Death Penalty Deterrence: The Counterdeterrent or Brutalizing Effect

Death Penalty Deterrence: The Counterdeterrent or Brutalizing Effect
Author's Name
The Institutional Affiliation
Course Number and Name
Instructor Name
Assignment Due Date
Death Penalty Deterrence: The Counterdeterrent or Brutalizing Effect
Introduction
The death penalty has been controversial for many years, with people arguing for and against its use. One of the main arguments favoring the death penalty is that it serves as a deterrent to others who may commit similar crimes. However, a growing body of research suggests that the death penalty may have a counter-deterrent or brutalizing effect on society (Anonymous). This essay will examine the counter-deterrent impact and its implications for using the death penalty. The counter-deterrent result is that the death penalty can increase the likelihood of violent crime rather than decrease it. This effect is based on the theory of social learning, which suggests that people learn from the behavior of others, particularly those in authority or those they admire. When the state executes someone, it sends a message that violence is an acceptable response to certain types of behavior. This message may be internalized by individuals who view the execution as justified or necessary. Studies have shown a positive correlation between the use of the death penalty and the incidence of homicide. For example, a survey conducted in the United States found that states with the death penalty had higher rates of homicide than states without it (Sadique et al., 2019). Similarly, a study conducted in Canada found that a decrease followed the abolition of the death penalty in the homicide rate. These findings suggest that the death penalty may have a counter-deterrent effect on society.
Discussion
Prime Context of Counterdeterrence
The two main types of deterrence are specific deterrence and general deterrence. Specific deterrence refers to the idea that the punishment of an individual will deter that individual from committing future crimes. This type of deterrence is focused on the individual offender. It aims to prevent that person from committing future crimes by making the punishment severe enough to discourage them from engaging in criminal behavior again (Toch, n.d). Specific deterrence is often used in cases where an individual has committed a heinous crime, such as murder, and the punishment is intended to prevent that individual from ever committing such a crime again. An example of specific deterrence would be sentencing a repeat offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
General deterrence, on the other hand, refers to the idea that the punishment of one individual will deter others from committing similar crimes. This type of deterrence is focused on sending a message to society that criminal behavior will not be tolerated and that those who commit crimes will be punished severely (A., 2019). General deterrence is often used in cases where the crime committed is seen as a threat to the broader community, such as terrorism or organized crime. An example of general deterrence would be imposing the death penalty on a high-profile criminal, such as a terrorist or a mafia boss, to message others that such behavior will not be tolerated.
In...