Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice, Article Review Example

Most Americans believe that death penalty is an effective mechanism to deter crime. In 1998, Karla Faye Tucker, age 38, was executed in Texas. Fifteen years ago she murdered two people with a pickax. She was the first woman who was put to death by the state since the Civil War, and the second woman in the United States to] be killed officially since 1976, the year in which U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty. However, many sociologists like Richard T. Schaefer, he illustrated in the Timothy McVeigh a different theory been backed up by concrete evidence which are as follows:

Firstly, the homicide rates in states that have abolished death penalty are much lower compared to states where death penalty laws are in practice. For example, Southern states, which still practice the death penalty, generally have higher murder rates than the states in other regions, which have mostly abolished capital punishment. This is an indication that death penalty does not appear to deter murder.

Second, within the same states, the murder rates generally did increase after the death penalty was abolished. Moreover, restoration of capital punishment in the states that had abolished it earlier did not lead to a significant decrease in homicides.

A third piece of evidence came after the comparison was made by the number of homicides which were highly publicized, shortly before and shortly after executions of convicted murderers. Now, if the death penalty had been so horrendous and scary, the ordeal of an execution could put a stop to the killing spree. This would eventually lead to a decline in homicide rates. It might sound logical, but not practical. In Philadelphia during the 1930s, for example, the number of homicides remained about the same in the period from 60 days before to 60 days after a widely publicized execution of five murderers. This finding, among others, suggests that the death penalty apparently does not prevent potential killers from killing even when the state shows people that it means business. Finally, similar findings have appeared in studies of various societies (Schaefer, 2009)

Nationwide Response of Death Penalty:

India: Supreme Court in India states that death sentence in India is constitutionally valid.  The shocking tale of Dhananjay Chatterjee, according to a letter written to the Supreme Court of India, says that the memorandum is being presented for the pardon and commutation of death sentence into one of life of Dhananjay Chatterjee. The facts are not in dispute. He has been convicted and sentenced to death for rape and murder of a small girl, in the year 1994. He was hanged to death in spite of immense discussions and pleas by his family members (Kannabiran, 2004).  The Supreme Court has emphasized that the death sentence has two underlying philosophies: (1) it should be retributive, (2) act as deterrent.

United Nations: United Nations conducted a study on relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and homicide rates, states “The fact that the statistics continue to point in the same direction is persuasive evidence that countries need not fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce their reliance upon the death penalty”(Hood, 2002)

Canada: The recent crime figures of the countries that have abolished death penalty shows that there is not much harmful effects of  the decision. In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 populations fell from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined further. In 2003, 27 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.73 per 100,000 populations, 44 per cent lower than in 1975 and the lowest rate in three decades (Hood, 2002, p. 214)

Thus, in a study of 14 nations, the effectiveness of death penalty could only be measured by a decrease in homicide rates. However, the evidence examined here fails to support this statement. In this cross-national sample, abolition was followed more often than absolute decreases in homicide rates, neither by the increases predicted by deterrence theory (Archer and Gartner, 1984).

What is your position on the death penalty- should it be legal or should it be abolished? Why? 

I don’t have faith in the system of capital punishment. In my analysis, murder is often related to passion, a predisposed overwhelming emotion or uncontrolled rage. People during this moment are beyond their biological balance, and cannot stop to rethink about the fatalities of death penalty in the fraction of a second. Another important factor is personalized revenge- here the murder is motivated by deep internal hatred such as child abuse or severe poverty, which cannot be mitigated in that fraction of a second.

Should youths who have been convicted of violent crimes be subject to the death penalty? Why or why not?

Death Penalty should not be granted to the youth. Since this is a very vulnerable and fragile stage in individual life. At these ages, they not mature and culpable enough to understand completely the relevance of crime and thus, it is not appropriate to put them through the ordeal of society’s harshest punishment (Wilson, 2000)

Reference

Wilson, J. J (2000) Acting Administrator, Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000, US Dept of Justice, Last Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/184748.pdf

Hood, R. (2002) The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, p. 214, Last Retrieved from http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

Schaefer, R. T (2009) Sociology: A brief introduction (8th Ed.) New York, NY: McGraw Hill

Kannabiran, K.G.  2004, Mercy Petition of Dhananjay Chatterjee, PUCL Bulletin, Last Retrieved from http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Death-penalty/2004/chatterjee-mercy-petition.htm

Archer and Gartner (1984) Violence and Crime in Cross National Perspective, New Haven, Yale University Press