Death Penalty: Annotated Bibliography on Capital Punishment

Why Countries Adopt or Reject the Death Penalty

Anckar, Carsten. "Why Countries Choose the Death Penalty." Brown Journal of World Affairs 21.1 (2014): 7–25. Business Source Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.

This source focuses on why countries choose to use the death penalty to punish certain crimes. The crimes for which the death penalty is applied vary, but its use typically stems from one or more common rationales. For countries that do choose the death penalty, the reason is usually that it is seen as the "ultimate" form of punishment and is typically — though not always — reserved for crimes of a very serious and/or violent nature. In the vast majority of cases, the taking of a life is required before a death sentence is imposed. For countries that do not choose the death penalty, it is typically avoided because it is seen as ineffectual or barbaric, regardless of the nature of the crimes committed. In many countries, the use of the death penalty is viewed as "lowering" oneself to the level of the criminal, and/or society itself is seen as bearing some responsibility for producing the offender. Regardless, alternative punishments such as life imprisonment are used instead.

Falco, Diana L., and Tina L. Freiburger. "Public Opinion & The Death Penalty: A Qualitative Approach." Qualitative Report 16.3 (2011): 830–847. ERIC. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.

Public Opinion and Qualitative Research on Capital Punishment

This report focuses on the death penalty and public perception of it. Opinion naturally varies based on the crime in question, the country under analysis, and other contextual factors. What makes this report particularly distinctive is that it does not rely on the traditional approach to measuring public opinion. The conventional method involves examining poll results, averaging scores or answers across questions, and so forth. A qualitative approach, by contrast, is more free-form and exploratory in nature. Rather than simply recording the "what" of an answer, the qualitative approach digs into the "why" — the reasoning behind a respondent's position. This introduces greater complexity to the analysis, but it allows for significantly more depth and breadth, because the answer itself — whether "pro" or "against" — is fleshed out by its surrounding context.

For example, someone may support the death penalty even while acknowledging that it has not been shown to deter crime, because they feel the punishment is morally demanded given the severity of the offense. By contrast, others may feel that no crime justifies the use of capital punishment by a government, citing moral implications, the absence of deterrent effect, and the fact that many people who commit violent crimes are intellectually disabled or otherwise cognitively compromised.

Gibson, James, and Corinna Barrett-Lain. "Death Penalty Drugs and The International Moral Marketplace." Georgetown Law Journal 103.5 (2015): 1215–1274. Business Source Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.

This report focuses on the growing trend of pharmaceutical companies — which supply the drugs commonly used for lethal injection — refusing to sell those drugs to state and federal authorities on legal liability and/or moral grounds. What is meant by the "moral marketplace" is that the drugs used to execute inmates on death row often have other legitimate medical uses. Even where that is not always the case, companies that produce such drugs prefer that the states or countries purchasing them not use them for executions. This has reached the point where many jurisdictions have begun experimenting with different drug combinations and dosages to achieve the desired effect while working around the refusals of pharmaceutical suppliers.

Lethal Injection Drugs and the International Moral Marketplace

This is a serious concern because lethal injection is intended to be a "painless" method of execution, but the improper use or formulation of drugs can lead to botched executions, executions that take far longer than intended, or executions in which the inmate appears to be conscious and in pain — contrary to the widely held requirement that death be swift and painless. More "brutal" methods such as the electric chair and the gas chamber have been outlawed or abandoned precisely because lethal injection was considered more immediate and humane. Given the decreasing availability of approved execution drugs, that calculus has begun to shift, leaving death-penalty jurisdictions scrambling for alternatives.

Many of the affected jurisdictions are U.S. states. Other jurisdictions around the world care little about humaneness and continue to use more brutal means. Regardless, those that rely on the pharmaceutical marketplace to carry out executions are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain cooperation from private-sector drug companies due to moral concerns — both domestic and international — about the use of capital punishment.

Gius, Mark. "The Impact of the Death Penalty & Executions On State-Level Murder Rates: 1980–2011." Applied Economics Letters 23.3 (2016): 199–201. Business Source Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.

This report focuses on whether the death penalty functions solely as a form of punishment or whether it serves as an actual deterrent to crime. Many people who are pro-death penalty argue that its effect on crime rates is of little concern — those found guilty of certain crimes should receive the sentence regardless of broader social consequences. Others contend that whether the death penalty actually deters crime matters greatly, given the substantial legal costs and persistent moral questions involved.

A further complicating layer is the considerable variation among states in terms of how many offenders face death row or would theoretically be eligible for the death penalty. Some courts and governors have gone so far as to impose moratoriums on executions, and some have commuted death sentences to life without the possibility of parole. Some argue that the latter is actually a harsher fate, as it forces the inmate to confront what they did over many years and decades, and that they will die in custody regardless. There is also ongoing debate about the long-term costs of housing death-row inmates versus the appeal and legal costs associated with capital cases.