Murder and Deterrence
Punishment, especially the death penalty, can be seen to have a deterrent effect against murder, in some cases. Community and social control theory is one area where threat of punishment is going to have a definite effect on a person’s likelihood to commit any crime, especially murder. When a person has a strong bond with their family or community then, in turn, the family or community will have expectations of how that person will act. The stronger the bond with family and community the more a person wants to follow what is expected and not commit crimes, so as not to disappoint the people who have faith in them. While this bond with family and community make the need for any kind of deterrence almost nonexistent there is another side to the social learning theory and that is when a person bonds with deviant people. A person will learn the type of behavior that leads to crimes by watching other, deviant, people in their inner circle.
This type of socialization makes murder they type of crime that can be deterred by the death penalty, because, if a person sees a friend or family member commit murder and that friend or family member receives punishment or the death penalty for the crime the person may think twice before committing a murder now that the consequences are clearly known and close to home. If a person grows up in an environment that encourages or blatantly shows crime as a viable way of life, then certainly that person is going to be more likely to also lead a life of crime. On the other hand, if a person sees deviant behavior being reinforced with punishment rather than reward then a person may learn that deviant behavior will not get them what they want and they may not engage in such crimes.
Another way in which murder is the type of crime that may be deterred by the threat of punishment is the concept of frustration-aggression. When frustration with a job, child, or other outside factor leads to aggression the results could be murder. The text of Will to Kill points out that “The tendency is also greater when people feel they can get away with being aggressive- when they do not anticipate being punished in return or being rejected by their friends and associates” (Fox & Levin, 2001, p. 20). This statement shows a clear relationship between the consequences of punishment and the willingness of the perpetrator to commit the act of murder. A person who, for instance, is frustrated economically might not feel he has been given enough by his standards or when he compares himself with other people. With the threat of the death penalty, this person may stop to think whether or not committing murder will really solve his frustration or, in fact, likely leave him even more frustrated on death row. Robert Agnew broadened the concept of frustration-aggression in his general strain theory. “Criminal violence, he contends, is a result of strain-frustration, anger, disappointment, fear, or depression that originates in destructive social ties” (Fox & Levin, 2001 p. 21). In his general strain theory, Agnew considers a deprivation more relative to what others have that the person doesn’t rather than simple “absolute deprivation” (Fox & Levin, 2001 p. 21). With penalties in place, such as the death penalty, the frustrated person who is thinking of murder may stop to think of the consequences and learn to cope with their frustration instead.
In other cases, the death penalty or other punishment are not effective in deterring murder. In particular, manslaughter is not likely to be a crime that is deterred by the threat of any punishment to follow, including the death penalty, simply because the nature of the crime is such that extenuating circumstances apply. For example, a man engaged in a fist fight that results in the death of his opponent would not have been deterred by the death penalty or any other type of punishment simply because the man would not have been thinking the crime through to the consequences. While this crime would probably not be seen as an accident as such, the man involved in the fist fight likely did not intend for his opponent to dies. Most especially involuntary manslaughter is not deterred by the threat of consequences. Involuntary manslaughter is defined as “a death resulting from negligence” (Fox & Levin, 2001 p. 5). A physician who writes out the wrong prescription for a patient is not thinking about the consequences of murder, because he or she does not think they are committing the act of murder, but if the patient dies this would likely be considered involuntary manslaughter. Any threat of punishment would not have deterred the doctor from writing out the prescription, unless, of course, the doctor knowingly gave the patient the wrong medication. Doctor’s are far more concerned with the threat of a civil suit rather than a criminal suit as they perform their duties. The threat of the death penalty would not make any difference in the manslaughter rate.
Another type of case where the threat of the death penalty would not make a difference is a murder that was not premeditated, such as in second degree murder or even first degree murder if the reason for the crime being considered first degree murder is extreme cruelty. In Will to Kill, the authors use the example of Richard Rosenthal beating his wife to death with a rock after an argument. Clearly Rosenthal was not considering the consequences of the death penalty when he took this action against his wife. Rather than being considered manslaughter, Rosenthal was convicted of first degree murder due to the cruelty of the murder, but even so, there was no prior planning or premeditation. “Premeditation entails some evidence of planning, deliberation, or scheming, although not necessarily over of prolonged time period” (Fox & Levin, 2001 p.2). When a person commits a murder at the spur of the moment, in a fit of rage, then no amount of knowledge of the consequences or punishments will change the crime. Another example is second degree murder committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. “Homicides committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs are also generally considered second-degree murders, if the intoxication is believed to have reduced the drunken person’s capacity to act deliberately and premeditate the deadly assault” (Fox & Levin, 2001 p.4). Without premeditation and a clear mind many crimes and murders are not they types of crimes that can be deterred.
Murder is a complex crime. In many cases the death penalty or any other punishments would have not deterrent effect whatsoever. In some cases the threat of punishment or other consequences may prove effective in preventing a person from committing murder. The circumstances of each murder are different and must be considered with regards to whether or not any punishment, including the death penalty will be effective in deterring the crime.
References:
Fox, J.A., & Levin, J. (2001). The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
