Actually, that solution would not help at all.
If by a solution to overpopulation, you mean making sure that there isn't more people than there are resources to sustain.
Numerous studies have been done and they've all found that using the death penalty and putting serious violent offenders on death row costs
more money and
more resources than putting the inmate in life in prison
Overcrowding of prisons is a seperate issue, and is related to crime rate, not overpopulation.
A general overpopulation problem would have to be tackled with the population outside of prisons, not inside of them.
I researched and studied this intensively at 12/13 for debate, and we debated on the death penalty, expected to be able to debate both sides
The death penalty, regardless of moral beliefs, is not more economically sustainable, and would never work as an actual solution to overpopulation
Also global overpopulation and overpopulation in a country itself are very different things.
Global overpopulation is not going to happen anytime soon, but the countries with high population growth rate per year + high population already may become overpopulated.
Global population increase = number of births that year - number of deaths that year
Local population increase = (number of births that year + immigration) - (number of deaths - emigration)
Death: old age, accident, disease, war, intentional
Countries considered risks for this and being watched for this are in Asia, most specifically and mostly China and India, which also happen to be neighboring countries and having territorial disputes.
Now China and India are both among the largest countries countries in the world, land size wise (China 3rd, India 7th). However they also have the largest populations in the world (China 1st, India 2nd).
China and India are both generally considered 3rd world countries.
The population in an overcrowded country could either be reduced by decreasing the birth rate in those countries, or by thinking about population distribution and immigration/emigration, and people from those countries going to other countries which have more space and will also have enough sustainable resources and education to support them.
But the thing it is very hard for Asian (Chinese, Indian) people to emigrate to a Western country with enough resources to support immigrants who can become valuable members of the new society.
Why?
1 Chinese Yuan = 0.15 USD
1 Chinese Yuan = 0.12 Pound sterling
1 Chinese Yuan = 0.14 Euros
1 Indian rupee = 0.011 Euros
1 Indian rupee = 0.0099 Pound sterling
1 Indian rupee = 0.012 USD
Other than developed Western countries, most other countries would be to not only house many immigrants, but also sustain and be able to integrate them into society into a way that benefits the country as well, given these immigrants do their best.
However, as you can see even middle class and rich people would have trouble not only getting to those countries (you can't just cross a border after all), but also surviving there, even if they're given a decent amount of their own currency to start with because the conversions between currencies are INSANE, particularly for India.
Now, again, China and India are considered third world countries. These two third world country are technological advanced, they have come up with ideas and innovations and technologies many "first world" countries could only dream of. They have people who are very wealthy. People who are very educated. People who are the smartest people you will EVER meet. They have a high emphasis on education, academics, and disciplines, and people who manage to immigrate from these two countries to the West change the world. Come up with new innovations, become entrepeneurs, become among the smartest in the new countries. Even those who were poor in their original country (given they manage to immigrate, which is really hard, big IF), do well in the new country, even causing stereotypes in European countries and the US about Asians and how smart they are (Asians in general, not just from these two countries), when it is actually because of the strong cultural emphasis on discipline and education and hard work Asia has. (I could say so much more on Asian stereotypes and racism but I got on a tangent so I'll stop now)
Anyways, why are China and India considered third world countries then? Why do they not have higher overall wealth? Why is the literacy rate, the life expectancy, so low? It's because of the economic disparity. The poor are HELLA POOR. There are so many poor people and even among those extremely poor and barely able to survive. Very few people own a vast majority of the wealth all themselves. The wealth disparity in the US is nothing compared to this
The birth rate is so high, because these poor people (farmers, artisans, and the like) are having more children so that as soon as the children are old enough (around 6 for some things, around 10 for others, but they would be helping VERY young) can help the parents with the more simple tasks of their work so they can get more food and money. Of course these children are not going to school, or drop out young, they are helping their parents get enough food or money just to not starve
Two humans (parents) have one child = population decreases by one bc two people make one person
Two humans (parents have two children = population stays same bc two people make two people
Both of these countries have or had implemented policies on this. China's one-child policy. It was heavily criticized and considered inhumane
India found that to be inhumane so didn't do that but instead offered monetary incentives for not having more than two children. India has also been criticized for NOT having the one-child policy and poor people are still sometimes having lots of children.
Nevertheless, both of these countries population growth rates have decreased dramatically
The biggest issue or cause of possible overpopulation right now is birth rate
If you want me to be hella blunt and realistic, once there's world peace and a cure for most major diseases that result in death, both good things, the population will increase and birth rate won't be the big factor contributing to overpopulation, death rate will be too
Couples who cannot biologically have kids, either infertile, or not heterosexual and other couples too should be encouraged to adopt for sure. Really, adoption should be very very encouraged. Those children deserve so much better too. Something like monetary benefits like India had for not having more than two children but not punishing or killing anyone for having more might have to happen at some point.
And of course contraceptives should be more accessible to the poor ig.
But if overpopulation happens, we would need to see why and address the causes in order to form a solution, if we want to actually get rid of it as a problem and not just have a temporary cushion, which is what killing criminals without death row would do
And as for focusing on the holistic wealth and well-being of a nation rather than having huge eceonmic disparity, another asian country, the Kingdom of Bhutan, actually also neighboring India. has a great approach imo. They have GNP (gross national happiness) and it's not just based on happiness, but based on a variety of factors, emphasizing the country's overall education, health (physical, and mental) economic distribution, and more, which has allowed Bhutan to actually have a lot of progess and development as a nation without needing massive influence from the West who loves to try to "fix" Asia, Africa, South America, etc. and keeping their culture. The recent prime minister is not continuing it tho
This would be a lot harder to implement with nations as large, both land and population wise, as China and India.
I have ideas for govenment and leadership for countries with larger populations, but I won't say that here as I've already said too much.
This is just from a mathematical, scientific, economic, and social studies standpoint
Why am I doing this and hyperfocusing on it instead of making graphics when I don't like politics and what I post on here on this thread won't make a difference