This article discusses individual cases and crimes and gives analysis of the arguments made against death penalty in real world. Firstly it discusses the deterrence argument while going through a number of cases. The conclusion is that it has no effect on reducing homicides but ironically it breeds violence as in some cases offenders committed a capital crime in a territory where execution still prevails while they could have easily avoided it. Second thing discussed is the cost, the research in article shows that it costs significantly more money to put a convict to death than to incarcerate him for life in a prison. Moreover it is shown that in many cases criminals are executed while there are reasonable doubts in their convictions and some have avoided execution by just a few hours before being exonerated.
Capital punishment does not deter crime; instead it increases the murder rate and there is a chance of error. Therefore, capital punishment should not exist in today’s society because it is an unconstitutional punishment. Capital punishment it’s not necessary and it is also unfair. There is a chance of error, you can execute the wrong person and later on find them innocent. Even though some may argue that death penalty deters crime, studies have shown that it does not.
But why do we commit crime and why are the crime rates in certain places like Compton, East St. Louis or Detroit so high? The answer is the “Social Structure Theory”, which states that poverty, unemployment and bad social conditions cause criminal activities. The Social Structure Theory contains three schools of thought: social disorganization, strain, and cultural deviance theories.The school of social disorganization states that
Why do people engage in these violent criminal acts? Do people have the choice and free will or do individuals have certain traits that make who they are? Cesare Beccaria, the founder of the classical theory, “believed that criminals weighed the benefits and consequences of crime before choosing to violate the law. They would be unlikely to choose crime if punishments were swift, certain, and severe” (Siegel, page 84).
So, while politicians talk about the “desperate prison crisis”, we should think about where the actual desperation really lies. The problem is that we need to stop incarcerating vast amounts of non-violent offenders for 25 years to life. Non-violent criminals with minor offenses should not be dictated under the three-strike law. Even with this simple change in the three-strike law, our society would save more money funding other alternatives such as prime prevention strategies. These strategies include programs designed to reduce repeat victimization in domestic burglary, theft, and any other violence.
Sparing the innocent victims who would be spared, ex hypothesi, by the nonexecution of murderers would be more important to me than the execution, however just, of murderers. But although there is a lively discussion of the subject, no serious evidence exists to support the hypothesis that executions produce a higher murder rate. Cf. Phillips, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: New Evidence on an Old Controversy, 86 AM. J. SOC.
Although the author of this book is clearly against capital punishment, he explores all sides of the issue openly. After reading through this text I find it intriguing to examine the long term versus short term cost effects of the death penalty. Although, the cost of capital punishment is higher up front it is comparatively less expensive when compared to life in prison (prodeathpenalty.com). Costanzo states, “Capital cases are a nightmare for the entire justice system. Police chiefs recognize that death penalty cases are particularly burdensome in the early stages.
One of these theories is the Choice Theory. According to the text book, Criminal Justice in Action, Choice Theory is when criminals weigh the benefits of the crime they want to commit to the tragic costs. If in the end the if the criminals benefits over weigh the costs he or she is more likely to commit the crime (pg.31). Most crimes are committed because of the rewards that come along with it. The rewards can involve money or even a sense of gratification according to sociologist Jack Katz in the text book Criminal Justice in action when said “’rewards’ of crime may be sensual as well as financial.
This seems to show the weakness of the criminal justice system. However, does the dramatically increased number of prisoners necessarily prove that the prison system is not working? Is it possible that the growth resulted from the changes of the laws as more things become illegal, the federal government passes minimum mandatory sentences? Perhaps many crimes for which a person would not have been sent to prison now require a prison term. That could be the reason for the increase.
Bennett’s chapter against the legalization of drugs he speculates that the legalization of drugs would remove the criminal stigma that currently labels drug users. Bennett theorizes that a removal of this stigma would take with it the hesitation felt by the majority of people who see no positives in a life of crime. He is talking about every drug which one would agree that such a broad decriminalization would send our country into a downward spiral filled with addicted citizens barely able to function within society. The hard drugs that Bennett describes are in fact a danger to society such drugs like PCP, heroin or crack cocaine. However, he barely touches on the fact of marijuana alone.