Capital Punishment as a Form of Deterrance and Permanent Incapacitation
Society has always used punishment to discourage “potential” criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder. The death penalty is arguably the strongest deterrent for murder and the strongest punishment for other unspeakable crimes. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.
For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis, which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. (Kanitz) Supporters of Ehrlich in follow-up studies have produced similar results. Additionally, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure, are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty, have lower murder rates than those that do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty.
Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely wrote: "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment i...
... middle of paper ...
...eason to abandon the whole capital punishment system.
Finally, the death penalty certainly deters the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation; similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from committing crimes on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.
Bibliography:
Works Cited
Bean, Ross. The Death Penalty, 24 April 2001.
Carlisle, James. Capital Punishment: Opposing Viewpoints, Atlanta: Powerhouse Publishing, 1999.
Jones, Roy. The Death Penalty, 15 April.
Kanitz, Vicky. Capital Punishment, Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1998.
Paris, Wendy. Capital Punishment. 1 May 2001.
Wynn, Ted. Capital Punishment, New York: Norton, 1974.
deter crime? A study into the effect of Capital Punishment said, 'the presence of the death penalty in law and practice has no discernible effect as a deterrent to murder.' How does this serve as a deterrent to crime? It offers the convict an easy way out with no reflection on what they've done. They don't learn from their mistakes and although there is obviously no risk of re-offence, the criminal cannot give anything back to society.
According to Radelet & Borg (2000), deterrence was, in the past, the most frequently-cited reason for arguments in support of the death penalty. The claim stems from a belief that potential criminals will be less likely to commit severe acts of violence if they know that those who carried out similar crimes before them were put to death – in much the same way that heads on pikes at the gates of a city were intended to deter criminal activity in the Middle Ages. Recently, however, many studies have concluded that the death penalty offers no significant deterrent effects, and the few which claim to find support for these effects have received substantial criticism (Radelet & Borg, 2000). The majority of both criminologists and law enforcement officers surveyed expressed that they do not believe the death penalty offers any difference in the amount of violent crimes committed (Radelet & Borg, 2000).
The death penalty, as administered by states based on their individual laws, is considered capital punishment, the purpose of which is to penalize criminals convicted of murder or other heinous crimes (Fabian). The death penalty issue has been the focus of much controversy in recent years, even though capital punishment has been a part of our country's history since the beginning. Crimes in colonial times, such as murder and theft of livestock were dealt with swiftly and decisively ("The Death Penalty..."). Criminals were hanged shortly after their trial, in public executions. This practice was then considered just punishment for those crimes. Recently though, the focus of the death penalty debate has been on moral and legal issues. The murderers of today's society can be assured of a much longer life even after conviction, with the constraints of the appeals process slowing the implementation of their death sentence. In most cases, the appeal process lasts several years, during which time criminals enjoy comfortable lives. They have television, gym facilities, and the leisure time to attend free college-level classes that most American citizens must struggle to afford. Foremost, these murderers have the luxury of time, something their victims ran out of the moment their paths crossed. It is time this country realized the only true justice for these criminals is in the form of the death penalty. The death penalty should be administered for particularly heinous crimes.
The death penalty is the ultimate warning toward would-be criminals.[4] If a potential criminal knows that the punishment for their actions is going to be death, then fewer criminals will commit the crimes.
or hundreds of years people have considered capital punishment a deterrence of crime. Seven hundred and five individuals have died since 1976, by means of capital punishment; twenty-two of these executions have already occurred this year (Death Penalty Information Center). Many U.S. citizens who strongly support the death penalty believe that capital punishment remains the best way to protect society from convicted killers. I, however, disagree; I do not feel that execution best punishes criminals for their acts. Instead, in my opinion, the administration of the death penalty should end because it does not deter crime; it risks the death of an innocent person, it costs millions of dollars, it inflicts unreasonable pain; and most importantly it violates moral principles.
Since the early settlers first stepped foot on what is now the United States of America, capital punishment has been reserved as a form of punishment for the people who have committed some of society’s most heinous crimes. Recently, support of capital punishment has begun to erode due to the advancements of DNA technology and groups, such as the Innocence Project. Capital punishment, however, remains to be an appropriate form of punishment for someone convicted of capital crimes, and may be effective in deterring such offenses.
The answer to the question of whether or not the death penalty deters crime is no, it does not. For one, the fear of possibly being sentenced to death isn’t nearly enough to stop a crime from happening. Philosophy professor and Holocaust survivor Agnes Heller, who appeared on the “Death Penalty” episode of “Penn & Teller: Bullshit!” to argue against the death penalty, points out that there are different motives for those types of crimes where the convicted could be sentenced to death: there are crimes of passion, crimes for profit, and crimes for pleasure (such as a serial killer fulfilling their fantasy), and that in all of these circumstances, the desire to go forward with the crime is strong enough that they either don’t care about the consequ...
Colson, Charles W. “Capital Punishment.” The Rutherford Institute. 11 Nov. 2002. 30 May 2010 .
Death penalty might sound like the immoral thing to do; however it’s effective. When a criminal is sentence to the death sentence, it spreads fear between criminals who committed a similar crime. It also, decreases the amount of criminals that were thinking about committing that particular crime. In the article, “The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives” Muhlhausen explains to us how death penalty sa...
The people in support of the death penalty say that if murderers are sentenced to death, future committers will think about the consequences before they actually proceed with the crime. However, most murderers don’t expect or plan to be caught and weigh their fate. Because, murders are committed when the murderer is angry or passionate, or by drug abusers and people under the influence of drugs or alcohol ("Deterrence (In Opposition to the Death Penalty)”). Therefore, it will not deter future crimes and will actually increase the amount of murders because of society. As previously stated, the death penalty isn’t proven to prevent future murders and/or crimes because it actually increases the likelihood of committing murder. It doesn’t prevent future murders because it would upset the family and friends of the person who was executed. For example, if someone was executed by the death penalty and it was someones family member, then the person who lost their loved one by the execution would most likely commit murder in anger. If that person was executed the next family member would get angry and so on. The cycle would never end and would have more murders. There is no final proof that the death penalty is a better deterrent than other options. Not having the death penalty would be better because it could save many lives. For example, United States a country that uses the death penalty has a higher murder rate than Europe or Canada which are countries that do not use the death penalty. To get a little specific, the states in the United States that do not use the death penalty have a lower murder rate than the states that do.
The study by Edwin Sutherland, which gave a confirmation that the death penalty does deter crime, however criminologists have started to prove this wrong, even calling it a myth. Michael L. Radeltt & Traci L. Lacock’s 2009 survey of the members of the American Criminology Society found that 88% of criminologist at ACS did not believe the death penalty was capable of deterring murderers and lowering crime. This belief begins the multitude of questions as to why criminologist believe the death penalty does not deter crime. Thus brings the question of if the death penalty deters crime back to step one along with a multitude of questions; do other factors contribute to the deterrence of crime? The stance, albeit varied, ranges from two spectrums of the opposite of the argument concerning the death penalty; the death penalty doesn’t deter crime, or there is no concrete evidence that proves that the death penalty does deter
The death penalty deters murder. The death penalty is the best way to stop a killer from killing someone else. Some say that prison is enough, but it isn’t. Death is necessary because if they are only sent to prison there is always the risk that some day the same killer that brutally killed a 5-year old or raped and strangle a college student might return to the streets.
The death penalty has always been and continues to be a very controversial issue. People on both sides of the issue argue endlessly to gain further support for their movements. While opponents of capital punishment are quick to point out that the United States remains one of the few Western countries that continue to support the death penalty, Americans are also more likely to encounter violent crime than citizens of other countries (Brownlee 31). Justice mandates that criminals receive what they deserve. The punishment must fit the crime. If a burglar deserves imprisonment, then a murderer deserves death (Winters 168). The death penalty is necessary and the only punishment suitable for those convicted of capital offenses. Seventy-five percent of Americans support the death penalty, according to Turner, because it provides a deterrent to some would-be murderers and it also provides for moral and legal justice (83). "Deterrence is a theory: It asks what the effects are of a punishment (does it reduce the crime rate?) and makes testable predictions (punishment reduces the crime rate compared to what it would be without the credible threat of punishment)", (Van Den Haag 29). The deterrent effect of any punishment depends on how quickly the punishment is applied (Workshop 16). Executions are so rare and delayed for so long in comparison th the number of capitol offenses committed that statistical correlations cannot be expected (Winters 104). The number of potential murders that are deterred by the threat of a death penalty may never be known, just as it may never be known how many lives are saved with it. However, it is known that the death penalty does definitely deter those who are executed. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is the alternative to execution presented by those that consider words to be equal to reality. Nothing prevents the people sentenced in this way from being paroled under later laws or later court rulings. Furthermore, nothing prevents them from escaping or killing again while in prison. After all, if they have already received the maximum sentence available, they have nothing to lose. For example, in 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court banished the death penalty. Like other states, Texas commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment. After being r...
The death penalty deters murder and puts the fear of death into killers. A person is less likely to be killed, if he fears a possible sentence for his actions. Another way the death penalty may help deter murder is the fact that if the killer dies, he or she will not be able to kill again. There are two different opinions on the death penalty. There are those who think that murderers deserve to live and serve a life sentence in jail, and those who are supporters of the death penalty as a form of revenge.
The death penalty greatly discourages citizens from committing crimes like murder. The greatest fear for many people is death. If they know that execution is a common consequence for their actions, they are going to think twice before committing them. Even in jails, the fear of death can deter an inmate already serving a life sentence from killing a guard or another inmate. When a potential murderer realizes that a murderer’s punishment is execution, then that person is discouraged from going through with the murder. The first studies were conducted in 1973 by Isaac Ehrlich linking executions to a lowered murder rate, and for every murderer executed a potential of three people were saved from murder (insert citation). A more modern...