Through capital punishment, we as a society bring the criminals that commit heinous crimes to what the government deems as justice. However, the individuals who contemplate and commit heinous crimes are no longer deterred by the threat of capital punishment. Accordingly, we may reach the conclusion that Lempert asserts in his Michigan Law review, “Desert and Deterrence”: “The threat of death can only deter potential criminals who [at least] loosely calculate the cost and rewards of their behavior” (Lempert). In what follows, I will argue that the individuals of our society that are criminals or potential criminals are no longer deterred by capital punishment due to the further harsher punishment of life-imprisonment and the literal decline of the societies which use the death penalty as a punishment. Does capital punishment, the forfeit of death for a wrongdoing, still work as a deterrence, to hinder or prevent, criminal wrong doings? Through surveys and research, eighty-eight percent of the leading criminologist have found that the common belief of capital punishment being a deterrent has lost support among society (Radelet and Lacock). If society in a mass consensus no longer supports the death penalty in its true nature, then society in a minimum consensus, the criminals, will also no longer view it as a deterrent. This poses a natural …show more content…
Furthermore, as a reason-capable race, we are morally obligated to search for and apply alternatives in which create the same ending to the initial problem without scarifying our moral integrity. Because of the Humanitarian theory, we can differ between the moral standpoints and then apply the selected moral standpoint to the alternative options. The Humanitarian theory states that if we exact a punishment on man for revenge, it is ill-moral, however, if it is to deter the rest of man from making the same mistake, it is acceptable
Capital punishment in the United States is a highly debated topic. Arguments that want to get rid of this method of punishment usually mention the many problems that capital punishment is plagued with. The death penalty has many issues that cannot be resolved, and since these issues can’t be solved, the death penalty should be abolished. “The irrevocable nature of the death penalty renders it an unsustainable and indefensible remedy in an imperfect justice system.” (Evans 3) Even though the death penalty has been around since the 18th century, capital punishment has many issues such as wrongful convictions and high costs, proving it should be eliminated.
“A Death in Texas” by Steve Earle is the true-life story of a friendship that occurred over ten
There is a common knowledge that capital punishment would prevent people from committing crime. But until now, there has not been any actual statistics or scientific researches that prove the relationship between the capital punishment and the rate of crimes. According to Jack Weil, “criminals, who believe that their chances of going to jail are slight, will in all probability also assume that their chances of being executed are equally slight. Their attitude that crime pays will in no way be altered” (3). Most people commit a crime when they are affected by the influence of drugs, alcohol or even overwhelmed emotions, so they cannot think logically about they would pay back by their lives. Also, when criminal plan to do their crime, they prepare and expect to escape instead of being caught. Some people believe that the threat of severe punishment could bring the crime rates down and that capital punishment is the ultimate crime deterrent. However, in fact, the rate of ...
Radelet, Michael L., and Ronald L. Akers. "Deterrence And The Death Penalty: the Views Of The Experts[*]." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 87.1 (1996): 1. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 Feb. 2011.
There are over sixty offenses in the United States of America that can be punishable by receiving the death penalty (What is..., 1). However, many individuals believe that the death penalty is an inadequate source of punishment for any crime no matter how severe it is. The fact remains, however, that the death penalty is one of the most ideal forms of punishment. There are other individuals who agree with the idea that capital punishment is the best form of punishment. In fact, some of these individuals believe that this should be the only form of punishment.
Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The judicial decree that someone be punished in this manner is a death sentence, while the actual process of killing the person is an execution. Capital punishment does not demonstrate the wrongfulness of killing by killing; it demonstrates the wrongfulness of killing by executing convicted murderers after a fair trial. Laws are a set of rules implemented by human to guide, enforce and discipline among the society which made by human, not by the God. Breaking laws and awarding punishments against the conduct is also equally done by the human. The death penalty violates the right to life which happens to be the
Over many centuries, the act of killing has been very controversial as it is argued to be barbaric but at the same time, a part of life. Many will disagree on whether killing can be even be justified, let alone condemned and permitted. Killing a person as punishment for the same offence is difficult to justify and essentially says that killing is allowed. Although the practice of the death penalty exists still, many societies argue how it is barbaric and is part of the past. In Canada however, the topic comes up fairly often as the United States still practices capital punishment in many states. Extensive research shows that capital punishment is unethical, has many flaws, and has a much larger cost than imprisonment. Therefore, through an examination of the ethical relationship, all the possible errors, and the costs, it is evident that
“The question of whether the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than long-term imprisonment has been debated for decades or longer by scholars, policy makers, and the general public” (Radelet & Lacock, 2009).
Capital punishment has as its aim not only the punishment of criminals but also the prevention of similar crimes. Unfortunately, capital punishment does not in fact deter criminal acts, as most supporters of the death penalty expect. Michael Meltsner points out that "capital punishment was justified as a deterrent to crime, yet the killing [has been] done infrequently and in privacy" (3); these factors lead to the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent. The infrequent administration of capital punishment stems from the vast differences in each case and the legal variations among the states that permit capital punishment. Currently, t...
3) Though the claim that death penalty serves as a deterrent is valid, it is controversial in its soundness. It is sound that criminals fear the death penalty. Indeed, death penalty is fearful, as it is irrevocable and takes away the life and future of the criminal sentenced to it. However, the evidences supporting the second premise that is the core function of the claim for the deterrence argument is too excessive. In the letter, the author first presents his own experience to prove that the fear of death penalty deters offenders from carrying a gun. However, using an experience as a proof for deterrence for such a complex and serious punishment as the death penalty is extreme. While supporters of the author may respond with the author’s credibility as a police officer for thirty years, personal experience and insight can’t be extrapolated with possibilities of bias...
During the 1970s, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence. This argument suggests that we must punish offenders to discourage others from committing similar offenses; we punish past offenders to send a message to potential offenders. In a broad sense, the deterrent effect of punishment is thought to b...
Capital punishment, a topic that is constantly debated, is questioned on whether or not it serves its purpose which is to deter criminals and if it is morally acceptable. It is my goal to evaluate arguments that promote or reject capital punishment and its deterrence factor. It would be beneficial comparing crime statistics for states that uphold and states that abolish capital punishment. Finally, an investigation of criminals facing the death penalty and their thoughts as well as modern prison conditions will provide insight to this debate. Capital punishment could be a great deterrent to crime or it may have no effect at all.
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 has been an ongoing debate for many years. Each side of the issue presents valid arguments to explain why someone should be either for or against the subject. One side of the argument says deterrence, the other side says there’s a likelihood of putting to death an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder itself. Crime is an unmistakable part of our society, and it is safe to say that everyone would concur that something must be done about it. The majority of people know the risk of crime to their lives, but the subject lies in the techniques and actions in which it should be dealt with. As the past tells us, capital punishment, whose meaning is “the use of death as a legally sanctioned punishment,” is a suitable and proficient means of deterring crime. Today, the death penalty resides as an effective method of punishment for murder and other atrocious crimes.
Schonebaum, Stephen E. "A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be An Effective Deterrent." Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: David L. Bender; Greenhaven Press Inc. 1998. 18.