Annotated Bibliography

Dezhbakhsh, H., & Shepherd, J. M. (2006). The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a "Judicial Experiment". Economic Inquiry, 44(3), 512.

            This article carries out an experiment on panel data obtained from 50 states to determine the effect of capital punishment in deterring crime. There is a comparison of the data rates before and after some changes were introduced in these states, regarding, laws on death penalty. The study exploits some characteristics that have not been used in other studies; the Supreme Court moratorium’s experimental nature that had been imposed during the last decades. The various changes factors that have an influence on crime rates have little changes over a little period of time. The use death penalty is seen to vary widely across the country with majority of the states not having executed anyone over the last century. States have been passing various laws related to the issue of capital punishment and some of these have been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Analysis of the data shows that adopting capital punishment and exercising it has a strong effect in terms of deterring crime in the states that have been studied. The article concludes that there is enough evidence to show that adoption of capital punishment leads to deterrence of crime in the country. It draws the case of states that are considering the re-introduction of the capital punishment such as Massachusetts.

            The article delves into the issue of capital punishment and its impact in deterring crime. It indicates how capital punishment can be used to deter cases of crime in different states. It indicates for the death penalty to be effective it should not only be adopted but exercised.

Kirchgässner, G. (2011). Econometric estimates of deterrence of the death penalty: Facts or ideology? Kyklos, 64(3), 448-478.

            The article discusses the various studies that have been done on the subject of capital punishment and its effect in terms of crime deterrent, with an aim of determining of whether such papers were based on facts or ideologies. It views various papers that have been done, some of which did not consider any methodological problems, and which lacked scientific principles. The paper also considers the econometric estimates and discussion on the possible impact of death penalty as adopted by some articles. It shows that result from these studies was rather mixed, with no clear validity on the results of the various studies. By using methodology and data used in other articles, it is shown how easy it can be to come up with contradictory results. Where the data from difference states are analysed, it is shown that the number of execution carried out cannot be used to show difference in crime between states that exercise death penalty and those that do not, especially in regard to homicides. From the examination of such results, the author notes that it conclusions cannot be drawn about the deterrence effect of capital death penalty. There are contradictions between different researchers in regard this deterrent. However, it tends to conclude that death penalty does not deter crime at all.

            This article shows how the debate about capital punishment has been wrought in the past, and with part of the scholars supporting introduction of death penalty to prevent crime. However, the issue requires concrete conclusions based on facts and not ideologies of the scholars.

Part II: Report to the ALI Concerning Capital Punishment. (2013). Texas Law Review, 89(2), 367-421.

            This article focuses on the influence of states on statutes, which allow the use of death penalties for child rape. The articles has consequently incorporated different articles, in a bid to explain how state statutes are being used as a means of influencing capital punishment. In addition, the article has also contextualized capital rape laws, within a social drive outline. The author has consequently argued that rape statutes can be linked to the following movements: the common movement to embarrassment, terror, and to isolate the sex delinquents; the women's libber movement for total punishment of the sexual offenders; and political movements to forcefully discourage sexual attacks against minors. The Supreme Court and social movements have over the years been contradicting each other, since the Supreme Court has been constantly going against the demands of social movements. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled against the use of capital punishment for the rape of adult women. The Supreme Court provided that, African Americans were being categorized as rapists by white women, thus making African Americans to fall victims of rape, falsely. This law was therefore abolished by the Court, thus only allowing capital punishments for child rape. Feminist movements and political movements, are basically using state statutes as a means of discourage child rape, hence reducing the chances of death penalties. According to this movements, if capital punishment against child rape is abolished, the rates of child rape of child rape will rise, hence affecting the lives of the innocent children. Death penalty according to the movement is the best method of further reducing child rape, hence safeguarding the future of the young ones.

            This article therefore shows how capital punishment, can be used as a means of deterring crime, thus improving the social lives of children. In addition, the article also provides the reasons as to why state statutes have been adopted in order to allow such laws to pass.

Sullivan, J. T. (2014). THE DEMOGRAPHIC DILEMMA IN DEATH QUALIFICATION OF CAPITAL JURORS. Wake Forest Law Review, 49(4), 1107-1172. 

            This article basically focuses on the dilemma which the judiciary faces when administering capital punishment, with regard to race. According to the author, African American’s have been the main targets of capital punishment, particularly if the jury is chaired by white judges. Most African American’s accused of child rape have faced death, after their cases were decided upon by a jury of white judges. This has consequently led to the question of the eligibility of capital punishment, if it’s being used as a means of discriminating and sentencing African Americans to the death row, without proper evidence. According to the author, in order to deal with the issue of rape, an inquiry should be established, in order to look at the causes of rape. In addition, the inquiry should also identify the role of poverty and drug abuse, in child rape, hence coming up with possible solutions of eliminating child rape from the society. Moreover, racial fairness in death penalties has become a very serious issue, making it hard to understand, why death penalties should only be imposed on the minorities. This article consequently provides the reasons as to why the jurors should be just when rendering justice, and this should not be based on racial lines. In as much as the article criticizes the effectiveness of the courts, it does not support and show how death penalties deter child rape. This article basically explains how the issue of racism has dominated over the judiciary, making capital punishment to be effective among a certain group of people.

Charles, K. K., & Durlauf, S. N. (2013). Pitfalls in the use of time series methods to study     deterrence and capital punishment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 45-         66.

The article is focused on capital punishments and harmful attacks against police. According to this article, apart from the growing concern in regard to the entire populace’s safety and the relating importance in reference to capital punishments police are also attacked in this context a thing that should be treated with more importance. the author, investigated on the general implication that are related to  capital safety based on the safety of those that enforces the set laws and established that capital punishment fails to improve the aggressiveness and atrocities that are committed against those that are part of law enforcement. In addition, the author simultaneously asserted that despite the progress of the issue, no restrictive force has been established in relation to police killings as well as other aggressive acts that are committed in their opposition. It is rather apparent that capital punishment should be implemented in a fair a relative manner without any bias given that the existing laws possesses little or zero effects on the crimes that are to occur in the future on the ground that the enforcers and the public are not accounted for, equally. The authors argues that the laws are lenient to one party while they are aggressive to the other which is inappropriate.

Durlauf, S. N., Fu, C., & Navarro, S. (2013). Capital punishment and deterrence: understanding disparate results. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 103-121.

The authors in this article examined the hypothesis in support and against discouragement by evaluating public responses and succeeding criminal conduct. This was performed on the period when the capital punishment is administered and the debates that follows after the declarations have been delivered to the public via Medias which are either visual or printed. In this context the author relied on the online communications and print Medias such as newspaper in acquiring the direct responses from the public. The authors made the conclusion that the fact that the public is always aware of the postponement or the application of capital punishment but this knowledge does not directly inform on the comprehensive statistics that are related to crimes and therefore cannot be regarded as operative crime restrictive. In addition, the author asserted that crime prevention can best be acquired where accurate statistics in regard to the application of punishment and the associated crimes are communicated fully. However, based on his evaluation of the public responses, it is apparent that the measure is not effective in preventing crimes given that the application is not consistent. According to the author, the approach is a biased one that does not demonstrate any law steadiness.

Chalfin, A., Haviland, A. M., & Raphael, S. (2013). What do panel studies tell us about a deterrent effect of capital punishment? A critique of the literature. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 5-43.

The article explored on the general findings of the studies conducted in relation to capital punishment effects in America in the contemporary society. Based on the results, it is clear that the general utilization of capital punishment in preventing crimes has proved to be ineffective. The authors acknowledged that it is rather unfortunate that individuals are losing their lives without even determining whether the set procedures were adhered to. Innocent lives will continue to be lost on the ground that despite the findings the law has not been improved to address the concerns. The authors argues that applying capital punishment is meant to work based on the principle of punishing based on the crime. The article goes ahead and defines capital punishment as Justice. In that, it states that murder is the worst ever crime which in turn deserves capital punishment. The article argues that human life is to be upheld at all times which demonstrates the suitability of capital punishments. The article concluded that capital punishments deserves and authoritative warning for the potent murders and therefore it should be exercised under caution not to execute those that do not deserve the punishment.

Chen, D. L. (2016). The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty? Evidence from British             Commutations during World War I.

In this article the author begins to justify his claims in support of death penalty as an effective strategy in controlling crimes on the ground that it would modify the intentions of future killers. However, it also argues that with the extensive popularity, the actual notion of deterrence would then be threatened which is additionally discouraged by low discouragement rate statistics. The author argues that death penalty can best be categorized as a suitable option for discouraging crime and justifies its utilization as justice. The use of capital punishment is justified on the ground that it fits within human morality which asserts on protecting lives. The author opposed on the notion that in most cases murder is usually categorized as a passion crime and argued that based on research murders are part of a different crime attempt while others are objected and thoroughly planned. In addition the evolution of issues that are related to capital punishment were also examined. The author, warned that upholding capital punishments has brutal outcomes in that the practice will in turn generate a culture that is oriented on revenge rather than seeking to establish how justice can be exercised and individual’s will learn to repay any occurrence of violence with aggression or killings.

Lee, D. S., & McCrary, J. (2017). The deterrence effect of prison: Dynamic theory and evidence. In Regression Discontinuity Designs: Theory and Applications (pp. 73-146). Emerald Publishing Limited.

The article focuses on the dynamics of felonies that occur in America via examining the current trends and history. In addition, the article investigates how the rising killings might lead to the necessity for the development and application of a more firm punishments strategy in preventing crimes. According to the article, the intensification of felony in the contemporary society would lead to the growth of a much better comprehension of philosophies and standards on prevention and combating of these tenancies. The author determined some major factors that drives criminal conduct as public views and the media which offers more opportunity for debates. The author after reviewing most studies established that forces such as cruelness are highly rated and might result in the intensification of these behaviors. In this context, while discouragement might be effective in impacting capital punishments, its damaging implication cannot be underrated given that it holds some sort of significance. The author, argued against the claim that capital punishment is highly effective in discoursing crimes stating that its efficiency lies on the execution and how different issues are examined in general which is more appropriate in discouraging future crimes occurrence.

Nagin, D., Pepper, J., National Research Council (U.S.), National Research Council (U.S.), & National Research Council (U.S.). (2012). Deterrence and the death penalty. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

The authors argued against the claim that capital punishment holds warning effects in reference to criminal conduct on the ground that death will only affect those that are related but will not work on changing behavior. The article asserted that the time, and the modified life’s quality that the criminal is forced to adhere to is more effective in discouraging crime. However, the author acknowledged that it is true that for some potent murderers the punishments can serve as a major warning but it should not be forgotten that most of these criminals are not first time offenders and having a clear understanding of the laws makes it even easier for them to ignore the power of such penalties. The penalty should be improved so that it can focus on changing behaviors rather than just trying to be preventive which has not been effective. The author holds that the punishment works against the Christian norms which are particularly focused on preserving life regardless. Hence, by abandoning the practice that is more focused on preventing crime occurrence by focusing on revenge and aggression the punishment will not only be preventing and discouraging crimes but it will also be creating a desirable culture that is objected on justice.

Argument against the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment

Introduction

Capital punishment, popularly known as death penalty can best be described as an authorized legal killing of an offender as a major punishment for a committed crime. Felony activities and misbehavior have been in existence since the commencement of evolution (Charles & Durlauf, 2013). Capital punishment has been a controversial subject since the initiation into the law around the globe and in American particularly in the 19th century (Sullivan, 2014). Most individuals have raised concerns in the proposition of the utilization of capital punishment in discouraging the occurrence of crimes in the society. On the other hand, as significant population claim that capital punishment is not a suitable approach for preventing the occurrence of crime in the contemporary society. It is apparent that from both arguments the arguments against capital punishment use in discouraging crimes in the society are stronger and based on facts and evidence.

It cannot be denied that the execution of death penalty has resulted in the loss of numerous lives that can never be reversed thus causing, even more, pain to the society. The death penalty is unjustifiable to humankind in general which should be substituted with imprisonment given that this strategy is more suitable in upholding life while instilling morals (Chalfin, Haviland, & Raphael, 2013). Apparently, murder is the worst crime and those that kill others are deemed as inhumane and deserves an equal treatment. This is however not usually the case given that death penalty promotes retaliation and a culture that is based on violence rather than seeking for social justice which is against religious and social norms. It cannot be argued that killing is illegal and should never be encouraged at any cost. However, it cannot also be argued on the valuable aspect that is linked to human life (Chalfin, Haviland, & Raphael, 2013). Capital punishment is unjustified and ineffective in discouraging crimes because based on statistics it is very little that has been achieved from the strategy.

The life of the offenders should never be devastated based on their negative conduct gave that behavior is something that can be changed through punishment (Chen, 2016). Capital punishment is ineffective in controlling the rise of crimes because it only instills a sense of fear to the weak populace which is incapable of committing a felony while for the murderers the only thing that can hinder the repeat of these activities is through sentences (Chen, 2016). Every individual has an unchallengeable privilege to live and even for those that commit murder, thus, death sentences and the execution of aggression should serve as a more firm and effective punishment strategy that will discourage the occurrence of crime without focusing on hurting the public. Killing an offender based on the crime conducted is rather inappropriate given that the practice does not imply that the conduct has been corrected rather it only sets pain and anger to those that are affected by the loss (Chen, 2016).

Capital punishment in its execution is not flawless given that those in power tend to misuse their authority in pursuing their self-based objectives. Mistakes have always been seen within the judicial system where eyewitnesses, benches, and prosecutor might not be accurate and consistent which will lead to a wrong conclusion (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd, 2006). When such basis are accommodated by faults it becomes unavoidable for the innocent people to be killed and with the involvement of capital punishment, such mistakes can never be corrected. Based, on research it has been established that thousands of innocent lives globally have been lost due to flaws related to power execution within the justice system. In this context, capital punishment is unjustified given that it is a disruption of individual’s rights (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd, 2006). However, it teaching potential murderers that killing is unacceptable the punishment can be exercised with caution particularly to those that are found guilty of participating in mass killing and terrorist attacks. Behinds death sentences there are several other strategies that can be utilized in a behavioral change such as psychological help which will not only be effective in changing individual’s view but also in creating familiarity with the value that is linked with human life and the probable consequences of a felony.

Vengeance is unethical because it is morally inconsistent and unsteady in the theory of practice and concept. It is rather unappropriated that the justice system can focus on teaching that killing is legally wrong by practicing the same killing (Durlauf & Navarro, 2013). Taking a life after another one has been destroyed is a form of retaliation which cannot be categorized as justice. Vengeance is unethical because it is a form of vengeance that is fueled by the violation of the set standards which in turn instills anger (Durlauf & Navarro, 2013). It is argued by most scholars that retribution is utilized in a customized way in reference to the death penalty. Crimes in the exemption of murder fail to acquire a punishment that is reflective or equal to their offenses, for instance, those that are guilty of rape are not punished with being sexually attacked to equate the weight of their crime and this account should also be considered for those involved in murder offenses. Vengeance in reference to the death penalty is unfair because the subjection of the suffering of the offenders prior to the death implementation would in most cases overweight the defensive anguish of the crime’s victim (Nagin et al., 2012).

Capital punishment unlike other sentence and violate punishment is not deterrent given that individuals involved in the committing of murder do it either without anticipating for being categorized as guilty or after a thorough weighing of the distinctions amid the potential execution and the imprisoned period prior to any judgment (Kirchgässner, 2011). In most cases, killings are performed within annoyance, desire, by drug abusers or by repeated criminals and the execution fails to discourage such groups of criminals on the ground that crime is well accounted for or was never intentional. There lacks substantial prove on the general capability of capital punishment to the warning in contradiction of crimes more when equated to death sentences which does not only alter life’s quality and freedom but subjects one to both psychological and bodily punishments (Kirchgässner, 2011). However, it has been apparent that even with the use of capital punishment in some nation’s crime level is still elevating which is driven by modernization.

Capital punishment is deemed to be ineffective in preventing crimes because it is unfair given that crimes are mainly driven by socio-economic status which means that certain races and groups are bound to be executed more than others. This strategy fails to discourage crime occurrence despite the fact that it is expensive and emotionally consuming (Lee & McCrary, 2017). The punishment works mainly against certain religions such as Islam based on the perception that they are terrorists and other ethnic communities such as those occupied by blacks who are highly involved in crimes as a result of low socio-economic status. Based on statistics, in American there are more than fifteen thousand killings that are performed every year and only a few hundred of this populace is found suitable for capital punishment which equates to less than one percent. This, therefore, demonstrates the bias nature of the strategy and should, therefore, be avoided to instill a sense of safety and justice in the society (Lee & McCrary, 2017).

In conclusion, capital punishment is not a crime deterrent. It is a system that is characterized by flaws that seek to instill fear rather than focusing on justice. It is a violation of morals and human rights. Capital punishment, suitability in crime warning is the most antagonistic modern issue globally. However, despite the intensifying opposition, this punishment is exercised in a few countries where America is cited to be the leading proprietor of the punishment. Contrary, most social and religious organizations have criticized the punishment by describing it as uncivilized and a cruel activity that is in opposition to religious norms and the privilege to live. These contradict with the sentiments and perspectives in the relation to achieving a more firm and suitable form of justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Chalfin, A., Haviland, A. M., & Raphael, S. (2013). What do panel studies tell us about a deterrent effect of capital punishment? A critique of the literature. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 5-43.

Charles, K. K., & Durlauf, S. N. (2013). Pitfalls in the use of time series methods to study deterrence and capital punishment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 45-66.

Chen, D. L. (2016). The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty? Evidence from British Commutations during World War I.

Dezhbakhsh, H., & Shepherd, J. M. (2006). The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a "Judicial Experiment". Economic Inquiry, 44(3), 512.

Durlauf, S. N., Fu, C., & Navarro, S. (2013). Capital punishment and deterrence: understanding disparate results. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 103-121.

           Facts orideology? Kyklos, 64(3), 448-478.

Kirchgässner, G. (2011). Econometric estimates of deterrence of the death penalty:

Lee, D. S., & McCrary, J. (2017). The deterrence effect of prison: Dynamic theory and evidence. In Regression Discontinuity Designs: Theory and Applications (pp. 73-146). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Nagin, D., Pepper, J., National Research Council (U.S.), National Research Council (U.S.)., & National Research Council (U.S.). (2012). Deterrence and the death penalty. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

Part II: Report to the ALI Concerning Capital Punishment. (2013). Texas Law Review, 89(2), 367-421.

Sullivan, J. T. (2014). THE DEMOGRAPHIC DILEMMA IN DEATH QUALIFICATION OF CAPITAL JURORS. Wake Forest Law Review, 49(4), 1107-1172.