Abstract
This research paper is a response to the argument that capital punishment is effective in deterring crime. Whereas capital punishment has its vagaries and potential for injustices, its net benefits far outweigh its negative aspects. The article evaluates the issue of crime and punishment from a philosophical perspective by comparing the three main applicable philosophies of crime. These philosophies are the utilitarian, retributivist, and rehabilitative approaches. The utilitarian approach delves into the balance between potential vagaries of taking life and those of allowing a criminal to continue perpetrating crimes. The retributive approach focuses on criminals making good for their activities to the community. Finally, the rehabilitative approach seeks to make criminal future responsible citizens. Based on available commentary, only the utilitarian approach is the most suitable for the extremities of crime addressed in capital punishment. Further, there is evidence that capital offenders abhor and fear capital punishment, which makes it an effective deterrence from criminal behavior.
Introduction
Every human life is precious, a fact that informs my support for capital punishment. The statement above may seem paradoxical as it combines the taking of human life and the bid to preserve human life at all costs. However, in extreme cases, the taking of a life is critical to the preservation of more lives in the long run. For clarity, I only support capital sentences for the most extreme of crime, such as aggravated murder, multiple murders, or the sexual abuse of a minor. Secondly, my support for capital offenses combines with my backing for the due procedure, fairness, and equity in the criminal justice system. Capital offense takes the dimension of utilitarian reasons for punishment, as outlined by Banks (2018). The utilitarian approach focuses on the future impact of the punitive measures as opposed to the events leading to punishment. First, capital punishment incapacitates the criminal from undertaking heinous crimes in the future. Secondly, the penalty also deters other criminals from committing related crimes into the future (Mocan & Gittings, 2003). The fact that capital offense contributes to the safety and security of innocent people in the future justifies its use as a means of deterrence in the criminal justice system.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Background Information: Utilitarian Approach to Punishment
The justification of capital offense comes from the utilitarian approach to the concept of the purpose of punishment. It is essential to justify the use of the utilitarian approach in the instant context, as opposed to other methods such as the retributivist or restorative approaches, as discussed by Banks (2018). In the American criminal justice system, capital offenses only apply for the most heinous of crimes. Such crimes include aggravated murder, multiple murders, the killing of a law enforcement officer, or the rape of a child (Banks, 2018). For these crimes, restorative justice cannot apply. The nature of the crime leaves no room for the perpetrator to restore the victims to the state they were in before the crime. For example, aggravated rape on a child visits irreversible adverse changes in the life of the child for the rest of its life. No effort by the perpetrator can restore such a loss (Lalor & McElvaney, 2010). Similarly, it is impossible to provide restoration for a deceased victim for obvious reasons. Regarding rehabilitation, it would be unfair to argue that a human being is beyond salvage. However, based on the nature of activities that fall under capital offenses, any margin of error above zero is unacceptable. For example, even the remotest chance of recidivism by a child rapist or a mass murderer is intolerable. Based on the arguments above, only the utilitarian approach fits the extreme crimes that fall under capital offenses.
Deterrence Capability based on the Attitude of Offenders
The death penalty acts as an effective deterrence to crime since perpetrators actively seek to avoid it. The best authority on how criminals feel about the death penalty is the criminal themselves. According to Gershowitz (2016), eliminating the death sentence is one of the most effective bargaining chip for prosecutors in capital offense cases. Defendants are willing to forego a trial and accept penalties as extreme as life with no possibility of parole to avoid the death sentence. Indeed, even after they are convicted for crimes and are awaiting secondary proceedings for capital offenses, convicts are eager to negotiate for a custodial sentence to avoid capital punishment (Gershowitz, 2016).
Similarly, most capital offenses in America take place decades after the initial conviction and sentencing since offenders make numerous applications and appeal to extinguish the sentence. It is common for capital offenders to fight the death sentence of a variety of flimsy grounds without making any arguments about their supposed innocence (Banks, 2018). Some offenders even admit their guilt but argue that the capital offense is extreme, unusual, and cruel under the circumstances. These trends of appeals and applications lead to the conclusion that criminals are opposed to capital sentences (Gershowitz, 2016). The fact that criminal abhors the death in itself is evidence that capital sentencing is an effective deterrent tool for crimes. Just as criminals are willing to avoid death sentences in court, their counterparts will try to evade death sentences by avoiding capital offenses.
Capital Offence and Incapacitation
Capital offenses are also an effective deterrence to crime as it substantively eliminates any chances of recidivism. Most of the crimes that attract death sentences in America are extreme, heinous, and carry irreversible consequences for the victims (Banks, 2018). Any opportunity that the perpetrators can undertake such crimes in the future, no matter how remote, is unacceptable. Incarceration in itself is not a guarantee that a criminal shall not repeat an offense. For example, a criminal can still rape and kill while incarcerated as there are other people inside the prison. Similarly, as long as an individual remains alive, there is still a potential for either escape or parole. This minute chance creates a possibility for recidivism in the future. Capital punishment guarantees the incapacitation of the offender from carrying out future crimes. Incapacitation is, in itself, an absolute deterrence.
Statistical Justification of Capital Offense
Statistics based on studies relating to capital offenses also support the argument that capital punishment acts as an effective deterrent against future criminal activity. The article Mocan & Gittings (2003) reports on actual expert research that compares trends in criminal conduct and prevalence in capital punishment. For clarity, the researchers focused on the carrying out of executions as opposed to merely passing of capital sentences. Based on the results of the research, the number of executions for capital offenses was a bearing factor in the frequency of capital crimes (Mocan & Gittings, 2003). In the duration after a series of executions, the prevalence of capital offenses would decline. Similarly, in the follow up to a rise in capital offense commutation to life without the possibility of parole, the incidence of capital offenses would increase (Mocan & Gittings, 2003). The only logical explanation for these trends is that criminals are afraid of capital punishment. When criminals believe that they might eventually get executed for their crimes, they are less likely to commit them. Based on the above, capital punishment is an effective deterrent for criminals.
The research and analysis above provide a basis for my informed support for capital punishment as a deterrence for criminal behavior. For clarity, the deterrent aspect of capital punishment comes from the fact that only the only suitable philosophy for capital punishment is the utilitarian approach. Crimes associated with capital punishment are heinous to the extent that other methods, such as the retributivist approach or rehabilitative approaches, cannot apply. Further, the grounds outlined above provide evidence that criminals, including convicts, abhor the death sentence. Most convicts prefer the next most severe punishment, life without parole, to the death sentence. Criminals also fear the death sentence and accept lengthy sentences in plea bargains to avoid even remote chances of getting the death sentence. Abhorrence and fear are primary prerequisites of deterrence, hence the suitability of capital punishment.
References
Banks, C. (2018). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice . Sage Publications.
Gershowitz, A. M. (2016). Post-Trial plea bargaining in capital cases: using conditional clemency to remove weak cases from death row. Wash. & Lee L. Rev. , 73 , 1359.
Lalor, K., & McElvaney, R. (2010). Child sexual abuse, links to later sexual exploitation/high-risk sexual behavior, and prevention/treatment programs. Trauma, Violence & Abuse: A Review Journal, 11 (4), 159-177
Mocan, H. N., & Gittings, R. K. (2003). Getting off death row: Commuted sentences and the deterrent effect of capital punishment. The Journal of Law and Economics , 46 (2), 453-478.
