American Capital Punishment in Comparative Perspective

It is often said that American capital punishment fulfills no purposes, serves no functions, and possesses no coherent rationale. In Peculiar Institution: America's Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition (2010), David Garland argues that American capital punishment is functional, meaningful, and effective, especially in the cultural realm of death penalty discourse. He also demonstrates that America's radically local version of democracy helps explain why the death penalty has persisted in the United States long after it disappeared in other Western democracies and that many of the peculiar forms through which American capital punishment is now administered have been designed to deny association with the lynchings that have occurred in American history. Garland arrives at these conclusions by comparing capital punishment in contemporary America with death penalty systems from the American past and from other Western nations. This essay argues that comparison with Asia further illuminates what is peculiar—and ordinary—in American capital punishment.     

The triumph of vengeance over retribution: the United States Supreme Court and the death penalty

In this article the author uses a review of Welsh S. White'sThe Death Penalty in the Nineties as a framework for analyzing recent trends in the United States Supreme Court's death penalty jurisprudence. Since 1976 the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment at least in part on the notion that the death penalty serves the useful social purpose of retribution. This article, however, contends that it is imperative to distinguish between retribution and vengeance as rationales for criminal punishment. Modern retributive theory calls for punishments to be guided by considerations of proportionality, fairness, and equality. Vengeance-based punishments, on the other hand, are aimed at satisfying the victim's and society's desire for retaliation and are not limited by the retributive principle that punishment must be proportionate to the severity of the crime and the moral blameworthiness of the offender. The article analyzes recent Supreme Court decisions that are not examined inThe Death Penalty in the Nineties-decisions that allow the introduction of victim-impact evidence into capital sentencing proceedings and permit the death penalty to be imposed on 16-year-old offenders, mentally retarded defendants, and those who neither kill nor intend to kill. These decisions, it is argued, demonstrate that the contemporary Court has bestowed judicial approval on vengeance as an acceptable justification for capital punishment.     

贪利性犯罪死刑正当性的犯罪学追问

贪利性犯罪的死刑是现阶段我国在死刑控制问题上面临的一个突出问题。目前,理论上有关贪利性犯罪死刑正当性的思考,大多局限于法理或伦理上的一般性思辨,而缺乏从事实层面对“为什么对贪利性犯罪不应当配置死刑”这一核心问题的深入追问。基于死刑与贪利性犯罪的社会危害性特点具有不相容性、死刑与贪利性犯罪的原因具有不匹配性和死刑于贪利性犯罪无任何积极功效的分析,利用死刑与贪利性犯罪作斗争,在反犯罪策略上是一种缺乏事实根据的非理性选择。为此,在立法尚未改变之前,理性控制贪利性犯罪死刑的司法适用,是时代赋予司法者的政治和道义责任。     

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND DEATH PENALTY CASES: Reflections on Change and the Empirical Justification of Constitutional Policy

This article investigates the use of social science and empirical data in the justification for declaring the death penalty unconstitutional. It does so by analysing the use of such materials in the briefs presented to the Supreme Court and the Court's response in major death penalty cases. The article finds that social science played a prominent role in the arguments of both the challengers and defenders of capital punishment. Applying concepts from decision-making theory, after analyzing the Court's decisions, the article concludes that social science will not provide a justification for the constitutional change requested.     

The Death Penalty: An Unusual Punishment America is Inflicting Upon Itself

The United States is the only Western, industrialized nation still executing criminal offenders. The Constitutional provision that is most often used to call the appropriateness of capital punishment in the United States into question is the 8th Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Opponents of capital punishment have often argued various reasons why the death penalty is a cruel punishment, but the Supreme Court of the United States has not agreed. A new approach to abolition advocacy is needed. Since the death penalty has not been determined cruel, I submit a new legal argument based on the unusual nature of capital punishment. Utilizing systems theory, I posit the death penalty is an unusual criminal punishment due to the extraordinary range of persons beyond merely the defendant who are negatively impacted by executions.     

Taking Capital Punishment Seriously

Although Asia is the most important region of the world when it comes to capital punishment, it is also one of the most understudied. This article identifies four research questions that deserve attention from students and scholars who believe taking capital punishment seriously requires studying Asia seriously too. What are the empirical contours of capital punishment in contemporary Asia? What are the histories of capital punishment in Asia? Can Western theories of capital punishment explain patterns and changes in Asia? And what is the future of capital punishment in Asia? If researchers take the trouble to explore these questions, the death penalty will not only become an interesting window into law and society in Asia, but Asia will prove to be an instructive window into the death penalty—the gravest real-life problem in the law.     

当代美国的死刑制度

美国最高法院在1972年曾经宣布暂停死刑执行,但是在1976年又恢复了死刑的执行,目前美国是唯一仍然保留并适用死刑的所谓西方文明国家。美国联邦系统和38个州的刑法都规定了死刑,可以适用死刑的罪行还比较多,但是罪名相对比较集中;死刑诉讼程序严格且复杂;相对于美国庞大的犯罪数字,尤其是暴力犯罪而言,其死刑判决和实际执行死刑数量仍属较低;美国死刑执行方式呈现为以注射方式为主多种执行方法并存的特点。美国死刑程序复杂但是死刑错判率仍然较高。     

Reasons for South Korean attitudes towards the death penalty: exploring the nexus between strong public support and history of misapplication

As of this writing, South Korea (officially, the Republic of Korea) is an abolitionist-in-practice nation; capital punishment is legal, but no death sentences have been carried out since a moratorium was enacted in 1997. Public support for the death penalty has decreased over time; however, the factors that determine support for or opposition to the death penalty of the South Korean general public are largely unknown. Using survey data from a nationwide sample of 416 respondents, this study examined the potential predictors for public attitudes towards capital punishment support. A majority of survey respondents (83%) supported the death penalty, a higher percentage than recent surveys of the South Korean general public. The deterrence and retribution perspectives were positively related to death penalty support, while crime severity, neighbourhood safety, the brutalisation effect, and innocence were negatively related. This study provides the first multivariate analysis of factors associated with South Korean attitudes towards the death penalty.     

Capital punishment views in China and the United States: a preliminary study among college students

There is a lack of research on attitudes toward capital punishment in China, and there is even less research on cross-national comparisons of capital punishment views. Using data recently collected from college students in the United States and China, this study finds that U.S. and Chinese students have differences in their views on the death penalty and its functions of deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. This study also reveals that the respondents' perspectives of deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, and incapacitation all affect their attitudes toward the death penalty in the United States, whereas only the first three views affect attitudes toward capital punishment in China. Furthermore, retribution is the strongest predictor in the United States, whereas deterrence is the strongest predictor in China.     

American Criminal Justice Exposed

In The Ethics of Capital Punishment: A Philosophical Investigation of Evil and Its Consequences, Matthew Kramer argues that none of the standard rationales used to justify capital punishment successfully vindicates it and that a new justification, the purgative rationale, justifies capital punishment for defilingly evil offenders. In this article, it is argued, first, that a version of retributivism that adheres to the lex talionis as Kramer understands it does seem to call exclusively for the death penalty. Second, it is submitted that the purgative rationale is over-inclusive inasmuch as Kramer considers it applicable to certain offenders with abusive or deprived backgrounds, some offenders indoctrinated to adhere to pernicious ideologies that have impelled their crimes, and wrongdoers who have sincerely repented. Third, doubts are expressed about whether the purgative rationale justifies the execution of any offenders. Even if it is true that the continued existence of an extravagantly evil offender represents an affront to humanity, as Kramer suggests, a moral obligation to execute him does not follow. Since repentance is intrinsically valuable and since repentance would extinguish the affront to humanity, the community in which an unrepentant evil offender abides is duty-bound to foster repentance on the part of the offender by imposing banishment or life imprisonment, sanctions that afford the offender the most extensive opportunity for repentance. The community is therefore obligated to impose one of these sanctions instead of capital punishment.     

死刑废除的国际要求与反思

死刑废除已经是世界性趋势和国际公约的要求,我国刑法学界已在限制死刑上达成了一定的共识,但在死刑废除的论证上还存在诸多争议。德里达对死刑的解构有助于死刑废除。死刑在关系到社会基本公正实现的同时也影响到社会的基本功利的实现,当其不再是为社会公正的基础或主要方面时,便是其被废除之日。     

Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall offered his opinion regarding the utility of public opinion polls as a tool for assessing the “evolving standards of decency” regarding capital punishment. His arguments became known as the Marshall hypotheses and spawned a considerable body of empirical testing. The three Marshall hypotheses are: (1) support for capital punishment is inversely associated with knowledge about it, (2) exposure to information about capital punishment produces sentiments in opposition to capital punishment, but (3) exposure to information about capital punishment will have no impact on those who support it for retributive reasons. The results of previous tests of these hypotheses were somewhat mixed but supportive. None of these studies, however, examined the effects of change in knowledge levels with changes, if any, in death penalty attitudes and beliefs as needed for a more complete test of the Marshall hypotheses. The present study addressed this shortcoming. The results provided mixed support for these three hypotheses. That is, death penalty supporters were somewhat less informed than death penalty opponents; exposure to death penalty information and knowledge gains tended to be associated with attitudinal change in a directions suggested by these hypotheses; but, retributivists' attitudes toward and beliefs about capital punishment were not any more resistant to change than were the attitudes and beliefs of non-retributivists.     

Reflections of an octogenarian on criminal law and criminology

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that capital punishment is not unconstitutional per se, in part because the high degree of public support for the death penalty indicates that the American public does not consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment. According to the Court, the public's desire for retribution is an appropriate basis for determining that the death penalty is an acceptable criminal sanction. This paper examines the degree of public support for the death penalty and the basis for that support. It also explores the differences between retribution as just deserts and retribution as revenge, and concludes by asking whether a public desire for revenge is an appropriate, enlightened basis for our capital punishment policy.     

A Comparison of uninformed and informed death penalty opinions: A replication and expansion

This study examines the influence on death penalty opinions of participating in a college class on the death penalty. Students in the class (the experimental group) and in another class offered at the same time (the control group) were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their attitudes toward capital punishment at the beginning and at the end of the semester. They were also asked factual questions that measured their knowledge about capital punishment. Overall, the results of the study suggest that both groups were not well informed during the pretest measure. However, at the end of the semester, the group enrolled in the death penalty class were more knowledgable, less supportive of the death penalty based on general/absrtact questions, and more likely to favor alternatives to capital punishment than were the students in the control group.     

康德的惩罚观:公正优先兼顾功利——读《法的形而上学原理》

学界通常认为康德是一个极端报应论者,但实际上康德并不否认惩罚的功利价值,只是主张公正是惩罚正当性的首要根据,认为惩罚是国家的完全义务,与罪行相适应的惩罚是比例惩罚,被惩罚的主体应是责任主体。康德对赦免权利、死刑、善良违法和比例惩罚等问题的认识有自相矛盾之嫌。鉴于经验的复杂性,康德没有构建一个惩罚理论。马克思对康德的惩罚思想进行了批判,康德报应论的症结在于片面追求惩罚的形式正义,忽视了实质正义。     

Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment

Our purpose in this paper is to consider a procedural objection to the death penalty. According to this objection, even if the death penalty is deemed, substantively speaking, a morally acceptable punishment for at least some murderers, since only a small proportion of those guilty of aggravated murder are sentenced to death and executed, while the majority of murderers escape capital punishment as a result of arbitrariness and discrimination, capital punishment should be abolished. Our targets in this paper are two recent attempts, by Thomas Hurka and Michael Cholbi respectively, to defend the view that ‘levelling down’ (that is, reducing the punishment imposed on a criminal from the punishment he absolutely deserves to a less severe punishment in order to achieve proportionality relative to the criminals who have escaped the punishment they absolutely deserve) is, in the context of capital punishment, morally permissible. We argue that both Hurka and Cholbi fail to show why the arbitrariness and discrimination objection impugns the death penalty.

The nexus between attribution theory and racial attitudes: a test of racial attribution and public opinion of capital punishment

Research has shown that attribution theory and racial attitudes are among the most consistent attitudinal predictors of capital punishment opinion. This study explores the overlap of these two constructs, racial attribution, and its ability to account for support and opposition to the death penalty. Using data from the 1972–2016 cumulative data file of the General Social Survey, three logistic regression models were used to analyze the effect of internal and external racial attribution on capital punishment opinions for (a) the aggregate sample, (b) White respondents only, and (c) Black respondents only. Respondents were asked whether racial inequalities were due to structural disadvantages or personal deficiencies of Black Americans. Findings showed that respondents in all three models were more likely to support the death penalty when they attributed racial inequalities to personal deficiencies of Blacks and less likely to support the death penalty when they endorsed structural disadvantages, although the effects were somewhat muted for Black respondents. These findings suggest that ongoing public support for capital punishment in the United States is based at least in part on a fundamental attribution error in which Whites and some Blacks alike blame Blacks for their own deprivation.     

Death penalty views in China, Japan and the U.S.: An empirical comparison

Many nations impose the death penalty, yet most of the literature on capital punishment has focused on Western nations, particularly the U.S. China and Japan are two retentionist nations. Based on the data collected in 2005, this study examined the level of death penalty support and views on capital punishment among college students from China, Japan, and the U.S. It was found that Chinese respondents reported the highest level of death penalty support, followed by Japanese and U.S. students. Respondents from China and Japan were more likely to believe in the deterrence value of capital punishment than their U.S. counterparts. Views on retribution differed among the respondents. U.S. students were most likely to feel that innocent people are sentenced to death. In multivariate analyses, deterrence was the strongest correlate of death penalty views among Chinese and Japanese respondents, followed closely by retribution. For both Chinese and Japanese students, the barbarity of government taking the life of a person was the strongest predictor for opposing the death penalty. For U.S. respondents, retribution was the strongest reason for supporting capital punishment and the barbarity of executions was the strongest reason for opposing the death penalty.     

Status Disparities in the Capital of Capital Punishment

Numerous studies have examined the influence of victim race on capital punishment, with a smaller number focused on victim gender. But death penalty scholars have largely ignored victim social status. Drawing on Black's (1976) multidimensional theoretical concept, the current research examines the impact of victim social status on the district attorney's decision to seek the death penalty and the jury's decision to impose a death sentence. The data include the population of cases indicted for capital murder in Harris County (Houston), Texas, from 1992 to 1999 (n=504). The findings suggest that victim social status has a robust influence on the ultimate state sanction: Death was more likely to be sought and imposed on behalf of high‐status victims who were integrated, sophisticated, conventional, and respectable. The research also has implications beyond capital punishment. Because victim social status has rarely been investigated in the broader sentencing literature, Black's concept provides a theoretical tool that could be used to address such an important omission.     

Certainty, Severity, and Skyjacking

A central issue in the controversy surrounding the death penalty is the question of deterrence. Specifically, does the additional severity of capital punishment over life imprisonment serve to deter potential criminals? I attempt to deal with this question by separating the effects of severity of punishment from those of certainty of punishment by examining various woys in which these factors have been manipulated in the attempt to curb the incidence of skyjacking. I conclude that increasing the certainty of punishment results in a decrease in crime, whereas increasing the severity does not, in effect arguing against the necessity of the death penulty.