More handpicked essays just for you.
Deterrence of the death penalty
The death penalty effect on America
Death sentences as an effective means of controlling crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Deterrence of the death penalty
Gun Control According to “Capital Punishment, Gun Ownership, and “Homicide”, it is attempting to answer “two controversial questions, both related to the problem of interpersonal violence in America.” One of the questions asks if “the use of the death penalty exert any measurable influence on the rate of homicide in the U.S.?” and the other asks “what relationship, if any, exists between the level of gun ownership and the level of homicidal violence?” (G. Kleck, 1979) One might ask, “How do you go about this?” So with that being asked, “Several issues are examined: (1) the deterrent effect of the death penalty, (2) the relationship between the level of gun ownership and the homicide rate, and (3) the incapacitative effect of imprisonment on the homicide rate.” (G. Kleck, 1979) From my understanding, the appropriate methods were used to support the thesis stated and everything seemed to have made sense. I also believe that the author employed the methods correctly and that there were no errors in the way he conducted the research. Now let’s look to see if the evidence supports ...
The Kansas City Gun Experiment was a study that took place between 1992 and 1993. The goal of the study was to examine if increased police patrol in a “hot spot” of the city would help to reduce the amount of gun-related crime. The data collected by the research team was solely quantitative as it mainly consisted of statistics and other data numerical in nature of the increase/decrease of gun violence in these beats. After the twenty-nine week period of the study, the experiment’s findings showed that an increase in police patrol, as well as seizure of illegally carried guns, did help to eliminate gun-related crimes.
Each person has a different view on the world. If a person is asked about their view on a certain subject, they will likely show support or disdain for the subject. For example, some people believe abortion is morally wrong. Others view abortion as the mother’s choice since she is carrying the child. On the issue of gun control, people are usually either for or against stricter gun laws. Why do people view the world in the way they do? How do people decide what stance to take on an issue? To answer these questions, sociologists look at the sociological perspective which “stresses the social contexts in which people live” and “examines how these contexts influence people’s lives” (Henslin, 2013, p. 4). Furthermore, the sociological perspective
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
Gun Ownership and Gun Control in Canada The Oscar-won documentary ‘Bowling for Columbine’ has aroused people’s awareness of gun ownership and gun control issues. Should gun ownership be banned or should guns be controlled? Does gun ownership create a violent society? The answer is not measurable, however, from the firearm situation between America and Canada, the answer is more obvious.
One concern with the implementation was overcrowding of the prisons. One study conducted discovered that in the first twelve months of implementation that there was a huge increase in prison populations, however the numbers of incarcerations had leveled off and decrease. Additionally, due to the increase in new incarcerations, thousands of less violent prisoners had to be released. Also, there have been studies that have shown that the three strike laws have had unintended consequences. Two studies showed that the three strike law did not reduce the number of homicides. In fact, the law had the opposite effect. One study, conducted by Marvell and Moody, showed evidence that criminals who are eligible for life in prison due to a third strike are more likely to commit a third offense. Additionally, Kovandzic, Sloan, and Vieraitis presented evidence on homicides rates which increased, subsequent to the passage of the three strike law, from 1980 to 1999 (Marion et al., 2012). The basic thought from these studies was if a criminal was facing life in prison with a third strike; this individual has nothing to lose by murdering a police officer in order to evade arrest. Therefore, the three strike law might have worsened the problem of violent crime vice deter it (Marion et al.,
Today in the United States many people argue over the fact of guns being legal or illegal. There are people using guns for personal safety and there are others who use them for crimes, as well as for other situations. Firearm deaths in the United States have slowly been decreasing from year to year with all these bills getting passed to promote a safer country than ever before. Guns are the main weapon for youth suicide, school shootings, and for committing murder. In 2010 there were 2,711 infants, child, and teenage firearm deaths. As in school shootings and in committing murder, studies show shooters often had multiple, non-automatic guns, shootings were planned, most youth tell before shooting, shooters have a history of being bullied or threatened, shooters have mental issues, and shooters have done suicidal gestures before (Gun Control with School Shootings). Although there are people who use guns for murdering, there are also those who oppose guns being used without the proper requirements. 85% of all respondents to the survey supporting requiring states to report people to national background-checks systems who are prohibited from owning gu...
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to
A New Jersey woman told police of how two men tried to open her front doors of her car at the same time. In the driver seat she reached for her gun, pulled it out and screamed. The two men fled the scene. “On Feb. 3, 1997 outside a bar in Mexico a female used a gun to stop a man from raping her" (Gale 88). A college park woman shot and killed an armed assailant who tried to car-jack her in her van with her 1 year old daughter inside. These and many other examples are of how and when handguns can save your life. Because people need handguns to protect themselves, the government should not place more restriction on them.
There are gun control laws to try and reduce the number of violent shootings that occur. They are trying to put limits on weapons that Americans can own. The government is trying to take our guns away mainly because of people that are criminally insane. Most of the people who commit crimes don’t even have the weapons legally. If the government takes away the rights of people who are allowed to have firearms in their possession, it will most definitely cause an outrage. Most people believe that the people should be more capable of maintain proper use of the firearms instead of having them all taken away. Taking the firearms from Americans away would cause a lot more problems than there actually are. The people will be upset with the government taking firearms away because of the horrible people who harm innocent people using them. So they will do anything to their capabilities to keep them.
Gun control is one of the most debatable topics today. Thirty-three million Americans own firearms for hunting (Aitkens 9). But hunting is not the sole reason for which many individuals buy firearms. Of all countries, the United States is the one which is troubled most by a large number of criminals who are in possession of guns. The U.S. has the highest firearm murder rate of any democracy in the world (Aitkens 5). Where is the country going wrong as far as gun control is concerned? An immense number of laws have been created by the legislature. All were made in order to be sure guns remain in control of the right hands, yet the problems seem to prevail. All three branches of government (judicial, legislative, and executive) are involved in desperate attempts to improve the situation. Getting rid of guns would not work; it would be an impossible task. But, if pressure was applied to all aspects of gun employment - production, ownership, and most importantly dealership - a majority of problems could be controlled.
The U.S. Congress is still debating the effectiveness of federal regulation of guns and ammunition. All sorts of federal laws have been made since 1934 to promote the regulation of firearms. Many people have different views on the topic of gun control. I, for one, am pro “gun-rights” and believe that there are many disadvantages to the controlling of guns.
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
The article employs several argumentative strategies. For example, first, the article stating Ringo Jr, committing robbery, murdering Dennis Poyser and Jonna Baysinger than illustrating statistic data “ studies of the death penalty have reached a various conclusion about effectiveness in deterring crime” follow by “many years and across states or counties find a deterrent effect “ More than 3,000 counties from 1977 through 1996 found that each execution resulted in 18 fewer murders per county” “ Zimmerman demonstrated that each state execution deters ... 14 murders annually” “study by Duke University and others concluded that from 1994 through 2005, each execution …decrease up to 2.5 murders.” “defendants in child murder cases to be eligible for the death penalty was almost 20% reduction in rates of these crimes” are the deductive supportive argument which supports the article’s conclusion “ Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives.” Also are logically reveal reasoning to support a claim “capital punishment save life” thus it uses argument strategy logos(logical). Other argument strategy article use is pathos ( emotional appeal) in “Life sentences or even death most Americans recognize this principle is just” “That 61% Americans view the death penalty as morally acceptable…supported capital
In this article the author talks about the relationship between gun control laws and gun ownership rates in relation to crime rates. He informs his readers of the studies to determine whether gun ownership rates have any effect on criminal activity being that firearms are the leading cause of murders; and if by making gun control laws stricter will it lower the violent crime rates, and overall homicide rates.
Jacoby believes the death penalty protects society by threatening future murders with fear. Gaes believes the death penalty is necessary because the overpopulation in prisons causes emotional and physical distress. The stronger side of the debate seems to be that the death penalty does not discourage crime at all nor does it help the victim’s family heal. It would be useful to know whether or not death-penalty states as a whole have lower rates of crime than non-death penalty states when arguing for the death penalty.