Introduction
It is important to note that the death penalty is an ancient practice that is prevalent even today. The given analysis will focus on the death penalty and how it is utilized in the context of the deterrence theory in the United Nations (UN), Europe, and the United States. The latter debates not only its effectiveness as a deterrent but also its practical elements; however, both Europe and the UN do not consider the death penalty as effective or ethical.
Literature Review: Evolution and Current State of Deterrence Theory
Early Conceptualizations
The concept of deterrence theory originates from classical criminology. It is rooted in the works of Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century – it was argued that the harshness of punishment deters individuals from committing crimes (Nagin et al., 2019). The central tenet of early deterrence theory focuses on the rational actor model; thus, individuals weigh the benefits against the costs before perpetrating a crime (Abramovaite et al., 2022). In other words, the entire concept is based on the notion that individuals, states, and organizations are rational in their actions.
Developments and Refinements
It should be noted that the deterrence theory underwent major revisions, developments, and other changes to reach its current form. In the 20th century, scholars expanded upon these foundational ideas by incorporating sociological and psychological factors into the understanding of deterrence (van Stekelenburg et al., 2023). One noteworthy shift occurred when scholars started to distinguish between general and specific deterrence. General deterrence aims to prevent crime in the general population; however, specific deterrence focuses on preventing a specific offender from reoffending (Safa et al., 2019).
Advances in statistical modeling allowed scholars to assess more accurately the impact of the death penalty on crime rates (Kuo et al., 2020). In addition, the introduction of game theory into deterrence made the framework more complex and intricate – it accounted for interactions between law enforcement and potential offenders (Hati et al., 2020). In a sense, the police became part of the equation in deterrence.
Moreover, researchers also began to separate deterrence into distinct types. Two major ones are informal and legal deterrence, and the latter focuses on the role of official penalties, while informal deterrence is about the influence of social factors (Kaviani et al., 2020). Modern interpretations of deterrence theory have incorporated elements of psychology; hence, it explains why some actors are not deterred by conventional means (Siponen et al., 2022). As a result, deterrence theory is highly comprehensive and well-developed since it is based on strong assumptions that are universally applicable, including international relations as well as security.
Criticisms and Limitations
One of the primary criticisms of deterrence theory lies in its presumption of rationality among potential offenders. It is a point that is often critiqued due to the impulsive nature of certain crimes (Armstrong et al., 2020). Ethical dilemmas also surround the application of deterrence theory, especially in the context of the death penalty; therefore, the morality of using human life as a means to deter crime becomes questionable (Parker, 2021). In other words, the main criticisms are centered around its ethicality as well as rational assumptions.
Comparative Analysis: Application of the Theory in the UN, Europe, and the United States
United Nations
Within the framework of the United Nations, deterrence theory has been a highly debated part of the global discourse since the organization majorly disagrees with the death penalty being an effective deterrent. It should be noted that the UN has always advocated for the abolition of the death penalty; thus, it is a stance that is massively different from what constitutes the principles of deterrence theory (OHCHR, 2023). In other words, the organization does not believe it to be effective or humane and sees many loopholes through which it can be abused. The UN sees the death penalty as a violation of human rights because it sees it through its practical standpoint rather than a theoretical one.
It is most concerned with the ethicality of the entire practice since one can see how normalized the death penalty can become a tool to empower dictators, eliminate political opponents, and standardize state-sanctioned murder. In addition, the UN views rehabilitation and restoration as means that work should be prioritized rather than simply human life itself as a deterrent (OHCHR, 2023). The organization was consistent in advocating against the death penalty; however, the United Nations has not been successful in persuading member nations to abandon the practice since deterrence theory remains relevant in some countries.
Europe
Europe’s stance on using the death penalty as a deterrence mostly aligns with the position of the UN – it, too, believes that capital punishment is unacceptable as a deterrent. The European Union (EU) has enacted protocols prohibiting the death penalty; hence, the continent is a perfect case study of how the justice system can work without the practice (OHCHR, 2023). The Council of Europe promotes a human rights agenda, and the European Court of Human Rights defines the ethical boundaries – both make the framework inapplicable in the EU (OHCHR, 2023). The best examples or manifestations of the European perspective are Norway and Germany since both utilize alternative sentencing to the death penalty; thus, they challenge the precepts of deterrence theory.
European nations primarily focus on rehabilitation and social reintegration, and there has been some success. It is common to cite the European approach as a better and proper alternative to the punitive measures advocated by proponents of deterrence theory (Nagin et al., 2019). In addition, the public and its general opinion in Europe mainly disfavors the death penalty; hence, certain social and cultural elements do not subscribe to the deterrence theory. However, some debates around the death penalty are still ongoing because rehabilitation does not always work for heinous crimes committed by people who cannot be rehabilitated.
United States
The place where the most heated and continuous debates take place on the topic of the death penalty within the context of deterrence theory is the United States. Proponents essentially argue that the threat of capital punishment is a powerful disincentive for would-be criminals; hence, those contemplating violent acts will be prevented due to the risk of being executed. The given belief in deterrence finds its roots in early criminological thought and continues to shape legislation and judicial decisions in many states, such as Nevada (Nagin et al., 2019). However, opponents often question the overall effectiveness of deterrence as a rationale for capital punishment, and they are also doubtful about the statistical models that supporters use, which point toward methodological flaws (Nagin et al., 2019). In other words, there is an idea that the stats presented are manipulated to show that the death penalty is effective when it is not in actuality.
The inconsistency in the application of the death penalty across states further complicates efforts to provide a conclusive assessment of deterrence theory. Laws on capital punishment differ not just in the crimes that qualify but also in the procedures that guide executions; therefore, it creates a ‘puzzled’ legal landscape. The laws can be criticized for promoting mass incarceration of people of color and for disproportionately affecting minority people, such as African Americans (Ulmer et al., 2019). If the laws are inherently designed to imprison Black people at a higher rate, then the death penalty becomes a tool of racial and ethnic cleansing.
Ethics is a major aspect of the debate because the death penalty is a state-sanctioned killing of a person – it grants an excessive amount of power to the government. It can be abused as a tool of oppression for dissident voices and political oppositions, which can turn the US into yet another dictatorial regime. In addition, the death penalty is critiqued as a practical matter since the justice system is far from perfect; therefore, using an irrevocable measure for a decision that can be false is immoral (Nagin et al., 2019). As a result, one can see that the death penalty is discussed in the US not only if it is an effective deterrent but also if it is practical within the realities of today’s institutions, laws, and human conditions.
Future Directions and Conclusions
In conclusion, both the UN and EU question the effectiveness of the death penalty and consider it to be unethical; however, the US considers its practical elements primarily. The deterrence theory should properly establish whether or not capital punishment is effective at deterring specifically with sound methodology and clear data. The question that remains is as follows: Is it still worthwhile to implement the death penalty even if it is found to be an effective deterrent considering the flaws of the justice system and potential state abuse? It can be stated that the deterrence theory should shift its focus from the death penalty towards different means that can deter just as effectively.
References
Abramovaite, J., Bandyopadhyay, S., Bhattacharya, S., & Cowen, N. (2022). Classical deterrence theory revisited: An empirical analysis of police force areas in England and Wales. European Journal of Criminology, 1, 1-18. Web.
Armstrong, T. A., Boisvert, D., Wells, J., & Lewis, R. (2020). Extending Steinberg’s adolescent model of risk taking to the explanation of crime and delinquency: Are impulsivity and sensation seeking enough? Personality and Individual Differences, 165. Web.
Hati, S. R. H., Fitriasih, R., & Safira, A. (2020). E-textbook piracy behavior: An integration of ethics theory, deterrence theory, and theory of planned behavior. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 18(1), 105-123. Web.
Kaviani, F., Young, K. L., Robards, B., & Koppel, S. (2020). Understanding the deterrent impact formal and informal sanctions have on illegal smartphone use while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 145. Web.
Kuo, K. M., Talley, P. C., & Huang, C. H. (2020). A meta-analysis of the deterrence theory in security-compliant and security-risk behaviors. Computers & Security, 96. Web.
Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2019). Deterrence, choice, and crime, volume 23: Contemporary perspectives. Routledge.
OHCHR. (2023). Death penalty. Web.
Parker, B. (2021). Death penalty statutes and murder rates: Evidence from synthetic controls. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 18(3), 488-533. Web.
Safa, N. S., Maple, C., Furnell, S., Azad, M. A., Perera, C., Dabbagh, M., & Sookhak, M. (2019). Deterrence and prevention-based model to mitigate information security insider threats in organizations. Future Generation Computer Systems, 97, 587-597. Web.
Siponen, M., Soliman, W., & Vance, A. (2022). Common misunderstandings of deterrence theory in information systems research and future research directions. ACM SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 53(1), 25–60. Web.
Ulmer, J. T., Kramer, J. H., & Zajac, G. (2019). The race of defendants and victims in Pennsylvania death penalty decisions: 2000–2010. Justice Quarterly, 37(5), 955-983. Web.
van Stekelenburg, L., Dijkstra, P. T., van Steenbergen, E. F., Mastop, J., & Ellemers, N. (2023). Integrating norms, knowledge, and social ties into the deterrence model of cartels: A survey study of business executives. Review of Industrial Organization, 1, 1-41. Web.