Deterrence of Capital Punishment in Violent Crime

nStudent`s Name

nInstitutional Affiliation

n

nDeterrence of Capital Punishment in Violent Crime

nIntroduction

nIn every nation, there are established measures concerning ways of dealing with criminal offenders based on the nature and magnitude of the crime. However, despite the presence of the established measures of dealing with criminals, crimes, such as murder, rape, drug trafficking, mass genocide, and robbery with violence do occur. This means that no country can completely do away with crimes just because of having well-established strategies for dealing with criminals, but the measures help in stimulating the reduction of criminal activities. One of the criminal reduction measures that most developing and developed countries have been implementing for years is capital punishment, especially for serious crimes such as murder, mass genocide and robbery with violence. Apparently, in the United States, the arguments over capital punishment have been in place since the early days of the republic, where some Americans argue that it should be abolished and others supporting it.

nAccording to the data that was compiled by the federal government showed that there were approximately 3,859 individuals who were subjected to the death sentence under the civil authority between 1930 and 1968 (Schonebaum, 2004). However, during the second half of the 20th century, the number of executions reduced from 105 in 1951 to 2 in 1967, and to zero from 1968 to 1976. The consistence reduction of death sentence cases was as a result of the legal challenges that culminated in 1972, when in the case of Furman versus Georgia rule that capital punishment was an unconstitutional practice. Precisely, the supreme court of the United States had made a 5-4 decision that the way in which death penalty was being practiced at that time was cruel and unusual punishment. This resulted in the approximately thirty-five states revising or writing down new death penalty laws that attempt to meet the requirements of consistency and fairness established by the court.

nThe research aims at establishing whether capital punishment at as a deterrence to violent crime. With the presence of numerous varying arguments concerning whether or not capital punishment affects deterrence violence crime, this study will dig deeper by getting facts from the major professional criminology associations in the United States.

nResearch question

nDoes capital punishment contribute to crime deterrence?

nHypothesis

nCapital punishment act helps in crime deterrence

nDependent variable: Capital Punishment

nIndependent variable: crime deterrence

nLiterature Review

nCapital punishment is one of the major and cheapest tools that a government can embrace and implement in order to prevent the innocent citizens from the threats of criminals who propagate heinous activities, such as murder and terrorism. According to Schonebaum (2004), the Republican Governor of New York, Goerge E. Pataki promised people during his campaign period, that once being elected as a governor; he would bring a new era in the state by ensuring safer communities, renewed personal freedom, and fewer victims of crime. New York had a long fight for justice and for twenty-two consecutive years, most of the predecessors of Pataki had ignored the urgent calls for justice from the citizens, and this was one of the major factors that stimulated governor Palaki to sign the death penalty into law two months after being elected. Schonebaum (2004) supported the idea of embracing and implementing capital sentence arguing that it helps in instituting fear of arrest and conviction to those who may be intending to commit crimes, as well as preventing the convicted criminals from repeating a similar crime in future.

nIn addition, the adoption of the death sentence in New York resulted in a dramatic drop in violent crime. According to Schonebaum (2004), it only took governor Pataki one year since he assumed office to restore the confidence of the New Yorkers, and this was by ensuring that the justice system remained committed to executing those who are found guilty of propagating serious crimes.

nIsaac Elrich also supported the adoption of capital punishment in Texas (one of the thirty-two regional governments that have implemented the capital punishment in the United States), since it helps in reducing crime levels. Most of the occupants in Texas are Republicans, who are globally known due to their cold and hard attitude, especially when it comes to dealing with the minority groups such as the African Americans and the Native Americans. Apparently, though this state has implemented capital punishment, not all individuals support it. However, some of the major opinions concerning capital punishment are the number of crimes that this law has prevented, since it was implemented in Texas. Elrich (2002), believes that there is a decline in the number of crimes in the areas that have implemented the capital punishment. According to the research study that Elrich conducted in 1975 at the University of Buffalo every execution done between 1950 and 1960 is resulted in saving eight lives. Elrich (2002) concluded that capital punishment helps in crime deterrence to a greater extent. Elrich`s sentiments were also echoed by Paul Zimmerman, who established that each execution done deters approximately fifteen killings. However, Zimmerman later realized that the impacts of deterrent was restricted to electrocutions and failed to apply to the other strategies of death sentence such as hanging or lethal injection. According to Zimmerman (2006), the method used to execute convicts have an influence on the level or degree of deterrence. In this case, the use of the electric chair as an electrocution method has the highest level of deterrence compared to the use of the other methods. Zimmerman (2006) also expressed his dissatisfaction with the Nebraska Supreme Court prohibition of the use of the electric chair as the only method of executing convicts in February 2008. Currently, most of the states that have adopted capital punishment allow the convict to select the method that he or she would like to be executed by. Zimmerman (2006) identified that between 2004 and 2008, out of 251 inmates executed only four selected the use of an execution chair, and this suggested that most individuals fear the execution. Zimmerman concluded that with the introduction of other execution methods, the deterrence effect of the capital punishment does no longer exist.

nHowever, though most scholars support the adoption and implementation of capital punishment as a mode of preventing the occurrence of crimes, there are a number of researchers who do not support it. The most interesting aspect is that even the individuals who are against capital punishment have conducted extensive research on their own and have gathered ideas to support their opposing views. To some extent, the opponents of capital punishment might have conducted extensive research to come up with the opposing views more than the extent to which those who support the idea have done. Radelet and Lacock (2009) established that capital punishment has never been greater to life imprisonment as mechanisms of deterring felonious violence. Radelet and Lacock (2009) established that capital punishment does not have much deterrence effect compared to life sentencing after conduction a study that involved the key presidents of guiding specialized criminology organizations in the US. Precisely, Radelet and Lacock acquired finished surveys from the head of the ACJS, the head of the ASC, and the head of the LSA. The findings of the two researchers challenged the countrys top criminologists by demonstrating that capital punishment does not have much deterrence effect, as far as reducing the rates of criminal violence is concerned.

nIn addition, (Dieter, 2014) expressed his dissatisfaction with capital punishment due to the economic impacts that it has on the state. Actually, most community members would support the idea of putting money into the education system, rather than in the execution process. According to him, the cost of execution is most seen as a onetime cost compared to life imprisonment, which is seen as a continuous expense and impossible to predict. However, there are a number of costs that are the same for both the life in prison and for execution, especially the first steps, such as attorney and trial charges. However, there are mostly other unpredictable costs such as when an inmate becomes ill and need surgical, medical attentions which are expensive. Apparently, the cost of executing an inmate is almost ten times more compared to the cost of keeping them alive. Lethal injection costs nearly $100, and this means that buying this form of execution costs tax payers a lot of money. In addition, the case on death penalty makes the taxpayers to incur approximately two million dollars, which is more than triple the cost of incarcerating an inmate in one cell that has the top level of security for forty years (Shepherd, Rubin & Dezhbakhsh, 2010).

nConsidering that there are varying arguments concerning whether or not capital punishment helps in crime deterrence, this research aims at identifying the contribution of capital punishment in the society. Precisely, the aim of this study is to establish whether capital punishment has an effect on crime deterrence.

nMethodology

nThis part discusses where and how the study was conducted, collection and analysis of data, as well as how the findings of the study were presented. In addition, this section highlights how the ethical issues of the study participants will be addressed, the sampling procedures, and study design.

nTarget population

nThis study will focus on a living person, who is serving in any of the three major professional criminal organizations in the United States (the L&SA), the ACJS, and the ASC), any person, who have won an award in any of the three criminology association, and presidents of the associations. However, the target population was supposed to be all criminal associations all the states of the U.S, but due to the challenges of time, resources, and distance, only 66.6 percent of the sample will be selected to represent the entire criminology associations.

nStudy design

nThe study will employ a descriptive cross-sectional design. It is anticipated that the descriptive design are applied in order to assess the status of capital punishment at a particular point with the gathering of figures and facts instead of the manipulation of variables. In addition, the description research design focuses on the assembling of evidences or attaining relevant and praise data regarding the existing situation of the phenomenon and whatever potential draw deductions from the evidences exposed. In regards to establishing whether capital punishment is effective or not when it comes to enhancing crime deterrence in the contemporary American society, the descriptive study design is appropriate in getting facts concerning death penalty without the manipulation of variables.

nSample size determination and sampling procedure

nAs stated above, due to the limitations of funds, time, and energy, the study can be conducted and effectively completed through a carefully selected sample to represent the entire population. The population was first divided into three mutually exclusive subgroups called strata, based on the classes of one or a grouping of pertinent variables. Moreover, simple random sampling was utilized to give equal chance for the stratum to be selected. Later the sub-samples were integrated to develop comprehensive samples which guaranteed that some subgroups were representative of the population. The presidents of the three criminology associations were first selected through simple sampling technique. Additionally, at least ten individuals who had received an award in each of the three criminal associations were selected to participate in the study. Finally, approximately 100 individuals from each facility were selected to participate in this study. This means that the total number of study participants will be as follows:

nThe president of each criminology association-3 presidents

nThe 10 individuals, who had received an award in each criminal association=10*3=30

n100 individuals from each criminal association=100*3=300

nSample size=3+30+300=333 participants.

nAdditionally, a structured questionnaire was present to each of the study participants. Each individual was supposed to respond to all the questions in the questionnaire, and the study will request the respondents to answer the questions based on their personal opinions concerning the wisdom of capital punishment, as well as their understanding of the empirical research.

nPilot Testing of the Research InstrumentsIn order to enhance the validity, reliability and accuracy of the research instruments and consequently data, the research instruments were tested with a different set of population in Texas. Precisely, the Texas police officers were used during pilot study. Data was collected in the field with the assistance of a well-trained a knowledgeable research assistant. A research instrument is said to be reliable if it gets some despondencies each time it is administered. In addition, a research instrument is said to be reliable and valid if it accurately measures the variables being studies.

nData Collection Tools

nObservation checklist, interview guides and structured questionnaires will be used for data collection. The observation checklist will entail observing the execution methods used during death sentences, such as the lethal injections and electrocution chair.

nData Presentation

nThe quantitative data will be summarized and represented in form of frequency tables, percentages and proportions, while the qualitative data obtained through the structured items will be summarized and analyzed manually.

nEthical Considerations

nIn order to adhere to the dictates of the ethical stipulations, all the study participants will first be asked to sign a consent form, which serves as evidence that the participants had agreed to participate in the research.

n

nReferences

nDieter, R. (n.d.). The High Cost of the Death Penalty. Retrieved October 26, 2014. Retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html”http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html

nEhrlich, I. (2002), ‘The Deterrent Effect of Criminal Law Enforcement, The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 1, pp. 259-276.

nRadelet, M., & Lacock, T. (2009). Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views of Leading Criminologists. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99 (2), 489-508. Retrieved October 27, 2014, from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf

nSchonebaum S., (2004). Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Greenhaven Press, Inc. San Diego, California. Accessed from HYPERLINK “http://www.dikseo.teimes.gr/spoudastirio/E-NOTES/D/Does_Capital_Punishment_Deter_Crime_Viewpoints.pdf”http://www.dikseo.teimes.gr/spoudastirio/E-NOTES/D/Does_Capital_Punishment_Deter_Crime_Viewpoints.pdf.

nShepherd J., Rubin P., and Dezhbakhsh (2010). Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-Moratorium Panel Data. Retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DezRubShepDeterFinal.pdf”http://cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DezRubShepDeterFinal.pdf

nZimmerman, P., Estimates of the Deterrent Effect of Alternative Execution Methods in the United States: 1978-2000, 65 AM. J. ECON. & Soc. 909, 910 (2006).