Should the Death Penalty Still Be Allowed, Research Paper Example

Abstract

According to research, the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime.  Also, economic justification is also given.  This analysis looks at research to undermine these arguments in favor of the abolishment of the death penalty.  The death penalty is seen as costly and not effective in deterring crime.  Overall, the death penalty is unjustified in these two key areas, with further stances relevant to the subject, yet out of the topic of this investigation.

The death penalty is often regarded as effective in deterring crimes and in regards to costs.  However, it is not clear to suggest that both of these dynamics apply to the death penalty, as sources suggest.  Nullifying and even using the cost of the death penalty against itself in this argument, there seems to be no effective reason why the death penalty should be allowed, even before ethical and moral considerations.

Cost of the Death Penalty

Often advocates for capital punishment support it in view of the costs saved.  However, this misconception is indeed present in the death penalty.  Although the casual connection between saving costs over the life term of a prisoner versus that of the death penalty may seem obvious, it is not that simple.  In fact, several studies have demonstrated the opposite dynamic, where the death penalty is determined to be more costly.

Research

The capital trials themselves are seen to add a great deal of economic stress on the United States.  This has been made apparent by Baicker, who illustrates the increased cost of capital trials in a report released by the National Bureau of Economic Research (2001).  Between the years of 1982-1997, $1.6 has been estimated to that of capital trials, according to estimates.  Baicker also notes that economic room was made by increasing taxes and decreasing police and highway funding.  Clearly, prior to the evidence of the cost with regards to the execution of the death penalty, we already see a great deal of economic impact in the case of capital trials within the United States.

Research has demonstrated the comparative economic impact of the death penalty, when compared to the incarceration of an inmate for his or her life.  This is where the popular misconception lies of course, where the death penalty is believed to save money when compared to lifelong incarceration.  According to the Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission (2002) found that the cost was 38% greater with the death penalty.  This estimate is only contingent upon 20% of death sentences being overturned and resentenced to life.  The death penalty indeed places a higher cost on local governments, as is the case in Indiana.

California has expressed similar dynamics in the increased cost of the death penalty.  According to the Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008), there is a $90,000 increased cost per inmate in confining an inmate to death row, as compared to maximum security prisons where inmates serve a sentence of life.  The report noted that this incurs, with regards to the then-current death row population of 670, that it costs the state $63.3 million on an annual basis (2008).

The Commission did not stop with these insightful economic impacts of the system.  For instance, the Commission puts $137 million per year to the annual cost of the current death penalty system (2008).  If the system were to be abolished in favor of a maximum sentence of lifetime incarceration, the cost of such a system would be $11.5 million per year (2008).  According to the Commission’s projections, this could save the state of California well over $100 million every year.

Perspective

According to studies and research, it is not at all accurate to suggest that the death penalty saves money.  In fact, as we have seen, it is quite the opposite.  The death penalty, including that of the systems which are involved, such as death row, incurs additional expenses.

Overall the death penalty adds to the expenses of governments at the state and federal level.  If a lifetime incarceration sentence was the maximum, and the death penalty abolished, the United States would save hundreds of millions of dollars each year.  Other economic considerations would be present as well, such as the documented additional expenses of trials, such as previously noted.

It is very important to declare this advantage of the elimination of the death penalty.  This, along with the next consideration, often represents the primary means to defend the presence of the death penalty.  Although quick considerations may lead to the belief that the death penalty would save money, it is not true.

Deterrence

Another popular view is that the death penalty helps deter criminals.  The basic thrust is that criminals may be less likely to commit crimes if certain offenders are given the death penalty.  Some criminals may not mind spending their life in prison, given the way they have spent their life, and thus capital punishment serves as a deterrent to these criminals.

At best, there is no conclusive evidence to support these views.  In some cases, there are advocates that suggest the opposite: that the death penalty increases the prevalence of murders and other crimes that would result in a lifelong sentence.  Research has not demonstrated this popular view in the defense of the death penalty.

Research

According to Fagan in an article approaching this common view, he notes a number of errors that contribute to this line of thinking.  He notes that there are a number of serious errors in the studies of deterrence, including variables, missing data, and statistical analyses (2006).  Fagan ties this to the favorable reception of this logic of deterrence for the death penalty, seen in newspapers, which has not been approached in a critical manner.

Fagan notes that there is no sound evidence to support these views (2006).  He does not find any basis to the assertion of the deterrence of the death penalty, where he notes that anywhere from three to thirty-two murders are prevented.  He also notes the failures of fellow researchers (2006).

Donnohue and Wolfers (2006) echo the same basic thrusts with a different result.  Rejecting the similar notions to the saving of lives with the presence of the death penalty, Donnohue likewise points to statistical inaccuracies.  The authors state that their results “are simply not credible” (2006).

However, they do not stop at this point.  Donnohue and Wolfers extend that, given proper methodology and the same data, the reverse could be true: that the death penalty increases murders.  They state: “We show that with the most minor tweaking of the [research] instruments, one can get estimates ranging from 429 lives saved per execution to 86 lives lost. These numbers [of the other researchers] are outside the bounds of credibility” (2006).  Thus we can see the scope of the claimed deterrence of the death penalty.

Perspective

The clear part of this picture is the rejection of the deterrence of the death penalty.  There is a body of information that extends beyond this analysis to combat the perceived advantage of the death penalty by way of deterrence.  The crucial point of this dynamic lies in the rejection of the initial research in the claims of deterrence.  At best, once again, there is no conclusive research that suggests the deterrence of the death penalty.

It is also important to realize the nature of such evidence.  While research is presented here that suggests the opposite effect, it is logical to suggest that this too cannot be believed.  In either case further research is needed in weighing in on any positive or negative deterrence to the death penalty.  A much more comprehensive analysis on the subject is needed.  Or better yet, perhaps time will reveal more insights into the deterrent nature of the death penalty, either to the positive or negative effect.

Conclusion

The current analysis brings together two key stances where the justification of the death penalty is found.  In one instance, albeit more of a “common” view, the death penalty is seen by some to save money, versus the lifelong imprisonment of an inmate.  To the second point, the death penalty is believed to be an effective deterrent to criminals.

However both of these points are not valid.  Research demonstrates the opposite economic effect, where the death penalty costs governments considerably more money than lifelong imprisonment, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars each year in the United States.  Also, in the best case for the elimination of the death penalty, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest the deterrence of the death penalty to criminals, where it could have the opposite effect in speculation.

In undermining these two key factors, there are already advantages to the elimination of the death penalty.  Further considerations contribute to this that are outside of the current scope of analysis, such as ethical concerns.  However it is clear that these two traditional factors in the defense of the death penalty are not that relevant.  Even in the case of economics, the abolishment of the death penalty sees another valid justification.  Overall it is rather clear that these two issues should not point to the support of the death penalty.  The death penalty should not be allowed in the United States, certainly beginning and not ending with that of financial considerations.

References

Baicker, Katherine (2001). “The Budgetary Repercussions of Capital Convictions.” National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER Working Paper No. 8382.

Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008). “Report on the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.”

Donnohue, John and Justin Wolfers (2006). “The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence.” The Economists’ Voice, April 2006.

Fagan, Jeffrey (2006). “Death and Deterrence Redux: Science, Law and Causal Reasoning on Capital Punshiment.” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 4(255).

Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission (2002). “Commission Report on Capital Sentencing.”