Would the UK economically benefit from bringing back the death penalty?

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Would the UK economically benefit from bringing back the death penalty? by Mind Map: Would the UK economically benefit from bringing back the death penalty?

1. Economic theory

1.1. Marginal Economic Cost

1.1.1. difference between the cost of a murder trail where the maximum sentence is life imprisonment and the cost associated with the capital trial process

1.2. Palmer and Henderson (1998: 242) find it ‘plausible that as both individuals and societies on average become wealthier, they are unwilling explicitly to impose some of the more cruel and unusual forms of punishment on criminals’ to which the death penalty might belong.

1.2.1. studies for the determinants of support of the death penalty in the US generally show that individuals with higher income are more likely to support capital punishment

2. Why did the UK get rid it

2.1. abolished in 1965

2.2. execution resulting from wrongful convictions

2.3. From the 1600s to the early 1800s there wasn't a significant drop in the crime rate at the time

2.3.1. capital punishment not seen as a deterrent to murder as many case are not premeditated

2.4. seen as a relic of a violent age - more civilized now

2.5. only five years jail time

2.5.1. if they were to bring it back they would need to extend this to reduce the risk of false positives

3. What is it?

3.1. government sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a severe crime

4. Countries that have death penalty

4.1. 53

4.2. USA

4.2.1. death row more expensive - cases without death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought to cost $1.2million costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year to maintain a death row prisoner cost more because of the legal consults, judges, and hours of work that goes in to verifying

5. Benefits

5.1. Deterrence

5.1.1. the economic benefit of the deterrence hypothesis, is the value of an avoided murder society benefits from less murders because overall protection costs may decline as the murder rate decreases Potential victim can contribute to society's production for the rest of their working life (PPF expands) therefore improves the productivity of a nation assuming that theses potential criminals are utility-maximizing, rational decision making individuals that would be employed in the labour force

5.1.2. But deterrence is very difficult to proved for example crimes of passion involve irrational decision making and therefore the criminal would not have considered the cost of their actions

5.2. Third party benefits

5.2.1. Families of victims receive some level of restitution and increased utility when the executions occur if they believe justice has been prevailed Emotional relief offset the cost in the sense that they are willing to pay for the execution as well as other supporters of the death penalty nonuse value of death penalty

6. Costs

6.1. Investigation

6.1.1. a human life is at stake consequently this interest makes the focus on details greater than for a life in imprisonment trial

6.1.2. prosecuting attorneys don't want any evidence of police incompetency that could form the grounds for acquittal as a result of reasonable doubt. Prosecution also want to produce enough evidence to convict and show how severe the crime was

6.2. trial and sentencing

6.2.1. As both attorneys select a jury, each extensively evaluates every potential juror. Each lawyer wants jurors who may favor his side. The careful evaluation during jury selection in a capital case takes much longer than in a non-capital case.

6.2.2. After the defendant is convicted in a non-capital murder trial, a simple sentencing hearing is held to determine the appropriate length of punishment. However for capital cases, a separate sentencing trial is required. The Supreme Court requires this heightened due process because of the finality and irreversibility of the potential punishment.

6.3. appeal

6.3.1. capital case must go through a series of appeals Gregg v. Georgia (USA)

6.4. Execution

6.4.1. death chamber, round the clock watch of inmate, last meal, executioner fee, medical examiner, funeral and burial

6.5. Forgone output

6.5.1. resources are not employed in their most highly valued use. Inmates often work while they are in prison. Inmates not only help with some tasks at correctional facilities, they also work for the state in various capacities time spent by the jurors

6.6. false positive

6.6.1. executing the innocent forgone output of these wrongly executed people The idea of executing an innocent person strikes the average citizen as a gross societal wrong Future jurors and judges may be reluctant to sentence convicted felons to death if they believe that false positives are likely in the future

6.7. Forgone research

6.7.1. the psychology of the criminal mind By executing the subjects, the main source of information to explain this standard of criminal behavior is eliminated

6.8. third party opposers

6.8.1. willingness to pay by third parties that oppose is a cost

7. Conclusion

7.1. economic efficiency cannot be accurately assessed given the present shortage of quantitative data on the marginal benefits and marginal costs of the death penalty.

7.2. but considerable marginal costs associated

8. Normative Issues

8.1. Morality

8.1.1. eye for eye view

8.1.2. uncivilised practice

8.2. fair impartial jury

8.2.1. inherent biases

8.2.2. sequestration

8.2.3. racism towards minorities

8.3. wealth

8.3.1. rich defendants can pay for counsel and resources - higher quality defense