Capital Punishment Not a Deterrent?

With the Scott Peterson verdict and subsequent sentencing, those opposite to Capital Punishment have not missed any opportunities to press their case. One argument frequently presented is disingenuous at best: That capital punishment is not a deterrent.

The recidivism rate for the executed is 0%. The executed are deterred permanently. Of course, while awaiting execution they may still commit crimes within the correction facility framework. Murder in prison is rare, but not unheard of.

The justice system predominantly convicts and sentences to death or life in prison the guilty. But not always. Let us set that aside momentarily, and consider the death penalty on a cost benefit basis. It is less expensive to sentence people to death - if swiftly executed - if the appeals process is concise and limited. That is not typical in the current system.

Those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole rarely escape and commit a crime outside of prison. Prisoners of course may commit crimes against other prisoners or staff. Resources ought to be spent ensuring that these “in system” crimes are prevented, instead of on the prolonged death penalty process.

The argument regarding deterrence views the death penalty from the wrong perspective. It is “capital punishment”, not “capital deterrent”. We don’t make examples of people if they are the ones who did not commit the crime, but only belong to the same social group or class as the accused. We attempt to catch and convict those actually guilty of the crime. Similarly the purpose of prison is not reform, but punishment. Those uncomfortable with this are encouraged to change the system by providing alternatives to imprisonment for lesser offenses.

There are social and physical costs to incarcerating people. Imprisoning people is denouncing for both the prison staff and the prisoner. The lost benefits of the resources spent on the convicted are wasted on society in general. Coupled with the current lengthy appeals process the “deterrent effect” cited by critics is limited.

Now that we have determined the "costs" are approximately equal, let us consider the moral dimension. We do from time to time convict innocent people. Unfortunately, at this time, the burden of proof is merely “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This, not deterrence is the best argument against capital punishment.

The just way to impose the death penalty is to use it only when there is “No Doubt” as to guilt, and then swiftly. The standard of proof then should be “No Doubt” (as has been proposed in some states). The swift implementation of the sentence (only allowing a single appeal filed within, say 90 days) would help achieve a better deterrent effect. Failing these reforms, a just person acknowledging human fallibility must prefer life in prison without the possibility of parole for the convicted.

The goal of the death penalty is not to produce a society deterred from crime, but to punish the criminal. For the worst criminals, at this time, prison and death are the only alternatives. The dead don’t commit crimes. However, those put to death are forever denied justice if we make a mistake. Our record on this is not good. Justice demands that in the absence of a higher standard of guilt that the ultimate punishment must be life in prison without the possibility of parole. Anything less is unjust, and un-American.

-G