Capital Punishment Retribution And Punishment

1135 Words5 Pages
The first is a reminder of the basic argument behind retribution and punishment that guilty person deserve to be punished. Most American citizens argue that it should not matter if you are rich or poor; one should suffer for their crime, and to suffer in a way suitable for the crime. Every criminal should get punish for the crime that they commit and in the case of a homicide the defendant deserves the capital punishment.
The arguments against retribution
Plenty of American citizens believe that the Capital punishment is payback rather than retribution and, as such, is a morally doubtful concept. Showing the suffering of the people, who have been kept on death row for more than 10 years, makes the punishment more terrible than just depriving the criminal of life.
In addition, Capital punishment is often justified with the argument that by executing locked up murderers. Plenty of Americans citizens argue against deterrence as the statistical evidence doesn't confirm that deterrence works. Some of those executed may not have been capable of being deterred because of medical problem; a few of some capital offense are devoted in such an emotional state that the perpetrator did not think about the possible consequences. No one knows whether the death penalty deters more than life imprisonment. Deterrence is most effective when the punishment happens soon after the crime to make an analogy; when we were growing up as children we learns not to put our hands in the fire, because the consequence is instant pain. The more the legal process takes for the punishment of the crime, either in time, or certainty, the less effective a deterrent the punishment will probably be.
Finally, I don’t believe that capital punish...

... middle of paper ...

...te. My central goal was to explore the pros and cons of publicity campaigns, more generally and to encourage policy makers and practitioners to consider the conditions under which publicity campaigns might achieve a crime control benefit and, conversely, under what circumstances might publicity campaigns be a bad policy option. The answers to these questions seems to be: first, that publicity campaigns might be beneficial for reducing burglaries and most likely driving under the influence of alcohol. The same cannot be said for publicity campaigns that seek to reduce illicit drug use. Second, publicity campaigns need to be carefully timed to achieve maximum benefits. As Johnson and Bowers have pointed out, there is a lot to be gained by introducing publicity campaigns prior to introducing an intervention program, thereby creating an announcement effect (Smith 2001).
Open Document