However there is not a lot of data to support this claim. Although it is believed that the death penalty deters more than the fear of imprisonment alone. This here makes it rational to use the death p... ... middle of paper ... ...s as they have done unto you”. This is basically the same as the Golden Rule but put into reverse order. The suffering and punishment of a criminal should be equal to that which was done.
This paper will try to describe the death penalty, where it came from, and its role in the judicial system today. The purpose of capital punishment is also a debated issue in the subject. Most ... ... middle of paper ... ... and decrease murder rates. Constan p102 says that ?other factors that influence murder rates are unemployment, probability of arrest and conviction, percent of the population between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four, per capita financial expenditures on the police force, and other factors.? He also states that none of these factors seem to affect the crime rate though none is major enough to completely cause major changes.
The death penalty is enforced to illustrate that murder is intolerable: if one takes the life of an innocent human, then one will suffer th... ... middle of paper ... ...dges then conclude if the suspect is guilty and decide whether the criminal will receive the death penalty; the family does not. Therefore, the family is not seeking vengeance, merely seeking justice. In conclusion, is evident that capital punishment is a form of righteousness, not a form of vengeance. The family allowed the law to find retribution, they did not seek revenge. In summation, it is a misconception that families are able to seek vengeance through the death penalty for it is not a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
From the articles reviewed, there is no clear answer to the subject matter. Whereas most authors argue that capital punishment deters homicide, some scholars have also proven that this is just a mere coincidence. Since both sides, including the proponents of capital punishment and those that disagree with it, have justified their claims with statistics and proven evidence, further research needs to be carried out to know whether or not the sentence deters homicide. Adler and Summers (2007) argue that an increase in the number of death penalties leads to a corresponding decrease in the number of murder cases. In their article, they draw arguments from data retrieved from the FBI, which clearly illustrates the correlation between executions and resultant murder trends from 1979 to 2004.
History and behavior of man has revealed that normal human instinct does not prevent people from committing crimes because if it did capital punishment would never have to be used. People would have been informed about the consequences of breaking the law and everyone would be in fear of committing crimes. Unfortunately when people commit crimes they seem to not care of the consequences; so whether capital punishment is in force or not crimes are going to be committed. This paper therefore presents a strong argument that the capital punishment does not deter people from committing crimes The justice system does not have to use punishment by death as a tool which will deter crime. Canada is a good example of where statistics have proved that punishment by death does not deter crime effectively.
As a society we must grant our trust into the hands of authority. While there still can be wrong imprisonment of people for petty crimes such as robbery, these would not quality for the death row. On the other hand, those people who committed mass murder, and let me reiterate mass murderers are often not wrongfully accused. These people deserve no less for themselves than what they have done to others. Even though we are compelled to remember a famous saying “An Eye For An Eye Makes The World Go Blind” we should not forget that death penalty, as I believe, should be applied to murderers of multiple victims.
This of course, has sparked a debate among criminologists as to whether rational choice offers a complete explanation of all kinds of crime or its validity is reduced when dealing with crimes of anger, hostility and excitement (Farrell, 2010). The argument goes, according to the rational choice perspective following this theory, that crime committers are seen as rational decision makers who make the choice of making a crime after rationally balancing the cost-benefit analysis of this crime. According to this perspective, there is no crime in which reason, choice and purpose play an insignificant role (Cornish and Clarke, 2006). Although situational crime prevention has received a lot of criticism, its popularity with governments is such that the theory has resulted in techniques of situational crime prevention becoming important tools of security management. In fact, Cornish and Clarke (2003) presented 25 techniques of their earlier model.
Haag also argues that “justice is independent of distributional inequalities” (Haag, par. 7) We will not be able to truly determine with studies whether or not death is an effective deterrent because we can not enter the mind of a likely murderer, but we can recognize justice, and we should not be appalled at a few exceptions of equality when the termination of the death penalty will create a deprivation of justice. Partisans often use an idealized system of justice when they defend capital punishment, Greenburg writes, but in reality the death penalty can not deter any more than life imprisonment (Greenburg, par. 15). Thorsten Sellin conducted studies, used by Greenburg, reveling that even when the death penalty was widely administered it was still a poor deterrent (Greenburg, par.
In the academic journal Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control? Professor of economics John C. Moorhouse and Brent Wanner state, “gun control simply does not influence the behavior of criminals… there would be no surprise if it were found that criminals regularly violate the law by purchasing guns on the illegal black market tor by stealing them (Moorehouse, 122). Moorehouse and Wanner mean that even if gun control laws prevent criminals from getting guns legally they will continue to commit crime and will find alternate ways to purchase guns. In fact, according to the Southern States Police Benevolent Association ninety three percent of police officers believe that banning firearms would not prevent criminals from getting guns and ninety percent agree that banning firearms would not result in crime reduction (Duke). In addition, ninety percent of law enforcement officials believe that gun control will make agencies less efficient and will diminish their personnel’s ability to combat crime (Duke).
Execution was a suitable punishment for those times. Today, though, the law is not as strict. This leads potential criminals not to fear the death penalty because government today uses more "humane" methods of execution, rather than the brutal punishment that history portrayed. People who oppose the death penalty say that "there is no evidence that the murder rate fluctuates according to the frequency with which the death penalty is used" (Masur 153). It is more likely that the convict would be paroled instead of being executed because of the present practice of allowing unlimited appeals.