57 of 106

No

Write now Article Tools

The death penalty has been abolished in nearly all civilised countries. The US now finds itself rubbing shoulders with the likes of North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Rwanda, and Iran as one of the remaining bastions of government administered executions.

One of the main reasons why the death penalty has been abolished in so many countries is because of the moral angle. However, there is also no evidence that the presence of the death penalty acts as an effective deterrent to crime. If there was, one might expect the US to have a lower murder rate than countries such as the UK, Sweden, or New Zealand, etc. It doesn't.

I'm not saying that the death penalty has no effect as a deterrent - merely that its effect is marginal.

Let's look at some of the reasons why it isn't more effective:

The death penalty is usually only applied for the most heinous of crimes, principally for murder.

A large proportion of murders take place where a person is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or where they temporarily lose control due to rage. An example might be where a husband comes home and catches his wife in bed with another man, and in a moment of madness stabs them. It's not pre-meditated so there's no thought process of 'If I get caught, I'll get executed'.

There is, though, a category of pre-meditated murders. An example would be a hit-man who's paid to kill a target, or a terrorist who plants a bomb, or a drugs cartel who take out a rival. Where an attack is pre-meditated, the person does have a chance to think about what the consequences of their actions may be. Will I go to prison? Could I be executed? I suppose therefore that the death penalty can have a marginal effect in these cases. I say marginal, though, as the terrorist may view their cause as more important than their personal safety. And the hit-man or gang member may view the potential reward as outweighing the risk.

There are also serial murderers where the motive is the enjoyment of killing and of getting away with it. Often these people are disturbed and so are less likely to act rationally.

We should also factor in the fact that criminals generally act in the belief that they will get away with it. This is a peculiar human psychological element. We might watch TV programmes like CSI and how sophisticated the police are, but we still believe that we could get away with the perfect crime.

It's important to point out that the biggest deterrent to serious crime is our own personal conscience. Most of us are guided by morals and these mean that we would never consider killing someone (no matter how much we might hate them) as we know at a basic level that it is wrong. Education plays a role in this, and often violence can be traced back to a lack of knowledge. For example sectarian or racial violence is often supported by ignorance about the other group of people. This ignorance allows the perpetrators of violence to dehumanise the other side, and to refer to them as 'they'.

Another factor is the environment where we have grown up. Crime rates are lower in middle class suburbia than they are in downtown ghettos. Money, job opportunities, and education all play a critical role in determining whether our kids go on to be productive members of society or a blight upon society.

There will always be those who cling on to the notion that the death penalty makes them somehow safer. And those who cling to it because they want retribution when evil has been done. The truth though is that the death penalty does not make you safer. And retribution is not a very nice or healthy human behaviour.

Learn more about this author, Simon Wright.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Is the death penalty an effective crime deterrent??
We want to hear your view. Write now!