Capital Punishment Deters Crime?

In 1972, at the time of Supreme Court’s Furman, the majority of public tends to agree with the death penalty. The major reason for support of the death penalty was the serious violent offenders need to be executed in the interest of public safety. However, according to a Gallup poll, supporter for the death penalty dropped from 76 to 53, public started to against the death penalty. Since then, the world has the trend toward of abolishing the death penalty.

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies – which took

The idea of capital punishment deterring crime is difficult to determine; some could rationalize that the death penalty should in theory stop potential murders from committing crimes. However, this rationalization has never been concretely proven. The research into capital punishment’s effect on deterrence is immense; however, the majority of research on this issue has differential findings. Although some research suggests conclusively that capital punishment deters crime, others found that it fails to do this. Understanding deterrence, the death penalty, and the results of

Another issue related to the subject involves whether or not capital punishment actually deters criminals from committing crimes. Most people think that the death penalties primary function is to deter others in the future from committing similar crimes. There is evidence that at times capital punishment does deter. However, there are those or cite evidence or opinion that the capital punishment does not achieve its desired effect. The majority of this paper will focus on whether capital punishment actually deters crime.

Capital Punishment has ended the lives of criminals for centuries. People have debated whether the government should have the power to decide one person’s life. On one side, people think the government does not have the right to play God as well as believe that the death penalty is simply unethical. Forty-eight percent of a half sample survey stated that life imprisonment was a better punishment for murder while forty-seven percent stated that capital punishment was a better punishment (Newport). However, capital punishment should be enforced throughout the country to help deter crime, benefit the economy, and ensures retribution.

There are laws and decisions of United States government and higher orders that present controversy to the people of America. In the state of Texas the application of the death penalty is difficult to interpret, especially for the mentally ill, because there is no written law or bill that explains the execution implication in complete detail. The death penalty is a capital punishment of death for those who have committed such high crime. This penalty goes for everyone who does such act no matter who you are, how rich how poor, or where you stand in society. For the longest time, even with the mindset and understanding that those who commit crime to a certain level can receive the execution punishment, the concern and debate whether the mentally

“A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The study, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concluded, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” A previous study in 1996 had come to similar conclusions.”

The death penalty was also used as a mean to deteriorate the rise of murders. A way to scare people from committing the act. This of course is not the case(Depauw). Marshall and Bedau saw the death penalty and retributivism through a similar microscope. Marshall who was against the thought of the death penalty as retribution stated in his dissenting opinion of the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) case: “ The notion that retribution can serve as a moral justification for the sanction of death... I find to be the most disturbing aspect of today's unfortunate decisions…”(ProCon). According to Marshall retribution was a form of revenge which is low as it can get in his opinion. To allow the death penalty to him was to allow revenge to occur and not the laws of the land to prevail. Thurgood Marshall wanted justice to be served in reactions to crime, not revenge or allowing the emotions which was in high demand to conquer the court system. This is what he suggests about the theory of retribution. This in itself is also a form of utilitarian because in order to please others they will give the murderer the death penalty. Utilitarianism is to maximize utility or to maximize happiness. In order to fulfill this, to maximise happiness, it would be at the expense of the convicted.

In this circumstance the decision of the death penalty was not executed in similar means, since the conflict was deliberated as a violation of the 8th amendment. The examination of cruel and unusual punishment (Boss, 2012), remained significant due to difficulty of the court in deciding the characteristics of the amendment to validate punishments of elaborated offenses; numerous individuals in the U.S. still support the death penalty irrespectively of how it is banned in other countries. The attitude of this argument changes vividly after the opening argument, as genuine to dogmatic. The situation starts via vindicating the resources of capital punishment moreover, the lawbreaker is mindful of the magnitude and stipulation of murder, hence,

Last but not least, from a sociologic perspective, capital punishment does not work as intended, to deter crime rate, rather, it might brutalize individuals, at the same time does nothing good to the victim’s family other than brutal vengeance. The origin of death penalty is served as a vehicle to put a warning for those potential future criminals that such kind of behavior will lead to death. However, so far, no clear evidence can be seen that capital punishment, as a mechanism of deterrent, actually cut down the local crime rate. Ironically, a reversal trend was found by Death Penalty Information Center (2010) in the USA that the death penalty leads to an increase in local murder rate. To die might be too easy for the mindless murderers. Also, for the relatives or friends of criminals put into death through capital punishment, they are more likely to be

1. The views presented by the Catholic social teaching regarding capital punishment present some challenges for me. The teaching references and explains that “since punishment involves the deliberate infliction of evil on another, it is always in need of justification” (McKenna, 12). The three traditional justifications for capital punishment include retribution, deterrence, and reform (McKenna, 12). Considering these justifications, the teaching explains that none of these are viable reasons for enacting capital punishment. Reform as a justification does not make sense. If a criminal is being executed he would not have the chance to change his behavior much less the desire to do so knowing that it would not change his/her ultimate fate. Deterrence of criminals or potential criminals from doing future violent acts assumes “many crimes of violence are undertaken in spirit of rational calculation” (McKenna, 12). The teaching believes that this may be false, therefore not making capital punishment a deterrent. The teaching does acknowledge that retribution is needed, however it does not “require taking the life of a criminal” (McKenna, 12). The teaching further points out that there is a possibility of a mistake being made and that someone who is innocent could be executed. It cautions capital punishment not only causes avoidable anguish in the criminal, but also to his/her family and those who must witness the execution. The teaching also advises that many times those who

Studies of the deterrent effect of the death penalty have been conducted for                                               several years, with varying results. Most studies have failed to produce evidence that the death penalty deterred murders more effectively then the threat of imprisonment. The reason for this is that few people are executed and so the death penalty is not a satisfactory deterrent. If capital punishment were carried out

In contrast, the question of deterrence can be answered objectively using common sense and statistics. By analyzing different arguments for and against the death penalty, such as the "fear of death" myth, the cost of the death penalty, and the racial and economic bias of the death penalty, it can be shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent of crime.

During biblical times crime not only affected society, but it was believed to have also been directed towards God himself. The Bible is the oldest book to reference with many directives to living life peacefully and without revenge. As retribution is considered a form of punishment, if not the first, the Bible itself explains that the punishment should not exceed the crime. Matthew 5:38 states, “You have heard that it has been said, eye for eye and tooth for tooth”. This passage is meant as a way to explain that the punishment should fit the crime. As a member of society, the offender was punished equally as brutal as the crime

Deterrence has played a sizeable role in the capital punishment argument for both sides. Author of “The Ultimate Punishment”