that allow capital punishment. One such study, a 2009 paper by criminology researchers at the University of Dallas, outlines experimental and statistical flaws in econometrics-based death penalty studies that claim to find a correlated reduction in violent crime. The death penalty does not stop people from killing. Executions don’t make us safer.

The methods used to kill prisoners are inhumane. Electrocution fails , causing significant pain and suffering. Joel Zivot, an anesthesiologist who criticizes the use of medicines in carrying out the death penalty, has found (at the request of lawyers of death row inmates) that the lungs of prisoners who were killed by lethal injection were often heavy with fluid and froth that suggested they were struggling to breathe and felt like they were drowning. Nitrogen gas is used in some veterinary euthanasia, but based in part on the behavior of rats in its presence, it is “unacceptable” for mammals , according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. This means that Smith, as his lawyers claimed in efforts to stop his execution, became a human subject in an immoral experiment.

Courts have often decided, against the abundant evidence, that these killings are constitutional and do not fall under the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the 8th Amendment or, in Smith’s appeal , both the 8th Amendment and the due process protection clause of the 14th amendment.

A small number of prosecutors and judges in a few states, mostly in the South, are responsible for most of the death sentences being handed down in the U.S. today. It’s a power they should not be able to wield. Smith was sentenced to life in prison by a jury before the judge in his case overruled the jury and gave him the death sentence.

A furious urge for vengeance against those who have done wrong—or those we think have done wrong—is the biggest motivation for the death penalty. But this desire for violent retribution is the very impulse that our criminal justice system is made to check, not abet. Elected officials need to reform this aspect of our justice system at both the state and federal levels. Capital punishment does not stop crime and mocks both justice and humanity. The death penalty in the U.S. must come to an end.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American .

• Death Penalty Essays

The death penalty does not deter crime Essay

Capital punishment’s political psychology is multi – dimensional. In addition, to being an exercise in academic comprehension, understanding mass support for the death penalty is a political necessity. The response of individuals towards the death penalty depends on the murder rate prevailing in their county, level of education, and racial composition (Soss, Langbein and Metelko 415).

Struggling with your HW?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease. Just fill in your HW requirements and you can count on us!

• Customer data protection
• 100% Plagiarism Free

There is considerable evidence that clearly proves that capital punishment does not prevent crime. Whether it is the US or some other country that promotes capital punishment, the facts make it, obvious that the minorities, poor, and the members of ethnic, racial and religious communities are disproportionately executed (US Death Penalty Facts).

The death penalty in the US constitutes an institution that defies any attempt at interpretation, from the sociological perspective. A number of institutional arrangements have been effected, which have created a novel and unfamiliar relationship between the law, lethal violence and the state. The situation is further complicated, due to reliance on historical accounts that are some hundreds of years old, in order to explain the function of capital punishment (Garland 136).

There is a noticeable absence of analysis that could provide insights into the various explicit functions and forms of the present day capital punishment system. The reproduction of social order is influenced to an appreciable extent by the penal institutions. In view of this, it is difficult to perceive, how the death penalty, which is inflicted upon very few people, can engender a major structural effect (Garland 136).

Used our essay samples for inspiration ?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

A miniscule fraction of those who are charged with homicide, countenance capital charges, and in the US the number of people who are sentenced to death per year, is around 120. The other offenders, who are subjected to incarceration or penal supervision is in the tens of millions. Consequently, the impact of capital punishment on social order tends to be negligible (Garland 136).

The largest number of executions in the world takes place in China. As per the information provided by Amnesty International, around 80% of the total executions and death sentences in the world transpire in China. In addition, there have been a disturbingly large number of wrongful convictions and executions. Some of these were on account of confessions obtained under duress and strike – hard campaigns (Hong).

Durkheim authored the De La Division Du Travail Social, which put forth a functional theory regarding the development of contemporary legal systems. From his point of view, crime went against the grain of societal standards or the collective consciousness, in addition to having an impact upon the individual (Koenig and Rustad 193).

He proposed that the organization of society and individual deviance could be best understood by taking into account the extent of social solidarity that was obtaining. It was his firm belief that the division of labor in a particular society was instrumental in molding the other social institutions. Increasing complexity and diversity in a society would bring about the evolution of law from repression to restitution (Koenig and Rustad 193).

In ancient societies, the death penalty had been imposed for a number of offenses. The Mosaic code, for instance was based on the Torah, which advocated execution for various infractions, such as adultery or taking the name of God in vain (Koenig and Rustad 193).

By abolishing the death penalty, the state clearly conveys the message to private actors that no provocation can justify a violent response. Such abolition also indicates that the state will not resort to violence, even whilst addressing the most serious threats to social order (Rogoff 777).

On the other hand, a state that executes some of its criminals unequivocally indicates that it is supreme, in the context of individuals. Moreover, such states express the viewpoint that violence constitutes one of the acceptable responses to personal and social issues (Rogoff 778).

It has been contended by the opponents of the death penalty that it does not have a tangible deterrent or preventive effect. This has been borne out by the current research, in this area. Consequently, its continuance can only be for psychological or political reasons, and certainly not for the reasons that are generally cited for its retention (Rogoff 778).

The uniqueness of the death penalty is on account of its irreversibility and absolute consequentiality. This renders it from the political perspective, the most controversial form of punishment. Criminologists, human rights activists and political parties have frequently been seen to oppose its presence (Neumayer 242).

Such opposition has not only been within the countries that impose the death penalty, but it has also emerged from sources that are external to such nations. On occasion, foreigners belonging to countries that do not impose the death penalty have been executed in other countries (Neumayer 242).

This has, in general, created considerable political strife between such countries. It is commonplace for the Member States of the European Union to intervene when one of their citizens is under threat of being executed in another nation. Furthermore, countries that do not impose the death penalty, exhibit a marked disinclination to deport either their own nationals or other individuals to countries where they could be put to death, until and unless the country seeking the extradition provides an assurance that the deported person would not be executed (Neumayer 242).

Such protection has been extended even to suspected and convicted terrorists. Political conflict assumes its most severe form, when the countries involved have similar political and cultural values. It has been pointed out by several scholars that the Member States of the European Union and the US have drifted farther apart, with regard to issue of capital punishment, than any other government policy issue of moral significance (Neumayer 242).

This was the position prior to the Iraq war, and it clearly indicates the deep division between nations on the issue of capital punishment. Consequently, there is considerable controversy with regard to the prevalence of the death penalty in some countries. However, research to determine the determinants of death penalty abolition has been scant, and this is truly astounding, given the seriousness of the issue (Neumayer 242).

As such, this situation is in marked contrast to the significance accorded to the justification for punishment. An extremely disturbing feature of the death penalty relates to the influence of racial and social discrimination, which is especially true of the US, with regard to the imposition of the death penalty (Neumayer 242).

Research Methodology

Introduction

This part presents the research methodology of this research study. It is influenced by the purpose of the study and is designed to respond to the research questions. As such, the research methodology describes the purpose of the study, presents the research questions and describes the methods that will be adopted.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the current position of death penalty, in a comparative manner between the US and China. For this purpose, a review of the available literature on the death penalty has been conducted. To this end, several reports as well as the opinions presented by various organizations were scrutinized; and many decided cases were examined.

These endeavors were aimed at assessing whether the death penalty deterred crime. Moreover, this research adopts a doctrinal and comparative perspective, as it will make an effort to describe the major themes and principles that could affect justice, in the implementation of death penalty in the US and China.

Research Method

This work employs a doctrinal approach to analyze the extant status of the death penalty, in the context of the US and China. In this context, a literature review has been conducted to scrutinize the opinions of eminent scholars like Emilie Durkheim. In addition, several scholarly works relating to the imposition of death penalty in the US and China, have been examined. Moreover, the relevant literature, with respect to this topic has been analyzed.

Finally, conclusions were drawn, based on the facts identified in the research.

In this endeavor, several shortcomings in the implementation procedures, with regard to China; and the discriminatory attitude towards racial and ethnic minorities, were observed, in the area of death penalty, in the US.

The research tools employed were doctrinal. This approach enables us to understand various themes and principles underlying the concept of the death penalty. Sources employed for this work were secondary. These sources help us to collect relevant information. In addition, these sources reveal the latest information in a wider context. To this end, several books, authentic web sites, online libraries, journals and the extant literature by scholarly authorities, have been consulted. As such, the results of this study are based on a qualitative study.

Research Questions

Does the death penalty deter crime?

Is the death penalty morally justified?

How is the death penalty implemented in the US and China?

How are the lacunas in implementation to be addressed?

Literature Review

Durkheim had been vociferous in his claim that punishment was merely meaningful demonstration (Durkheim 192). The deduction from this claim is that punishment emerges as a psychological and emotional response to the offence committed, and that it is devoid of any conscious intention. Durkheim was of the opinion that the less developed societies were given to inflicting punishment that was vengeful in nature, and that such societies deemed punishment to be an end in itself (D. Garland 31).

On the whole, modern society does not subscribe to the notion that revenge constitutes a valid reason for inflicting punishment. All the same, Durkheim believed that the motivation behind punishment had not altered to any significant extent. He was convinced that with the development of societies, the administration of punishment had merely been refined (Alexander and Smith 24).

As pointed by several scholars, awareness regarding the outcomes of criminal law and repressive sanctions had increased. However, no change had taken place with regard to the internal phenomena involved. The reality has been that punishment has continued to be based on vengeance (Thompson 88).

It would not be incorrect to contend that what holds good for an individual also holds good for society. As a result, society is entitled to restrain a person who intends to cause it harm. This has been quoted as the basis for the right of societies to execute one of its members. However, the fact remains that at the time of trial; the accused has been deprived of arms and no longer poses any danger to society (Gross, Jones and Joas 266).

Hence, at that juncture, society can adopt the measures necessary to defend itself; but it cannot justify any action that brings about the death of the criminal. It has been contended by some individuals that criminals are deterred by the death penalty. This raises the pertinent query, as to whether deterrence is possessed to a greater degree by the severity or certainty of punishment. In this context, it should be emphasized that the abolition of torture did not bring about an increase in crime (Gross, Jones and Joas 266).

Another serious reason to abolish the death penalty is that it makes the members of society habituated to the taking of human life. It is instinctive, even for the worst criminal to hesitate before killing another. The death penalty has the insalubrious effect of blunting this instinct. As a consequence, public security is seriously compromised. There can be no dispute regarding the fact that society is well within its rights to defend itself against any attempt to threaten its existence. Such a threat could emanate from a neighboring nation or from one of its own members (Gross, Jones and Joas 266).

In the year 2010, executions were carried out in 23 countries, whereas in the year 2009 the corresponding number was 19. However, the number of persons executed came down to 527 from 714, during this period. These figures do not take into account the number of executions conducted in China, and this quantity exceeds the number of executions in the rest of the world (Joyner).

The US as a leader in the employment of the death penalty, falls into the same category, in the context of executions, as the most repressive regimes of the world. A very important feature of the executions in the US relates to the fact that in general, only the worst criminals are put to death. In such cases, trial by a jury of peers is conducted, and the execution takes place only after a protracted and exhaustive set of appeals (Joyner).

On the other hand, the other countries that routinely execute individuals, the government officials come to a decision regarding who is to be put to death. This is done on their express authority, and is frequently for having spoken against such officials (Joyner).

In the year 1977, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was in breach of the US Constitution to apply the death penalty for the crime of rape. This very important ruling was given in the case of Coker v Georgia. With this decision, 20 individuals, who had been sentenced to death in various states, were not put to death. In addition, the ruling in Lockett v Ohio compelled many of the states to amend their laws, and ensure that their sentencing authority had taken into account all the mitigating factors, prior to passing a sentence of death (Green).

As such, in Coker v Georgia, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was an infringement of the US Constitution to apply the death penalty to the offence of rape; as this punishment was disproportionate to the crime. This resulted in the removal of 20 individuals from death row, across the US. Furthermore, in Lockett v Ohio, the high court compelled several states to revise their legislation relating to the death penalty (University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center).

As such, the high court had ruled that the sentencing authority in cases involving a capital offence had to consider all the possible mitigating factors. However, subsequent to the ruling in Gregg in the year 1976, several of the states have brought back the death penalty. For instance, in the year 1995, New York enacted laws that permitted the death penalty (University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center).

With the US Supreme Court’s decision in Gregg v Georgia, upholding the death penalty, several states made the necessary changes to their statutes, in order to reintroduce the death penalty. Thus, many states execute individuals, such as New York. At the same time, states like Hawaii, Iowa, West Virginia, Wisconsin and District of Columbia do not put people to death (Green).

As of the year 2011, there had been an appreciable reduction in the number of countries that employed the death penalty. However, this beneficial development was offset by the disturbing fact that the countries adopting the death penalty did so at a disturbing frequency. In accordance with the data provided by the Amnesty International, there had been a 28% increase in the number of people put to death, all over the world (Death Penalty In 2011: Report Shows Executions By Country ).

Another disquieting feature was that many executions had taken place in China, Iran and Syria that had not been reported. With regard to the executions conducted by the Chinese authorities, the Amnesty International discontinued the publication of their details since the year 2009. This was due to the unreliability of the public records of China (Death Penalty In 2011: Report Shows Executions By Country ).

Among the Western democracies, the US emerged the only nation to execute individuals during the year 2011. With its 43 executions, the US procured the dubious distinction of being fifth among the nations that execute people. During 2010, the number of people executed in the US was 46, and this indicates a reduction of three in the number of people executed (Death Penalty In 2011: Report Shows Executions By Country ).

The states of the US depict a diametrically opposed view, in the context of the death penalty. Thus, the Texans were all praise for their governor who had appended his signature to the execution warrants of some 234 individuals. Subsequently, in Georgia, the execution of Davis was condemned by many people, as the key witnesses for the prosecution had retracted or modified their claims (Death Penalty In 2011: Report Shows Executions By Country ).

Moreover, Illinois rescinded the death penalty in 2011, and Oregon adopted a moratorium on executions. With regard to Connecticut and Maryland, there is every indication that these states will prohibit executions. There are 34 states in the US, which uphold the death penalty, at present. In the year 2011, death sentences were issued to 78 prisoners. This is significantly lower than the year 1999, in which 98 people were sentenced to death (Death Penalty In 2011: Report Shows Executions By Country ).

The reduction in the number of people being put to death has been chiefly attributed to the advent of DNA testing. This novel method of testing has disclosed the innocence of many an accused and served to save that person from execution. In addition, defense tactics have gained in strength and in combination with prolonged appeal processes, states have found it very expensive to obtain a death penalty sentence (Death Penalty In 2011: Report Shows Executions By Country ).

Among the G – 8 countries, the US was the only nation to employ the death penalty. Although, Japan has not abolished the death penalty, it has not conducted an execution. In addition, the US Defense Department announced that it would conduct a trial by military commission, in order to obtain a death penalty sentence with regard to six foreign nationals. These individuals had been incarcerated in the US Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay. The use of military commissions for this purpose has been decried; as such commissions do not provide a similar right to appeal, as a US court (Death Penalty In 2011: Report Shows Executions By Country ).

All the same, member states are prevailed upon to publish regular data on their use of the death penalty, by the UN bodies and international standards. This has proved to be a difficult task with regard to some countries, such as Singapore, which does not provide consistent and regular information about death sentences and executions. Around 67% of the nations of the world have declared that they have abolished the death penalty. Among the 41 nations of the Asia – Pacific region, as many as 28 have abolished the death penalty. This includes 13 Commonwealth nations of that region (Amnesty International).

In the People’s Republic of China, there are around 68 offences that attract the death penalty. Some of these are murder, rape and murder. In addition, the death penalty is also inflicted for non – violent crimes, such as embezzlement, tax fraud, and drug offences. The usual mode of execution is by shooting the condemned person on the back of the head. Lately, there has been an increase in the use of lethal injection, for this purpose. The process is shrouded in secrecy and various international organizations have criticized this system of the Chinese (Amnesty International in Asia & the Pacific).

The Chinese government has categorically refused to furnish information regarding the number of people sentenced to death, as well as the people executed by it. On the basis of public reports, it has been estimated that during the year 2005, around 1800 people had been put to death, while 3900 individuals had been handed down a death sentence. As such, this is a conservative estimate and the actual figures are certain to be much higher (Amnesty International in Asia & the Pacific).

There have been serious accusations against the Chinese that they do not provide a fair trial to people sentenced to death, in accordance with the guidelines stipulated by the human rights norms. Some of the major drawbacks associated with the Chinese system are the absence of prompt access to lawyers, lack of a presumption of innocence, the exertion of undue influence upon the judiciary by politicians, and acceptance of evidence obtained by torture in court proceedings (Amnesty International in Asia & the Pacific).

During the recent years, there have been several conferences in China, which have called for substantial reform or even the abolition of the death penalty. In conjunction with the information available on the Internet, regarding the inequitable practices being adopted by the Chinese, considerable public concern has emerged in that country (Amnesty International in Asia & the Pacific).

The official policy of the Chinese government, with regard to the death penalty is that every effort will be undertaken by it to exercise caution and to avoid excessive executions. In addition, to the violent crimes, the death penalty is inflicted for economic offenses, public safety and public order offences, and corruption (Hong).

Nevertheless, there are certain redeeming features of China’s death penalty, for instance, it does not execute individuals less than the age of 18 years and pregnant women, all capital cases have to compulsorily have legal representation, and the death sentence is suspended in cases where immediate execution is not necessary (Hong).

The 1996 Criminal Procedure Law of China permits executions, only by shooting and lethal injection. A People’s Supreme Court ruling of February 2009 has mandated that executions by shooting have to be discontinued in the year 2010. The preferred method of execution is by means of lethal injection, which comprises of a mixture of potassium chloride, muscle relaxant and barbiturates (People’s Republic of China).

This mode of execution was legalized in the year 1996. It is conducted in prisons or in mobile death vans. Death by lethal injection seems to be more likely for those convicted of economic or political crimes. With regard to the other classes of crime that attract the death penalty, the preferred method is by shooting (People’s Republic of China).

All the same, lethal injection execution proves to be less expensive than death by a firing squad; and this method of killing was employed in areas with a larger number individual to be executed. As such, no definite date has been stipulated for changing over from execution by shooting to execution by lethal injection (People’s Republic of China).

China has witnessed a series of food safety violations. Realizing the gravity of the issue and as a reflection of the outrage of the public, the Chinese Supreme Court has directed judges across the nation to impose harsher sentences for such crimes. In this regard, the Supreme Court directed that longer jail terms and fines were to be imposed upon those held guilty of violating the food safety regulations (China Orders Death Penalty For Food Safety Violators).

In instances, where death had supervened, due to such violation, the death sentence was recommended. This Supreme People’s Court directive is aimed at eliminating the continuing contamination of food products, such as cooling oil and baby milk. In order to curb this menace in an effective manner, the Chinese government has encouraged the greater reporting of food problems in the media (China Orders Death Penalty For Food Safety Violators).

It was notified by the Supreme People’s Court that food safety cases should be given wide publicity, in a timely manner, and encouraged the employment of open trials in the more serious cases. In addition, it called for the infliction of more severe punishment for government officials who take bribes and protect food safety offenders. With regard to manufacturers who produce tainted food items, this court directed the provision of harsher financial penalties (China Orders Death Penalty For Food Safety Violators).

Nevertheless, in the year 1965, just three of the 60 nations surveyed had retained the death penalty for the crime of rape where death did not result. At present, China and the US are the only nations, where death penalty is issued for non – homicide rape. In the year 2002, 24 countries authorized execution for non – homicide rape. Subsequent to the year 2002, nine of these countries, either changed their laws or imposed a moratorium on the death penalty (International Law Disfavors use of Death Penalty for Non – Homicide Offenses such as Rape).

In addition, the US finds itself in the company of nations, such as Cuba, China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with regard to authorizing the death penalty for non – homicide rape. The criminal codes of these countries are at marked variance to that of the US. In fact, Chinese law imposes the death penalty for non – violent offenses, such as tax evasion. In fact, the American Convention on Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory, declares that the death penalty is not to be extended to crimes to which it is not applicable at present. Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has called for reducing the application of the death penalty (International Law Disfavors use of Death Penalty for Non – Homicide Offenses such as Rape).

Furthermore, the US is usually portrayed as a country that imposes the death penalty on offenders. However, at present the death penalty is rarely inflicted upon a convicted person. It is to be noted that the District of Columbia and fifteen other states have abolished capital punishment. Among the remaining thirty – five states, the death penalty is applied very rarely (D. Garland, Five myths about the death penalty). . A majority of these states do not execute offenders.

For example, in Texas, the incidence of death penalty is higher than in the other states. An important reason behind this trend is that most of the states have empowered their juries to impose life imprisonment without parole as an alternative to the death penalty. Moreover, prosecutors have been seen to advise the family members of the offender to seek a prison sentence, instead of the death penalty (D. Garland, Five myths about the death penalty).

In 1846, Michigan abolished capital punishment, and this important development preceded the majority of the European nations, by a century. Most of the northern states had abolished the public execution of offenders, much before the rest of the world adopted this practice. The US was one of the pioneers in discovering painless methods of execution. Thus, hanging was first replaced by the electric chair, then the gas chamber, and the lethal injection (D. Garland, Death Penalty Doesn't Work, but It Does Have Benefits).

However, research indicates that the death penalty does not deter crime totally. Those who oppose the death penalty on the grounds that it is very expensive are correct. However, it would be incorrect to argue that the death penalty yields nothing in return. A study conducted in the state of Indiana revealed that capital punishment is ten times costlier than life imprisonment without parole. However, the death penalty enables juries to make a forceful punitive statement. Moreover, prosecutors have the option of employing the threat of imposition of the death penalty, in order to obtain cooperation and plea bargains (D. Garland, Death Penalty Doesn't Work, but It Does Have Benefits).

The following case law indicates the attitude of the courts while deciding death penalty issues in the US.

In Stanford v Kentucky, the US Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of the death penalty on a juvenile, who had committed murder, did not violate the Eight Amendment to the US Constitution. The Court further held that the common standards of decency were not violated by this, and that such punishment was not cruel and unusual (Stanford v Kentucky).

However, in the Roper v Simmons case, the US Supreme Court ruled that evolution of the relevant norms, over time, had made it unconstitutional to execute juveniles (Roper v Simmons). This momentous decision was given in the year 2005, by the US Supreme Court.

The following discussion has been taken up for a comparison of death penalty punishments between US and China,

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are the apex treaties, which prohibit the application of the death penalty to juveniles. The US has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nevertheless, it has reserved the right to ignore the provisions of the treaty, with regard to applying the death penalty to juveniles. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has 144 member states of which only the US has reserved a right to apply the death penalty to juveniles (Neil and Neil 3).

At present, more than 50% of the nations of the world have abolished capital punishment. However, the Chinese believe that the death penalty should continue for the time being. In addition, the level of social development, perceptions and values of the Chinese, do not provide any scope for the abolishment of capital punishment in the near future. China has the maximum number of provisions on charges of death penalty (Zou 40).

In the US, there are five death penalty execution modes, and offenders are provided with the opportunity to choose the mode of death. These modes are death by shooting, electrocution, poison gas, hanging, and administering of lethal injection. The injection mode is chosen in the majority of death penalty cases. Some countries provide specific rights to offenders of death penalty under humanitarian grounds. These include allowing family members, relatives, friends, and lawyers to visit the criminals on a regular basis. During execution, there will be a priest or a minister to pray for the criminals (Zou 40).

In the case of electrocution or poison gas, the executors ensure that the execution is less painful for the condemned criminal. Moreover, they provide spiritual comfort to the person to be executed, in order to ease their tension or emotional imbalance. All these measures come under humanitarian grounds (Zou 40).

The legislation in several of the countries that permit the death penalty, have made sincere attempts to lend a human touch to the applicable stipulations. Thus, friends, lawyers and relatives are permitted to visit the condemned criminals, on a regular basis. In addition, a priest or minister prays for these criminals, before they are executed (Zou 40).

Moreover, there are international treaties to ensure the rights and interests of the criminals who are to be executed. These treaties have established international standards for the proper implementation of humanitarian concerns for such criminals. The United Nations declares that the application of the death penalty should attempt to relieve the pain of the condemned prisoner (Zou 40).

Furthermore, such criminals should be allowed to converse with their family members or friends. In some prisons, these criminals are allowed to touch their relatives and friends freely. Furthermore, the condemned, in such countries, are allowed to have dinner or entertainment with their close relatives or friends. These criminals are also allowed to spend their final moments with their family members in the death row. Some criminals of death penalty are also allowed to cohabitate with their spouse before the execution (Zou 40).

In a new study, it has been disclosed that the criminal justice system of the US convicts and sentences thousands of innocent individuals to prison or death for the crimes committed by others. A National Registry of Exonerations has been compiled by the Northwestern University and the University of Michigan. It provides information regarding some 2,000 prisoners who had been exonerated since the year 1989. These people owe their fortunate release from prison to the DNA evidence, which has been widely employed to establish the innocence of people wrongly convicted of murder and rape (Love).

These disclosures are alarming, for instance, those released from the death row were nine times more than those convicted of murder were. A fourth of the individuals exonerated of murder had been sentenced to death. Moreover, 50% of the individuals wrongly convicted of rape or murder were either to be imprisoned for life or to be put to death. As many as ten inmates of death row were executed, before they could be exonerated. Wrongful convictions were attributed to defective identification of eyewitnesses, prosecutorial misconduct and perjury (Love).

Moreover, in the aftermath of the 9 September 2001 terrorist attacks, the US government unleashed an unprecedented attack on terrorist organizations and their members. During this endeavor, there have been innumerable infringements of national and international prohibitions on torture and other inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment (Torture and Other Ill-Treatment). These acts were justified as being essential for fighting terrorism.

The institutions of the United Nations and various international norms, urge the member states to disclose information regarding the number of people executed, on a regular basis. This has proved to be difficult, with regard to Singapore, as such information was not being published consistently by that country. Approximately a third of the nations of the world continue to impose the death penalty. With regard to the Asia – Pacific region, 28 countries out of 41 have abolished the death penalty. This includes 13 Commonwealth countries of that region (Singapore should join global trend and establish a moratorium on executions).

In China, the death penalty is still in use. However, it is reconsidering the offenses that attract capital punishment. In the past, China had abstained from executing juvenile offenders. Unlike the US Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, there is no express prohibition in the Chinese Constitution. However, China has emerged ahead of the US in applying the death penalty. (The US and China: The legal ties that bind). Nevertheless, the use of the death penalty for certain economic crimes has appalled the Americans.

There are 68 capital offences in the Chinese criminal law. These include rape, robbery and murder, and certain crimes that do not entail violence, such as drug offences and economic crimes. The method of killing is by shooting the condemned person in the back of the head. In addition, lethal injections are also being employed for this purpose. The killings in China have raised concerns with Amnesty International, which has frequently pointed out the secrecy being maintained by the Chinese regarding the number of people that it executes (Amnesty International Asia & The Pacific).

The Chinese government has bluntly refused to publish complete details regarding the number of death sentences and executions. In this milieu, the Amnesty International estimated that at the minimum some 1,770 people had been put to death, in the year 2005. In addition, it had been estimated that during that year, around 3,900 individuals had been sentenced to death. The Chinese system does not provide a fair trial to the accused. Some of the major drawbacks are absence of timely access to legal aid, lack of a presumption of innocence, admission of evidence obtained by torture, and political interference with the judiciary (Amnesty International Asia & The Pacific).

With regard to the imposition of the death penalty, China has emerged as the leader. The Amnesty International has estimated that 60 to 80% of the total executions and death sentences of the world can be attributed to China. Moreover, wrongful convictions and erroneous executions are alarmingly frequent in China. Such executions result from the widespread use of torture in investigations, by the Chinese authorities (Hong). Despite these terrifying facts, the Chinese obdurately insist that their policy is to curtail excessive executions.

In addition, the death penalty system of China is characterized by several novel features. The first of these relates to the exemption made with regard to individuals less than 18 years of age at the time of their commission of the crime. Such offenders are not executed. Another exception is with regard to women who are pregnant at the time of adjudication. Moreover, in all capital cases, there has to be legal representation. Furthermore, there is a provision for pronouncing a suspended death sentence. This is made whenever the offender has to be sentenced to death, but where it is not indispensable to execute that person immediately (Hong).

The Criminal Procedure Law of 1996 of China permits the execution of offenders, only by shooting or lethal injection. The latter form of execution consists of injecting the condemned prisoner with a mixture of barbiturates, muscle relaxant, and potassium chloride. This form of killing, which has been in vogue, since the late 1990s, is conducted in mobile death vans or in prisons. As it proves much costlier to maintain the death vans, there has been a significant decline in their use. Lethal injection is the preferred method of execution for individuals who commit crimes by taking advantage of their official power or economic crimes (Segura).

Moreover, due to the unacceptably high rate of food safety violations in the country, the Chinese Supreme Court directed judges to inflict more severe punishment upon offenders. The courts across the nation were instructed to impose longer jail terms, and larger fines for the violators of food safety regulations. These courts were also required to impose the death penalty for food safety violations that resulted in death. The legislature and the highest court of the nation had been making serious efforts to curtail the employment of the death penalty, prior to the emergence of rampant violations of food safety regulations (China Orders Death Penalty For Food Safety Violators).

The populace had become infuriated with the contamination of food products, such as cooking oil and baby milk. As a further measure of deterrence, cases relating to food safety violations had to be given wide publicity and in the major cases open trials were to be conducted. Government officials who had accepted bribes to protect those who had committed food safety crimes were to be punished very severely (China Orders Death Penalty For Food Safety Violators).

In the year 2010, there were executions in 23 countries, in comparison to 19 countries in the year 2009. However, there was a reduction in the number of people executed, during this period, from approximately 714 to around 527. These figures had excluded the contribution of China, as no data was forthcoming from that country. In fact, it has generally been believed that the number of executions in China is more than the combined number of executions in the rest of the world (Joyner, Death Penalty: US vs. The World). Although, the abolition of the death penalty, across the world, is in sight, a few nations routinely kill people in the thousands.

As such, the maximum number of executions takes place in China, and the Chinese government has obdurately refused to publish data relating to the number of people sentenced to death and the number of people actually executed. Despite the unrelenting efforts of Amnesty International, there has been no disclosure by the Chinese authorities, in this context. As a measure of appeasement towards the international community, China has reduced the number of crimes for which the punishment is execution. In addition, there is some possibility that people above the age of 75 may not be executed in the future. Furthermore, the death penalty could be discontinued for crimes like tax fraud, and the smuggling of valuables and cultural relics. Around 13 crimes, which presently attract the death penalty, could be removed from this category (Tran).

It is necessary for China to ensure, with regard to the criminals of death penalty; the right of claim for absolution, reproductive right, right to cohabit with the spouse before being put to death, and right to terminal care. In addition, the authorities should ensure the right of personality, right to select the mode of effecting the humanized death penalty, and the right to specify the manner in which their organs are to be disposed after their death (Zou 40). On several occasions, the Chinese government had ignored the human rights of criminals condemned to death.

However, the states in the US where the death penalty is in vogue admit of five possible modes of execution. The condemned criminal is provided with the choice of selecting any particular mode of execution. These modes are death by lethal injection, hanging, shooting, electrocution, and poison gas. The preferred mode among prisoners is death by lethal injection. In several nations, those condemned to death can be visited by relatives, friends and lawyers (Zou 40).

In addition, such prisoners can be touched by their visitors through an isolation strip. Moreover, just before being taken away to be put to death, such convicts can spend time with their families and have a farewell meal with them. In some instances, even cohabitation with the spouse, prior to being executed, has been permitted. The religiously minded convicts are in general, provided with the services of a religious functionary, who prays for them and gives them religious rites (Zou 40).

Prior to being executed by electrocution, it has to be ensured that the condemned would be executed successfully and in a painless manner. In addition, the condemned have to be provided with spiritual comfort and attempts should be made to relieve their state of extreme emotional distress. Furthermore, several covenants have been promulgated by the international community, in order to safeguard the legal rights of those condemned to death (Zou 40).

The United Nations enjoins that the execution of condemned convicts should attempt to relieve pain. Moreover, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that no person should be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman treatment or penalty. The Chinese have affixed their signature to several international covenants on human rights and stated that they would promote and preserve human rights (Zou 41). They have also promised to protect the interests and legal rights of criminals of death penalty.

With the passage of time, a gradual transformation has taken place in Chinese society, with regard to crime and punishment, and there is greater concern towards criminals condemned to death. In the past, Chinese society the crime and the criminal were detested, and it was believed that the criminal deserved severe punishment as retribution for the harm caused by the criminal towards individuals and society (Zou 41).

During that period, the public would have refused to accord human rights to condemned convicts. However, with the advent of the 21st century, this situation underwent a change, and human rights were developed significantly in the domain of the judiciary. Subsequent to the reform and opening up of China, vast changes transpired in the areas of culture, economy, and politics. It was during this time that human rights commenced to develop, and this change included the human rights of individuals sentenced to death (Zou 41).

Death by lethal injection was introduced in China, in the year 1997. This marks the advent of humaneness in executing criminals in China. Thereafter, some of the courts in China, gradually permitted humane practices, such as permitting criminals sentenced to death to meet with their relatives, the provision of appropriate diet for these criminals, and facilitating the making of wills by the condemned (Zou 41). Some of the interventions have been adopted at the national level.

The Chinese government imposes sever restrictions on the allocation of funds to the law enforcing and implementing agencies. Due to insufficient resources, these institutions face challenges and problems, while implementing human rights of criminals of death penalty. Moreover, the local courts perform on the basis of the traditional concepts. These problems force the local judicial bodies to ignore the basic human rights of the criminals. In addition to this, the government bodies ignore the demands of the criminals of death penalty. They do not fulfill the requests of the criminals of death penalty to meet their family members even occasionally (Zou 41). Such is the reality in China.

Abuse of the corpses and organs of criminals after execution is a heinous act, which tarnishes the image and reputation of China. There are a number of reports that clearly establish that the corpses and organs of the criminals are traded. The government has not initiated any action to curb this practice. All these incidents prove that there is no guarantee of human rights in China (Zou 41). The level of human rights of criminals in China has been determined to be very low, in comparison with the other nations.

During the prohibition era, judgments were made in public, the condemned criminal was paraded through the streets as a measure of warning for the public, and finally these criminals were executed by a firing squad. It can be safely assumed that the government of China deliberately ignores the human rights of criminals of death penalty. This is because the guarantee of human rights would generate new challenges and problems. These challenges include a reproductive right and the right of absolution with the spouse. Protecting these rights would result in appeals to the courts to delay the execution of the criminals of death penalty. This situation makes it necessary to enact laws that define and protect the rights of criminals of death penalty (Zou 41).

Criminals of death penalty are deprived of several rights and the most important of these is the right to life. The law repeals all civil rights and the right to life of persons sentenced to death. Moreover, the criminal law rescinds the political and civil rights of such criminals. This means that they are deprived of these rights for their lifetime. The political rights annulled by the law, include the right to vote; the right to be voted; the right to freedom of speech; the right of publication, assembly, formation of association and marching; the right to hold a function in the state organs; and the right to hold a position in a state owned organization or company (Zou 42). Criminals are barred from holding leadership positions in public institutions and peoples’ organizations.

Criminals of death penalty are deprived of the right to life and the above rights. However, the other rights have not been withheld. This makes it imperative for the law to uphold the basic rights of such criminals, including the personality right. Such criminals are placed in custody and are likely to be executed. Consequently, there will be a significant difference in the fulfillment of their rights, when compared to the rights of the common public. Moreover, several of the human rights of condemned prisoners will be restricted, and this includes the right of marriage, reproductive right, and right of personality (Zou 42).

From the perspective of a logical structure, the rights of condemned criminals can be categorized into three classes. The first of these are the rights that such criminals are entitled to as natural persons. Another category is that of the rights that these criminals can claims as citizens. The last of these categories is that of the rights that such criminals are entitled to by virtue of being criminals (Zou 42).

With regard to the improvement of the rights that protect criminals of death penalty, the Chinese authorities have to assess the scope of such rights. This evaluation has to be confined to the basic framework relating to the rights of such criminals. Such assessment has to be in accordance with the social material, technical conditions, and the ideological and cultural development of society (Zou 42). In addition, it should ensure that the rights of the condemned are adequately protected.

With regard to the right of claim for absolution, it is to be noted that several international covenants have stipulated this right. For instance, Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that individuals sentenced to death are entitled to claim an absolution or reduction in the sentence; and a general pardon can be granted for any case of death penalty. In addition, a case of death penalty can be provided with abatement from penalty or a special pardon (Zou 42).

Absolution is a system that has been in vogue for many years. In contemporary society, absolution has been transformed from a benediction granted by a monarch to criminal policy to a mechanism for addressing social conflict and as a method for redressing legal disadvantages. The system of absolution is accorded a substantial amount of importance, across the world. Despite the importance attached to absolution, China’s constitution does not provide for a general pardon, and the only available relief is that of special pardon (Zou 42).

Since, its inception, China has implemented the special pardon on just seven occasions. What is alarming is that the Chinese, during the past three decades, have formally set aside absolution. The absolution mechanism has tremendous potential and value, and this has not been allowed to see the light of day by the Chinese authorities. Those who are condemned to death are in dire need of relief. This automatically makes them eligible to be entitled to the right of absolution (Zou 42).

This additional measure would ensure solemnity and caution in the process of the death penalty. At the same time, it would ensure the circumvention of injustice being meted out to the offender. Although, China is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in the year 1998, it has not implemented its provisions in a proper and conscientious manner (Zou 42).

However, the criminal justice system is not infallible. This has been clearly demonstrated by the advent of DNA testing, which has conclusively established the innocence of quite a few individuals on death row. As a result, it is now an incontrovertible fact that the legal system is defective to the extent that there are an indeterminate number of innocent persons on death row. In recognition of this unseemly and unpalatable fact, George Ryan the Republican Governor had imposed a moratorium on executions, in the year 2003 (Peffley and Hurwitz 998).

This moratorium was with regard to 164 prisoners on death row, in the state of Illinois. He had based his decision on the grounds that execution was irrevocable and that the defective legal system would bring about the execution of several innocent individuals. In fact, these flawed convictions ensure that the public does not support capital punishment (Peffley and Hurwitz 998).

A major defect with the US legal system is the rampant racial and ethnic discrimination inherent in it. This becomes all the more important and alarming with regard to the death penalty. The extent of this iniquity can be gauged from the fact that some 38 states have appointed commissions to investigate discrimination in the legal system. A consequence of such discrimination is that the majority of the death row inmates are non – whites, such as African Americans and Latinos. These unfortunate individuals occupy the death row to a much greater proportion than the whites do (Peffley and Hurwitz 998).

The perception among African Americans is that the death penalty constitutes a highly racialized form of punishment. Although, whites and non – whites are in favor of punishment that does not vary with the race or ethnicity of the offender, their reasons for such preference are different. The non – whites prefer equal punishment as they fear victimization; whereas, the whites do so due to racial prejudice. When it comes to the death penalty, the whites support it to a much greater extent than the non – whites. The reason behind this is not clear, and another difficulty experienced in this area is that there is inadequate research regarding interracial differences in the attitude towards crime and punishment. The major portion of the research has been focused on the attitude of the whites. The research on African Americans and other ethnic and racial groups has been limited to very small samples (Peffley and Hurwitz 998).

US politics is distinguished by racial conflicts, and this is a long – standing and well – entrenched feature of this system. There have been claims that the criminal justice system of the US is devoid of discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity. These contentions have generated several studies regarding the ascriptive determinants of punishment. It has been disclosed by ethnic or racial threat theories that repression results, whenever there is an enhanced minority presence. Some studies have even claimed that dominant racial groups tend to be intimidated by the presence of large minority populations (Jacobs and Carmichael 111).

The greater minority presence tends to threaten the whites of the middle and working classes, which counteract with efforts to maintain their superiority. Thus, several studies have shown that negative feelings about non – whites is greater in localities, in which there are comparatively fewer whites. In fact, a relationship has been found between the fear of crime and the presence of African Americans. There have been several studies, which have demonstrated that efforts to control crime on the streets vary with the perceived threats from a larger racial underclass (Jacobs and Carmichael 111).

Another observation in this context is that the number of police officers is greater in cities that have a comparatively larger minority population. Such cities are also distinguished by their higher rate of arrests. An expansion in the presence of non – whites is accompanied by an increase in the spending on jails and prisons. From these findings, it can be concluded that whites, irrespective of the class to which they belong, have ensured that there is significantly greater criminal punishment, in areas that have larger minority populations. There is considerable support among the whites for inflicting the death penalty on the non – whites. In fact, the whites have the expectation that the death penalty should be more frequent in jurisdictions with higher proportions of non – whites (Jacobs and Carmichael 111).

A curvilinear relationship has been suggested between threat and repressive outcomes. This is from not only the theoretical perspective, but also from empirical data. A study by Taylor has revealed that several of the correlations between the presence of members of minority communities and the racial attitudes of the whites tend to be non – linear. Another curvilinear relationship was determined by Jackson, between the expenditure incurred by the law enforcement agencies and the presence of minority communities. In one study, it was shown that the minority threat would generate an association between repressive political decisions and minority presence (Jacobs and Carmichael 111).

Political decisions regarding the legality of the death penalty are determined by three fundamental perspective of political sociology. These are partisan tactical considerations, political ideology, and social divisions. The Republicans have been vociferous advocates of stringent measures to enforce law and order. Thus, there have been several studies that have demonstrated that states with strong Republican parties tend to legalize capital punishment. The politicians of the US tend to manipulate issues related to the death penalty from the background. At the forefront of any debate on capital punishment, it is the public that makes itself heard (Jacobs and Carmichael 128). As such, the views of the public are more influential with regard to the death penalty.

Most of the countries of the world permit imposition of permanent imprisonment. However, when it comes to executing criminals, there is a marked reluctance to permit such punishment. During the year 1999, the UN Commission on Human Rights had made a strident call for abolishing capital punishment (Soss, Langbein and Metelko 397). In this environment, the US has achieved the dubious distinction of being a major killer. For instance, in the year 2000, the US, China, Saudi Arabia and Iran had been responsible for 88% of the detected executions, worldwide; and in the 1990s, the US had routinely put even youth offenders, under the age of 18, to death (Soss, Langbein and Metelko 398).

The public of the US has been strongly in favor of the death penalty. Thus, in the year 1936, around 61% were in favor of executing offenders. This declined to 47% in the year 1966, but increased to 70% by the 1980s. The extent of public support reached an overwhelming 80% in the year 1994. Public opinion dominates, when it comes to the death penalty in the US, and politicians have little say in the matter (Soss, Langbein and Metelko 398).

As demonstrated by the research conducted by Soss, Langbein and Metelko, racial attitudes have a major impact on the white support for the death penalty. Such support is the outcome of prejudice towards the non – whites in the community. No attempt at understanding the white support for the death penalty can afford to ignore this dimension of bias towards members of non – white communities (Soss, Langbein and Metelko 416). Racial bias has a major influence upon who is sentenced to death, and has a major bearing upon the manner in which the whites view this punishment.

Fundamentally, the system of criminal justice had been founded on revenge, retribution and punishment. With regard to offenders condemned to death, it was generally presumed that such individuals had seriously violated others rights. Such criminals were not thought to be fit to be provided with human rights.

However, at present, there is growing opposition, across the world, with regard to the implementation of the death penalty, as it violates the human rights of the condemned criminals. This awareness of human rights has become a mass movement in many nations. Moreover, the international community strongly opposes the administration of capital punishment to criminals. Despite these developments, China implements the death penalty. Thus, there is a wide gap between the current trends in the international community and China.

It is indeed distressing to note that China does not promote the rights of criminals of death penalty, despite its vociferous claims to the contrary. When viewed in the backdrop of the contemporary trend among the nations towards a humane approach to criminals, this is even more disturbing. Some of the rights of those sentenced to death, which are violated by the Chinese authorities; belong to the realm of the basic human rights.

More than half of the countries of the world have abolished the death penalty. This salubrious environment may not happen in China, due to the inferior social development and values of the Chinese. Thus, the international community will have to watch anxiously for quite some time, before China decides to abolish the death penalty. In addition, China executes prisoners for a much larger range of crimes than the other countries that kill prisoners. The common development among the nations of the world is that the human rights of offenders condemned to death should be protected. In this regard, the death should be brought about in a humane manner, and there should be a significant limiting of executing by procedures that prove to be painful. Considerable attention should be devoted to the rights of the condemned, before they are killed.

China does not have an appropriate mechanism or laws to guarantee and protect the human rights of individuals. There is no uniformity with regard to the rights of criminals of the death penalty, at the national level. The authorities have considerable discretion, while dealing with criminals sentenced to death. China has failed to implement the international covenants, which it has ratified, properly. It did not enact any legislation to incorporate the provisions of international treaties. Moreover, there are serious flaws in the national laws of China, which makes a mockery of the various international covenants that China has signed.

Although, it can be concluded, based on the above observations that the American legal system is significantly discriminatory, these observations indicate the presence of substantial discrimination. The members of the non – white community tend to believe that the system is discriminatory. Moreover, black offenders convicted of murdering whites are more likely to be executed, in comparison to offenders who murder members of the minority communities. As is well known, district attorneys engage in the practice of jury bleaching, in capital cases, wherein a white has been killed. Jury bleaching is the practice of removing non – whites from jury pools that are to try capital cases, involving the death of whites.

This vindicates the stance that capital punishment is inflicted in a discriminatory manner in the US. The death penalty has become racialized from the perspective of the public. There is a commingling of the issues of crime and race by the white majority of the US. This transpires in the context of the racial stereotypes of African Americans, whilst contemplating punishment. Several studies have demonstrated that racial prejudice had an important influence on the attitude of the whites towards the death penalty.

As such, this research indicates that there are several instances of human rights violations in the implementation of the death penalty in the US and China. In the recent past, most of the executions had been conducted in China. This country constitutes the leader in imposing the death penalty. Although the US regards itself as the protector of the human rights, it is the only nation in the West that has not abolished the death penalty. Several independent organizations and the United Nations have observed that the US authorities frequently violate the human rights of those condemned to death.

Another disturbing feature of the US criminal justice system is that a large number of innocent people have been made the inmates of the death row, due to the discriminatory attitude of the US criminal justice system. Racial and ethnic discrimination is rampant in the US criminal justice system. Although the US is marginally better than China, as it permits the condemned to select the mode of execution, from the five available options, the fact remains that a significant number of these inmates are innocent.

China has blatantly rejected the international norms relating to human rights, while implementing the death penalty. Moreover, offenders are executed for a large number of crimes, regardless of the seriousness of the crime. Although the human rights organizations and its people had raised a hue and cry, in order to safeguard the rights of offenders, the Chinese government overlooked these protestations.

In the words of Emilie Durkheim, the death penalty had been utilized as a measure of vengeance in the under developed societies. Several studies have conclusively established that the death penalty does not deter crime. As such, there is no moral reason to perpetuate the death penalty, in the developed nations. Furthermore, discrimination of any kind should not prevail in the criminal justice system of any country. The nations of the world should adopt humanitarian methods in their death penalty procedures, in case they are unable to abolish such punishment, as it can result in irreparable loss to the innocent.

Works Cited

Alexander, J C and P Smith. The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.

Amnesty International in Asia & The Pacific. China: The Death Penalty, A Failure Of Justice. n.d. Web. 12 November 2012. .

Amnesty International. “Singapore should join global trend and establish a moratorium on executions.” 2 May 2012. Web. 8 October 2012. .

China Orders Death Penalty For Food Safety Violators. 30 May 2011. Web. 8 October 2012. .

Coker v Georgia. No. 433 US 584. Supreme Court of the United States of America. 29 June 1977.

Death Penalty In 2011: Report Shows Executions By Country . 27 March 2012. Web. 8 October 2012. .

Durkheim, Emile. Moral Education. Free Press, 1961. Print.

Filloux, Jean – Claude. “Emile Durkheim.” 2001. UNESCO: International Bureau of Education. Web. 15 November 2012. .

Garland, David. “Death Penalty Doesn't Work, but It Does Have Benefits.” Valley News 6 August 2010: A. 6. Print.

—. “Death, Denial, Discourse: The Forms and Functions of American Capital Punishment.” Downes, David M and Stanley Cohen. Crime, social control and human rights: from moral panics to states of denial, essays in honour of Stanley Cohen. Willan Publishing, 2007. 136 – 154. Print.

—. “Five myths about the death penalty.” 18 July 2010. The Washington Post. Web. 21 October 2012. .

—. Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory. Clarendon, 1990. Print.

Green, Melissa S. History of the Death Penalty & Recent Developments. 27 June 2012. Web. 8 October 2012. .

Gregg v Georgia. No. 428 US 153. Supreme Court of the United States. 2 July 1976.

Gross, Neil, Robert Alun Jones and Hans Joas. Durkheim's Philosophy Lectures: Notes from the Lycée de Sens Course, 1883-1884. Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.

Hong, L U. “China's Death Penalty: Reforms on Capital Punishment.” 5 November 2008. Web. 8 October 2012. .

International Law Disfavors use of Death Penalty for Non – Homicide Offenses such as Rape. n.d. Web. 8 October 2012. .

Jacobs, David and Jason T Carmichael. “The Political Sociology of the Death Penalty: A Pooled Time-Series Analysis.” American Sociological Review 67.1 (2002): 109 – 131. Print.

Joyner, James. Death Penalty: US vs. The World. 29 March 2011. Web. 8 October 2012. .

—. Death Penalty: US vs. The World. 29 March 2011. Web. 13 November 2012. .

Koenig, Thomas H and Michael L Rustad. “Voices of the Death Penalty Debate: A Citizen's Guide to Capital Punishment.” Suffolk University Law Review 44.1 (2011): 193. Print.

Lockett v Ohio. No. 438 US 586. Supreme Court of the United States. 3 July 1978.

Love, David A. How America's death penalty murders innocents. 21 May 2012. Web. 9 November 2012. .

Neil, Benjamin A and Brian A Neil. “Juvenile offenders and the death penalty in the United States.” Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies 6 (2012): 1 – 10. Print.

Neumayer, Eric. “Death Penalty: The Political Foundations of the Global Trend Towards Abolition.” Human Rights Review 9.2 (2008): 241 – 268. Print.

Peffley, Mark and Jon Hurwitz. “Persuasion and Resistance: Race and the Death Penalty in America.” American Journal of Political Science 51.4 (2007): 996 – 1012. Print.

People’s Republic of China. 1 April 2011. Web. 8 October 2012. .

Rogoff, Martin A. “For the Abolition of the Death Penalty in America: The Advocacy of Robert Badinter.” Human Rights Quarterly 30.3 (2008): 772 – 796. Print.

Roper v Simmons. No. 543 US 551. Supreme Court of the United States. 1 March 2005.

Segura, Cristian. China injects 'humanity' into death sentence. 16 December 2009. Web. 12 November 2012. .

Singapore should join global trend and establish a moratorium on executions. 2 May 2012. Web. 9 November 2012. .

Soss, Joe, Laura Langbein and Alan R Metelko. “Why Do White Americans Support the Death Penalty?” The Journal of Politics 65.2 (2003): 397 – 421. Print.

Stanford v Kentucky. No. 492 US 361. Supreme Court of the United States. 26 June 1989.

“The US and China: The legal ties that bind.” International Herald Tribune 1 December 2011: 8. Print.

Thompson, K. Emile Durkheim. Tavistock, 2002. Print.

Torture and Other Ill-Treatment. 2012. Web. 9 November 2012. .

Tran, Mark. China and US among top punishers but death penalty in decline. 28 March 2011. Web. 13 November 2012. .

University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center. History of the Death Penalty & Recent Developments. 27 June 2012. Web. 13 November 2012. .

US Death Penalty Facts. 2012. Web. 9 November 2012. .

Zou, Bing. “Improvement on Rights Protection of Criminals of Death Penalty in China.” Asian Social Science 8.8 (2012): 40 – 44. Print.

Related Essays

Find Free Essays

We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling

Request must contain at least 2 characters

Popular Topics

Samples by Essay Type

Cite this page

About our services

Topic Death Penalty

Level High School

Words 10980

This sample is NOT ORIGINAL. Get 100% unique essay written under your req

• Only $11 per page
• Free revisions included

Studyfy uses cookies to deliver the best experience possible. Read more.

Studyfy uses secured cookies. Read more.

The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers

Download a PDF version of Death Penalty Questions and Answers >>

Since our nation’s founding, the government — colonial, federal, and state — has punished a varying percentage of arbitrarily-selected murders with the ultimate sanction: death.

More than 14,000 people have been legally executed since colonial times, most of them in the early 20th Century. By the 1930s, as many as 150 people were executed each year. However, public outrage and legal challenges caused the practice to wane. By 1967, capital punishment had virtually halted in the United States, pending the outcome of several court challenges.

In 1972, in Furman v. Georgia , the Supreme Court invalidated hundreds of death sentences, declaring that then existing state laws were applied in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner and, thus, violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process. But in 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia , the Court resuscitated the death penalty: It ruled that the penalty “does not invariably violate the Constitution” if administered in a manner designed to guard against arbitrariness and discrimination. Several states promptly passed or reenacted capital punishment laws.

Today, states have laws authorizing the death penalty, as does the military and the federal government. Several states in the Midwest and Northeast have abolished capital punishment. Alaska and Hawaii have never had the death penalty. The vast majority of executions have taken place in 10 states from the South and over 35% have occurred in Texas. In 2004, the high courts of Kansas and New York struck down their death penalty statutes as unconstitutional and the legislatures have yet to reinstate them.

Today, about 3,350 people are on “death row.” Virtually all are poor, a significant number are mentally disabled, more than 40 percent are African American, and a disproportionate number are Native American, Latino, and Asian.

The ACLU believes that, in all circumstances, the death penalty is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. We also believe that the death penalty continues to be applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Frequently Asked Questions raised by the public about Capital Punishment Q : Doesn’t the Death Penalty deter crime, especially murder? A : No, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates.

The death penalty has no deterrent effect. Claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been thoroughly discredited by social science research. People commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts. The few murderers who plan their crimes beforehand — for example, professional executioners — intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. Some self-destructive individuals may even hope they will be caught and executed.

Death penalty laws falsely convince the public that government has taken effective measures to combat crime and homicide. In reality, such laws do nothing to protect us or our communities from the acts of dangerous criminals.

Q : Don’t murderers deserve to die? A : No one deserves to die. When the government metes out vengeance disguised as justice, it becomes complicit with killers in devaluing human life and human dignity. In civilized society, we reject the principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist’s house. We should not, therefore, punish the murderer with death.

Q : If execution is unacceptable, what is the alternative? A : INCAPACITATION. Convicted murderers can be sentenced to life imprisonment, as they are in many countries and states that have abolished the death penalty. Most state laws allow life sentences for murder that severely limit or eliminate the possibility of parole. Today, 37 states allow juries to sentence defendants to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole instead of the death penalty.

Several recent studies of public attitudes about crime and punishment found that a majority of Americans support alternatives to capital punishment: When people were presented with the facts about several crimes for which death was a possible punishment, a majority chose life imprisonment without parole as an appropriate alternative to the death penalty (see PA., 2007 ).

Q : Isn’t the Death Penalty necessary as just retribution for victims’ families? A : No. “Reconciliation means accepting you can’t undo the murder; but you can decide how you want to live afterwards” ( Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation, Inc. )

Q : Have strict procedures eliminated arbitrariness and discrimination in death sentencing? A : No. Poor people are also far more likely to be death sentenced than those who can afford the high costs of private investigators, psychiatrists, and expert criminal lawyers. Indeed, capital punishment is “a privilege of the poor,” said Clinton Duffy, former warden at California’s San Quentin Prison. Some observers have pointed out that the term “capital punishment” is ironic because “only those without capital get the punishment.”

Furthermore, study after study has found serious racial disparities in the charging, sentencing and imposition of the death penalty. People who kill whites are far more likely to receive a death sentence than those whose victims were not white, and blacks who kill whites have the greatest chance of receiving a death sentence.

Minorities are death-sentenced disproportionate to their numbers in the population. This is not primarily because minorities commit more murders, but because they are more often sentenced to death when they do.

Q : Maybe it used to happen that innocent people were mistakenly executed, but hasn’t that possibility been eliminated? A : No. Since 1973, 123 people in 25 states have been released from death row because they were not guilty. In addition, seven people have been executed even though they were probably innocent. A study published in the Stanford Law Review documents 350 capital convictions in this century, in which it was later proven that the convict had not committed the crime. Of those, 25 convicts were executed while others spent decades of their lives in prison. Fifty-five of the 350 cases took place in the 1970s, and another 20 of them between l980 and l985.

Our criminal justice system cannot be made fail-safe because it is run by human beings, who are fallible. Executions of innocent persons occur.

Q : Only the worst criminals get sentenced to death, right? A : Wrong. Although it is commonly thought that the death penalty is reserved for those who commit the most heinous crimes, in reality only a small percentage of death-sentenced inmates were convicted of unusually vicious crimes. The vast majority of individuals facing execution were convicted of crimes that are indistinguishable from crimes committed by others who are serving prison sentences, crimes such as murder committed in the course of an armed robbery.

The death penalty is like a lottery, in which fairness always loses. Who gets the death penalty is largely determined, not by the severity of the crime, but by: the race, sex, and economic class of the prisoner and victim; geography — some states have the death penalty, others do not, within the states that do some counties employ it with great frequency and others do not; the quality of defense counsel and vagaries in the legal process.

Q : “Cruel and unusual punishment” — those are strong words, but aren’t executions relatively swift and painless? A : No execution is painless, whether botched or not, and all executions are certainly cruel. The history of capital punishment is replete with examples of botched executions.

Lethal injection is the latest technique, first used in Texas in l982, and now mandated by law in a large majority of states that retain capital punishment. Although this method is defended as more humane, efficient, and inexpensive than others, one federal judge observed that even “a slight error in dosage or administration can leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation.” In Texas, there have been three botched injection executions since 1985. In other states, dozens of botched executions have occurred, leading to suspensions of executions in Florida, California, and other states.

In 2006, it took the Florida Department of Corrections 34 minutes to execute inmate Angel Nieves Diaz by way of lethal injection, usually a 15 minute procedure. During the execution, Diaz appeared to be in pain and gasped for air for more than 11 minutes. He was given a rare second dose of lethal chemicals after the execution team observed that the first round did not kill him. A medical examiner reported the second dose was needed because the needles were incorrectly inserted through his veins and into the flesh in his arms. Not only did Diaz die a slow and excruciating death because the drugs were not delivered into his veins properly, his autopsy revealed that he suffered 12 inch chemical burns in his arms by the highly concentrated drugs flowing under his skin.

More recently, an Ohio inmate did not die when his injections were incorrectly administered. Minutes into the execution, he raised his head and said, “It don’t work, it don’t work.”

Eyewitness accounts confirm that execution by lethal injection and other means is often an excruciatingly painful, and always degrading, process that ends in death.

Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant of uncivilized society. It is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice. It assures the execution of some innocent people. As a remedy for crime, it has no purpose and no effect. Capital punishment ought to be abolished now.

Related Issues

• Capital Punishment
• Mass Incarceration
• Smart Justice

Stay Informed

Every month, you'll receive regular roundups of the most important civil rights and civil liberties developments. Remember: a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

• University of Pennsylvania
• School of Arts and Sciences
• Penn Calendar

Search form

Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?

Richard Berk

There have been claims for decades that in the United States the death penalty serves as a deterrent. When there are executions, violent crime decreases. But there have also been claims that executions “brutalize” society because government agencies diminish respect for life when the death penalty is applied. With brutalization comes an increase in violent crime, and especially homicides. Both sides assert that there is credible research supporting their position. In fact, a committee of the National Research Council has concluded that existing studies are far too methodologically flawed to draw conclusions one way or another. Neither side can maintain that they have empirical support. In most years, most states execute no one, and that pattern seems to be on the rise. One cannot study the impact of executions when they are hardly ever imposed, and it is difficult to separate any impact of the death penalty from the large number of other factors that affect the amount and kinds of crime. The committee’s conclusion about the claim that the death penalty deters is “can’t tell.”

Daniel Nagin and John Pepper (eds.) (2012) Deterrence and the Death Penalty , The National Academies Press ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13363/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty )

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S.

Most U.S. adults support the death penalty for people convicted of murder, according to an April 2021 Pew Research Center survey . At the same time, majorities believe the death penalty is not applied in a racially neutral way, does not deter people from committing serious crimes and does not have enough safeguards to prevent an innocent person from being executed.

Use of the death penalty has gradually declined in the United States in recent decades. A growing number of states have abolished it, and death sentences and executions have become less common. But the story is not one of continuous decline across all levels of government. While state-level executions have decreased, the federal government put more prisoners to death under President Donald Trump than at any point since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.

As debates over the death penalty continue in the U.S. , here’s a closer look at public opinion on the issue, as well as key facts about the nation’s use of capital punishment.

This Pew Research Center analysis examines public opinion about the death penalty in the United States and explores how the nation has used capital punishment in recent decades. 

The public opinion findings cited here are based primarily on a Pew Research Center survey of 5,109 U.S. adults, conducted from April 5 to 11, 2021. Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology . Here are the  questions used  from this survey, along with responses, and its  methodology .

Findings about the administration of the death penalty – including the number of states with and without capital punishment, the annual number of death sentences and executions, the demographics of those on death row and the average amount of time spent on death row – come from the Death Penalty Information Center and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Six-in-ten U.S. adults strongly or somewhat favor the death penalty for convicted murderers, according to the April 2021 survey. A similar share (64%) say the death penalty is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder.

Support for capital punishment is strongly associated with the view that it is morally justified in certain cases. Nine-in-ten of those who favor the death penalty say it is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder; only a quarter of those who oppose capital punishment see it as morally justified.

A majority of Americans have concerns about the fairness of the death penalty and whether it serves as a deterrent against serious crime. More than half of U.S. adults (56%) say Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to death for committing similar crimes. About six-in-ten (63%) say the death penalty does not deter people from committing serious crimes, and nearly eight-in-ten (78%) say there is some risk that an innocent person will be executed.

Opinions about the death penalty vary by party, education and race and ethnicity. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are much more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to favor the death penalty for convicted murderers (77% vs. 46%). Those with less formal education are also more likely to support it: Around two-thirds of those with a high school diploma or less (68%) favor the death penalty, compared with 63% of those with some college education, 49% of those with a bachelor’s degree and 44% of those with a postgraduate degree. Majorities of White (63%), Asian (63%) and Hispanic adults (56%) support the death penalty, but Black adults are evenly divided, with 49% in favor and 49% opposed.

Views of the death penalty differ by religious affiliation . Around two-thirds of Protestants in the U.S. (66%) favor capital punishment, though support is much higher among White evangelical Protestants (75%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (73%) than it is among Black Protestants (50%). Around six-in-ten Catholics (58%) also support capital punishment, a figure that includes 61% of Hispanic Catholics and 56% of White Catholics.

Opposition to the death penalty also varies among the religiously unaffiliated. Around two-thirds of atheists (65%) oppose it, as do more than half of agnostics (57%). Among those who say their religion is “nothing in particular,” 63% support capital punishment.

Support for the death penalty is consistently higher in online polls than in phone polls. Survey respondents sometimes give different answers depending on how a poll is conducted. In a series of contemporaneous Pew Research Center surveys fielded online and on the phone between September 2019 and August 2020, Americans consistently expressed more support for the death penalty in a self-administered online format than in a survey administered on the phone by a live interviewer. This pattern was more pronounced among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents than among Republicans and GOP leaners, according to an analysis of the survey results .

Phone polls have shown a long-term decline in public support for the death penalty. In phone surveys conducted by Pew Research Center between 1996 and 2020, the share of U.S. adults who favor the death penalty fell from 78% to 52%, while the share of Americans expressing opposition rose from 18% to 44%. Phone surveys conducted by Gallup found a similar decrease in support for capital punishment during this time span.

A majority of states have the death penalty, but far fewer use it regularly. As of July 2021, the death penalty is authorized by 27 states and the federal government – including the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. military – and prohibited in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Death Penalty Information Center . But even in many of the jurisdictions that authorize the death penalty, executions are rare: 13 of these states, along with the U.S. military, haven’t carried out an execution in a decade or more. That includes three states – California , Oregon and Pennsylvania – where governors have imposed formal moratoriums on executions.

A growing number of states have done away with the death penalty in recent years, either through legislation or a court ruling. Virginia, which has carried out more executions than any state except Texas since 1976, abolished capital punishment in 2021. It followed Colorado (2020), New Hampshire (2019), Washington (2018), Delaware (2016), Maryland (2013), Connecticut (2012), Illinois (2011), New Mexico (2009), New Jersey (2007) and New York (2004).

Death sentences have steadily decreased in recent decades. There were 2,570 people on death row in the U.S. at the end of 2019, down 29% from a peak of 3,601 at the end of 2000, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). New death sentences have also declined sharply: 31 people were sentenced to death in 2019, far below the more than 320 who received death sentences each year between 1994 and 1996. In recent years, prosecutors in some U.S. cities – including Orlando and Philadelphia – have vowed not to seek the death penalty, citing concerns over its application.

Nearly all (98%) of the people who were on death row at the end of 2019 were men. Both the mean and median age of the nation’s death row population was 51. Black prisoners accounted for 41% of death row inmates, far higher than their 13% share of the nation’s adult population that year. White prisoners accounted for 56%, compared with their 77% share of the adult population. (For both Black and White Americans, these figures include those who identify as Hispanic. Overall, about 15% of death row prisoners in 2019 identified as Hispanic, according to BJS.)

Annual executions are far below their peak level. Nationally, 17 people were put to death in 2020, the fewest since 1991 and far below the modern peak of 98 in 1999, according to BJS and the Death Penalty Information Center. The COVID-19 outbreak disrupted legal proceedings in much of the country in 2020, causing some executions to be postponed .

Even as the overall number of executions in the U.S. fell to a 29-year low in 2020, the federal government ramped up its use of the death penalty. The Trump administration executed 10 prisoners in 2020 and another three in January 2021; prior to 2020, the federal government had carried out a total of three executions since 1976.

The Biden administration has taken a different approach from its predecessor. In July 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered a halt in federal executions while the Justice Department reviews its policies and procedures.

The average time between sentencing and execution in the U.S. has increased sharply since the 1980s. In 1984, the average time between sentencing and execution was 74 months, or a little over six years, according to BJS . By 2019, that figure had more than tripled to 264 months, or 22 years. The average prisoner awaiting execution at the end of 2019, meanwhile, had spent nearly 19 years on death row.

A variety of factors explain the increase in time spent on death row, including lengthy legal appeals by those sentenced to death and challenges to the way states and the federal government carry out executions, including the drugs used in lethal injections. In California, more death row inmates have died from natural causes or suicide than from executions since 1978, according to the state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation .

Note: This is an update to a post originally published May 28, 2015.

• Criminal Justice
• Death Penalty

John Gramlich is an associate director at Pew Research Center

What the data says about crime in the U.S.

8 facts about black lives matter, #blacklivesmatter turns 10, support for the black lives matter movement has dropped considerably from its peak in 2020, fewer than 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted in 2022, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Capital Punishment does not Deter Murder

This essay about whether capital punishment deters crime explores the arguments and evidence surrounding the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent. It discusses the classical criminology theory that rational actors are dissuaded by the severity of capital punishment. However, it also highlights studies, including a landmark 2006 study by Donohue and Wolfers, that find no conclusive evidence supporting the death penalty’s role in reducing crime more effectively than life sentences without parole. The essay further considers the moral and ethical implications of capital punishment, including the risks of wrongful executions and the societal acceptance of killing. Additionally, it addresses the practical issues of lengthy legal processes that might dilute the deterrent effect due to delays. The conclusion suggests a global trend away from capital punishment, driven by doubts about its deterrent effect and a broader focus on addressing crime’s root causes through rehabilitation and other preventive measures.

How it works

The quandary of whether capital punishment deters transgression persists as one of the most contentious and disputed matters within the spheres of criminology and public policy. Proponents of capital punishment assert that the apprehension of facing the ultimate penalty serves as a notable impediment against perpetrating atrocious transgressions, notably homicide. Conversely, adversaries contend that there exists scant empirical substantiation to validate the assertion that prospective wrongdoers are dissuaded by the prospect of execution. This treatise scrutinizes the substantiation and contentions from both standpoints to delve into the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to transgression.

Historically, the rationale behind capital punishment as a deterrent finds its roots in classical criminology, which postulates that humans are rational agents who calculate the costs and benefits of their deeds. From this vantage point, the severe severity of the death penalty is posited to tilt the scales decisively against committing capital offenses. Theoretically, the dread of death is presumed to wield sufficient potency as a deterrent to outweigh any conceivable gains from committing a transgression.

However, the empirical substantiation regarding the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent remains far from conclusive. Myriad studies have endeavored to scrutinize transgression rates in areas with and without capital punishment, striving to ascertain if discernible disparities exist that could be ascribed to the presence of capital punishment. A seminal study by Donohue and Wolfers in 2006 scrutinized decades of data and arrived at the conclusion that there existed no credible evidence that capital punishment deterred transgression more efficaciously than lengthy sentences such as life imprisonment. Their findings, which are echoed by additional research in the domain, intimate that capital punishment does not distinctly contribute to a diminution in transgression rates.

Further muddling the discourse is the contemplation of the moral, ethical, and societal repercussions of capital punishment. Some posit that the state’s utilization of capital punishment could conceivably augment societal acquiescence to killing, thereby undermining any deterrent efficacy. Additionally, there is the irreversible nature of capital punishment, which engenders considerable apprehensions regarding erroneous convictions. The dread of executing an innocent individual and documented instances of such errors may further attenuate the contention for capital punishment as a deterrent, as the legitimacy and integrity of the judicial system are cast into doubt.

On the pragmatic front, the implementation of capital punishment frequently entails protracted legal procedures that can protract for numerous years, if not decades. This hiatus between the commission of a transgression and the execution could abate the perceived immediacy of the penalty, thereby diminishing its deterrent impact. Prospective wrongdoers might remain unperturbed by a penalty perceived as distant and uncertain, a pivotal facet when considering the psychological ramifications of deterrence theory.

Globally, the trajectory has been veering away from capital punishment. Numerous nations have abolished the death penalty, not solely due to apprehensions about its efficacy as a deterrent but also owing to ethical considerations. The international pivot towards rehabilitation, rather than punitive measures, reflects a broader comprehension of transgression prevention that concentrates more on addressing the fundamental causes of transgression such as destitution, inequality, and educational insufficiency.

In conclusion, the question of whether capital punishment deters transgression does not yield a straightforward response. While the theoretical framework of deterrence may buttress the utility of capital punishment, the empirical evidence predominantly intimates that it fails to exert a pronounced impact on diminishing transgression rates compared to alternative punitive modalities. The ethical apprehensions and the prospect of irrevocable errors further complicate the advocacy for its employment. Consequently, more nations and states are reevaluating their stance on capital punishment, reflecting a burgeoning consensus that efficacious transgression deterrence is better achieved through alternative avenues.

Cite this page

Capital Punishment Does Not Deter Murder. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/capital-punishment-does-not-deter-murder/

"Capital Punishment Does Not Deter Murder." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/capital-punishment-does-not-deter-murder/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Capital Punishment Does Not Deter Murder . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/capital-punishment-does-not-deter-murder/ [Accessed: 27 Apr. 2024]

"Capital Punishment Does Not Deter Murder." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed April 27, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/capital-punishment-does-not-deter-murder/

"Capital Punishment Does Not Deter Murder," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/capital-punishment-does-not-deter-murder/. [Accessed: 27-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Capital Punishment Does Not Deter Murder . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/capital-punishment-does-not-deter-murder/ [Accessed: 27-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

In its last six months, the United States government has put 13 prisoners to death. Do you think capital punishment should end?

By Nicole Daniels

Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.

In July, the United States carried out its first federal execution in 17 years. Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had in the previous six decades.

The death penalty has been abolished in 22 states and 106 countries, yet it is still legal at the federal level in the United States. Does your state or country allow the death penalty?

Do you believe governments should be allowed to execute people who have been convicted of crimes? Is it ever justified, such as for the most heinous crimes? Or are you universally opposed to capital punishment?

In “ ‘Expedited Spree of Executions’ Faced Little Supreme Court Scrutiny ,” Adam Liptak writes about the recent federal executions:

In 2015, a few months before he died, Justice Antonin Scalia said he w o uld not be surprised if the Supreme Court did away with the death penalty. These days, after President Trump’s appointment of three justices, liberal members of the court have lost all hope of abolishing capital punishment. In the face of an extraordinary run of federal executions over the past six months, they have been left to wonder whether the court is prepared to play any role in capital cases beyond hastening executions. Until July, there had been no federal executions in 17 years . Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had put to death in the previous six decades.

The article goes on to explain that Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissent on Friday as the Supreme Court cleared the way for the last execution of the Trump era, complaining that it had not sufficiently resolved legal questions that inmates had asked. The article continues:

If Justice Breyer sounded rueful, it was because he had just a few years ago held out hope that the court would reconsider the constitutionality of capital punishment. He had set out his arguments in a major dissent in 2015 , one that must have been on Justice Scalia’s mind when he made his comments a few months later. Justice Breyer wrote in that 46-page dissent that he considered it “highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment,” which bars cruel and unusual punishments. He said that death row exonerations were frequent, that death sentences were imposed arbitrarily and that the capital justice system was marred by racial discrimination. Justice Breyer added that there was little reason to think that the death penalty deterred crime and that long delays between sentences and executions might themselves violate the Eighth Amendment. Most of the country did not use the death penalty, he said, and the United States was an international outlier in embracing it. Justice Ginsburg, who died in September, had joined the dissent. The two other liberals — Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — were undoubtedly sympathetic. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who held the decisive vote in many closely divided cases until his retirement in 2018, had written the majority opinions in several 5-to-4 decisions that imposed limits on the death penalty, including ones barring the execution of juvenile offenders and people convicted of crimes other than murder .

In the July Opinion essay “ The Death Penalty Can Ensure ‘Justice Is Being Done,’ ” Jeffrey A. Rosen, then acting deputy attorney general, makes a legal case for capital punishment:

The death penalty is a difficult issue for many Americans on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward. The United States Constitution expressly contemplates “capital” crimes, and Congress has authorized the death penalty for serious federal offenses since President George Washington signed the Crimes Act of 1790. The American people have repeatedly ratified that decision, including through the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 signed by President Bill Clinton, the federal execution of Timothy McVeigh under President George W. Bush and the decision by President Barack Obama’s Justice Department to seek the death penalty against the Boston Marathon bomber and Dylann Roof.

Students, read the entire article , then tell us:

Do you support the use of capital punishment? Or do you think it should be abolished? Why?

Do you think the death penalty serves a necessary purpose, like deterring crime, providing relief for victims’ families or imparting justice? Or is capital punishment “cruel and unusual” and therefore prohibited by the Constitution? Is it morally wrong?

Are there alternatives to the death penalty that you think would be more appropriate? For example, is life in prison without the possibility of parole a sufficient sentence? Or is that still too harsh? What about restorative justice , an approach that “considers harm done and strives for agreement from all concerned — the victims, the offender and the community — on making amends”? What other ideas do you have?

Vast racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty have been found. For example, Black people are overrepresented on death row, and a recent study found that “defendants convicted of killing white victims were executed at a rate 17 times greater than those convicted of killing Black victims.” Does this information change or reinforce your opinion of capital punishment? How so?

The Federal Death Penalty Act prohibits the government from executing an inmate who is mentally disabled; however, in the recent executions of Corey Johnson , Alfred Bourgeois and Lisa Montgomery , their defense teams, families and others argued that they had intellectual disabilities. What role do you think disability or trauma history should play in how someone is punished, or rehabilitated, after committing a crime?

How concerned should we be about wrongfully convicted people being executed? The Innocence Project has proved the innocence of 18 people on death row who were exonerated by DNA testing. Do you have worries about the fair application of the death penalty, or about the possibility of the criminal justice system executing an innocent person?

About Student Opinion

• Find all of our Student Opinion questions in this column . • Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? Tell us about it . • Learn more about how to use our free daily writing prompts for remote learning .

Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Nicole Daniels joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2019 after working in museum education, curriculum writing and bilingual education. More about Nicole Daniels

The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime

Introduction.

The fundamental reasons society punishes criminal behavior can be classified into two areas. One is to obtain desired consequences which include protecting society, obtain reparations from the offender , and to deter that person and other potential offenders from the commission of crimes. The other, retribution, or vengeance, involves punishment for a wrong perpetrated on society. Throughout the history of civilization, this rational has not changed substantially. Death penalty proponents argue that three of these four components justify their position. The practice protects society while deterring others from committing murder and serves as a collective societal retribution. Capital punishment does protect society from further acts by the individual. Aside from deterrence, the central reasoning for proponents is vengeance guised as ‘justice for the victim and their families.’ The death penalty does not deter crime which this paper will explain. This fact is not a deterrent for proponents because deterrence was not their driving motivation, as this paper will demonstrate as well.

Opponent Position

Less than deterrence.

Capital punishment opponents argue that the practice does not deter crime, which statistics reprove. Opponents also deny that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime because of the nature of the reasons people commit homicide. People cannot conceive their own demise therefore cannot contemplate or appreciate the consequences. In addition, these crimes are usually committed as a result of impulsive actions and not carefully considered beforehand. Therefore, “the deterrent case has no validity” (Donohue, 2006). If the person committing the murder does contemplate the consequences, they may kill not only the victim but any witnesses as well rather than risk being caught. Again, the opponents view has been substantiated. Many studies have been performed to determine if the death penalty is indeed deterrence. All prevailing research indicates capital punishment is as much of a deterrent to crime as a life sentence. Further, statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice show states that do not have the death penalty actually have lower murder rates. “The average murder rate per 100,000 people in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5 and the average murder rate among non-death penalty states was 3.6.” (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2001).

Evidence from the ‘Land of Capital Punishment’

The State of Texas is widely acknowledged as executing more prisoners than any other state, a title it holds on an annual basis. A study conducted from the years 1984 through 1997 demonstrated homicides were not deterred as a result of the practice. “The murder rate (in Texas) was steady and there was no evidence of a deterrent effect. The number of executions was found to be unrelated to murder rates (Sorenson, Wrinkle, Brewer and Marquart, 1999). Though proponents cite deterrence as the main reason for continuing the death penalty despite all evidence to the contrary, the majority (55 percent) would still be in favor of it if they were convinced the practice was not a deterrent. “Over 80 percent believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for the death penalty.” (Gallup Poll, 1999). Ironically, only about a quarter of proponents cite revenge as their motive when this is practically the only reason possible for favoring the death penalty given the overwhelming evidence.

Proponents Position/Opponents Response

An inconsistent stance.

Of course, death penalty proponents cite pages of statistics to offer support for their impassioned claims. For example, in 2003 a study released from the Emory University Economics Department stated, “our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect. An increase in any of the probabilities — arrest, sentencing or execution — tends to reduce the crime rate. In particular, each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders. ” (Dezhbakhsh, et al. 2003) These results are speculative at best. The study showed no actual evidence to support the claim outside of some very selective conclusions based on no corroborating verifications. Other pro-death penalty ‘studies’ such as one conducted by Joanna M. Shepherd of Clemson University showed much different results, that each execution nationwide resulted in five, not eighteen, fewer murders. Professor Shepard was also part of the Emory study conducted in the same year. (Shepard, 2003). If the results are conclusive, then why this large discrepancy of figures occurred during the same year and by the same person? The reason is using subjective and selective evidence usually results in varying conclusions, hardly credible scientific evidence to support proponents claims of deterrence.

Insufficient Evidence

Some lawyers and judges have heard defendants providing reasons for their actions in relation to avoiding the death penalty. Senator Dianne Feinstein tells of such an instance. “I remember well in the 1960s when I was sentencing a woman convicted of robbery in the first degree and I remember looking at her commitment sheet and I saw that she carried a weapon that was unloaded into a grocery store robbery. I asked her the question: ‘Why was your gun unloaded?’ She said to me: ‘So I would not panic, kill somebody, and get the death penalty.’ That was firsthand testimony directly to me that the death penalty in place in California in the sixties was in fact a deterrent.” (CDAA, 2003) Isolated and very dated, but these instances do occur. However, it is hardly evidence that the death penalty deters repeat offences.

Convoluted Thinking

Another often utilized source of ‘evidence’ by proponents is the ‘criminals always attempt to evade detection’ argument. Their line of reasoning usually goes something like this: “Even pathetically stupid or irrational criminals will demonstrate such obvious efforts to avoid detection. And there is only one reason for that – fear of punishment.” (Taylor. 2002) How this reasoning relates to the death penalty deterring repeat offences is a mystery. Of course, those that commit crimes do not want to get caught regardless of the punishment they may face for the particular crime. All this proves is that no one wants to go to jail. The petty criminal runs from the store clerk after stealing a pack of chewing gum. People who steal gas drive away, bank robbers have ‘getaway’ car waiting for them, etc. The simple and obvious fact that criminals do not want to pay society back for their crime does not prove the death penalty deters further instances. This is too broad of a study group to make a conclusion for a narrow demographic.

Selected Statistics

Proponents cite statistics which if not examined only cursorily might lead one to sympathize with their position. For example, “the murder rate in Harris County (Houston), Texas has fallen 73 percent since executions resumed in 1982, through 2000, from 31/100,000 to 8.5/100,000. (TX DPS, 2000) Again, this is an example of selective statistics that proves nothing. Did nothing else lead to a reduced murder rate? The ‘proof’ does not say. Is the reader to assume, despite credible evidence to the contrary, that one county’s decline in murders is due to fear of the death penalty alone, or at all? The ‘evidence’ is a cover for other reasons the American public seems determined to keep the death penalty though all other Western, civilized, industrial nations have long-since learned that it is not a deterrent, just a barbaric, uncivilized practice.

Ideology Over-Rules Law

… and in this corner.

There are obvious associations between ideological beliefs and attitudes toward capital punishment.

“Studies have shown that highly religious people and those with a strong belief in a just world, the belief that good things will happen to good people and bad things will happen to bad people, held the most punitive attitudes to offenders” (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 27). Not surprisingly, conservative beliefs, measured by agreement with statements endorsing traditional social values, are linked with harsher punitive crime prevention measures and liberal political views with more lenient attitudes (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 27). The emotional contention clashes with the reasonable position and can, and is, argued without a consensus. The reason is, much as the abortion issue, the death penalty is emotionally charged on both sides. However, this issue will not and should not be decided outside a courtroom. To make the issue murkier, the Supreme Court has decided one way then reversed itself. It has also made its determination based on the prevailing majority opinion instead of on a strictly legal interpretation.

Legal Definitions

Punishment for crimes that are deemed cruel and unusual is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment is often invoked when discussing the legal merits of the death penalty. The use of the death penalty is considered by some to be the most obvious and heinous example of cruel and unusual punishment. Those opposed to capital punishment do not believe that the government should be vested with the power to put any of its citizens to death.

Opponents also maintain that the practice is racially biased, overtly costly and does not achieve the intended outcome. Proponents believe it to be neither cruel nor unusual, on the contrary, they think it just and fair. By definition, capital punishment is not unusual, legally speaking, unless one considers and acknowledges the racial bias that exists in the justice system.

Whether or not it is cruel is not definable by law. It can only be defined by the collective social consciousness of a culture. A definition of cruel and unusual is critical to understand the legal debate.

Cruel and Unusual

The legal interpretation of ‘cruel and unusual’ is somewhat open to debate, but in general, the term ‘cruel’ refers to brutal punishments that cause excessive pain. Most legal experts agree that punishments including bodily dismemberment or torture are undoubtedly classified as cruel. Terminologies are open to interpretation, as evidenced by the current debate at the highest level of government involving the definition of torture. The term ‘unusual’ is commonly understood to define the equitable application of punishment for a particular offense. For example, if ten people were cited for speeding and nine of them were fined $100 but one was fined $1000, this penalty would be considered ‘unusual.’ Taken together, both ‘cruel’ and ‘unusual’ indicate that the punishment should be exacted in proportion to the offense committed. A life term in prison is an acceptable form of punishment, but if it were imposed for jaywalking, this would be an unacceptable sentence because it would be considered excessive given the severity of the offense. Excessive is also open to wide interpretation in both the public and legal realm.

Some would argue, for example, that imprisonment of any amount of time for ‘crimes’ such as gambling, prostitution and the possession of drugs should be interpreted as excessive therefore ‘unusual.’ The death penalty was decided by the court of public opinion which is based on the basic first impulse of revenge and fueled by misinformation campaigns from death penalty proponents. Societal sanctioned intentional premeditated murder surely on some level should be considered by the majority as cruel and/or unusual. The fault does not lie with the court system or the Supreme Court specifically. A society that collectively considers the death penalty a moral and just punishment must accept most of the blame. The courts have historically followed this path.

Interpreting the Eighth

The Supreme Court has on several occasions dealt with judging the merits of the death penalty and whether or not it is interpreted by the Constitution as punishment which is cruel and unusual. The Court has always ruled the terminology of the Eighth Amendment does not exclude the implementation of death as punishment. Proponents applaud this interpretation of the Constitution because punishment or retribution (revenge) is their actual reason for wanting the death penalty to continue in this country. The court must decide the issue, not based on its perceived merits such as deterrence but on its legality. If the courts based its decision on merit, whether it is a deterrent or not, the death penalty would have been judged unconstitutional many years ago. The Constitution is a malleable document, however.

The interpretation of the Eighth Amendment has evolved somewhat throughout the years, and the Court could possibly reverse this point of view sometime in the future as a result of changing societal values. For example, the whipping of offenders was commonplace until the late Eighteenth Century.

This practice came to be considered inappropriate because society’s opinion changed to include it as a ‘cruel’ punishment. With respect to capital punishment, though, “the Court has maintained that there remains broad public support for the death penalty as a remedy for the most serious of crimes” (Mott, 2004). That’s the epicenter of the problem. The High Court is basing the ruling more on broad public support rather than strictly abiding by the law. Society finally came to understand whipping did not deter crime and that it was cruel and unusual. Slavery was legal in the Southern United States for much longer than in the Northern States. The horrendous practice was immoral and obviously unconstitutional but remained in place because of public opinion. A parallel can be drawn between slavery and the death penalty. On a side note, did whipping captured slaves deter others from trying to escape? It is unreasonable to assume anything but no.

Manson Wasn’t Deterred

The Supreme Court has upheld that capital punishment does not fall under the category of exceptionally ‘cruel’ but has ruled that it does violate the Eighth Amendment if it is considered unusual. In the Furman v. Georgia case of 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was being subjectively applied because a disproportionate amount of minorities had faced execution which made the practice ‘unusual’ (“Furman v. Georgia”, 1972). As a result of the decision, approximately 600 persons on death row had their sentences commuted to life, an infamous example being members of the ‘Mason Family.’ In addition, no executions were permitted in the U.S. until it was again resumed in 1976. The threat of the death penalty did not keep Manson and his followers from committing two mass murders. They even laughed and sang after they were caught. The death penalty continues to be intrinsically biased against those of lower-income and minorities, a clear violation of the Constitution.

Bias vs. Reason

Unbalance scales.

Wealthy, white criminals are less likely to be executed than underprivileged minority members of society, and if the victim is white or wealthy, it is more likely to be imposed. The statistics provide evidence for their claim. Since 1976, 43 percent of executions in the U.S. have been black or Hispanic. This group accounts for 55 percent of those currently on death row. About half of those murdered in the U.S. are white, but 80 percent of all murder cases involve white victims. From 1976 to 2002, 12 whites were executed for killing a black person, while 178 blacks were executed for murdering a white person. (“Race”, 2003). It would seem that the ‘unusual’ aspect of the death penalty continues to be a valid argument, but another aspect must be present for the practice to again be abolished. A justice system that disproportionately executes its citizens cannot be considered anything but corrupt which devalues the entire system. This corrupt system is largely supported by the religious factions in this country. What could be more ironic?

Law Must Jump the Religion Hurdle, Again

Christians who live in Europe tend to oppose capital punishment, but in America, they tend to support it. Those that subscribe to retribution as justification for the death penalty often invoke the Bible’s reference to ‘an eye for an eye.’ Aggression must be met with aggressive punishment. Interestingly, those that use the quote from the Old Testament to justify the use of the death penalty as moral either overlooked or ignored the passage in the New Testament where Jesus rebuffs this statement explicitly then reminds his followers to instead to ‘turn the other cheek.’ However, the ‘eye for an eye’ justification is still used by many today. These, of course, are the same people that justify the death penalty by insisting it is a deterrence to crime. Those that hold this view are certainly correct when they say that the death penalty ensuresensures that the criminal will not commit another crime against society. The death penalty is indeed the ultimate preventative measure for one person, but no credible scientific evidence has surfaced that suggests others are deterred to commit what is usually a crime of passion, where the perpetrator is not thinking rationally or is likely to consult a religious passage prior to committing murder.

Protestant and Catholic philosophy have consistently confirmed the right of a fair government to end the life of convicted murderers. The Sixth Commandment in original Hebrew reads not ‘thou shall not kill’ but ‘thou shall not murder.’ The Torah, Judaism’s chief source of ethical reference, is definite in its support of the death penalty. The only law repeated in all five books of the Torah is the condemnation of murderers to death (Prager, 2001).

Individuals, scientists, and researchers who have determined the death penalty is a deterrent to others who might be inclined for whatever reason to commit murder base their belief on presupposed ideology. No credible evidence is offered that supports this position. However, evidence heavily favors the notion that the death penalty does not deter a person from killing. Over the past month or so, five mass killings have occurred in the U.S. Besides a small hiatus during the 1970’s, the capital punishment has sadly been a part of the American way of life. This paper has shown that the death penalty does not deter crime and is legal only because the majority of Americans believe they must seek vengeance for murder. This is everyone’s first instinct, but the laws of a society must rise above individuals initial inclinations. Our Constitution was intended to protect the minority rights from popular majority opinion. The justice system thus far has failed to live up to this ideal in this particular instance.

Dezhbakhsh, Hashem; Rubin, Paul H. and Shepherd, Joanna M. “Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data” American Law and Economics Review V5 N2 2003 (344-376).

Donohue, John; Wolfers, Justin J. (2006). “The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence” The Economists’ The Berkley Electronic Press Voice Vol. 3 Issue 5. Web.

Esmee Fairbairn Foundation. (2004). “Rethinking Crime and Punishment: The Report.” Web.

“Furman v. Georgia.” (1972). “The Supreme Court Collection.” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute.  Gallup Poll. (Feb. 8-9, 1999). Web.

Mott. Jonathan. “Is the Death Penalty Constitutional?”  This Nation. Web.

“Murders of Passion, Execution Delays and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment” (2003). Web.

Prager, Dennis. (June 9, 2001). “Death Penalty Guards What is Valued Most.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

“Prosecutors Perspective on California’s Death Penalty” (2003). California District Attorneys Association. (CDAA).

“Race and the Death Penalty.” (2003).

Unequal Justice. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. Web.

Sorenson, J., Wrinkle, R., Brewer, V., & Marquart, J. (1999). “Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Examining the Effect of Executions on Murder in Texas.” 45 Crime and Delinquency . pp. 481-493.

Taylor, Stuart (2002). “Does the Death Penalty Save Innocent Lives?” National Journal. D.C. Dispatch. Web.

Texas Department of Public Safety (TX DPS) Uniform Crime Reporting, Harris County data from 1982 and 2000 database. Web.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2001). Web.

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyKraken. (2021, November 19). The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime. Retrieved from https://studykraken.com/the-death-penalty-does-not-deter-crime/

StudyKraken. (2021, November 19). The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime. https://studykraken.com/the-death-penalty-does-not-deter-crime/

"The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime." StudyKraken , 19 Nov. 2021, studykraken.com/the-death-penalty-does-not-deter-crime/.

1. StudyKraken . "The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime." November 19, 2021. https://studykraken.com/the-death-penalty-does-not-deter-crime/.

Bibliography

StudyKraken . "The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime." November 19, 2021. https://studykraken.com/the-death-penalty-does-not-deter-crime/.

StudyKraken . 2021. "The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime." November 19, 2021. https://studykraken.com/the-death-penalty-does-not-deter-crime/.

StudyKraken . (2021) 'The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime'. 19 November.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyKraken, request the removal .

DPIC REPORTS

Dec 01, 2023

The Death Penalty in 2023 : Year End Report

Only 5  states car­ried out exe­cu­tions and 7  states imposed new death sen­tences in 2023 , as more Americans say the death penal­ty is applied unfair­ly, rather than fairly.

Dec 16, 2020

DPIC Report — Compromised Justice: How A Legacy of Racial Violence Informs Missouri’s Death Penalty Today

Missouri is one of a hand­ful of states that has con­sis­tent­ly exe­cut­ed peo­ple in the last five years. Understanding the his­tor­i­cal appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty in Missouri helps our under­stand­ing of how cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is used today.

DEATH PENALTY CENSUS

Oct 19, 2023

New Resource: Updated Death Penalty Census

DPIC’s data­base of more than 9 , 800 death sen­tences imposed between the Supreme Court rul­ing strik­ing down U.S. death penal­ty laws in 1972 and January 1 , 2022 details the sys­temic arbi­trari­ness, bias, and error of the mod­ern U.S. death penalty.

Jun 22, 2023

DPIC Report — Doomed to Repeat: The Legacy of Race in Tennessee’s Contemporary Death Penalty

The his­tor­i­cal use of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in Tennessee shows a clear con­nec­tion between the extra­ju­di­cial lynch­ings of the 1800 s and 1900 s and the state sanc­tioned death penal­ty prac­tices of today.

PROSECUTORIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Jun 30, 2022

DPIC Analysis Finds Prosecutorial Misconduct Implicated in More than 550 Death Penalty Reversals or Exonerations

A DPIC review of death sen­tences imposed and over­turned in the United States since 1972 has found more than 550 pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct rever­sals and exon­er­a­tions, more than 5 . 6 % of all death sen­tences imposed in the U.S. in the past half-century.

News & Developments

Prosecutorial Accountability

Apr 26, 2024

Federal Judge Orders Alameda County District Attorney to Review 35 Capital Cases Following Disclosure of Prosecutorial Misconduct in Jury Selection

On April 22 , 2024 , Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price announced that her office was ordered by a fed­er­al judge to review 35 death penal­ty con­vic­tions after the dis­clo­sure of evi­dence that sev­er­al pros­e­cu­tors inten­tion­al­ly exclud­ed Black and Jewish peo­ple from serv­ing on a cap­i­tal mur­der tri­al in 1995 . In a press con­fer­ence, DA Price indi­cat­ed that her office dis­cov­ered the hand­writ­ten notes of for­mer pros­e­cu­tors that include dis­crim­i­na­to­ry jury selec­tion tac­tics, sug­gest­ing ​ “ seri­ous mis­con­duct” per­me­at­ed the office in the 1990 s. ​ “ It’s not lim­it­ed to one or two pros­e­cu­tors, but…

Apr 25, 2024

Articles of Interest: Juror Who Sentenced Toforest Johnson to Death Now Believes He Is Innocent

Monique Hicks, one of the twelve peo­ple who served on the Alabama jury that con­vict­ed Toforest Johnson and sen­tenced him to death, said in an op-ed pub­lished on April 22 , 2024 that she now believes Mr. Johnson deserves a new tri­al. Ms. Hicks recounts the new evi­dence that has come to light in the case and writes, ​ “ My role in the wrong­ful con­vic­tion of an inno­cent man keeps me awake at night.” 

United States Supreme Court

Apr 24, 2024

Supreme Court Roundup: Justices Hear Oral Arguments on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Cruel and Unusual Punishment; Defend Positions on Stays

On April 17 , the Supreme Court heard oral argu­ments in Thornell v. Jones , a case impli­cat­ing the test for inef­fec­tive assis­tance of coun­sel — and the first and only oral argu­ment in a death penal­ty case sched­uled this term. Arizona appealed the Ninth Circuit’s deci­sion vacat­ing the death sen­tence of Danny Lee Jones, which found that Mr. Jones was prej­u­diced by his attorney’s fail­ure to present key mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence as to Mr. Jones’ brain dam­age, child­hood phys­i­cal and sex­u­al abuse, and psy­chi­atric prob­lems. The case marks the sec­ond time the Supreme Court…

Lethal Injection

Apr 23, 2024

Articles of Interest: Reprieve Issues New Report on Botched Executions and Racial Disparities

A new report issued April 17 , 2024 by the UK-based inter­na­tion­al human rights orga­ni­za­tion Reprieve found racial dis­par­i­ties in the occur­rence of botched exe­cu­tions in the United States. As report­ed in The Guardian, Reprieve ana­lyzed all lethal injec­tion exe­cu­tions between 1976 and 2023 . It chron­i­cled 73 con­firmed botched pro­ce­dures and found that 8 % of exe­cu­tions of Black peo­ple were botched ( 37 times out of 465 exe­cu­tions), com­pared with 4 % for white peo­ple ( 28 out of  780 ).

Methods of Execution

Apr 22, 2024

Louisiana Senate Committee Approves Legislation Supported by Jewish Community to Remove Nitrogen Hypoxia as Possible Method of Execution

On April 16 , 2024 , the Louisiana Senate Judiciary B Committee unan­i­mous­ly vot­ed to advance a bill that would remove nitro­gen hypox­ia from the state’s avail­able meth­ods of exe­cu­tion. Introduced by state Senator Katrina Jackson-Andrews, Senate Bill 430 is sup­port­ed by the Jews Against Gassing Coalition, an orga­ni­za­tion con­sist­ing of Jewish Louisiana res­i­dents who oppose state-sanc­tioned gas exe­cu­tions. ​ “ We rec­og­nize, of course, that the gassing of inno­cent vic­tims in the Holocaust is quite dif­fer­ent from exe­cut­ing a con­vict­ed crim­i­nal,” said Naomi Yavneh-Klos, a mem­ber of the coali­tion and Loyola University professor.…

Human Rights

Apr 18, 2024

United States Provides Binding Assurances to the United Kingdom that Julian Assange Will Not Face the Death Penalty If Extradited

On April 16 , 2024 , the Biden Administration pro­vid­ed assur­ances to the United Kingdom that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is fac­ing extra­di­tion to the United States on espi­onage charges, would not face the death penal­ty. A hear­ing is now sched­uled in London on May 20 to eval­u­ate the assur­ances and decide whether Mr. Assange has any remain­ing legal recourse. A few weeks ear­li­er, the High Court in London grant­ed Mr. Assange a reprieve from extra­di­tion, agree­ing to grant him an appeal if the United States was unable to pro­vide assur­ances that…

Apr 17, 2024

Justices Sotomayor and Jackson Issue Dissents Over Supreme Court’s Refusal to Review Two Capital Misconduct Cases

On Monday, April 15 , Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor issued dis­sents over the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the peti­tions of two death-sen­tenced pris­on­ers who alleged offi­cial mis­con­duct in their cas­es. In the first case, Dillion Compton alleged that Texas pros­e­cu­tors ille­gal­ly used thir­teen of their fif­teen peremp­to­ry strikes to remove female prospec­tive jurors because of their gen­der. In the sec­ond case, Kurt Michaels argued that California police offi­cers unlaw­ful­ly con­tin­ued to ques­tion him after he invoked his Miranda  rights, lead­ing Mr. Michaels to even­tu­al­ly con­fess, and his confession…

Apr 16, 2024

Trial Judge Signs Agreed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Recommending Melissa Lucio’s Conviction and Death Sentence Be Overturned

On April 12 , 2024 , Judge Arturo Nelson signed an Agreed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law sub­mit­ted by the pros­e­cu­tion and defense stat­ing that Melissa Lucio (pic­tured) was not giv­en access to favor­able infor­ma­tion in the prosecution’s pos­ses­sion at the time of tri­al. The acknowl­edge­ment of this con­sti­tu­tion­al error result­ed in Judge Nelson’s rec­om­men­da­tion to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ( TCCA ) that Ms. Lucio’s con­vic­tion and death sen­tence be over­turned. The rul­ing marks the lat­est chap­ter in a saga that saw Ms. Lucio nar­row­ly avoid an exe­cu­tion date…

Apr 15, 2024

Wilbert Rideau, former Louisiana Death-Sentenced Prisoner, is Honored for Extraordinary Journalism During 44 Years at Angola Prison

On April 12 , 2024 , Long Island University cel­e­brat­ed the 2023 George Polk Awards in Journalism, hon­or­ing inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ists and rec­og­niz­ing six­teen for­mer win­ners, includ­ing for­mer­ly death-sen­tenced pris­on­er Wilbert Rideau. Mr. Rideau spent forty-four years incar­cer­at­ed in Louisiana’s Angola State Penitentiary where he cre­at­ed The Lifer , one of the first Black prison peri­od­i­cals. Sentenced to death in 1961 at age nine­teen, Mr. Rideau spent twelve years on death row before the United States Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Furman v. Georgia ( 1972 ), which struck down Louisiana’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment scheme. Mr. Rideau was…

Apr 12, 2024

John Oliver’s ​ “ Last Week Tonight” Criticizes Execution Secrecy Laws and ​ “ Sketchy” Procurement of Pentobarbital by Federal Government

During the April 7 , 2024 , episode of ​ “ Last Week Tonight,” host John Oliver focused on ​ “ grim devel­op­ments” in the death penal­ty since his last seg­ment cov­er­ing lethal injec­tion in 2019 . Since then, 91 peo­ple have been exe­cut­ed, includ­ing 13 fed­er­al pris­on­ers dur­ing for­mer President Donald Trump’s admin­is­tra­tion. ​ “ Our fed­er­al and state gov­ern­ments have con­tin­ued to pur­sue ques­tion­ably legal and def­i­nite­ly hor­ri­fy­ing ways, that, again, I would argue they shouldn’t be doing at all,” Mr. Oliver assert­ed. He explained that the increased dif­fi­cul­ty in obtain­ing drugs required for lethal injec­tion has…

Apr 10, 2024

Lawsuit Filed at the California Supreme Court Alleges Racist Application of the Death Penalty Violates the State Constitution

Apr 09, 2024

Santa Clara, California County District Attorney Requests Resentencing for County’s Entire Death Row

Apr 05, 2024

Missouri’s First Execution of 2024 Scheduled for Man Whose Trial Lawyers Had Conflicts of Interest and Who Has Unprecedented Support for Clemency