Running head: DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT

The Death Penalty as an Effective Crime Deterrent

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT Abstract There is a great deal of public concern about whether or not capital punishment is an effective crime deterrent. This paper reports the current data from economists, criminologists, scholars and national surveys, regarding the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent for crime.

This assessment takes into consideration several variables: the financial cost to society, deterrent effect on crime, and emotional cost/benefit for the victims. Other factors that are considered when measuring the effectiveness of the death penalty are conviction errors, the implications of race and gender bias, as well as socioeconomic status in regards to receiving death sentences. Statistics have shown that only about one in ten capital convictions results in an execution, while states might pay $1 million more for a single death penalty trial, compared to a non-death penalty trial (Dieter, 2009). In a 1985 Gallup Poll, 62% of the respondents believed that the death penalty acted as a deterrent to murder, this fell to 34% when the same question was asked again in 2006 (Radelet & Lacock, Do executions lower homocide rates?: The views of leading criminologists, 2009). The data indicates that the death penalty is not cost effective or deterring crime. The empirical research on capital punishment suggests that the death penalty is not an effective crime deterrent and more research should to find a socially acceptable solution.

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT

Given the important social, economic, and moral implications of capital punishment, this country arguably stands divided. Capital punishment is a controversial issue that garners support or opposition from very impassioned points of view. There is a great deal of public concern about whether or not the death penalty is an effective crime deterrent and the financial costs it imposes on society. Though capital punishment may be touted the most convenient cost effective method to deter crime, there is evidence to suggest the opposite. The death penalty as a punishment for capital crimes is a multi-faceted issue, which inarguably deserves considerable research and thoughtful public discourse, if we are to find a viable solution. This report will explore several issues regarding capital punishment, such as the cost effectiveness, level of efficacy as a crime deterrent and social attitude regarding its implementation. Public Concerns A prominent argument against capital punishment is that it is morally impermissible to take the life of another, even for the government to act as an agent in imposing the sentence of death. The cruelty of execution also falls under scrutiny as well. Most states utilize lethal injection as their sole form of execution; however, some states still employ lethal gas, the electric chair, hanging and firing squad in rare instances (Death Penalty Information Center, 2009). Advocates for the abolition of capital punishment strive for individual state moratoriums on the death penalty until such time it can be federally mandated. To date, there have been over forty better-known reported botched executions, which include asphyxiation, electrocution and lethal injection (Death Penalty Information Center, 2009). Administrative error is a noted area of concern also. Since 1973, over 130 people have been exonerated from death row in the United States, due to evidence of their wrongful convictions (Amnesty International, 2009; Death Penalty Focus, n.d.). The most common

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT factors leading to these wrongful convictions include inadequate legal representation; law enforcement or prosecutorial misconduct; perjored or mistaken eyewitness testimony; jailhouse

snitch testimony; racial prejudice; suppression or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence; and community or political pressure to solve the case (Amnesty International, 2011). Because of these imperfections within the judicial and criminal justice system, the abolitionists claim that the finality of death is far to great of a consequence. Currently, 15 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have abolished the death penalty. Racism Racial discrimination also plays a role when it comes to executions. From 1977-2005, there were 1004 prisoners executed in the United States (Snell, 2006). Of those, 584 where white, 339 were African American, 67 were Hispanic, and 14 were of other races (Snell, 2006). Unnever and Cullen (2007) analyzed data the 2000 National Election study to investigate the racial divides surrounding capital punishment in America; with a specific focus on white racism. Previous research of the 2002 GSS General Social Survey, revealed an extensive racial divide in support of the death penalty. The data indicated that 73 percent of whites and 44 percent of African Americans supported the death penalty for convicted murderers (Unnever & Cullen, 2007). Unnever and Cullen (2007) suggest that even when controlling for any other sociodemographic variable, there has not been an illuminating correlation. Unnever and Cullen (2007) explain that white racism can exist in structural, institutional and individual terms that embody anti-African American sentiment, that have emerged as a new form of racism. Unnever and Cullen (2007) also explain that several theorists have called this a cultural-deficiency perspective. It is more subtle, than older forms of racism; such as those based on biological inferiority, like Jim Crow racism. When racially segregated schools were

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT

dismantled and openly supported institutions of racism were no longer sanctioned publically; the animosity and resentment was redirected. In their analysis, Unnever and Cullen (2007) created two scales that measure new and old forms of racism to investigate whether they affect public opinion about support for the death penalty. Their analysis includes racial resentment scales, and racial stereotype scales, which have been used in other similar research. They first explored the degree to which African Americans were less likely than whites to support the death penalty did. After establishing the effect of race on attitude, they controlled for different variables that mediated the direct effect of those attitudes. The results indicated that 1/3 of those in support of the death penalty can be attributed to white racism (Unnever & Cullen, 2007). Punishment Ideologies Criminal punishment is serves as measure of the societal collective for what will be tolerated in regards to criminal activity. The objective of punishment is that sentences imposed are commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, the extent to which society is adversely affected, and the culpability of the offender (Vito, Maahs, & Holmes, 2007). Different criminal punishment ideologies are often often associated with varying levels of support for capital punishment. Knowing the characteristics of each ideology provides further insight as to who is most greatly affected by each condition. The basic punishments which are often implicated in reasons for support of the death penalty are deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation (Lambert, Clarke, & Lambert, 2004). Deterrence. There is quite a bit of evidence that confirms other punishment ideologies and cost analysis are viable considerations when addressing capital punishment. Research has shown that

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT there is no real concrete indicator that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime

(Zimmerman, 2006). As of 2008, the average murder rate within states that still carried the death penalty was 5.2 in 100,000 persons, while the average murder rate in states without the death penalty was 3.3 per 100,000 (Death Penalty Information Center, 2009). The average for the last 20 years has held, that states with the death penalty have had homicide rates that are between 48% -101% higher than states without the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center, 2011). Though capital punishment is often cited as the best method to deter crime, there is evidence to suggest that it actually causes more crime. Amsterdam (1982) and Bowers (1984)
have argued that the use of capital punishment actually triggers the brutalization effect (as cited in Lambert, Clarke, & Lambert, 2004). These data would indicate that the death penalty is not as an effective crime deterrent when compared to other sentencing options, such as life without parole.

Studies indicate that the American attitudes towards the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent have changed over time. In a 1985 Gallup Poll, 62% of the respondents believed that the death penalty acted as a deterrent to murder (Radelet & Lacock, 2009). This number fell to just 34% when the same question was asked again in 2006 (Radelet & Lacock, 2009). However, an examination of state-level data through the years 1978-2000, does suggest that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is primarily by executions conducted by electrocution (Zimmerman, 2006). No other methods of execution (lethal gas, lethal injection, hanging, or firing squad) were found to have any statistical impact on the incidence of murder during that same period (Zimmerman, 2006). In their article, Lambert, Clarke, & Lambert (2004) examine the history of executions in the United States. Their review of current data indicates that support for the death penalty had been on a steady incline until around the 1960s. Some of the statistical data offered by

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT (Lambert, Clarke, & Lambert (2004) is slightly outdated and cannot add further validity for current applications. However, there is a great deal of information offered in this study, such as the literature review, which examined attitudes towards criminal justice ideologies over time. Rehabilitation. The primary goal of rehabilitation is to return the offender as a productive member of

society (Lambert, Clarke, & Lambert, 2004) Many have argued that the idea behind founding of prisons in the United States was to rehabilitate and reform criminals. This idea motivated the prison system for nearly a century, and untilmately began to fail due to inadequate implementation and faulty fiscal strategies (Lynch, 2007). Rehabilitative strategies segued into a bigger is better approach to the warehousing of criminals which shifted the focus of the penal system to deterrence, incapactitation and retribution (Lynch, 2007). The rehabilitative approach does not have to be seen as an illigitimate form of punishment or separate from it all together (Lynch, 2007). In some cases, such as mental capacity or mental illness, it is necessary to address underlying conditions to assess proper punishment initially. It can be argued that it is illogical to use capital punishment as such a treatment for such underlying causes of criminal behavior (Lambert, Clarke, & Lambert, Reasons for supporting and opposing capital punishment in the USA: A preliminary study , 2004). Meanwhile, proponents contend that rehabilitation of violent criminals charged with capital offenses is not a viable option. Offenders are those who are most positively affected by rehabilitation, since they will have the option of reaping the rewards of returning to society. Incapacitation. The premise of incapacitation is to render an offender incapable of committing any further criminal acts against the public. Incapacitation serves to protect society, as well as

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT punish the offender. When analyzing the role of capital punishment as a form of incapacitation,

the argument is rather cut and dry. The rate of recidivism for offenders who have been executed is zero. This makes execution the ultimate form of incapacitation (Lambert, Clarke, & Lambert, 2004). Many believe that a life sentence does not mean that an offender serves that life sentence. That belief also incites the fear that the offender will then re-enter society and commit crimes that are more heinous. Marquart and Sorensen in a 1989, study of 558 inmates who had their death sentences commuted, found only about 1% went on to kill again (Radelet & Borg, 2000). Proponents argue that the death penalty is an adequate form of incapacitation, to ensure the safety of society from further acts of violent offenders. Conversely, abolitionists argue that in every state that has the death penalty, there is the option for life without parole, which functions adequately to incapacitate offenders (National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, 2009). Retribution. Retribution implies that the offender deserves to be punished because they have violated the legal system designed to protect society. Retribution is perhaps the most emotionally based punishment ideology. For many, their opinions regarding capital punishment and retribution are based on revenge for the victim, the victims family, and society in general. Based on the heinous nature of the offense, one could argue that the offender should be executed simply because they deserve it (Radelet & Borg, 2000). Unlike any of the other punishment ideologies, the effects of retribution cannot be truly tested by any empirical data (Radelet & Borg, 2000). There is mathematical formula to discern how much punishment an offender truly deserves (Radelet & Borg, 2000). Bowers (1984) and Durham et al. (1996) have stated that there has been a hardening of the public attitude towards

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT crime and an increase of the retribution of criminal acts over the past twenty years (as cited in Lambert, Clarke, & Lambert, 2004). Some studies have indicated that even when sentences are imposed, the offender fails to serve it in its entirety. Of 11 states observed in one study, it was noted that the median estimate

of time served was less than that for parole eligibility (Steiner, Bowers, & Austin, 1999). For the five states that have mandatory minimums of 20 to 40 years, the median estimates of years usually served, fall within the range 15-20 years (Steiner, Bowers, & Austin, 1999). For proponents, the death penalty would insure that the offender has indeed paid their debt to society in full. The death penalty serves not only as an act of societal retribution, but emotional retribution as well. For abolitionists, the death penalty is no greater retribution than serving a life sentence without parole. Abolitionists argue that a life sentence is a more sensible alternative (National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, 2009). Financial Costs The objective of punishment is that sentences imposed are commensurate with the seriousness of the crime, the extent to which society is adversely affected, and the culpability of the offender (Vito, Maahs, & Holmes, 2007). Capital punishment, intended for the most heinous offenses, would serve to incapacitate the offender permanently to prevent them from reoffending in the future (Lambert, Clarke, & Lambert, 2004). If we are assessing the debt the offender owes to society, then it seems logical to look at what society invests to insure that debt is paid. It is almost nearly impossible to calculate the exact cost of maintaining the capital punishment system, as is the case for life imprisonment (National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, 2009). Most states tend to conduct their own research in regards to their death penalty costs. It is estimated that states may pay $1 million more for a single death penalty trial,

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT compared to a non-death penalty trial (Dieter, 2009). Typically only one in three capital trials

10

results in a death sentence thereby bringing the actual cost of one capital conviction to $3 million (Dieter, 2009). Statistics have shown that only about one in ten capital convictions results in an execution (Dieter, 2009). This brings the grand total for one execution to approximately $30 million. It is inarguable that we live in troubling economic times. The money that our society spends on the capital punishment system could feasibly be allocated to other more pressing social issues. In his report, Dieter also examined various local, state and nation criminal justice systems to examine and report their efficacy (Dieter, Smart on crime: Reconsidering the death penalty in a time of economic crisis, 2009). Dieter (2009) was interested in finding out why capital punishment has been so expensive for so long and why it appears there is no effort being taken to cut costs in this area. In a national poll of 500 randomly selected police chiefs, the death penalty ranked last among the methods effective violence and crime reduction. Similarly, police officers do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder, and they rate it as one of most inefficient uses of taxpayer dollars in fighting crime (Dieter, 2009). Of the criminologists polled in this report, many concur that the death penalty does not effectively reduce the number of murders (Dieter, 2009). The Victims Mowen and Schroeder (2011) utilize content analysis of national newspaper coverage for capital offense cases from 1992-2009 to assess the patterns of opposition to the death penalty by the victims family over time, and the reasons given. The reasons for support will also be examined in regards to their ascendancy for retribution and closure

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT

11

Mowen and Schroeder (2011) explain that the public has shifted away from an economic or sociological need for the death penalty as a crime deterrent, as sever studies have previously indicated. Current evidence suggests that society and our legal system has grown more accustom to utilizing the death penalty as a form of catharsis for the families of the victims. Mowen and Schroeder (2011) begin with a literature review and a brief examination of the statistical evidence of support for the death penalty over the past several decades. Although there seems to be evidence from the media, which would not support the death penalty and public opinion that makes claims of not supporting the death penalty; at their intersection there seems to be support. In their present study, Mowen and Schroeder (2011) expected to find evidence that shows in capital cases in which the covictim was an advocate for clemency movements, there would be decreased media coverage. However, if the covictims were out for justice and retribution, then this would be reflective of the current public and criminal justice ideology, and these stories would receive more media attention. Effective Alternatives Retribution and incapacitation must be taken seriously. Assuming the criminal justice system is the primary mode for dealing with serious offenders, then imposing and enforcing appropriate sentences are necessary. Abolishing the death penalty and replacing it with the life without parole option, should be just that, life without parole. In such cases, early release should never be an option. This is the only way to assuage societal fears of recidivism. Funding has also been proposed for victims resources, crime prevention, paying restitutions, providing adequate defense for the marginalized accused, and campaign efforts for reform. The money that is spent on the capital punishment system could feasibly be relocated to

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT other related issues. According to the mission statement of one advocacy group, Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons,

12

the death penaltyas it is practiced in Coloradois a waste of taxpayers money. It is no deterrent to those who contemplate murder. We propose to eliminate the death penalty and use those funds to investigate our unsolved murders. The most effective deterrent is the certainty of apprehension. Too many people are getting away with murder (as cited in Dieter, 2009, p. 19). The data indicates that the death penalty is not cost effective or deterring crime. Other options would prove more cost effective and still have the same serve as a crime deterrent. Incapacitation would render an offender incapable of committing any further criminal acts and insure that their debt is paid to society. Though something such as administrative error may seem rather benign, in the matters of capital convictions, it could mean the difference between life and death for the offender. These types of errors illuminate the presence of flaws within our criminal justice system that illuminate our social inequalities. The lack of uniformity from state to state regarding the death penalty implies that not all people are treated fairly. More attention should be paid to spearheading efforts to prevent crime as opposed to containing it. It is difficult to view the capital punishment debate without consideration for the moral and socioeconomic factors that contribute heavily to this problem. Regardless of ones personal stance on this controversial issue, chances are it is based on strong convictions one way or another. Capital punishment should be eliminated based on the financial costs to our society alone. The failure of the death penalty as an effective crime deterrent indicates that more options

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT should be considered. It is possible for capital punishment to be eliminated, once we begin to address the social ills that create criminal behavior in the first place.

13

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT References

14

Amnesty International. (2011). Death sentences and executions 2010. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/001/2011/en/ea1b6b25-a62a-4074927d-ba51e88df2e9/act500012011en.pdf Death Penalty Information Center. (2011). Facts About the Death Penalty. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ Dieter, R. C. (2009). Smart on crime: Reconsidering the death penalty in a time of economic crisis. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Death Penalty Information Center: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Lambert, E. G., Clarke, A., & Lambert, J. (2004). Reasons for supporting and opposing capital punishment in the USA: A preliminary study . Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/ Lempert, R. O. (1981). Desert and deterrence: An assessment of the moral bases of the case for capital punishment. Michigan Law Review, 79 (6), 1177-1231. Lynch, M. J. (2007). Big prisons, big dreams: Crime and the failure of America's penal system. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Mowen, T. J., & Shroeder, R. D. (2011). Not In My Name: An Investigation of Victims Family Clemency Movements and Court Appointed Closure. Western Criminology Review, 12 (1), 65-85. National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. (2009). Devoted to abolishing capital punishment. Retrieved March 28, 2011, from http://www.ncadp.org/ Niven, D. (2002). Bolstering an illusory majority: The effects of the media's portayal of death penalty support. Social science Quartlery, 83 (3), 671-689.

DEATH PENALTY AS AN EFFECTIVE CRIME DETERRENT Radelet, M. L., & Borg, M. J. (2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology , 26, 43-61. Radelet, M. L., & Lacock, T. L. (2009). Do executions lower homocide rates?: The views of leading criminologists. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology , 99 (2), 489-508. Snell, T. L. (2006). Capital punishment, 2005 . Retrieved April 23, 2011, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp05.pdf Steiner, B. D., Bowers, W. J., & Austin, S. (1999). Folk knowledge as legal action: Death

15

penalty judgments and the tenet of early release in a culture of mistrust and punitiveness. Law & Society Review , 33 (2), 461-505. Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The racial divide in support for the death penalty: Does white racism matter? Social Forces, 85 (3), 1281-1301. Vito, G. F., Maahs, J. R., & Holmes, R. M. (2007). Criminology: theory, research, and policy. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Zimmerman, P. R. (2006). Estimates of the deterrent effect of alternate execution methods in the United States: 1978-2000. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 65 (4), 909941.