1. Capital Punishment
Abril Elverdin, Eugene Smith, Melissa Yukseloglu, Wayne Tang
Mentors:Erin Pineda and Tyler Dohrn
Capstone Crime and Punishment
3 July 2015
Introduction
A Gallup poll from May, 2014, on capital punishment found that 61 percent of
Americans view the death penalty as morally reasonable, and only 30 percent disagreed.
Although adversaries of capital punishment have for years been increasingly vocal in their
antipathy to the death penalty, Americans have consistently supported capital punishment by a
staggering 2to1 ratio in murder cases. They are sane to do so. Studies of the death penalty have
reached various conclusions about its benefits and perils. Therefore we conclude that capital
punishment is effective because it potentially deters serious crime by provoking fear;
incapacitates dangerous criminals, which prevents them from striking again and thus helps build
a safer and more peaceful environment; and allows for rehabilitation. In the following part of
paper, we will use statistics, studies, and researches to examine how capital punishment fits into
four ideologies of punishment, thus proving the effectiveness of capital punishment to the
2. society. On a more psychological level, capital punishment also justifies the emotional revenge
victims may rightfully desire and grants them the closure they so desperately need.
Background
The use of Capital Punishment in the United States can be traced back to its British roots,
having its first execution on what was still considered British soil in 1602. This tradition carried
on as through the ratification of the Constitution and it became a social normality of the New
World. However, as this practice became normal for some it did not sit well with others. In effect
the first reforms of the death penalty were attempted by Benjamin Franklin in 1776 when he
worked to make the death sentence applicable to only those who committed acts of treason or
murder. Nevertheless this bill was overturned in the legislature by a single vote. While Franklin’s
efforts did not reform the penalty, they did spark an ongoing conversation about the use of
execution for criminal punishment. This has caused the United States to get into the habit of
repealing then reinstating the penalty for periods of time, in hopes of finding a clear correlation
between the death penalty or its repeal on crime rates. This however has not been successful
due to fluctuating rates between homicide and executions; in the 1920's and 30's as the rate of
executions rose so did the homicides, but in the forties and fifties the homicide rates increased as
the use of execution was banned. This at the time served as proof to the government that the
3. correlation existed and in the 1960's the penalty was put back into use, but to many's surprise the
rate of homicides did not fall. Therefore with the inconclusive data presented, the United States
remains split.
According to several surveys the citizens of the United States developed four ideologies
which represent the general will of the public regarding corrections. The first and oldest concept
ideology is retribution, this is commonly know as an "eye for an eye". The second is
incapacitation, which means disabling a criminal from striking again. The third is deterrent, this
ideology claims that sentencing individuals to death prevents others from committing similar
crimes. Finally, through rehabilitation, the capital punishment can allow a criminal to reform
his/her character in the face of death.
Incapacitation
While there is a debate on whether capital punishment is successful in rehabilitation, deterrence,
and retribution, there is certainly no doubt that death penalty is effective in incapacitating
individuals. Imprisonment should in theory incapacitate anyone from committing crimes outside
the prisons, which is certainly the general will of the public and their main preoccupation. The
idea behind incapacitation focuses on the elimination of an individual’s opportunity to commit a
crime (Miethe & Lu, 2005).
4. Many people fear that criminals sentenced to life imprisonment may escape and strike again, or
endanger people inside the prison, for people with this belief, capital punishment is the ultimate
form of incapacitation (Jiang & Lambert).
Retribution
As stated earlier the ideology of retribution derives from the biblical concept of lex talionis
which is the law of retaliation. (http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_53.pdf/ The Journal of
Hebrew Scriptures). As the oldest ideology of the four, this method serves as a reparation for the
victims and some would argue that it feeds into human instinct. When giving his own opinion on
the case of Furman v. Georgia, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said “[t]he instinct for
retribution is part of the nature of man,” . Therefore it is evident that this ideology focuses not on
the recipient of the punishment, but the needs and wants of the victim and all who are associated
with them. Justice Stewart then continues to justify this form of punishment and concludes that
capital punishment “promot[ed] the stability of a society governed by law.” So, the question at
hand is not about the condition of the convicted, but instead the satisfaction of those in
assocation of the accusers.
One must also take in account the stigma of the term retribution. Often times people
associate retribution with getting even, or karma, which is not the main intent of this punishment.
5. The best explanation for the true intent of capital punishment is said by Dr. Louis P. Pojman,a ,
Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at West Point Military Academy who writes:
“Retributivism is not based on hatred for the criminal (though a feeling of vengeance may
accompany the punishment). Retributivism is the theory that the criminal deserves to be
punished and deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her crime,
whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it. We may all deeply regret having to
carry out the punishment, but consider it warranted.”
By taking this into account we see that capital punishment through the eyes of retribution is not
solely about revenge but giving a punishment in proportion to the crime. This type of proportion
is evident in the difference in sentencing between misdemeanors, and felonies, so why should
there not be one put in place for capital crimes? This is the only fair way to punish the varying
aspects of crime, because without proportion there would no significant difference between a
someone sitting in life for rape, and a person who has committed multiple murders.
Secondly when Justice Stewart, however, provides no empirical evidence in his opinion,
and thus makes his claim solely through a principle argument. Without any evidence from social
6. scientific experiments, or mass surveying, we cannot be certain his statement is correct.
However, after doing some research there is evidence confirming Justice Stewart’s claims.
Looking at the 2015 poll conducted over the phone to registered voters by Quinnipiac
University one will see that there is a national shift from being in favor of the death penalty for
criminals in general to opposing it. However, there is a majority of Americans citizens in favor
of the death penalty for terrorism, and specifically in the case for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the
bombers of the Boston Marathon.(Figure 1) This suggests that the American public is still in
favor of the death penalty for the use of retribution, but the caliber of crime has shifted. To
explain, this means that the American public feels that those who directly feel the need to attack
citizens deliberately are the real criminals who need to retributed, instead of all who commit
crimes that are subject to capital punishment. Subsequently it can still be concluded that the use
of capital; punishment to fulfill the goal of retribution is still a common sentiment.
10. University:"...[O]ur recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with
about 74 fewer murders the following year... The study examined the relationship between the
number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26year period from 1979 to
2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources... There seems to be an obvious negative
correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease,
murders increase…” [Michael Summers, PhD, MBA, Professor of Management Science at
Pepperdine University, wrote in his Nov. 2, 2007 article "Capital Punishment Works" in the Wall
Street Journal:]
On the other hand, as a deterrent, capital punishment dramatically not only drops the rate of
serious crime, such as murder, but also decreases the magnitude of all crime. In the now
wellknown Becker formulation, criminals are seen as rational decision makers who choose to
engage in criminal activity as a result of consideration of the potential costs and benefits
involved. Increases in the expected cost of crime to the criminal lead to a reduction in the supply
of offenses provided by offenders. In the study conducted by William J. Boyes and Lee R.
McPheter, the result indicates that severe punishments, such as capital punishment, can
significantly prevent minor misconduct from escalating to serious crime.[CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT AS A DETERRENT TO VIOLENT CRIME: CROSS SECTION EVIDENCE]
Rehabilitation
11. A consequence as austere as death can provoke a desire to improve oneself, effectively
rehabilitating the criminal offender. According to Cesare Beccaria, an Enlightenment
philosopher, the opportunity for rehabilitation should essentially be the motive behind all forms
of punishment. Despite this, courts and scholars have long “concluded that death is completely
irrelevant to rehabilitation,” which does not apply in the “capital context” (S2). A deep analysis
of historical decisions, cases, anecdotes, and criminal figures points in a different direction,
however. Contrary to courts’ and scholars’ claims that capital punishment is irrelevant to
rehabilitation, in Early America authorities would afford offenders a conspicuous period of time
before the sentence was carried out so that offenders had the opportunity to repent and
rehabilitate. As Professor Stuart Banner once explained, “[c]apital punishment was… understood
in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to facilitate the criminal’s repentance,” and that “[i]n
this respect a death sentence was of inestimable value” (Pg. 1246, S2). Professor Banner’s
assertion stands in stark contrast to the claims of courts and scholars that capital punishment is
inarguably irrelevant to rehabilitation, but, according to a publication of the University of
California Davis, Stuart’s argument may have held more truth to it than his contemporaries
would perhaps like to admit. If one is to shift gears from a broad historical context to a more
personal one, one will be confronted with sundry anecdotes regarding the rehabilitation of
individual criminals on death throe. The most prominent of these is the case and story of Paul
12. Crump, a man sentenced to death for murdering the chief security officer at a Chicago
meatpacking plant in 1953. After spending some time on death row, Crump is said to have
transformed himself from an “’animalistic and belligerent’ creature to a compassionate man
who developed a deep friendship with the warden who kept him imprisoned” (1250, S2).
Treating Crump as a human begin in this way allowed Crump to “discover his conscience and his
humanity and positively contribute to prison life”, precisely the development one attributes to
rehabilitation (1250, S2). Also while on death row, Crump authored the novel Burn, Killer, Burn,
which was later turned into a documentary. Some viewed this effort as even further verification
that Crump had been rehabilitated. Ultimately, Crump was considered the “quintessential”
example of rehabilitation on death row. Crump’s transformation of character proved that
rehabilitation and capital punishment can go hand in hand, disproving the theories of many
courts and scholars.
Conclusion
After researching the historic background, and the use of the four ideologies of
punishment in the United States, it has become evident that the use of Capital punishment can be
used to fulfill the end goal of the ideologies. However, it must be noted that that the end goals
13. are mutually exclusive, therefore one must only be in favor of the death penalty for solely for the
fulfillment of one ideology. This is because the four ideologies contradict themselves, for
example one can not say that they are trying to rehabilitate someone and at the same time seek
revenge. Nevertheless, while capital punishment does fulfil the goals of the four ideologies it
must be noted that the ethical implications behind taking someone's life may appear to many as
something detrimental, which is stronger than the arguments above.
References
● Jiang, S., E. G. Lambert, and J. Wang. "Capital Punishment Views in China and the
United States: A Preliminary Study among College Students." International journal of
offender therapy and comparative criminology 51.1 (2007): 8497. Print.
● Incapacitation theory. The New Oxford Companion to Law. Oxford University Press;
2008.
● Capital Punishment: Deterrent Effects & Capital Costs by Jeffrey A. Fagan, Professor of
Law & Public Health; CoDirector, Center for Crime, Community, and Law. Why Does
Law School Cost So Much? Summer 2006. Columbia Law School Magazine.
● Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime, By Robert Tanner, The Associated Press,
Monday, June 11, 2007
