iolence, capital punishment may have a "brutalizing effect" that increases the level of violence in our society. It may in fact raise, not lower, murder rates. How could the threat of death fail to prevent -- and possibly even cause -- violence? To understand this phenomenon, we must look at the theory of general deterrence, especially as it relates to the death penalty. The idea of deterrence assumes that: 1. Each of us decides our actions by weighing the cost of these actions against the benefits. When the cost -- in this case the threat of death -- outweighs the potential benefits, we are discouraged from committing crimes. Crime is the result of conscious, rational choices. 2. People have a good idea of costs and a high degree of certainty that they will suffer the costs. 3. The consequences are seen as a significant cost at the time of the act. 4. A potential offender identifies with those being punished. These assumptions of deterrence theory fail to take into account the nature and meaning of interpersonal violence. They are often unrealistic when applied to the death penalty. Let's examine these assumptions. 1. Some crimes, such as tax evasion, involve considerable rational planning and deterrence may have relevance to them. What we know about murder, however, indicates that most homicides are acts of passion -- impulsive acts committed under tremendous stress and/or the influence of alcohol or drugs by individuals prone to aggressive, impulsive behavior. These people do not make rational calculations of pain and gain at the time of their acts. There are, of course, some carefully planned, premeditated murders. However, people committing these murders usually do not expect to be caught. They do not identify with the person "dumb enough" to get caught and convicted, or they decide that the risks of committing murder are worth the benefit. However, to say that most people murder irrationally is not to say that their violence is co...
