An Evaluation of the Differential Execution Rates Between the States, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Capital punishment, the state imposed penalty of death, continues to be one of the most controversial issues in contemporary American public policy. Since the earliest days of its employment in the colonial era until today, citizens have struggled with the issue of when and under what circumstances the taking of a human life by the state can be morally and legally justified. For some opponents of the death penalty, the simple answer is that the taking of a human life is always morally and ethically wrong, even when conducted under the auspices of state authority as a legal punishment. In contrast, proponents of capital punishment have contended with equal fervor that the death penalty is morally justified as a form of retributive justice, and should, therefore, remain in the armamentarium of state sanctions. Among some who advocate one or the other of the preceding positions, there is room for reasonable compromise and change, especially as new evidence or facts are advanced in the debate. Among others who are more ideologically rigid, no compromises can ever be made, thereby assuring that capital punishment will remain an issue of continuing controversy and debate. There are of course other reasons for the continuing prominence of capital punishment as a major public policy issue (Death Penalty Information Center, 2016).

It should be observed that unlike the European nations, the United States does not have a singular national policy on capital punishment, other than it does not expressly prohibit through national law the utilization of the death penalty. Stated differently, there exists considerable variation in both opinion and practice on the capital punishment in the United States as a consequence of the federal system of government. The federal system, with its fifty separate states governments, allows for the expression of the popular will through those governments in a variety of ways. In essence, the states in the federal system serve as laboratories of democracy (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006).

Diversity of Policies

Much of the continuing debate over the death penalty within the United States is a reflection of the diversity of policies and procedures that have been adopted by the states and the national government by the will of the people of those jurisdictions. Although polls indicate that a majority of the American public supports the death penalty, the nation nonetheless remains deeply divided over its use (Whitman, 2001). It may be argued that this division is in many ways reflected in the separate and diverse policies in existence among the fifty states. As has been observed in this research, some states have passed statutes authorizing capital punishment, while other states have not. Among those states that have authorized capital punishment, some have used the death penalty with comparative frequency, while others have executed infrequently, if at all. But what reasons might account for these decisions? That is, why have some states chosen to adopt statutes authorizing capital punishment statutes, while others have not? Similarly, among death penalty states, why have some states executed comparatively larger numbers of their citizens, while others have not? Stated differently, what factor or factors might account for the differential execution rates among the states?

In attempting to advance explanations for these differences, the argument was made that it is first necessary to examine the history of capital punishment in the United States, particularly as related to state decisions. Some portion of the variance in state capital punishment policies is directly attributable to early patterns of use, established before statehood, that was then reinforced over time. This is not to suggest, however, that there have not been substantial changes in capital punishment policies and practices over time, for indeed there have been.

For instance, there has been a gradual evolution towards more humane methods and procedures for the conduct of executions. In the earliest years of both colonial and state administration of the death penalty, execution methods varied substantially from place to place and from case to case. Depending on the nature and severity of the crime, some executions were designed to inflict as much pain as possible on the condemned, while others were quick and less painful. With the passage of time, execution methods became more humane, culminating in the almost exclusive use of lethal injection in the contemporary era (Sorensen, et al., 2000).

Another procedural change occurring over time was the end of publicly conducted executions. This was in part necessitated by the invention of the electric chair, which for obvious reasons could not practically be used outdoors. However, it was also in reaction to the changing sensibilities of the wealthy and other elites. They had become disdainful of public executions due to the worsening behavior of the masses, and the carnival-like atmosphere increasingly in evidence during executions. Procedural changes were important, but clearly, the most notable changes in capital punishment were the periods of retrenchment and renewal, and of abolition and reinstatement that occurred in the states. As has been shown in this research, some states abolished capital punishment only to reauthorize its use at a later time. With some exception, these changes by individual states corresponded to national trends towards abolition or renewal Nationally, executions followed a gradual but increasing pattern of use during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries until executions peaked during the mid 1930’s in the twentieth century. Within that general pattern, there were, of course, periods of greater and lesser use representing responses to changing events and circumstances (Whitman, 2001).

After reaching a peak of approximately 200 executions per year during the 1930’s, executions began another period of decline. This decline culminated in an unofficial national moratorium on executions in the late 1960’s that became official with the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238, 1972). The decision in Furman officially ended the death penalty in the United States, as then practiced. However, just four years later in Gregg v. Georgia (429 U.S. 1301, 1976), the Supreme Court, citing the change in public opinion and the passage of new death penalty statutes by 35 states, reauthorized the use of capital punishment. Despite the reversal, the effect of the decision in Furman was to put states on notice that the Supreme Court would be the ultimate arbiter of all future standards and rules regarding capital punishment administration.

Of course, it has been argued in this research that the Supreme Court is responsive to both public opinions and to the actions of the States as an expression of that opinion. Even a cursory review of opinions issued by the Supreme Court reveals numerous references to public opinion. As has been noted, this is equally true in death penalty cases where the Supreme Court has repeatedly cited “evolving standards of decency” as a basis for at least a portion of their decision-making. Statements such as these indicate that the States share an important role in determining the future of the death penalty in the United States. This is also why it is critically important to attempt to identify and understand the causal factors behind state capital punishment policies that lead to differential execution rates among states.

Evaluation

After briefly reviewing the inadequacy of the most obvious explanations (e.g. public opinion), this research paper tested a well-established theoretical construct in political science, the political culture model of Daniel Elazar (1966). This selection was defended by an extensive body of literature in the discipline which has demonstrated the reliability of political culture as an explanatory variable for state policymaking.

Employing this framework, the states were first divided into Elazar’s three political culture categories, moralistic, individualistic, and traditionalistic, and then also categorized by their status as the death penalty or abolitionist states. The results of the “pure” types of political culture states proved statistically meaningful, although the small number of cases raised questions about the true significance of the results. Indeed, when the “hybrid” types of political culture were also included in the analysis, the results were somewhat less robust. This was not unexpected since, with hybrid political culture states, the model does not specify the percentages for each type of political culture, thus complicating predictive utility. Also other explanations were advanced for the decreased significance, such as the unique historical experiences of the western states that led to the adoption of death penalty statutes despite having moralistic cultures. Despite such problems, the analysis still indicated a strong correlation between political culture type and capital statute adoption.

After adopting capital statutes, states may execute capital offenders under the guidelines established by state and federal courts, and most especially by the Supreme Court. Although each state could conceivably execute with the same degree of frequency as any other, considerable variation exists between states in their use of the death penalty.

Although the death penalty literature is both robust and expansive, it is virtually silent on this issue. No studies to date have undertaken an empirical examination of differential execution rates among the states. This research seeks to provide answers to this question and argues that the question itself is an important one for a variety of reasons.

First, since the collective actions of the states, as has been noted, potentially impact the entire federal system, state-level analyses needs to be conducted on that basis alone. Moreover, the increasing interdependence of the United States in world community makes state policy a national issue. Second, for those seeking to abolish capital punishment, there is a critical need to understand the reasons why some states use the death penalty with comparative frequency. For supporters of capital punishment, there is a complimentary need to understand why some states have chosen to dispense it only infrequently, or not at all. Third, the lack of explanations for these differences has led to misunderstandings about the character and culture of different states. This analysis seeks to provide an understanding of the differences between states based on empirical evidence rather than upon anecdotal speculations. Finally, the question is an important one because it has not been examined by previous studies, and social science research by its very nature seeks to address questions that have not been satisfactorily answered. Such answers may also provide insight into other areas of death penalty research currently under examination, and may also provide validation to previous assumptions in those areas.

Recommendations

In conclusion, while the history of capital punishment is a history of both continuity and change, in the last few years, most States have apparently settled into recurring patterns of use of the death penalty. Abolitionist states seem unlikely to adopt capital statutes, and most death penalty States conducting executions seem equally unlikely to abolish the punishment. Similarly, States where the death penalty frequently used, such as Texas, seem certain to continue doing so, while those States that use it infrequently, such as California, seem unlikely to begin frequent use. These patterns of use point to the need for research such as this. More research is clearly needed, and a greater understanding of state policies and actions seems especially crucial at this time.

Why? Because capital punishment remains controversial, and a portion of that controversy stems from the comparative isolation of the United States from the majority of the world community over its continuing use of the death penalty. With the advent of American hegemony in the contemporary era, the death penalty is one issue which seems certain to draw additional attention to the United States. The most recent example of this has been the reluctance or refusal by some nations to extradite terrorist suspects to the United States due to those countries opposition to the death penalty. In this instance, state laws have national, and more importantly international, implications. A greater understanding of the determinants of state death penalty policies, especially as it concerns the causal factors behind frequency of use, seems to be an essential, but neglected, part of the literature on capital punishment.

More research at the county-level is clearly warranted, especially given the inconclusive nature of the findings. One reason for the lack of such research is the comparative scarcity of county level data. In this instance, several measures employed at the state-level had no equivalent counterparts at the county level due to the lack or unavailability of the data. Since the county is the fundamental unit of capital case adjudication and processing, additional data should be collected, and more analyses should be conducted at this level. Hence, more research is clearly needed, and a greater understanding of state policies and actions seems especially crucial at this time.

References

Death Penalty Information Center (2016). http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Elazar, D. (1966). American Federalism: A View from the States. New York, New York: Thomas Crowell.

Sorensen, J.R. and Rocky L. Pilgrim (2000). “An Actuarial Risk Assessment of Violence Posed by Capital Murder Defendants.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology  (4): 1251-1270.

Soss, Joe, Laura Langbein and Alan R. Metelko (2003). “Why Do White Americans Support the Death Penalty?” The Journal of Politics 65(2) May: 397-421.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2006). Bureau of Justice Statistics Publications Online. “Capital Punishment.” Bulliten NCJ 167031.

Whitman, C. (2001). “The Death Penalty as the Will of the People.” Peace Review 13(4): 519-523.