In the early 1970s, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence. This argument or hypothesis suggests that we must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses; we punish past offenders to send a message to potential offenders. In a broad sense, the deterrent effect of punishment is thought to be a function of three main elements: certainty, celerity, and severity. First, people do not violate laws if they are certain that they will be caught and punished. Second, celerity refers to the elapsed time between the commission of an offense and the administration of punishment. In theory, the more quickly a punishment is carried out, the greater its deterrent effect. Third, the deterrent effect of a punishment is a function of its severity.
However, over the last two decades more and more scholars and citizens have realized that the deterrent effect of a punishment is not a consistent direct effect of its severity--after a while, increases in the severity of a pu nishment no longer add to its deterrent benefits. In fact, increases in a punishment's severity have decreasing incremental deterrent effects, so that eventually any increase in severity will no longer matter. If one wishes to deter another from leaning on a stove, medium heat works just as well as high heat.
Writing in a special issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science devoted to the death penalty in 1952, criminologist Robert Caldwell asserted, "The most frequently advanced and widely accepted argument in favor of the death penalty is that the threat of its infliction deters people from committing capital offenses" (Caldwell, 1952). Scores of researchers, including some eminent criminologists have examined the possibility that the death penalty has a greater deterrent effect on homicide......
