Criminology

Many people in the American culture believe that by putting a man to death for his crimes, it serves two purposes it gives vengeance or justice to the wronged parties and it acts as a deterrent to others who would commit the type of heinous crime(s) that got the person executed. However, studies show that whereas death penalty may reduce recidivism, it is not an adequate deterrent on its own. In fact it is commonly used to give eye for an eye justice to the families andor loved ones of the person to whom the crime was committed. This paper shows that there is no direct correlation between death penalty and reduction in crime rates within a certain area. In addition, the paper shows that other methods of punishment such as life imprisonment are also effective deterrents to recidivism. 

Introduction
The death penalty debate has been a hot one in America considering that death penalty is sentenced to convicted murderers among other perpetrators of capital crimes. The history of death penalty has contributed much to this debate considering the abolishment of the punishment in 1972 and later reintroduction of the same in 1977 (Fagan, 2006). Many people in the American culture believe that by putting a man to death for his crimes, it serves two purposes it gives vengeance or justice to the wronged parties and it acts as a deterrent to others who would commit the type of heinous crime(s) that got the person executed. However, studies show that whereas death penalty may reduce recidivism, it is not an adequate deterrent on its own. In fact it is commonly used to give eye for an eye justice to the families andor loved ones of the person to whom the crime was committed.

Death penalty alone does not deter recidivism effectively
It should be first noted that there is paucity of support on the effectiveness of death penalty as a deterrent. As such, it is not satisfactory to argue that death penalty alone is an effective deterrent to recidivism. Beschle (1997) argues that capital punishment is incapable of breaking the cycle of social violence by a significant magnitude.

The deterrence theory is based on the notion that the likelihood of an offender repeating a crime is dependent on the costs and benefits involved in engaging in the criminal behavior. As such, if the costs outweigh the benefits, then the criminal is likely to desist from committing the crime. On the other hand, greater benefits are likely to promote recidivism i.e. a convicted criminal committing a subsequent crime(s) (Moffatt  Poynton, 2007). Since death penalty is considered as a severe punishment, its administration is thought to act as a warning to others who may be intending to commit such crimes. While this has been true in some cases, the same has been refuted and the effectiveness (if any) has been found to be low.

Evaluation of trends in the number of executions versus the national murder rate as from 1976 to 1995 shows an insignificant change in murders even with enactment of death penalty. In 1976 (when death penalty was unconstitutional), national murder rate was 8.8 percent. Upon the comeback of the death penalty in 1977, the executions changed by a very small margin with the lowest murder rate being 7.9 in 1984 and 1985 (with 21 and 18 executions respectively). The highest murder rate was 10.2 percent in 1980 (no execution). There is a lot of inconsistency in reduction of murder rates over that period of time such that making a conclusion that death penalty resulted to reduced murder rate becomes possible. Even in 1993 for instance when 38 people were executed, the national murder rate was significantly high (9.5) and insignificantly different compared to other years (ACLU, 1997). This therefore proves that executing criminals does not significantly contribute to reduction of recidivism.
For death sentence to effectively send a warning message to would be criminals, then the judicial system must sentence murderers (especially first-degree murderers) as justifiably as possible. However, the U.S. judicial system seems to be lenient with first-degree murderers. ACLU (1997) notes an increase in homicides from the 1980s due to few death sentences and executions made on first-degree murderers yet the police are well aware of the homicides. Due to such biases, a strong deterrence message is not sent to persons who intend to commit homicides. The above scenario is complicated by the fact that capital punishments have elaborate procedures which take time in addition to post-conviction appeals. Such a delay makes the criminal feel that they have a potential to get away with the crime and thus the impact of prompt death penalty is not felt. As such, the rate of recidivism is expected to be high thus proving death penalty as not fully effective as a deterrent.

Criminologists are among the best experts whose views on the effect of death penalty on recidivism can be depended. This is because criminologists usually use empirical research to make their conclusion. As such, Radelet and Lacock (2009) have sought the opinions of top criminologists on whether death penalty has been a powerful deterrent based on empirical research. This was in comparison with long imprisonment as an alternative punishment. From this study, it is clear that there are no extra benefits of using death penalty as a deterrent as compared to long imprisonment. It is important to note that this study was conducted among criminologists who have the status of Fellow of the American Society of Criminology (ASC), those who had served in the ASC as president as from 1997 and  those who had ever won the Sutherland Award. This means that this is a credible sample of experts in criminology. In the study, 88.2 percent of the experts were of the opinion that death penalty did not lead to significant deterrent. This was an increase compared to a similar study carried out in 1996. Since the views do not seem to be changing over time, and are in tandem with the views of the general public, it is therefore justifiable to argue that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent.
The popularly supported argument that a more severe punishment is more deterrent has been losing popularity. As such, death penalty is losing its deterrent effect and thus other forms of punishment ought to be considered. Radelet and Borg (2000) argue that there is no consistency and direct implication effect of severe punishment as a means of achieving deterrence. Rodelet and Borg highlight that deterrent effects increase in a decreasing trend and eventually the severe punishment losses its effectiveness. This is the same trend with death penalty. During the early years of enactment of the death penalty law, the deterrent effects were high but with progress death punishment does not seem to change crime rates. It is therefore no wonder that Radelet and Lacock (2009) identify that recidivism seem not to be going down with death penalty.

It is argued that for a punishment to be effectively deterrent, it must not only be severe but it must also be very certain and be performed with a lot of celerity (Moffatt  Ponyton, 2007). Otherwise, only a lesser deterrent impact results. Death penalty is losing its popularity as a deterrent since the judicial process is always prone to errors. Innocent defendants have been executed due to errors in the judicial system thus leaving the real criminals at large. For instance, Radalet and Borg (2000) indicate that since 1979, there were up to 12 prisoners who were executed in Illinois yet they were innocent as it was identified later. Shepherd also states that there have been more than 5000 executions of innocent people from 1977 to 1996 in States that have not indicated deterrence due to death penalty. As such, real criminals continue with their criminal behaviors thus making death penalty a futile effort. When executions are carried out in such uncertainties, then capital punishment acts as a form of miscarriage of justice rather than a deterrent. Death penalty in America also fails to be an effective deterrent in that injustice may prevail where persons who are supposed to be convicted of first degree murder are convicted of manslaughter. Again this flaw has the potential to jeopardize the deterrent effort attached to death penalty since such individuals may obtain imprisonment with parole option. The celerity factor is also lacking in the U.S. judicial system since a murder case is rigorous and is bound to take time. 
Execution is a retributive practice that not significantly different as a deterrent compared to other forms of punishment such as long imprisonment. The effectiveness is particularly lost since death penalty in America is mainly based on the views that it makes the offended (family) feel that justice has been accomplished. Radalet and Borg (2000) suggest that most people view death penalty as having the capacity to offer retributive satisfaction. Carrying the practice from such a perspective apparently becomes fulfilling to the families of the victims but does not send a warning sign to would be criminals. Since death penalty is an incapacitating form of punishment, it has been found to have the same incapacitation effect just as life imprisonment does. In fact it has been identified that the probability of persons who are serving life imprisonment rarely commit murder thereby implying that life imprisonment should take the place of death penalty (Beschle, 1997).

Life without parole (LWOP) has been identified as approximately equal in its deterrent effect as execution does. Fagan (2006) report that most States such as Georgia, South Carolina and Pennsylvania among others have adopted the LWOP sentence and have reduced the number of executions. This has been based on the observation that both LWOP and execution have almost the same incapacitative effects. In fact Fagan (2006) highlights that there is barely any evidence to show that capital punishment has a greater deterrent effect. Most importantly is that increased incarceration rates is leading to crime rates especially homicides among other violent crimes in most States. Since it has been found that both life incarceration and execution have almost the same deterrent effect, it should be worth to reconsider using the less controversial LWOP. Instead of executing persons (from a background of the ability of execution to reduce homicides) for instance, incarceration should come in as it is not incapacitative and hence deterrent enough. Perhaps failure to focus on the deterrent effects of LWOP as is the case with death penalty has resulted to ignoring and underestimation of LWOP.
Shepherd (2005) assesses the deterrent effect of death penalty State-wise and identifies that there are inconsistencies in deterrent effect but generally there is no significant deterrent effect. In 27 (78) States with at least one execution during the study period, Shepherd identified that only in 6 (22) States had death penalty resulted into deterrent effect. Surprisingly, murder rate rose in 13 (48) of the States. These findings are clear indications that a death penalty is effective as a determent to recidivism. In fact these findings indicate that for execution to be deterrent, then more people (above a certain threshold) have to be executed (as found in Texas). It is also important to indicate that although conducting fewer executions seems to increase crime in some States, the likelihood of not changing the trend was still high. Shepherd (2005) explains that death penalty resulted to an increase in crime rate since the general view was that executionviolence is a form of revenge.

The fact that execution is carried out with the notion that it is a severe punishment that is able to deter others should draw attention to the effect of long-term imprisonment. Long imprisonment has been termed as a severe enough punishment that should equally lead to deterrence. ACLU (1997) notes that there has been an almost the same prevalence of homicides in states that have death penalty compared to states that do not have the sentence. As such, a reconsideration of other non-death penalty punishments should be considered. The findings by Shepherd (2005) above are not different from earlier observations in the 1970s through 1990s. For instance, ACLU (1997) report that from 1990 to 1994, while Iowa and Wisconsin did not have death penalty, they experienced half the rate of homicides as compared to Illinois which was practicing death penalty. This therefore questions death penalty on its effectiveness as a deterrent. It was also observed that Oklahoma experienced a surge in homicides in the 1990s even after the reintroduction of death penalty. This shows that a State-by-State evaluation is more precise in understanding the reality of death penalty as a deterrent.

Since death penalty utilizes threats to hinder others from committing crimes, the real cause of crime is not addressed. Failure to address the underlying cause of the problem means that crime thrives despite increasing executions. Perhaps the best way of preventing recidivism would be to take other preventative measures such police being more vigilant on crimes among other ways that address the social problems from the roots.

Conclusion
Although death penalty has been advocated by many Americans on the view that it is a deterrent, its effectiveness remains questionable. Recent and previous research has shown that although death penalty achieves some deterrence effects in some cases, this is not an effective means of tackling recidivism. The changes in crime rates even with death penalty in action are not enough to justify the propagation of this sentence in tackling crime. In the American context, the deterrent theory in which execution has been mainly established lacks in that executions are erroneous and take time to be carried out due to long legal procedures. As such, the said deterrence effect of this method is not achieved. Even a State-by-State examination on effectiveness of death penalty as a deterrent disapproves this form of punishment. Since other forms of punishment such as life imprisonment have showed almost equal rate of deterrence, the U.S. Criminal Judicial System should reconsider taking the less controversial and perhaps more effective deterrent measures. Without such reconsideration, the death penalty debate will remain a recurrent theme full of unproductive discussions.