If this theory were correct, then states without the death penalty would have lower incidences of homicide, but that is not the case. In fact, "the homicide rate in the 38 states with the death penalty has been 48% to 100% higher than the 12 states without the death penalty" (Newman 227). It could be argued that states in certain areas of the country are more or less prone to crime, but the trend applies even to neighboring states with different capital punishment laws.
Supporters of the deterrence theory argue that punishment must be quick and severe to deter acts; and capital punishment is, by no means, swift. According to David Newman, "On average, death row inmates spend almost 13 years awaiting execution, a figure that has been growing steadily for three decades" (Newman 236). Supporters also argue that acts of violence are not thoroughly thought through; rather, they are spontaneous.
Though its application is not perfect with the death penalty, deterrence plays a huge role in less passionate crime. According to the state of Minnesota, one's first DWI is punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. If that isn't enough deterrence to someone, and he or she still drives drunk, his or her punishment will, hopefully, deter others from offending. My boyfriend was recently written a $106 seat belt ticket and has been wearing his seat belt consistently since. In this way, deterrence is the basis for all law enforcement.
Though the deterrence theory assumes that people are rational, that isn't always true, especially in passionate crime like homicide. Deterrence is, however, an important tool in law enforcement, and, therefore, should not be discounted.
Newman, David. Sociology. Ed 8. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment