Hi Aceil,

By "deterrent effect", do you mean as a deterrent to committing a crime punishable by the death penalty?  If so, I don't think it is a very effective deterrent in the sense that a person committing a "crime of passion" like murdering the person she finds committing a heinous act on her minor child does not stop to think, "Oh wait, this is Texas, I will get the death penalty if I kill this pervert in this state."  Or, the serial killer who is on a murdering spree seldom pauses to relocate his activities to a state that has no death penalty or to a state with a death penalty, but which (like NJ) is under a moratorium on utilizing it. 

However, if you mean a "deterrent effect" for convicted persons on death row awaiting execution after 10 years of appeals are exhausted, then the death penalty is a somewhat effective deterrent in that the convicted persons is not eligible for bail or parole and is thus kept off the streets and deterred from victimizing the public while awaiting execution.  Nonetheless, I say it is only "somewhat" effective because some convicted killers commit murder in jail -- killing other inmates -- while awaiting execution after the exhaustion of all appeals.

Gwen

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

States Without the Death Penalty Fared Better Over Past Decade - In the past ten years, the number of executions in the U.S. has increased while the murder rate has declined. Some commentators have maintained that the murder rate has dropped because of the increase in executions (see, e.g., W. Tucker, "Yes, the Death Penalty Deters," Wall St. Journal, June 21, 2002). However, during this decade the murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty.

When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.

A look at neighboring death penalty and non-death penalty states show similar trends. Death penalty states usually have a higher murder rate than their neighboring non-death penalty states.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

The death penalty is not and never has been a deterrent.  Non death penalty states tend to have a more caring social system that leans towards less violent societies and offer more support to offenders and victims.  The murder rate is not directly related to the existence or not of the death penalty but to social attitudes and humanity generally.

Incidentally the word 'enjoy' sits uncomfortably in your question.  I doubt if spending 10 or more years on Death Row in the US could be described as 'enjoyable'. 

Our country Pakistan has been adversely affected by this so called  "deterrent effect". Terrorist who were punished Death Penalty by apex courts of the country in 2008 and afterwards were not hanged. This resulted in multifold increase  of terrorism.Very recent episode of that terrorism, this world observed on 16th December 20014 when around 150 school innocent kids were brutally killed and hundreds of students injured.

But staying in imprisonment  for eight years with the death penalty is not an enjoyable experience for the prisoner.  Tuner is right in saying that. But delaying punishment for so long means delaying justice. Delaying justice means denying justice.

If the punishment s delayed for so long, it doesn't create an as strong  impact on the society as punishment given to freshly convicted person. This impact leaves a feeling of fear in the minds of culprits and thus they refrain from doing bad deeds.

The death penalty is no deterrent to terrorists, especially the variety that believe that dying in a 'holy war' results in reward, not punishment.

Most terrorists know that they are at very high risk of being killed while carrying out their acts or in the immediate period afterwards.  Most terrorists know that a UAV is out there somewhere looking for them.

The low life trash that murdered 150 children and those of their ilk are not deterred by the death penalty.  

History tells us that the death penalty has no effect on criminality except retribution and revenge.  If those who advocate the death penalty are honest and accept that that is what it is all about then we could at some point have a reasoned debate.

Pretending that judicially sanctioned homicide reduces crime is risible, suggesting it protects the public downright deceitful. 

Death penalty is one of the acts of governments that put themselves and the criminals at equal footing,  in reasoning and decision making capabilities to bring a lasting decent and civilized social behaviors of citizens.

In a dynamical system where there are spots called irregularities and those parts or points of the system who went there experience some kind of chaotic and turbulence phenomenon, but taking out those parts which experience that phenomenon out of the system will not make the system change its behavior and become free of its irregularities.  But changing the nature of the system through either perturbations  or other means is the right way that eliminates the irregularities and  smooth-ens the system.

Therefore criminality (based on an existing social order ) as an irregular behavior of a particular society, the mechanics of solving it should be handled the way dynamical systems of irregularities are  softened. Above all taking away the life of a living person who is in custody by a government is a higher order crime than justice, unless it is a justice of minimal consciousnesses. 

death penalty is not the answer to any crime. the root of crime is not in life. so by ending lives you cannot end crime.

the root of crime lies deep in the society: our present system. by modifying our system, therefore we can stop crime.

Hi Aceil,

Capital punishment has cultural, religious and political aspects. Generally, death penalty is practiced for crime prevention, justification and even symbolizing an act.

Somehow, throughout history, death penalty has served its purpose well; however, there are various discussions about its humanity and moral aspects. Capital punishment was practiced in France from the Middle Ages until 1977.

Many may happen to believe that every now and then a criminal must be executed to prevent further corruption.

Yet again, this is not applicable for desperate people or criminals. For instance in the 18th century France, whether before revolution or during the Reign of Terror, the act of execution by guillotine was prevalent; however, it evidently failed to prevent the act of crime.

Therefore, a phenomenological or even analytic approach towards capital punishment, in order to understand the toots of the crime, its prevalence and the public attitude, are necessary before criticizing the act and form of the punishment.

The comments are great and philosophic. But hardly I see any significant large country which has no death penalty. May be with this debate maturing we will find more countries just changing the name of death penalty to other newer terms. Pre-emptive strike, Moping the lawn,containing the evil, Embargo ... All this in my view are more democratic terms for collective death penalty imposed on the undemocratic wrold .... 

Regardless of the death penalty being a 'deterrent' or not, for the victims families it might bring closure and satisfaction knowing that the perpetrator no longer has the opportunity to commit a similar crime for what s/he has been sentenced for. If there is any doubt whatsoever that the person convicted of the crime is innocent and in the absence of forensic evidence the death penalty should not be the sentenced passed. A conviction on circumstantial evidence alone would not warrant the death penalty. From an economic point of view for a criminal to have millions spent on them during a period of 20 to however many years without the possibility of freedom/parole I do not believe is  justified.

I don't think that a person sentenced to death and waiting 10 years or more to be "executed" can "enjoy" life. 

Let me share with you an event from Argentina recent history: during the military dictatorship our criminal code contemplated capital punishment. This was never legally used. There was only one case (judged by wthat was known in those days as "Tribunal Camarón") of 3 people prosecuted for acts of terrorism and sentenced to dead. But the sentence was never executed, as the 3 people were killed in "a confrontation" (those were the words the militaries used to legalized killing among argentine citizens). When one reporter ask why they didn't apply capital punishment they answered that , as a catholic country, it would be unbearable to kill legally.......Thousands of people were killed/disappeared by the "legal representatives" of government in those days...........

What I'm trying to say is that criminal offences are far more complex issues than to sentence someone, they are social phenomena, high complex issues, so important that is not good to think that criminal law can do the job alone. Our societies have the criminality that owe, that create by themselves. Violence and death, whether coming from criminals or from society, or from public power, is never a good answer. 

Susie.

As it is practiced in the United States, the Death Penalty is not a deterrent. First let me qualify my statements with the fact that I was a cop for 30 years in an urban area. Second, no real criminal believes that they will ever get caught. They always think that they are too smart. The other type of criminal is acting out of passion and doesn't think about consequences anyway.  The deterrent effect of the death penalty in the United States has been totally mitigated by several factors. Executions are no longer public. If someone is supposed to be afraid of something they have to actually see it. Not just glamorized depictions on television or movies. The length of time that it takes to actually carry out the death penalty is absurd. The average time from crime to penalty is over 20 years.So many are mitigated that most prisoners believe that their sentence will   either be overturned on a technicality or the state will give up and let them serve life instead. Very few believe that it will actually happen to them. Other than the "guest of honor" the death penalty does not deter anyone. However, you have to admit that no one who was ever successfully executed ever committed another crime.

Gregg

Great observations.  You are absolutely right criminals are not deterred by the penalty because they believe that either they will never face it or they are indifferent to it.  That is even true of capital crimes.  We used to have a colourful expression in the UK during the days we had the death penalty.  In heated arguments you would often hear " I'll swing for you!" Few meant it literally but...some did.

When we had over 300 capital crimes in the UK we had a phenomenon whereby the jury would rarely find a defendant guilty, even where the evidence was overwhelmingly against them.  Vast numbers of 'hanging offences' resulted in surprisingly low execution rates and the murder rate and serious violence were sky high.  In the 1880's, a period of hanging and flogging it really was unsafe to go out at night (unless you were up to no good) 

We have prisons, electric chairs and lethal injections for retribution, not deterrence.  We punish people because the mob demand it, not because it prevents further crime.  

All we have to do as a society is admit that, lets stop pretending and say we want revenge.  We call it capital punishment after all, not capital deterrence. 

One last point on the history of public hanging.  The Tyburn hangings of the 18th century were a great public spectacle.  Huge crowds gathered to see the executions and in among the crowds were large numbers of pickpockets.  We should take special note that picking pockets was a capital crime at the time. 

The last public hanging in the United States was in 1935. It drew a crowd of thousands.

Those following this question should look at the one posed by Ian Leader-Elliott of the University of Adelaide.  It contains (see below) some interesting comments on the philosophy of executing criminals as heinous as Adolf Eichmann.

How should Adolf Eichmann have been punished?

How should Adolf Eichmann have been punished? The question assumes that punishment is an appropriate response to his crimes. Hannah Arendt agreed with the Supreme Court of Israel that Eichmann should be put to death, though her reasons were quite different. She concluded her study of his trial, ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’, with the following words of condemnation: ‘no one, that is, no member of the human race, can be expected to want to share the earth with you. That is the reason, and the only reason, you must hang’. She would have condemned him to forfeiture and elimination rather than punishment.

Suppose Eichmann had not been sentenced to death. If he is to be punished, how is it to be done? This is the challenge implicit in Arendt’s final condemnation. If he is allowed to live, how are Eichmann's judges, the correctional officials, prison warders and the broader community which they represent, going to ‘share the earth’ with him? Eichmann would probably have made a compliant prisoner.  

He was compliant with his interrogators: Arendt records that he told them that, ‘he would like to find peace with [his] former enemies’. If he is not to be executed, must the criminal justice system offer him opportunities for redemption, reconciliation and eventual release?

It has been quite a while since I studied criminology, but I believe the research still shows that a) the effectiveness of a deterrent depends more on the likelihood of incurring the punishment than its severity (i.e. a low punishment with a high probability of being caught is a more effective deterrent than a severe punishment but a low probability of being caught) and b) there is no correlation between the existence of capital punishment and the death rate. I seem to remember that New Zealand was a case in point: in the 1950's and 60's they abolished, reinstated, and then again abolished the death penalty, and there was no discernible change in the rate of murders, regardless of whether the death penalty was 'on' or 'off'. 

Gerard says, "If there is any doubt whatsoever that the person convicted of the crime is innocent and in the absence of forensic evidence the death penalty should not be the sentenced passed." I support his sentiment, but the truth is that we can never be entirely sure of any verdict. Even forensic evidence has on occasion been proved wrong: techniques are not as reliable as we sometimes think, mistakes are made in forensic laboratories and so on. There is a small but consistent trickle of convictions, including some high profile cases, that prove after the event to have been mistaken; so societies that impose the death penalty can never rule out the possibility of an innocent personal being executed. 

Sally Clark, The Birmingham Six, The Guildford Four, The Cardiff Three, Judith Ward and the McGuire Seven were all convicted on faulty (fraudulent) forensic evidence.  If we had still had the death penalty in the UK they would have been hanged.

Indeed, Barry! 

Is it the "impossibility of sharing the earth with somebody" a reason to back criminal punishment? Aren't we behaving in the same horrific way as the person we want to punish? What makes a killing to be a good one? When the criminal (or the one the criminal system has picked up ) kills that is something bad......but when the State does it in exercising capital punishment, is it ok?. I think that may be we are forgetting that evil is not just an abstract entity, that evil is human, because no other creature can behave in an evil way and cause intentional harm to each other. Killing the one who has an evil behaviour does not  stops evil in itself. 

I agree with Sally and Barry''s most recent comments about the death penalty never representing a deterrent, as well as  many of the other comments supporting the fact that it does not serve presumed deterrent effects.  The only additional point that I want to make is in response to the possible implicit notion in the question that the convicted individual is not suffering while waiting to be executed.  I have assisted legal counsel in developing post conviction appeals and interviewed many offenders on death row.  Many of them develop severe mental disorders because of how they are housed and because of the uncertainty of their situation.  Many experience extreme hopelessness because many felt that they had inadequate legal counsel doing the trail phase or  that their wishes were not properly honored during the penalty phase of the process.  Moreover, in  many states, they  have minimal contact with the attorneys involved with their appeals and family stop making contact because of the associated stigma that might surround the circumstances of the case.   In addition, individuals who lacked specific intent who were sentenced to death under felony murder statutes also confront different challenges that differentially affect their experiences during those 10 years.  Some eventually have their sentences commuted and the suffering that they underwent was clearly not proportional to the nature of the crime for which they were convicted.  Lastly, many individuals who are on death row did not deserve the penalty because they were not afforded opportunities to develop and present effective mitigation evidence.   The mitigation and aggravation phases of death penalty cases are highly complex and many jurors do not have the balanced kind of temperament to arrive at a balanced and just decision.  The aim of deterrence is only one potential aim for selecting a sentence of death.  Other justifying aims can be ignored when individuals make biased reactions to individuals based on unconscious emotional reactions to an offender not based on the crime or relevant offender characteristics, including perceptions of potential dangerousness that are not grounded in actual facts.  

I also endorse the opinion that death penalty is not a deterrent. It is more like wrecking vengeance of the society on someone who has committed a serious crime. In my opinion what matters is a fine balance between expediency and fair trial that actually works as a deterrent.

A traffic cop leveling a one dollar fine for over-speeding on the spot will have more deterrence value than death penalty to the crime of murder after a ten years long trial.

Ms.Alkhatib. I am apparently at odds with a lot of the replies here so I guess I am going to give you an alternate way to look at your issue. Forgive me but this one may be a little long.

First off, I always love questions on deterrence because a lot of times (as in this case) it is nearly impossible to determine the alternate. How can you actually measure how many capital crimes would have happened if (or if not) the Death Penalty is the law?

But in reality, the laws that specifically establish Capital crimes and the option for the Death Penalty as punishment are not passed to deter crime, they are passed in an attempt to reach Justice. And that’s different. It is where a number of your answers here come from, a view (opinion) of Justice and not Deterrence.

So with regards to what I just pointed out, Is the Death Penalty a deterrent? Absolutely. As it has already been pointed out by another here, the person executed will never commit another capital crime.

It also works well in regards to terrorism. Terrorism has been very popular for a long, long while now, even before the rise of the Suicide Jihadist. For example, the numerous Marxist-based groups targeting the US (including the Red Army Brigade, Red Army Faction, Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army). All of them specifically avoided committing attacks that would kill here in the US (Their primary enemy) but were more than willing to kill in European countries where the Death Penalty was not an option for punishment.

It is the real threat of death that is actually pretty powerful (and is a deterrent).

In keeping with the terrorism theme, just look to Iraq and Libya. Saddam Hussein (Iraq) basically disappeared with a death sentence hanging over him. In December 2003, Muammar Gaddafi  (Libya)  surrendered his WMD programs (Chemical and Nuclear) within a week of the video of S.Hussein captured, being pulled from that hole.

But here in the US we can also see how powerful that threat of death can actually be. Just consider the gun laws. The bad guys aren’t afraid of the Cops, the Courts or the Jails/Prisons. They are afraid of the potential victim that is armed. Look at the most violent cities: Chicago, Washington DC, Detroit, New York City, Los Angeles, etc. All tops in violent crimes, also all tops in strictest gun laws. The threat of death is a great deterrent.    

Dear Jim,

The threat of death is a great deterrent when the process of justice is quick and fair. In countries like India which follow the British juridical philosophy, the victim has to prove that an offense has been committed on him/her in order to obtain a death penalty on the perpetrator. The trials therefore go on for years. The victim's family would be so vexated in the process that they rather live with the loss than run the miles for justice.

It was not till Y2K that even in cases involving rape of minors that the courts in India started admitting circumstantial evidence to prove guilt. The age-old dictum 'let a hundred guilty go unpunished, but no single innocent must get punished' remains the bedrock of criminal jurisprudence. In such scenarios, death penalty hardly remains a deterrent.

The terrorism and gun culture scenarios that were cited are entirely in a different context. The idea that death penalty in US deterred factions like Red Army from committing attacks on US soil needs re-thinking, in my opinion. Rather, the factors in favor of US were (and are) the problems in finding logistical support for mounting such operations. Whenever they could find the logistics, groups from outside US did succeed, death penalty notwithstanding. Oklahama, WTC 1993, are few examples. See wiki list of terrorist attacks in USA at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

Considering the volume of incidents mentioned in wiki, it may not be correct to presume that death penalty has reduced or deterred violent crime. Police and military operations do induce fear of life. But we should not think of them as ends of justice. The ends of justice can only be meted out by courts through fair trial.

Have a great day.  

Jim,

Most research consistently shows that for crimes of passion deterrence is not very effective. As Srinivasnam pointed out, it is the celerity and certainty of punishment that is most likely to contribute to deterrence and not the severity of the punishment for non-crimes of passion.  While the death penalty will contribute to specific rather than general deterrence, the implementation of this principle often results in cruel efforts at implementation, as evidenced by many of the recent and past botched executions.  However, I concur that the person is completely prevented from committing another offense, but at what price to other principles of justice.  So, indeed you are right that many of the authors of prior comments do appeal to other principles of justice which outweigh in their opinion any presumed benefit achieved through measures of specific deterrence in the use of the death penalty.  However, the point that you make about terrorism is clearly contradicted by other cases that can be easily selected to make the opposite point.  Namely, Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski were not deterred from engaging in acts of terrorism because of the presence of a death penalty.  In addition, the co-defendant in Timothy McVeigh case did not get the death penalty.  Yet other individuals who are co-defendants in felonies which resulted in less deaths than Oklahoma and who also did not directly kill the other individuals have received the death penalty because of ineffective assistance of counsel.   In sum, you are correct that many involved in this discussion are giving more weight to other principles of justice because of perceived problems with the implementation of principles of deterrence at multiple levels of the criminal justice process.

S.Rajamanickam & J. Ashford

Gentleman, I apologize for the delay in responding. New term starting gets a little hectic sometimes.

My references to Terrorism and the Death Penalty as a deterrent, along with your responses were actually the point. The four Marxist groups I noted (primarily active in the 60s-80s), all specifically avoided capital offenses (Murder) in the US territories to avoid the Death Penalty-They did not in places where it wasn't a risk. There were (and still are) others that still are deterred by that penalty. That example aptly fits with the question on deterrence because it actively was for those specific groups (and types of groups).

As both of you pointed out, not all groups were or currently are deterred by this. But, of course, that's the way deterrence works. There is always line that people won't cross, where that line actually is depends upon the person/group. The death Penalty is one of those lines, some won't cross it, others will.

Due to the time involved, although there are examples, I don't really look at the Death Penalty as a deterrent. I can argue it as so, and provide examples, but it is more of a matter of Justice to me. The time involved to go from arrest to execution is just too long (Which is why I also added the reference that the threat of death itself is a deterrence).

hello...just being brief and short...do you think detention for  long duration of 10 years could be considered as "enjoyment" for someone who is waiting for their death date??? I guess...the pain of waiting itself is as equal as  death punishment .....

Barry, Alice,

You are quite right if convicts live in solitary confinements, or if there is torture in prison. My point is that those on death row can relatively enjoy their lives as opposed to those who were murdered and did not have the choice to arrange for their deaths.

Alice, (Ref: "do you think detention for long duration of 10 years could be considered as "enjoyment" for someone who is waiting for their death date?"). That would depend on what they can access. Those on "Death Row" in the U.S. get regular meals, TV, books, mail, visitors, education, exercise, etc.

Loss of freedom is significant, but the waiting-I'm not so sure that it is. Considering how many actually push for any and every appeal possible to extend the time, I don't see most DR inmates seing it that way either.

What do/did the actual victim(s) get (besides death and, at times, a horrific one at that)? 

Hai Jim. I am not backing up the criminals and not to the least saying that their suffering is equal to the horrible act they have done to the victim. What I am trying to say is that being detained in a prison while waiting for death execution should not be considered as “enjoyment” (referring to the question imposed by Aceil). Yes, despite of getting regular meals, TV, books, mail, visitors, education etc…I wouldn’t consider that as ‘enjoyment’. The waiting period is an opportunity for any new evidence, appeal or pardon. Honestly, not being sadist (0_0) …but I would prefer if the convicted for death penalty to be executed as soon as possible…(.-_-)

Just adding....the detention pending death row could be perceived from two directions. On the side of the criminals, they would have time to be remorseful and repentant by seeking God’s forgiveness for the sin that they have done. While on the side of the victim, if possible…the act of forgiving ranks highest and strongest degree of human behaviour..(easy say than done) illustrating set of example in encouraging peace, harmony and nobility in compassion to the world at large…

"It is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. There have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young men and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder"

                                        Albert Pierrepoint.  The last British hangman.

In those countries, like Australia, where the death penalty was abolished, save for treason and terrorist offences (but not enforced for them), the overall crime rate for death penalty offences, like murder has remained about the same. Most crime in Western countries is now drug related. Criminals are consuming, trafficking, cultivating, manufacturing, and importing drugs and committing a range of economic crimes to get the money to pay for drugs. In countries like Singapore,, Malaysia and Indonesia, where drug traffickers are regularly executed, the overall drug problem has increased and the occasional very public execution of Australians in those countries does not seem to deter other Australians following fully in their path, committing similar drug crimes and getting executed. Two Australians are about to get executed by firing squad in Indonesia after being very publicly on death row pleading for mercy for a couple of years, during which time other Australians have been arrested and face the same consequences. QED: The Death penalty does not appear to be any form of deterrent.

In reply to Barry Turner's response and in particular the last sentence of Albert Pierrepoint  " All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder"  However,  Albert may never know how many murders were prevented by the very fact the murderers he hanged may have gone on to commit further murders had they not been hanged!!  Furthermore the deterrent does exist  as a consequence of the impossibility to murder again.

Gerard Locsei-Campbell, Of course the application of the death penalty in the England of old had as part of its core belief system that executing people guilty of a wide range of crimes prevented them for committing further crimes. The death penalty for (say) theft would stop a thief from reoffending, but seems a little harsh to the tender sensibilities of  modern England. However, the same philosophy is a key component of the "three strikes and your are out" incentives favoured by some US jurisdictions. ISIS chop the heads off anyone they consider guilty of offences. That prevents them reoffending. The Western world thinks it has moved on from the times when it also employed these harsh penalties. The innocence programs supported by DNA evidence appears to indicate that executing anyone to prevent them committing further crimes might have as its fallacy, the fact that they might not have committed the crime for which they were executed. Still one more head more of less does not really matter to the totalitarian, who seem to believe that even executing the wrong person operates as a deterrent of sorts, particularly if the executors hold the line on the false conviction. Police and prosecutors seldom pervert the course of justice to corruptly obtain false convictions against, and execute people who are completely innocent of committing any crime. One crime or the other, give of take does not matter. After all you can tell they are criminals deserving of execution just looking at the shape of their heads. The University of Cambridge pioneered the science. Home of the Flat Earth Society.

Hello Alice. Actually, I intended my response to be more of adding to your point and in a lot of cases I do agree with your time period issue between conviction and execution.

Aceil, you presented a great question, one that there is really no way for anyone to measure.

For obvious reasons, the question of the Death Penalty is one the most difficult questions to answer even by those with the experience and/or the education (as you can see with the answers here). Although many criminologists focus on the idea that the law, enforcement & punishment can deter crime (from the original Classical theories to the more current Rational Choice theories-just for the record, they are basically the same concepts), sometimes we do forget two major points:

1) The idea of Deterrence only works on certain people not all and the Death Penalty does not really lend itself to measurements.

2) Even though we would like to think about deterrence, we cannot loose sight that sometimes it really is just all about the idea (and view) of Justice.

I think you have a great illustration of that with the posts here.

Mark Clarkson. I do not advocate 3 strikes and your out 1 strike of murder is sufficient providing that there is no doubt whatsoever of the perpetrators guilt eg witnesses, dna evidence, cctv evidence, admission of guilt without duress etc. Michael Stone who has always protested his innocence for the Russell murders and is a typical case of no DNA evidence no witnesses and  convicted on the say so of a now convicted murderer. The  circumstances of his conviction would not be sufficient to warrant the death penalty. There are others circumstances where I would not advocate the death penalty and these are circumstances where one has not deliberately gone out to murder another or do not have in their possession an instrument to commit a murder.  A one punch kill would be an example of that. However, for those who have the wicked intent of taking another life for property, sexual gratification and the like then I am of the opinion that the death penalty is warranted and should be executed.  For offences where a life has not been taken with intent I do not agree with the death penalty as in a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving although 15 years minimum would suffice!

Gerard Locsei-Campbell. In most jurisdictions intent to cause grievous bodily harm, rather than kill founds a count of murder. Lack of that intention may reduce the charge to manslaughter. However, the murder/felony rule may apply to raise to murder those deaths that occur during the course of another crime, even where there is no intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The offender is held responsible for the consequences, rather than the intention. In the US jurisdictions where the death penalty is applied, the jury, not the Judge is often asked to rule on the punishment, weighing up the circumstances you have adumbrated. In most other jurisdictions, the Judge imposes the penalty and often without much discretion, where the penalties are mandated. In England, the death penalty was applied in these circumstances. There was no capacity to weigh the factors. The black skull cap was placed over the wig in every case of murder and it was left to the executive to commute the death penalty if that course was thought appropriate. Advocate you might the need for executions in the circumstances you have posited, but that would be retribution being effected, not deterrence.

Death penalty has a deterrent effect on only thise who are law abiding, but for the criminal minded individual is doesn't matter at all whether it has been abolished or not. Then another reason will also be that the criminals will believe they will never be caught. In Nigeria death penalty has not been abolished it still a part of of criminal justice system

A very good question though I wonder how much those with a impending execution over their heads "enjoy" life. The death penalty could look to be the answer in a land with a totally just, incorruptible justice system where police are not out to meet targets. But is that not a Utopian dream. I have personally met too many who have been falsely imprisoned who have left jail with a royal pardon but a ruined life. The English system is based on the hope of reform of the prisoner. If the death penalty is used it helps perpetuate tit for tat killings,.As I see it even the state has no right to take life, especially your life in the case of you being the wrong race in the wrong place at the wrong time and you are therefore a scapegoat to help the police crime-solving rate statistics. IT DOES happen but it is convenient to ignore that until it happens to you or your friends or your family. As I understand it the death penalty can still be invoked in the UK for treason, but is unlikely to be used. How flexible can the definition of treason be? But that is another question!!

The question itself is interesting because the effect of removing the death penalty can be useful information in regard to the capital punishment issue. We should be aware, however, that the deterrent effect is of concern to those whose ambition is to engineer society. To those whose primary concern is justice, where justice is the concept of a person getting what he/she deserves, the question is whether or not the convicted murderer gets what he/she deserves. It is not hard to see that for some murderers the death penalty is appropriate. The task for the judicial system is to install safeguards against the penalty being applied inappropriately.

Even though the death penalty may be appropriate for some murderers, let's not forget that when a murderer is executed, his parents, and his family receive the harshest punishment as well. I think this statement speaks volumes:

"Mr. Whitaker's father insists that he would be victimized again if the state put to death his last remaining immediate family member," https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/texas-spares-death-row-inmates-life-minutes-before-execution/ar-BBJu4r0?srcref=rss&ocid=OLCONUA

I’m sure it would be a very interesting thesis in discovering how many parents would feel guilt and responsibility for the way they have brought up those who have gone on to be career criminals and murderers. It is common knowledge, although not widely accepted perhaps, that if both parents have criminal convictions and are hardened criminals that their children will go on to be criminals. Perhaps there are circumstances when it is justified that family members are punished harshly as a consequence of the execution of their loved one. I also believe that everyone has the potential to become a criminal but not everyone has the potential to become a non criminal. The possibilities of not becoming a criminal when your parents , brothers, sisters and other relatives are criminals is I would suggest rather remote! Therefore the reason for not executing the murderer must not be the fact that their relatives may also suffer.

Gérard. Indeed. Living with criminals or bein brought up by criminal parents increases the likelihood of becoming criminal. But this raises the question of the dichotomy of "victim and criminal;" victim because society fails to provide support for children who live with criminals, and criminal because they were born criminals if you will, and thus victimizing them at least twice. So, how can society provide support to those children?

I remember a Judge in the uk saying to a defendant ' your grandfather stood before me, you father stood before me and now you are here perhaps it is time that the state started to remove children from families who are criminals?' Maybe in the most serious of situations this isn't altogether such a bad idea!

Aceil and Gerard the two of you are broaching the famous hypothetical case introduced by Susan Wolk involving "JoJo". It examines how the self can be corrupted by unfortunate forms of socialization in which JoJo develops criminal and evil values and desires from his father. But does this contribution to JoJo's behavior mitigate JoJo"smoral culpability. This is typically how the issues are addressed and rarely relate to how the responsibility of the family and society can be fairly addressed. Nonetheless, there are laws against corrupting minors and parents are often the individuals who contributed to their child's corruption. Yet, not all cases of homicide involve relevant attributions of responsibility to the parent's child. Quite often the corruption is due to the individual's peers. How would we include them in the punishment or that of the society at large? That is, there are many social structures that result and contribute to the development of criminal propensities. They are supposed to be taken into account in the penalty phase of a death penalty case, but quite often are given minimum weight in the sentencing process. So, indeed Aceil's victim and criminal dichotomy is a challenging one for policy makers and moral philosophers.

Here's a recent dilemma of an inmate who has been on death row since 1985, has suffered several strokes, developed dementia, is legally blind, cannot walk on his own and speaks with a slur". This case prompted liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, a death penalty critic, to write in a separate opinion that Madison’s case illustrated “the unconscionably long periods of time that prisoners often spend on death row awaiting execution.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-deathpenalty/supreme-court-takes-case-of-death-row-inmate-who-forgot-the-crime-idUSKCN1GA2W0

Aceil, given this person's both physical and mental condition would it be inhumane not to pursue the death penalty? Is the USA prison system really able to provide the care required and for it to be provided in the penal environment?

Gerard, your question implies that pursuing the death penalty is analogous to euthanesia (i.e.,mercy killing ) if I understand you correctly. A good question, I do not know if the Supreme Court would consider that. How would the UK system approach similar cases?

This fairly recent article on elderly prisoners with health care needs has some answers:

http://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/187664?path=/bmj/345/7879/Analysis.full.pdf

Gerard,

Wrongful convictions are very troubling. The conditions of treatment on death row can be reformed if the death penalty is maintained. But, most states expose the offenders to very inhumane conditions while their appeals are going through the courts.

I think an issue in this discussion is the timing to an execution. In my opinion, the safeguards in place that involve significant time are necessary given the significant number of wrongful convictions. A number of individuals in my state have been wrongfully convicted based on pseudo fire and bite mark science. Given the fact that the death penalty is not an effective general deterrent, the length of time until the execution is administered should not be the primary concern. But, the extreme isolation and other forms of indignity that individuals awaiting the penalty are experiencing is an important issue that can be justly addressed. But, in my opinion, the solution is not to summarily execute them supposedly for their own welfare. I recommend that you consider reading Bryan Stevenson's Book Just Mercy in which a jury convicted an individual even after DNA evidence and other facts should have exonerated this individual. The actual killer is eventually found, but if the system had moved forward to expedite the execution then this would have been a grave injustice. Like the U.S., the UK has maintained natural life sentences, which the rest of Europe does not completely support. Namely, many countries on the continent allow for redemption, which is not true of the U.S. and U.K. Life sentences have less avenues for legal appeals than death sentences, which some in this discussion would probably prefer. Life sentences are a different type of death sentence.

Unfortunately, the UK system does not support such methods.

Jose, I have always maintained that when there is no doubt whatsoever that a person has been justly convicted of a crime, and when convicted, the miscreant does not plead his/her innocence, that the death penalty is appropriate for these criminals. There are many examples of convicted child killers in the UK where DNA, witnesses, cctv etc has been used in evidence and they have been rightly convicted. To name one as an example, Ian Huntley, who will serve a minimum of 40 years , then I wouldn't be troubled at all if the death penalty was used in his case...and of course there are many others in the UK on whole life tariff where the death penalty would have been appropriate!

Gerard,

Yes, I understand. The only caveat is at times it appears to be a clear case. I worked on a case in which an individual eventually accepted the accusations after a period of time just to prove how inferior the system was and he had an ambulatory form of Schizophrenia. He had a form of circumstantial reasoning that individuals initially associated with high intelligence. However, he was set up by someone who finally confessed and the Supreme Court ordered his release after he had been in prison over 20 years. His original diagnosis was over looked and a number of other issues. However, I understand your position. I hope there is some comfort that Ian will probably never get out of prison.

Death penalty has no deterrent effect since crime dropped worldwide as a result of crime prevention.

Here's an example of inmates killing fellow prisoners to get the death penalty. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/south-carolina/articles/2017-06-27/inmate-details-4-prison-killings-i-did-it-for-nothing

Carl, I would agree that in essence the death penalty is not a deterrent however it would and does bring closure for the victim's families and it is just deserts!

Thanks for your answer Gerard. I though that we achieved very positive results with the methods of restorative justice also if society, victims and her/ his family prefers the death penalty. These results have been reached in Europe and Canada.

I don't agree that the death penalty is not a deterrent. If it applied consistently, it presents to a potential murderer the prospect that if he commits murder he will likely be caught, tried and if convicted, put to death. When the death penalty is removed that prospect, which must give a murderer pause, is also removed. I have read of cases where professional criminals get underage people to commit an assassination instead of themselves because they would face the death penalty but an underage person would not.

Dear Robert I don't think that the question should be: is death penalty a deterrent?". Behind the question is a moral question that we should try to answer. This question is: "are we allowed to apply a death penalty?". I also like to add another comment. Together with Becky Block (from Chicago) we studied around 1979 Canadian data: death penalty or imprisoned for life. The outcome was that Indians and lower social class people were getting a death penalty. All the best, Carl

The question should be, "what is justice?" I believe it is the concept that a person gets what he/she deserves. In the case of a cold-blooded murder, what does the killer deserve? I believe there is a widespread opinion that the murderer deserves the same fate that he/she assigned to the victim. What fate do you think the murderer deserves?

Dear Robert: I think that to believe that is to go back to the "eye for and eye"........and would mean that us, as a civilization, haven't improve much in humankind. Best Suzie.

Maria, Do you believe in justice? What do you think it is?

Robert, I believe in Justice as a goal and a hope for a better world. But I do not believe or support revenge. I think that a public decision should not only be legal but also ethical. And is not ethical that a State, which have the absolute punitive power, can justify killing somebody because the criminal system failed to do it's job, and because society failed to do its job. An individual, by her own, cannot violate human rights. The only one who can violate human rights are States or its representatives. And to kill somebody because you cannot deal with her crime as the only one responsible to give a criminal and social answer it's quite cynical.

Maria, You have not answered the question of what justice is and your answer that justice is a goal is equivocal. I do not agree with your philosophy that a person is not solely responsible for his/her actions. Since every person has the faculties to assess information and make decisions then he/she is responsible for decisions made. That includes the decision to take another person's life without justification. You will not resolve this issue until you decide what justice is and whether or not you put it first.

Robert. I did not say that a person is not responsible for her actions. I just say that the State could not take away someone's life because its punitive power has failed. I do not want to resolve a puzzle, I just support what I believe, and I do not believe capital punishment is a solution and/or and answer to crime. Justice is a Virtue and law just tries to reach it....but do not always get it. And certainly, no virtue can be found in capital punishment.

Robert,

Justice can focus strictly on the crime or in neoclassical traditions also require taking into account personal mitigating factors or the characteristics of the offender.

Even in just desert legal frameworks that have been adopted in the U.S. and other countries, injustices that make important contributions to who committed the crime are weighed against the unjust characteristics of the offense. Even though two people can chose to commit an act involving the choice to kill another, the act can have different implications for sentencing based on factors beyond the person's control that influenced their actions. The public rarely understands why one person who commits the same offense does not result in a death penalty. Nonetheless, the law makes distinctions among offenses based on the history, character, and condition of the offender, as well as the circumstances of the offense. The upshot is the system cannot effectively communicate which acts will lead to death penalty in actual practice, which violates a fundamental premise in Duff's communitarian principles of justice (see, Punishment, Communication and Community). As a consequence, it is unlikely that it can effectively serve as a general or specific deterrent. It can only serve the ends of justice associated with the goals of sentencing associated with incapacitation.

In the U.S., the Supreme Court has constantly attempted to narrow eligibility for the death penalty, but abuses in the implementation of these policies still occur. Arbitrary and capricious judgments are also an affront to justice as was pointed out by Carl. Just desert frameworks are notorious for violating various principles of justice.

Having given considerable thot to the question of what justice means I arrived at this definition: Justice is the concept that a person gets what he/she deserves and it can have a positive and negative direction, namely reward for a meritorious act and the opposite for an offensive act. In the case of a person convicted of wilful murder the court, with justice in mind, will account for any significant ameliorating factors. Remember, however, that implicit in the conviction is the conclusion that the killing of the victim was a deliberate act and therefore the killer could have, at any point in the act, decided to stop, to spare the life of the victim, but did not. A court that is dispensing justice will decide what the killer deserves, a task you appear to be unwilling to face.

A man executed for murdering a store owner during a robbery in 2004, despite an argument for celemency backed by the victim's son. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1K711P

Pope Francis has declared the death penalty wrong in all cases, because they are “an attack” on human dignity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/world/europe/pope-death-penalty.amp.html

Robert in your theory of justice you accept the myth that everyone is equal under the law. Even though someone commits the same crime, it is difficult to correct the imbalances among the persons involved in the same offense. Many decisions are based on background and emotions, which are not consistent with assumptions of rationality applied in many models for implementing principles of just deserts. I struggle with the following. Why does the Supreme Court of the United States allow for the inclusion of immaturity as a factor in differentiating adult offenders from juvenile offenders in capital murder cases, but the court does not extend this same principle to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This sentencing system presumes that sentences are not only proportional to the crime, but takes into account individual characteristics ,but precludes age an immaturity as a mitigating factor. These inconsistencies point to what Maria was arguing that a just dessert approach to justice is a goal or an ideal, but one that is so imperfect in hard cases that it is better to accept other approaches to punishment. That is, theories of just deserts should take into account the circumstances of the offense and the offender, but our systems of justice do a poor job addressing persons not afforded minimal opportunities for appropriate forms of moral socialization.

In sum, offenders involved in capital offenses do make choices, but judgments about what such individuals deserved for their choices are biased towards those with privileged socialization and constitutional advantages that affect the types of choices that they make.

A wronfully convicted man spent 39 years in prison for a double murder he didn't commit.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/california-city-pay-21-million-settlement-man-spent/story?id=61271066&__twitter_impression=true

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/learning/should-the-death-penalty-be-abolished.html

Dear RG friends, this question 'how effective is the death penalty as a deterrent?' should actually not be asked. After all, carrying out the death penalty is a question of ethics. As long as we as humans are not the creator of life, we are not allowed to end life through capital punishment. The death penalty is the ultimate act that fits into the philosophical movement 'The Enlightenment' where 'man' places himself above God. All the best, stay safe and healthy, Carl

The administration of justice is not perfect, particularly because it is human beings doing the administration. Does that imply that the effort should be abandoned? The concept of people getting their just desserts is a goal that a criminal justice system tries to get as close to as practical. Different countries have different degrees of success in this effort.

The arguments that capital punishment is somehow an offense against God's will or human ethics forget that the murder act was the same and the problem is what to do with the murderer after apprehending him/her.

Three men wrongfully convicted of murder 25 years ago were released from prison after a judge declared they were wrongfully convicted because evidence that may have exonerated them was "deliberately withheld" from their lawyers:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/ny-murder-convictions-vacated-24-years/2021/03/05/d4b2ef16-7db7-11eb-85cd-9b7fa90c8873_story.html?wpmk=1&wpisrc=al_news__alert-national&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wp_news_alert_revere&location=alert&pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.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.H7QP-ZrxNQqkVE9kKzssjwz79D0e9QO2i7WS6C7cm3Y

Necessary correction and amemdments should be made in the laws to avoid such grave blunders. But using death penalty as deterrent doesn't work. Justice should be done promptly and any one who gets this major punishment should be hanged publicly. The reason behind this philosophy is to clean the society from bad people. Those who see execution of this punishment definitely learn lesson and keep themselves away form such unlawful activities.

Dr.Alkhatib, thank you for this discussion (I know I came in very late). Your question actually requires two answers due to the implications. The first part is easy, the death penalty is not a deterrence, nor does it cause a cycle of violence and revenge. The death penalty means we are executing a person who has killed someone to show that killing will not be tolerated. Much of this, I wrote in other posts, but the content is appropriate here. In your question, you asked about the significance of deterrence when those on death row can enjoy their lives for at least 10 years before they are executed. I understand what you mean, but I strongly disagree.

A sentence of death is, in reality, two sentences with the end result being death. However, before that happens, the inmates can spend multiple decades on death row. What is not known by the general public is that the majority of death row prisoners live under conditions of extreme isolation affecting their physical and mental health. Extreme isolation has been found to be similar to physical torture. Critics of the death penalty argue that it constitutes cruel and inhumane punishment.

Whether you are for or against the death penalty, it is important to be aware of the harm inflicted by solitary confinement. On death row, prisoners are locked alone in small cells for 22 to 24 hours a day. There is little human contact, reduced or no natural light, and severe constraints on visitation, including the inability to ever touch another person. No air conditioning in the summer means living in intolerable heat. Limited heat means intolerable cold in the winter.

There is a risk of executing innocent people. There have been a great many instances where innocent individuals have been sentenced to death. This number is growing, and the irreversible nature of the death penalty means that any mistakes made cannot be rectified. In addition, the process of execution, which can involve methods such as lethal injection, firing squad, electrocution, or gas chamber, can be prone to errors and can lead to unnecessary suffering. As you can probably tell, I am against the death penalty in any form. Thank you for this discussion.

I doubt that a person on death row knows that years will pass before execution. More probably, the person does not know when his time will be up. The uncertainty must be terrible.

The statement is made that the death penalty is not a deterrent. Where did that conclusion come from? What study has been done by whom?

Hi Robert, here are three sources on deterrence:

On Deterrence and the Death Penalty by Ernest Van Den Hagg in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate by John J. Donohue III, and Justin Wolfers in the Stanford Law Review.

Whom the State Kills by Scott Phillips and Justin Marceau in the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review