Death Penalty Exam 2 Study Guide

Retribution

is when a community punishes someone according to its rules. It's a public act meant to prevent personal revenge.

Revenge

is when someone personally tries to get back at another person for a wrong. It's a private act and might not always be fair. lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”).

Desert Theory

is the idea that people should be punished because they deserve it. This theory suggests that punishment is like a reward for doing something wrong.

Fair Play Theory

suggests that not punishing someone is unfair to those who follow the rules and respect others' rights. This theory is similar to repayment theory because it makes the offender pay for the unfair advantage they gained by breaking the law.

Placation Theory

suggests that even if a society ends, the last criminal must be punished to avoid blame on the people. Cottingham notes that this theory aims to calm divine anger, which may not appeal to modern thinkers who seek non-religious reasons for punishment.

Annulment Theory

mixes up retribution with making things right again. It suggests we must punish to cancel out the crime and restore justice.

Denunciation Theory

means punishing to show disapproval of a crime. Cottingham argues that this isn't purely about retribution because there are other ways to express disapproval without punishment.

Repayment Theory

punishment cannot be about atonement because atonement is something you choose to do, while punishment is something forced upon you.

Two versions of retribution:

“revenge theory” and “expiation theory.”

Expiation Theory

is based on the premise that only through suffering punishment can an offender atone for his or her crime.

Minimalism

refers to the idea that “no one should be punished ‘unless’ he is guilty of a crime and culpable.” Cottingham questions what makes this idea specifically about retribution.

Satisfaction theory

is like repayment theory. It suggests that punishing someone is right because it makes others feel better. Cottingham points out that if this theory is about replacing personal revenge with a legal system, then it is not really about retribution. Instead, it is about keeping society stable.

The Old Testament also supports capital punishment with verses like…

Genesis 9:6, which says, "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed."

Ancient Hebrews laws against capital offenders

The court had 23 members for serious cases, needing a majority to decide outcomes. Compassionate people were chosen as judges. The court aimed to defend the defendant, not just accuse them. Witnesses had to be reliable and unbiased, and their testimonies had to match exactly. If they lied, they faced the same punishment as the accused.

The Sixth Commandment in the Old Testament says,…

"Thou shalt not kill." Some people against the death penalty use this as a reason for their beliefs.

Others argue that the original Sixth Commandment in the Old Testament Hebrew means "Thou shalt not commit murder,"…

which they believe allows for capital punishment and killing in wars they see as just.

New Testament view on mercy and for forgiveness…

suggests that followers of Jesus should love and forgive others, even those who harm them. Jesus taught non-violence and showed mercy to everyone. He believed that God would ultimately judge people.

Despite the New Testament teachings, during the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church used…

the death penalty for religious crimes. They created harsh execution methods to encourage repentance.

The Catholic Church traditionally believed that capital punishment…

was the best way to stop crime.

In Romans 13:4, Paul says that rulers carry the sword for a reason. They are God's servants to punish wrongdoers. So, …

if the death penalty is the only way to keep society safe, it is seen as both right and needed.

Reverend G. Aiken Taylor, a Protestant scholar, says many Christians mix up personal beliefs with …

what is needed for society. They apply personal teachings from the Bible to how society should be run. This difference between personal and social beliefs might divide Christians on the death penalty.

Reverend Reuben Hahn, another Protestant scholar, says not using the death penalty goes against …

God's law, which values human life. Life is sacred, and God created the death penalty to protect innocent lives.

Legal scholar Charles Black argues…

that while God might decide some should die, humans are not capable of making that decision.

Families of those on death row or executed are different from families of victims of other violent deaths in several key ways. Vandiver points out four differences:

First, they know for a long time that their loved one will be executed, which causes prolonged grief. Second, their loved ones' deaths are planned by authorities, not caused by chaos. Third, families also deal with public shame and lack of sympathy from others. Fourth, unlike other violent deaths, these deaths are not mourned or regretted. Instead, many people support and even celebrate them. Fifth, families of those sentenced to death often have been victims of violent crime themselves

general deterrence

the belief that people in general can be prevented from engaging in crime by punishing specific individuals and making examples of them.

Philosopher Ernest Van den Haag argues

argues that the death penalty should deter crime. He believes that harsher punishments stop more crimes than lighter ones.

Cesare Beccaria, an 18th-century thinker, believed

life in prison might stop more crimes than the death penalty. He thought that living a life of hard labor is more painful than a quick death.

…better than life in prison without parole (LWOP). In fact, statistics show that the death penalty doesn't seem to affect murder rates

There's no clear scientific proof that the death penalty works…

Isaac Ehrlich finding’s

Argue that the death penalty stops some murders. He measured this by dividing the number of executions by the number of murder convictions during that time. He found that one more execution each year might have led to seven or eight fewer murders on average.

Lawrence R. Klein and his team pointed out many issues with Ehrlich's work. They said…

…that Ehrlich's research doesn't give clear answers about whether capital punishment works as a deterrent and isn't strong enough to make any firm conclusions.

Professor Bijou Yang and psychology professor David Lester reported

that 60 of the studies found a deterrent effect, while 35 of the studies discovered a brutalization effect (executions may cause murders rather than deter them).

Just because deterrence cannot be observed directly does not mean it does not exist.

The Senate Judiciary Committee (1980) argued that studies showing no deterrent effect were weak because:

Common-Sense Argument

Many people believe: If people fear death, then they should fear execution. This suggests the death penalty should discourage murder.

Most people already have many reasons not to kill, so their thinking may not reflect the mindset of actual murderers.

Counter Argument of The Common Sense Argument

(Arguments Against Deterrence) William J. Bowers argues:

Evidence shows the death penalty does not deter murder better than prison. Some studies suggest it may actually increase violence (the brutalization effect).

No consistent evidence that executions reduce crime.

After reviewing research, the American Society of Criminology (1989) called for abolition because there was:

Survey of Criminologists (1996)

About 80% of criminology experts believed: The death penalty does not deter murder better than long prison sentences.

Brutalization Effect

Some researchers argue that executions may encourage violence rather than discourage it.

Evidence cited for the Brutalization Effect

Public executions historically led to disorder and violence. Executions are not televised. Prisoners historically were prevented from witnessing executions. Bowers argues that executions can produce anger and hostility instead of deterrence.

Bowers found:

States with fewer executions often had lower murder rates. States with more executions often had higher murder rates.

Counterargument against Bowers (Paul Cassell):

States with higher murder rates may conduct more executions because they have more murders to punish.

Supporters' of the Death Penalty Argument

Argue that quicker and more certain executions would increase deterrence. The death penalty fails today because: It is rarely used and executions take too long.

Historical Evidence Against Supporters’ Claim

More executions and faster executions did not necessarily produce lower murder rates.

Deterrence theory

suggests that people think carefully before deciding to commit murder. It assumes they understand the risks of getting caught and punished.

A problem is that the objects of deterrence theory

Many murderers do not think about the consequences before acting. Even if they knew they might face the death penalty, it probably wouldn't stop them.

…there's no proof it's better at stopping crime than other punishments that don't involve execution.

Critics say that even if the death penalty stops some people from killing,…

Suicide–Murder Syndrome

when someone commits murder because they want to be executed.

Executioner Syndrome

People with this mindset think that by executing someone, they are doing society a favor by removing a problem.

Another reason some might commit crimes is because…

…They want to die by execution. Some criminals might even kill to become famous, as their execution gives them attention they wouldn't get otherwise.

Villain Identification

They might think that the person who wronged them deserves to die, just like the executed criminal. They might even see themselves as doing what the state does, which makes them feel justified in seeking revenge.

Van den Haag argues that seeing violence might lead…

…People to copy it, but this doesn't mean executions should stop. He suggests that only watching executions might influence people, not just knowing about them.

Albert Camus, a French thinker, said

that an execution is more than just dying. It adds rules and planning, which the person knows about beforehand, causing more suffering than death itself.

There are three reasons people give for executing those who commit serious crimes.

First, execution ensures they can't harm anyone again. Second, keeping them in prison for life might lead to escapes or more violence. Third, life sentences without parole can be expensive for taxpayers.

Future dangerousness

Jurors care a lot about whether a person might be dangerous in the future. Because of this, if there is proof that the person is not dangerous, like behaving well in jail before the trial (Skipper v. South Carolina, 1986) , it is important to share this information.

Some believe life in prison without parole (LWOP) could achieve to stop a criminal from being a threat to society. This option might be better because the death penalty has other problems, like possibly making society more violent or risking the execution of innocent people.

Are Executions Necessary?

…First, innocent people have been wrongly executed for crimes they didn't commit. If we executed everyone convicted of a serious crime, we couldn't fix the wrongs done to innocent people, their families, and society.

To make sure no one convicted of a serious crime kills again, some suggest executing all of them. But there are big problems with this idea…

Robert Blecker

Proposes three new reasons for the death penalty: killing someone who isn't fighting back, killing for money, and killing to get rid of a witness.

killing a police officer on duty, murder in prison, multiple murders, murder with torture, and murder that affects the legal system, like killing witnesses or judges.

The Constitution Project suggests the death penalty should only be for five types of murder:

Life Without Parole (LWOP)

completely removes the chance of executing someone who is innocent.

Some people who support the death penalty argue against life without parole (LWOP).

They believe that even if offenders are kept in prison for life, prisons are still dangerous places for guards and other inmates. Inmates might feel they have nothing to lose if they commit more crimes in prison.

Inmates with LWOP are…

Evidence shows that inmates serving life sentences are often well-behaved. They tend to follow rules because prison is their entire life, and they adapt to its routines.

As inmates got older, they tended to commit fewer violent acts. Gang members and inmates who had been in prison before were more likely to be violent. However, the longer someone had been in prison, the more likely they were to be violent, with each year.

The study showed that age was the best predictor of violence in prison…

that it might not be needed for most convicted offenders. Many of them will not kill again, even if they are released.

Another issue with life without parole (LWOP) as an alternative to the death penalty is…

The Furman decision (1972)

All death row inmates in the U.S. at that time got new sentences. Some got life in prison, some got a set number of years, and a few got new trials. Out of 589 inmates, 322 have been released from prison, and seven were found innocent by the courts.

Another study of the Furman decision (2005) looked at 322 former death row inmates who were released from prison

111 of them (34%) went back to prison for either a new crime or breaking parole rules. The other 78 inmates went back to prison for more serious reasons. 42 of them committed nonviolent crimes like drug offenses or burglary. 29 committed violent crimes like armed robbery. Overall, 24% of the 322 released inmates went back to prison.

One study on 558 Furman-commuted inmates

Learned that only about 1% of them committed murder again. Over 98% did not kill again, whether in prison or after being released.

3 main reasons some people support executing all capital offenders.

Execution is the only way to ensure these offenders will not kill again. Life imprisonment allows chances for escape, parole, or more crimes. Life without parole (LWOP) is expensive.

Reasons and evidence against the executing public offenders

Data shows that very few offenders commit more crimes after prison. Amsterdam argues that if we can achieve complex tasks like sending someone to the moon, we can certainly manage to keep prisoners securely in prison. While the execution itself might be cheaper, the overall process of capital punishment, including legal proceedings, is actually more costly.

It's cheaper to give someone LWOP than to sentence them to death…

The biggest savings happen when someone pleads guilty and gets LWOP. This way, the costs of a long trial and appeals are avoided.

the death penalty is not always given, and even when it is, it's rarely carried out.

The most expensive situation is when a long death penalty trial ends with an LWOP sentence because

save taxpayers money and have little effect on prison overcrowding. LWOP also allows fixing wrongful convictions and avoids the harsh effects of the death penalty.

Switching death sentences to LWOP could