Pros And Cons Of Deterrence

729 Words2 Pages

If it is society’s goal of the prison system is to preserve life and keep suffering to a minimum, then the death penalty is a justifiable cause. Many would argue that this is in itself a contradiction, however, this assumption is wrong. Studies show that the death penalty saves between 4-18 lives on average. What this means is that although the death penalty may kill one human, this action can deter up to 18 potential murders. Those against the death penalty argue that this deterrence is no greater than the deterrence of life in prison. However, this only seems to be the case in states that do not normally enforce the death penalty. States such as Texas that have condemn more than 5 people a year to the death penalty have a higher rate of deterrence than those …show more content…

For if the deterrence theory is correct, then the death penalty has a constant contribution to saving human rights. If the theory is wrong, then society is not saving anymore human lives through the death penalty. The inconclusive nature of these studies suggest that it is better to kill murderers because the possibility of deterrence is there. This possibility of deterrence justifies their death because it is better to kill a guilty man in an attempt to save innocent lives, than to assume that the deterrence does not work, which would allow for more deaths of innocent lives. In other words, it is better to kill those who are found guilty due to their crimes as a means of possible deterrence, than to allow for this possible deterrence to disappear, allowing for more murders to be committed in society. What is being weighed here is the worth of a criminal’s life vs. the life of an innocent. When attempting to sustain both overall life and minimal suffering, it is better to kill a guilty man over the possibility of an innocent being

More about Pros And Cons Of Deterrence

Open Document