The death penalty and deterrence have a controversial connection, with many experts suggesting that studies show no reduction in crime due to fear of execution. The link between the two concepts has been debated since the Enlightenment period, with criteria for measuring the connection being a source of controversy. Studies on the topic are often disputed, with both sides presenting rational arguments based on key principles.
The death penalty and deterrence are often connected concepts with a controversial connection. In the 20th century, one of the main arguments for the use of the death penalty centered around the notion that fear of execution discouraged crime. While there is no consensus on the issue, many experts suggest that most studies conducted on the death penalty and deterrence actually show no connection indicating a reduction in crime caused by fear of execution.
It is difficult to pinpoint the historical moment in which the death penalty and deterrence became inextricably linked. Fear of the law leading to good behavior appears to have long been a part of legal frameworks, particularly in eras and regions where torture beyond simple executions was permitted. The first real arguments against the death penalty, advanced during the Enlightenment period in Europe, centered on the notion that revenge killing is inhumane and detrimental to social progress. At one point in history, with disputes over the moral issue of state-sanctioned killing largely unresolved, the debate shifted to the importance of execution as a means of maintaining order through deterrence. Since that crucial step, efforts have focused on measuring, by any measure, the effect that the death penalty, or lack thereof, has on crimes.
The criteria for measuring the link between the death penalty and deterrence are almost always a source of controversy in themselves. Some experts say that when considering criminal activity and the death penalty, it is fair to measure crimes that could reasonably lead to the death penalty as a result. For example, since the theft of a toothbrush would never incur the death penalty, one cannot really say that the theft of the toothbrush is deterred by the existence of the death penalty. This restriction tends to limit the scope of crime investigated to cases of brutal murders that could qualify for capital punishment. Accepting this limitation, however, is not always a given.
One of the major problems with nearly all studies conducted on the death penalty and deterrence is that few can agree on the correct methodology, and many dispute the conclusions drawn from the data. This means that while most studies don’t show a link, these studies are far from universally accepted as objective or scientifically sound. Studies showing a connection between the death penalty and deterrence are subject to the same criticisms, leaving many to determine their own view of the deterrent effect based on a personal view of sound scientific procedures.
The primary rational arguments of both sides are distinguished by a few key principles. Those who don’t believe in a link often cite the fact that people who commit crimes worthy of consideration for execution don’t think about the consequences; often, these crimes are gang-related, meaning the perpetrators often find themselves in a situation where torture and murder are a daily consideration, so being executed by the state might actually be a more humane future. Those who believe in a link tend to argue that not only do people inherently fear death, so they are likely to fear the death penalty, but execution indisputably prevents the convicted criminal from committing other crimes, so it is a deterrent on an individual level .
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
