In recent years, more and more people have become aware of crime and murder. It is something that has affected them, their families and neighborhoods. Just about everyone in the world knows someone who has become a victim of murder, rape, and or robbery. In most cases the suspects are heartless and have no remorse in regards to the crime they committed. Some individuals are repeat offenders who have received a slap on the wrist from the justice system or only faced small jail time. A recent report by the Senate judiciary Committee, called America the "most violent and self-destructive nation on earth", and it was noted that violent crime in America had increased by 516% since 1960 (Economist, 1992). Many individuals have tried to come up with solutions and scare tactics attempting to deter those who commit crime. It appears that solutions are failing.
One author has his own theory of deterrence. George Bryjak the author of “Why we should all watch Executions” believes that if the justice system televised executions to the public, this would deter individuals from committing crimes. Bryjak stresses his point saying:
“deterrence relies on theory that people will refrain from participating in homicide or crime if they perceive the threat of swift and certain punishment, the death penalty could be made a more effective deterrent if executions were televised and reached a larger audience on a regular basis” (Bryjak, 2001).
Bryjak appeals to readers in a serious tone and makes very valid points for his reasoning. Bryjak’s thus fails to provide sufficient evidence on some of his reasoning to convince readers on his position.
In the article, Bryjak reaches the heart of his readers by reminding them of the man wh...
... middle of paper ...
...e author doesn’t convince readers by simply saying “executions should be public spectacles” that this would deter crime. The author even presents credible evidence from those who oppose; Bryjak even agrees they make his position look bad. The author doesn’t refute that people are going to commit crimes regardless if they watch someone get executed or not. Research shows individuals are threatened everyday with the consequences they can face for disobeying the law, yet there still appears to be an increase in crime and violence. Many that commit crimes are aware of the possibility of receiving the death penalty if sentenced, however many individuals still continue to commit acts of murder. The article is entitled “Why we all should watch executions” and I don’t think Bryjak persuaded readers on why they should watch but more so on why there should be executions.
Within the first article, Muhlhausen uses effective rhetorical strategies to prove his point. He discusses how the death penalty is appropriate for heinous crimes. To illustrate, he gives specific facts about Earl Ringo, Jr. who shoots “Poyser to death,” and forces Joanna Baysinger, a manager-in-training, to give him $1,400 in a restaurant robbery (1). The specific detail Muhlhausen uses demonstrates how cruel the crime is. Ringo did not have to shoot the victim and the small amount of money did not warrant the murder of two people, for certain. Furthermore, Muhlhausen uses strong logos to prove the death penalty can actually deter homicides. He uses studies by Drexel University economist Bijou Yang and Richard Stockton College psychologist David Lester which found a “deterrent effect” on the number of murders when the death penalty is used (2). The length of this study, from 1978 to 2005 helps to
In recent years, people are always arguing that should executions be televised or not. We still do not solve this problem now. In the article “Executions Should Be Televised” by Zachary B. Shemtob and David Lat, they stated that “Right now, executions are generally open only to the press and a few select witnesses. For us, the vague contours are provided in the morning paper. Yet a functioning democracy demands maximum accountability and transparency. As long as executions remain behind closed doors, those are impossible. The people should have the right to see what is being done in their name and with their tax dollars.” (Lat 4) There are also many other people think executions should not be televised and I am one of them.
In “The Death Penalty” (1985), David Bruck argues that the death penalty is injustice and that it is fury rather than justice that compels others to “demand that murderers be punished” by death. Bruck relies on varies cases of death row inmates to persuade the readers against capital punishment. His purpose is to persuade readers against the death penalty in order for them to realize that it is inhuman, irrational, and that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned.” Bruck does not employ an array of devices but he does employ some such as juxtaposition, rhetorical questions, and appeals to strengthen his argument. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of supporters of capital punishment such as Mayor Koch.
There is a common knowledge that capital punishment would prevent people from committing crime. But until now, there has not been any actual statistics or scientific researches that prove the relationship between the capital punishment and the rate of crimes. According to Jack Weil, “criminals, who believe that their chances of going to jail are slight, will in all probability also assume that their chances of being executed are equally slight. Their attitude that crime pays will in no way be altered” (3). Most people commit a crime when they are affected by the influence of drugs, alcohol or even overwhelmed emotions, so they cannot think logically about they would pay back by their lives. Also, when criminal plan to do their crime, they prepare and expect to escape instead of being caught. Some people believe that the threat of severe punishment could bring the crime rates down and that capital punishment is the ultimate crime deterrent. However, in fact, the rate of ...
Throughout America’s history, capital punishment, or the death penalty, has been used to punish criminals for murder and other capital crimes. In the early 20th century, numerous people would gather for public executions. The media described these events gruesome and barbaric (“Infobase Learning”). People began to wonder if the capital punishment was really constitutional.
Deterrence theorists view murder as rational behavior, and assume that in calculating the gains and losses from killing, potential offenders are aware of the death penalty and regard it as a more severe sanction than imprisonment. Because the threat of one's own death presumably outweighs the rewards gained from killing another, murder is not an option for most people and always discouraged. In addition, some noted proponents assert that capital punishment provides an important educative function in society by validating the sanctity of human life (Berns, 1979; van den Haag, 1975; van den Haag & Conrad, 1983). Despite this logic, some challenge the applicability of deterrence to murder. Rather than being a product of deliberation and calculation, it is known that most murders are emotionally charged and their crimes are spontaneous events; they are "acts of passion" or result from a situated transaction rather than from deliberation (Bowers & Pierce, 1980; Chambliss, 1967; Luckenbill, 1977). Indeed, a significant proportion of homicides may not be intended. The situation escapes calm discussion, or due to some extraneous factor, an assault victim dies. Under such conditions, it is unlikely that perpetrators ("killers") give serious thought to whether they reside in a death penalty jurisdiction, or the possibility of execution.
Opponents of capital punishment are outspoken and vehement in their arguments. They believe the death penalty does not does not deter crime. They also hold the opinion that endin...
Does the death penalty really deter crime? The death lobby wants you to believe the answer to that question is "yes." But, in fact, it is a resounding "NO." Consider this…the US is the only Western nation that still allows the death penalty, and we also have on the highest crime rates. During the 1980's, death penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5 criminal homicides per 100,000, while abolition states averaged a rate of 7.4 per 1000,000. That means murder was actually MORE common in states that use the death penalty. Also consider this…. in a nationwide survey of police chiefs and sheriffs, capital punishment was ranked LAST as a way of reducing violent crime. Only twenty-six percent thought that the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides. The theor...
During the 1970s, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence. This argument suggests that we must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses; we punish past offenders to send a message to potential offenders. In a broad sense, the deterrent effect of punishment is thought to b...
Between 1977 and 2010, an estimated 8,000 people were on Death Row in the US and out of those 8,000, more than 1,200 were actually executed (Siennick, 2012). Policy makers and scholars have been especially interested in whether the death penalty serves a crime-control function by deterring prospective murderers (Siennick, 2012). This debate on whether or not the Death Penalty is an effective deterrent is important to our society because we need to understand the impact of this ultimate and final punishment. Expectations of deterrence follow from the basic idea that potential murderers decide whether to kill after considering the benefits and costs of killing (Siennick, 2012). The Death Penalty as punishment can be a deciding factor to a potential murderer when they make the decision whether to kill someone or not. There is assorted evidence on whether or not this happens and there isn’t a chosen method to gather data that fully supports this idea.
A popular belief among those who advocate Capital Punishment is that the Death Penalty deters future murderers. However, there is no statistical evidence that proves this is in fact effective. Furthermore, there is no evidence which states the death penalty is any more effective in deterring murder than life imprisonment. Deterrence is also at its most persuasive when it takes place soon after a crime. For example, a child learns not to put his or her hand on a hot stove top because it results in immediate pain and a burnt finger. Because the death penalty takes years to be put into effect deterrence is less effective.
Edward Koch, who was former mayor of New York, wrote an article about one of the most controversial talks called the death penalty. This controversial topic questions if it is right to execute a person for a crime committed or if it is wrong. He made the point that the death penalty is good, in order to conclude that murderers should be punish with this penalty. He was bias in most of the passage, yet he tried to acknowledge other people’s opinion. In this article, Koch gives his supports to the idea to convict a murderer with death penalty by using a tone of objectiveness, shooting for the individuals who opposes his position to be the audience, and have a written form of conviction for the audience.
...s of society thus inhibiting us from committing more crimes. John Lamperti said, “If executions protected innocent lives through deterrence, which would weigh in the balance against capital punishment's heavy social costs. But despite years of trying, this benefit has not been shown to exist; the only proven effects of capital punishment are its liabilities.”9
"Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder... People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death... life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution -- otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death... Therefore, a life sent...
Schonebaum, Stephen E. "A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be An Effective Deterrent." Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: David L. Bender; Greenhaven Press Inc. 1998. 18.