The Death PenaltyEssay Preview: The Death PenaltyReport this essayThe Death PenaltyThe first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century. Although some may think the death penalty is a cruel form of justice, it has actually improved over time. Death sentences have been carried out by such means of crucifixion, drowning, burning alive, quartering, and even impalement – just to name a few. With that being said, some still disagree with means of todays death penalty. Jack Greenberg, Professor of Law from Columbia University, believes there are much more effective ways of dealing with criminals rather than the death penalty. He goes on to defend his opinion in his article “Against the American System of Capital Punishment”, stating that racism could play a major role in capital punishment. Siding with Greenberg is author David Chandler, who also believes that the death penalty is an insufficient way of dealing with the worst of criminals. Ernest van den Haag, on the other hand, disagrees with Greenberg and supports the death penalty, which he makes very clear in his writing “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense.” He believes that racism is not an issue and that the death penalty serves as an intimidation factor to deter criminals. Siding with Van Den Haag is Dr. Don Boys, author for Cornerstone Communications. He uses a religious aspect as to why man has the right to decide whether or not a man deserves to live. Although the death penalty has a few perks, it should be abolished for a few reasons. It has never proven to deter crimes more effectively than other punishments, there are serious economic consequences, and most importantly it denies criminals their natural born right to life.
Greenberg and Van Den Haag have two very different opinions, but Greenberg is able to back up his opinion with facts, and makes it very clear as to why the death penalty should be abolished. There are multiple factors involving the death penalty that prove there are more effective ways of dealing with societys criminals. First, the death penalty has never been shown to deter crimes more effectively than other punishments. David Chandler includes studies recently conducted in Oklahoma and California that have failed to prove that capital punishment has a deterrent effect on crimes in America. Oddly enough, it has been discovered that there is a significant increase in killing and homicide rates after the death penalty has been reinstated. The ideas behind capital punishment may have good intentions, but as Greenberg states,”Americas simply does not have the kind of capital punishment system contemplated by death penalty partisans” (Greenberg). Greenberg makes a valid point when he says the potential killers have most likely convinced themselves they will not be caught after they have committed the crime (Greenberg 37). He goes on to say the majority of people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they commit the crime; these murders are most often committed in moments of blinding anger or passion. However, Van Den Haag still believes that capital punishment serves as a deterrence despite recent studies proving otherwise.
Van Den Haag is convinced that the death penalty inflicts fear into hearts and minds of could-be criminals. He shares his views with Sir James Fitzjames Stephen who says,”Some men, probably, abstain from murder because they fear that if they committed murder they would be hanged. Hundreds of thousands abstain from it because they regard it with horror (Stephen 16)”. Van Den Haag also believes criminals would prefer imprisonment for life rather than receiving the death penalty. Later in his article he also states that even if the lives of just a few victims are saved due to deterrence of the death penalty, then it is doing its job. On the religious aspect, Dr. Boys quotes Genesis 9:6,”whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Dr. Boys believes that not only society is attacked, but God as well when a man is set free after murder.
Both authors defend their opinions very well, but Van Den Haag has a few flaws in his argument. There is no way for Van Den Haag to prove that deterrence is an effective method to keep criminals from committing crimes. Studies have already shown that, although it may be odd, crimes actually increase when the death penalty is enforced. Van Den Haag tends to base his views off of his opinions rather than facts when it comes to the deterrence factor. Greenberg and Chandler, on the other hand, use statistics to back up their information and show that the death penalty may not be fulfilling its intended services. Greenberg also goes into much deeper detail to explain the thought process of the criminals, rather than assuming that criminals have a clear thought process before committing a crime.
The Problem
Van Den Haag is not a statistician. He says his data aren’t conclusive. As his report states, “A number of studies have shown that deterrence only works if those convicted of a criminal act immediately release a threat (which it does not) in exchange for their release.” It is easy to see why Van Den Haag would think that deterring innocent men and women would necessarily lead to higher rates of crime. However, when they don’t have this capability or a deterrent effect, then it will have no impact at all; therefore, these statistics that Van Den Haag cites are the only data that could account for these negative effects. How can Van Den Haag use these statistics to deny the harms that deterred a lot of the criminals to commit crime (i.e., the potential for collateral damage)? How can Van Den Haag claim that deterrence fails or is ineffective due to the negative effects the “treatments” have (especially the deaths of innocent people) on innocent Americans, if it is true that the punishment does not work, is ineffective, or that there’s no deterrent effect? How will Van Den Haag claim that the only “evidence” of deterrence is the positive effects on innocent Americans? How can he claim that deterrence fails because of bad laws and regulations, without any evidence at all (to say nothing of the potential for collateral damage) in place in the first place? The basic problem for Van Den Haag is that statistics do not account entirely for crime, and the negative effects of those laws have nothing to do with the use of deterrence.
A New Approach
There are a few things that can be done without using statistics (because there is not a whole lot of real data available). These are:
Add an incentive to help victims and those who are injured. The state could use statistics to address problems more clearly. This is probably the best way to reduce crime, and the only effective way to do this is to eliminate the penalty altogether.
Make it legal if you’re injured, no matter what your actual behavior may be. There is certainly no guarantee it will cause permanent harm.
What should we do?
When law enforcement and the press write about something, when they have data to back it up, their public relations is almost always done before the truth comes out. And that’s precisely what Van Den Haag did. He claimed that the public can use the information they received from the people they are investigating (as he described it) in a way that makes things easier for the criminals to get away with (as he pointedly did). The goal of releasing all the evidence in court was his idea: you know exactly what you want for your case, then to try it in court; instead of having to rely on circumstantial evidence, those court decisions can be made on a case by case basis.
Van Den Haag’s approach has been criticized for three points. First, there are no clear ways to make the public release all the evidence available from the actual investigations. He’s trying to trick us into believing he’s not in evidence at all, so how credible his evidence is, and