1

Life vs Death: Comparing the Deterrent Effects of the Death Penalty and

Life Imprisonment

William Jaydee David

Engineering Technology, DeVry University

ENGL112: Composition

Mr. Gary Henry

September 2, 2023
 2

Introduction

The death penalty has long been a controversial issue in the United States, with heated

debates surrounding its effectiveness, cost, and morality. This essay aims to provide an in-depth

comparison and contrast between two sentencing options: the death penalty and life

imprisonment without parole. It will explore four relevant criteria: deterrence effect, cost and

resource allocation, justice and fairness, and rehabilitation and redemption, all while relying on

scholarly, reliable sources. Based on the comprehensive analysis conducted in this essay, I would

recommend that the United States reconsider its reliance on the death penalty in favor of life

imprisonment without parole as a more balanced and effective sentencing option.

The scope of this analysis extends beyond a mere examination of legal frameworks; it

delves into the practical implications of sentencing choices in the context of violent crime

prevention. My audience encompasses policymakers, legal scholars, concerned citizens, and

anyone interested in a nuanced understanding of the criminal justice system's impact on society.

The significance of this analysis lies in its potential to inform the ongoing dialogue surrounding

the death penalty, guiding decisions that affect the lives of those within and beyond prison walls.

Deterrence Effect

One of the primary arguments in favor of the death penalty is its alleged deterrent effect

on serious crimes. Advocates contend that the prospect of facing execution discourages potential

offenders. However, scholarly research paints a more complex picture. A report published in

2012 by the National Research Council, found no conclusive evidence that the death penalty is a

more effective deterrent than life imprisonment. The authors conducted a comprehensive

analysis of state-level data and concluded that the available evidence does not support the
 3

assertion that executions lower homicide rates (Deterrence and the Death Penalty, 2012).

Conversely, scholars like Shepherd (2005) argue that life imprisonment without parole can serve

as an equally strong deterrent without the ethical concerns associated with capital punishment. In

a study published in Michigan, Shepherd suggests that the certainty of severe punishment, such

as life imprisonment, can be a significant deterrent without resorting to the death penalty

(Shepherd, 2005).

Cost and Resource Allocation

The financial burden associated with the death penalty is a point of contention.

Proponents of the death penalty argue that it is a necessary cost to ensure justice, while

opponents question its fiscal sustainability. According to a cost analysis of Oregon’s Death

Penalty, published by the Seattle University, Department of Criminal Justice, it was revealed that

death penalty cases are significantly more expensive than non-death penalty cases due to lengthy

trials, appeals, and housing costs (Kaplan et al., 2016). This cost burden can strain state budgets

and divert resources from other crucial areas of law enforcement and social programs (Kaplan et

al., 2016). In contrast, the alternative of life imprisonment without parole is consistently less

expensive. A study by the Vera Institute of Justice (2012) found that the cost of a death penalty

case is approximately double that of a case resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment (Vera

Institute of Justice, 2012).

Justice and Fairness

Ensuring a just and fair legal system is paramount. The justice and fairness criterion

explores whether the death penalty meets these standards. One of the most contentious issues

within the death penalty debate is the potential for racial and socioeconomic disparities. Scholars
 4

like Baldus et al. (1998), in their study published in the Cornwell Law Review, argue that the

death penalty disproportionately affects communities of color and those with limited financial

resources. The uneven application of the death penalty raises concerns about fairness and

equality within the criminal justice system. On the other hand, life imprisonment without parole

can mitigate some of these disparities while still ensuring that those who commit heinous crimes

are held accountable. It offers a consistent and fair punishment for all convicted individuals,

regardless of their background or circumstances (Baldus et al., 1998).

Rehabilitation and Redemption

The potential for rehabilitation and personal growth among incarcerated individuals is

another crucial aspect of the debate. Proponents of life imprisonment argue that it allows for

more opportunities for rehabilitation and redemption compared to the death penalty. Research by

Petersilia (2000), published by the U.S. Department of Justice, indicates that individuals serving

life sentences without parole can engage in meaningful rehabilitation programs, contributing to

their personal growth and, in some cases, leading to their eventual reintegration into society as

law-abiding citizens. In contrast, the death penalty offers no chance for redemption or

rehabilitation, potentially squandering opportunities for personal growth and transformation

(Petersilia et al., 2000).

To conclude this essay, I must remark that the comparison of the death penalty and life

imprisonment without parole reveals a compelling case for reevaluating the United States’

reliance on the death penalty. Research indicates that life imprisonment without parole can serve

as a more balanced, cost-effective, and just alternative while allowing for the possibility of

rehabilitation and redemption. Therefore, it is recommended that the U.S. reconsider its use of
 5

the death penalty and shift toward a sentencing approach that aligns more closely with the

principles of fairness, fiscal responsibility, and a focus on rehabilitation.

 6

References

Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., Weiner, N. A., & Zuckerman, D. (1998, September). Racial

discrimination and the death penalty in the post-Furman era: An empirical and legal

overview with recent findings from Philadelphia. Cornell.edu.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2741&context=clr

Deterrence and the Death Penalty. (2012, January 1). National Institute of Justice.

https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/deterrence-and-death-penalty

Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2005). Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty

debate. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=870312

Kaplan, A. B., Lewis, C., Collins, P. A., Mayhew, V. L., Candidate, J. D., Lewis, Law School,

Clark, Goetz, D., Walker, C., Ellisor, L., Vaughan, W., & Davis, J. (2016, November 16).

Oregon’s death penalty: A cost analysis. Dpic-cdn.org.

https://dpic-cdn.org/production/legacy/OregonDeathPenaltyCostAnalysis.pdf

Petersilia, J., Samuels, J. E., & Meachum, L. (2000). When prisoners return to the community:

Political, economic, and social consequences. Ojp.gov.

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/184253.pdf

Shepherd, J. (2005). Deterrence versus brutalization: Capital punishment’s differing impacts

among states. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=781504

Vera Institute of Justice. (2012, January). The Price of Prisons What Incarceration Costs

Taxpayers. Shnny.org. https://shnny.org/uploads/Price-of-Prisons.pdf