Download Criminology Research Paper: Social Structures, Violence, and Systemic Inequality and more Assignments Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!
Abstract In this article, I examine the effectiveness of the death penalty as a punitive measure, considering its impact on crime rates, deterrence, and ethical implications. The study is a summary of earlier research that addressed the efficacy of the death penalty and its implications, encompassing aspects such as crime deterrence, the potential for wrongful convictions, and the ethical considerations surrounding this sanction. This analysis sheds light on the controversy around the effectiveness of the death penalty, delving into its implications for criminal justice systems and broader cultural attitudes. The literature review discusses the research design and methodology of the selected studies, including their theoretical framework. The main findings from the literature review are presented, emphasizing the various ways in which the death penalty may have proven or failed to be efficient. The literature review also addresses ethical considerations and their implications for criminal justice systems and broader societal attitudes. The purpose of this article is to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the controversy surrounding the death penalty’s effectiveness, considering both empirical evidence and ethical implications. Keywords : Death Penalty, Capital Punishment, Crime Deterrence, Wrongful Convictions, Ethical Implications.
Introduction In the realm of criminal justice, the query into the efficacy of the death penalty emerges as a crucial subject, sparking discussions interwoven with considerations of justice, morality, and societal values. This study aims to untangle the intricacies covering the effectiveness of the death penalty as a punitive measure. From its impact on crime rates and deterrence to the ethical complexities woven into its fabric, my exploration unfolds through a comprehensive analysis of antecedent research that grapples with the multifaceted nature of this contentious practice. As I delve into this inquiry, my guiding light is the pivotal question: To what extent does the death penalty genuinely prove effective? This leading question directs the examination into crime deterrence, the risk of wrongful convictions, and the labyrinth of ethical considerations enveloping this sentence. Through a comprehensive review of existing literature, the aim is to contribute to a nuanced comprehension of the ongoing discourse surrounding the death penalty’s efficacy, anchoring the exploration in both empirical evidence and the ethical dimensions that underlie this hotly debated issue. In the subsequent sections of this paper, a systematic exploration of various dimensions that compose the intricate tapestry of the death penalty’s effectiveness will unfold. The following section will provide a comprehensive historical overview, unraveling the evolution and contextual underpinnings of the death penalty. Building upon this foundation, the subsequent segment will meticulously analyze the legal framework guiding the administration of capital punishment, assessing the extent to which established norms and principles are observed or deviated from. Proceeding to the ethical realm, the subsequent section will critically examine the implications of the death penalty on domestic and international norms, with a focused analysis
The history of capital punishment in England represents an intriguing chapter within the global story of its evolution. During this period, public spectacles for executions were common but they witnessed a major shift by the early nineteenth century through criminal law reformers like Sir Robert Peel (Bailey, 2000; Death Penalty Information Center; Tomlinsonn.d). One such act was The Bloody Code which lasted until the early 18th century and had at least two hundred capital offences including minor cases such as pickpocketing or shoplifting (Smith, 2007). However, after this period in the eighteenth century, it became more concerned with the reform of the criminal justice system as witnessed through many punitive public hangings. This transformation came under the The Judgement of Death Act of 1823 which made the death penalty discretionary for all major offences except murder and treason. More Acts followed that further reduced the number of capital offenses until finally public executions were abolished in
- The American Revolution led to the end of transportation into America by 1776 and opened other parts like Australia as penal colonies but later during the mid-19th century, penal servitude replaced transportation (Bindler & Hjamarsson, 2018). It is important to note here that transportation was commenced using several statutes including The Penal Servitude Act of 1853 and 1857 before it was finally abolished. A close examination of historical acts and The Old Bailey Proceedings demonstrate different societal perceptions about punishment and legal reforms that characterized England’s death penalty history (Bailey, 2000; Death Penalty Information Center; Tomlinson, n.d). In considering England from 1715 to 1900, one can observe a remarkable evolution in its application of the death penalty which offers a unique opportunity to evaluate law, social life, and criminal justice. In this period known as “The Bloody Code,” there was an alarming rise in capital crimes largely due to protecting land-owning class property rights. Capital offenses stood
at around a hundred and sixty by 1765 but had already risen to more than two hundred by the early nineteenth century (Bindler & Hjamarsson, 2018). Public displays of executions during this time were used both as retribution measures against wrong-doers but also as spectacles meant to entertain people. However, in early nineteenth century marked a change in the tide for Sir Robert Peel’s campaign for a better criminal justice system with the establishment of the Judgment of Death Act of 1823. This law allowed magistrates to apply the death punishment at their discretion and this set the foundation for subsequent limitation of capital offenses (Bindler & Hjamarsson, 2018). The end of public executions took place in 1868 reflecting the enormity of a remarkable social change in perceiving punishment. Therefore, according to data provided by The Old Bailey Proceedings Online and historical statutes, it is clear that the death penalty has had a fluctuating history during which alternative systems of punishment have emerged, such as imprisonment. As a result, transportation ceased in 1776 due to the American Revolution and penitentiaries like Millbank and Pentonville were established while national penal servitude came up in its place as an alternative form of punishment that showed changes in societal outlook. Inefficacy of the death penalty The effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to criminal behavior is a highly debated subject with numerous critics. Scholars like Subramarian, Maestro, Pelli, and Howells among others, typified by the views of Justice Thurgood Marshall and Justice William Brennan, dispute the idea that punishment is an effective way to deter people. They posit that this approach’s capacity to deter is undermined by its policing imperfections manifested in inconsistent sentencing and dragging legal procedures causing delayed executions. The
when it comes to marginalized communities in terms of the death penalty who bear its brunt due to systemic biases that challenge basic notions of justice and fairness. This is not blind justice because there are distinctions based on race, socio-economic status, and geography which show that applying the death penalty is not unbiased or equitable (Cosacchi, 2020; Lestari, 2021; Amnesty International). The moral quandary deepens as one grapples with the ethical implications of state-sanctioned practice in which human life can be intentionally extinguished. This forces us to consider whether society upholds human dignity or value for life or if it still has any impact on the moral fabric (Cosacchi, 2020; Lestari, 2021; Amnesty International). Consequently, this debate about capital punishment moves beyond practicality to explore deeply its ethical implications for an ideal just society. Abolition of the Death Penalty This discussion about abolition raises a wider question on changes in societal attitudes towards capital punishment. Over recent decades scholars, legal experts, and activists have consistently challenged the legitimacy and effectiveness of this form of punishment. Some prominent legal voices including Justices Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, John Paul Stevens, and Stephen Breyer questioned the constitutionality of capital punishment based on its inherent arbitrariness, discrimination, and unknown deterrent effects. This realization has been informed by the fact that the death penalty is unfairly meted out with the majority of those sentenced coming from poor and marginalized communities (Death Penalty Information Center; Amnesty International, 2023; Subramanian et al., 2020). In addition, discussions have pointed to a global shift in attitudes towards abolition that reflects changing standards of decency that consider state-sanctioned killings incompatible with modern conceptions of justice and human
rights. Scholars such as Zimring and Hawkins who rely on historical trends, envision future abolitionist efforts to consist of prolonged periods of de facto abandonment, rethinking the death penalty as a human rights issue, and leadership willing to take unpopular positions (Maestro, 1973; Barry, 2017; McLeod, 2018; Pelli & Beccaria, 2020). The movement for its abolition seems to be picking up momentum as attested by fewer death sentences and executions across the United States coupled with more states either abolishing or imposing moratoriums on the death penalty (Barry, 2017; Jones, 2018; Subramanian et al., 2020). Consequently, there are ethical questions along practical lines that must guide the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision so that it can go against public opinion but in line with emerging human dignity standards (Barry, 2017; Jones, 2018; Subramanian et al., 2020). This means that there is a broader consensus among legal analysis scholars’ criticism of the international human rights perspective when it comes to accepting how outdated and flawed this practice is hence requiring another look at whether it should be retained as part of a just fair humane legal system. Conclusion In conclusion, this work strives to untangle the various aspects of the death penalty as a means of punishment by responding to one key question: How far does the death penalty actually work? Diversely put, our journey in this project includes understanding the deterrent effects of capital punishment, the dangers posed by wrongful convictions, and the deep moral issues entangled in this debate. It is evident throughout that the efficacy of capital punishment remains an enigma that keeps on changing. A historical overview is one of its foundations that cover transformation and contextuality. This will let us know its historical journey with time so that we may be able to understand why it has taken different turns and changed into what we have today.
As we navigate these complex dimensions, one thing becomes clear: the death penalty is still the subject of continuous debate and development. This nuanced examination conducted herein merely forms part of an ongoing dialogue that requires continuous investigation, deep reflection, and the justice system’s commitment to evolving societal values. The journey towards comprehending the efficacy of capital punishment is not a destination but rather an unending voyage challenging us with queries that resonate with our own beliefs.
References Bailey, V. (2000). The Shadow of the Gallows: The Death Penalty and the British Labour Government, 1945-51. Barry, K. M. (2017). THE LAW OF ABOLITION. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 107(4), 521–559. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ Bindler, A., & Hjalmarsson, R. (2018). How Punishment Severity Affects Jury Verdicts: Evidence from Two Natural Experiments. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10(4), 36–78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ COSACCHI, D. (2020). ENDING THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES: One Step toward a Just Peace. In E. S. McCarthy (Ed.), A Just Peace Ethic Primer: Building Sustainable Peace and Breaking Cycles of Violence (pp. 125–140). Georgetown University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvxw3p8g. De Spiegeleire, S., Holynska, K., Batoh, Y., & Sweijs, T. (2020). Using Fear to Coerce – What Have We Learned? Where Do We Stand? In Reimagining Deterrence: Towards Strategic (Dis)Suasion Design (pp. 29–38). Hague Centre for Strategic Studies. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24200. Frankis, D., Treadwell, J., & Lynes, A. (2019). Capital punishment in the UK was abolished in 1965, but the Death Penalty was a legally defined punishment until 1998. In 50 Facts Everyone Should Know about Crime & Punishment (1st ed., pp. 17–20). Bristol University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvmd85p6. Handler, P. (2005). Forgery and the End of the “Bloody Code” in Early Nineteenth-Century England. The Historical Journal, 48(3), 683–702. https://www.jstor.org/stable/
Phil Handler. (2005). Forgery and the End of the “Bloody Code” in Early Nineteenth-Century England. The Historical Journal, 48(3), 683–702. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ Subramanian, R., Eisen, L.-B., Merkl, T., Arzy, L., Stroud, H., King, T., Fielding, J., Nahra, A., & Waldman, M. (2020). A Federal Agenda for Criminal Justice Reform. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep Tomlinson. (n.d.). CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN: THEORIES CONCERNING ABOLITION.
