Final answer:
The claim that US police chiefs view capital punishment as an efficient way to reduce crime is false. Crime reduction in the US is attributed to various factors, including targeted law enforcement practices, not necessarily harsher penalties like the death penalty. There is evidence that capital punishment is being reconsidered due to concerns about its effectiveness, morality, and cost.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that US police chiefs ranked the use of capital punishment as both an inefficient use of taxpayer money and among the top three ways to reduce violent crime is false. Research and polls have indicated that there is a complex relationship between crime rates, the use of capital punishment, and the perceived effectiveness of such measures in preventing crime. Crime rates in the US have generally fallen since the 1980s, but this decline does not show a significant correlation with states that impose harsher imprisonment policies, including the death penalty.
Various crime reduction strategies point to more targeted and community-oriented approaches as being more effective than generalized increases in law enforcement resources. Body cameras on police officers, for example, can reduce misconduct, and community policing has been shown to increase legitimacy and help reduce crime. It is crucial to note that while harsher penalties have been advocated by proponents of the 'get tough on crime' approach, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting the benefits of alternative crime prevention strategies like early childhood intervention, education, and economic opportunities that address the roots of criminal behavior.
Overall, the shift in public opinion and the practice of various states in the US away from capital punishment reflect a broader reevaluation of its effectiveness and the moral, legal, and economic implications of its use.