The death penalty is absolutely one of the most hotly debated issues in criminal law, and in national politics. The issue becomes one of whether or not the death penalty is successful as a deterrent, or if it merely kills inmates, some of whom may be innocent. There are those who believe that the death penalty, being the ultimate punishment for an offender, is a threat that can successfully discourage people from performing wrong doing (and therefore foregoing that fate). However, according to Beccaria's theories of punishment, as well as research and the opinions of others, the death penalty is not, in fact, a fair example of a deterrent. Not only is the death penalty a punishment that the state does not have the ethical right to perform, it is ineffective and beyond the call of necessity.
Cesare Beccaria, in his 1764 treatise On Crimes and Punishments, applies several principles to punishment of criminal offenders. First, Beccaria appealed to the principle of Reason - this posits that the state as a contract with which the public must interact in order to enjoy its benefits, and provide happiness for as many people as possible. Jeremy Bentham further expanded this principle to form the philosophy of Utilitarianism. Beccaria's book was one of the first organized arguments against the death penalty, which he opposed for two main reasons. First, the state does not have the right to take away that which is more precious than anything to a human being: his life. No matter what crime that person has committed, the person still gets to hold on to their continued existence, as saying otherwise commits the state to a substantial power over the people.
Secondly, capital punishment simply does not work, as it is not necessary to deter, nor is it effective as a deterrent itself. There are many other alternatives to punishment that achieve a greater effect that do not involve the extinguishing of the offender's life, including incarceration and monetary restitution. Instead of having such a bizarrely harsh punishment, Baccaria posits that punishment is meant to be preventive and not retributive; murdering someone in exchange for a murder they committed is not helpful or humane at all. Furthermore, the preventive effect of a punishment is merely due to its certainty - you will definitely be punished for your wrongdoing - rather than how harsh the punishment is. The promptness and the proportion of the punishment should also be appropriately fast and fitting, respectively, in order for the punishment to act as a deterrent.
How does Becarria's perspective on the death penalty apply today? More than anything, it provides philosophical support to statistical data that suggests the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent. On a practical level, it is inadvisable to pursue the death penalty anyway: in Texas, death penalty cases costs three times as much as sentences of life in prison for 40 years (DPIC, 2012). 61% of voters have been found to support alternatives to the death penalty for murder cases as well, showing a decided lack of public support for the measure. Law enforcement officials believe that the death penalty is last among the various methods of reducing violent crime, and that it is inefficient in its allocation of state-controlled resources (taxes). The disproportionate sentencing of black-on-white crime for death row demonstrates a decided racial inequality in the justice system that cannot be maintained in an ethical manner, particularly in cases with such a severe punishment (DPIC, 2012). To that end, the facts and research support Becarria's assertion that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent; in fact, it wastes taxpayers money and lends lasting consequences to substantial racial inequalities and issues that currently take place in the justice system.
In conclusion, the death penalty is absolutely not an effective example of Beccaria's deterrence theory as presented in On Crimes and Punishments. First of all, as Becarria's first arguments against the death penalty are contained within the book, it cannot be said that the death penalty lines up with his beliefs. According to Beccaria, the death penalty is unnecessary, inefficient, and far out of the reach and scope of the powers of the state over a human being. For these reasons alone, the death penalty should not be considered viable. When considering the applications of the death penalty today, as well as the research that insists on numerous mistakes errors and inefficiencies regarding that measure, it is clear that it is not effective as a deterrent, and should be stopped.
References
Beccaria, C. (1764). On Crimes and Punishments.
Bentham, J. (1983). JSTOR: The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 74(3): 1033-
1065. Northwestern University School of Law.
Death Penalty Information Center. (2012). Facts about the death penalty. Death Penalty
Information Center. Retrieved from
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf.
