Capital Punishment Is A Deterrent To Crime Essay

Capital Punishment, also known as the Death Penalty, has been a part of the United State’s justice system for the majority of the country’s existence. Today, 31 out of the 50 states still recognize the death penalty as a viable option when dealing with high profile crimes, most notably murder and sexual assault. While many people argue that the death penalty should be made illegal, there is also widespread support in favor of keeping the death penalty, leaving the nation divided on the issue. Both sides of the argument possess valid evidence that supports their claims, but in the end, the arguments in favor of the death penalty are noticeably stronger. The death penalty is an appropriate sentence that should continue to be allowed in the

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

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.

More than two centuries ago, the death penalty was commonplace in the United States, but today it is becoming increasingly rare. In the article “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?”, Diann Rust-Tierney argues that it should be abolished, and Joshua Marquis argues that it should not be abolished. Although the death penalty is prone to error and discrimination, the death penalty should not be abolished because several studies show that the death penalty has a clear deterrent effect, and we need capital punishment for those certain cases in which a killer is beyond redemption.

Should the Death Penalty still be an option or only life in prison? This is the question at issue that the writer, Kyle Gibson(Heritage Foundation research fellow for the Center for Data Analysis), debates in the article, “ Death Penalty Repeal: It’s necessary to use Capital Punishment in a Free World”. On June 23, 2013 Gibson explains that Capital Punishment is a right and is important in society. He provides evidence on why Capital Punishment is important and how it is a free right of all citizens. His purpose is to show readers why the death penalty is important in order to convince readers to support and not oppose the death penalty.

The Death Penalty, or capital punishment is nothing new in the world. SInce the dawn of civilization people were sentenced to death for sometimes even the most minor of crimes, such a theft. As the world has changed in the last few thousand years, so have attitudes toward the Death Penalty,yet it is still a punishment that is carried out throughout the world today. In the United States, as of July of 2015, 31 states in the Union actively carry out the death penalty. Only 19 states have abolished the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without the possibility of parole as the maximum sentence. However, with the declining popularity of the death penalty in the United States and throughout the world, the question that needs to be

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. This nation, the United States of America, is currently one of fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder as of 2012. People that believe in the death penalty also believe that it will deter murders. In this paper I will argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that this nation should outlaw the practice.

When it comes to ethical dilemmas, few are more polarizing and contentious for citizens of the USA as whether capital punishment should be used as a punishment for crime. Also known as the death penalty, the practice involves legally executing a criminal if they commit a crime of a certain level; most often, this punishment is prescribed to those who have murdered other people. Opponents and proponents of the death penalty have clashed for decades, often claiming differing results prove their respective sides to be superior in many areas. For example, those that support the death penalty claim that it is a cheaper punishment in financial terms than lifelong imprisonment without parole, while those that oppose capital punishment believe the exact opposite, stating that capital punishment is the more expensive of the two options. Additionally, there is a major rift between the two sides involving the effectiveness of the death penalty as a crime deterrent; opponents believe there is little to no beneficial effect, while supporters often declare that the death penalty has been proven to decrease murders and therefore saves lives. Moral positions also play a role in the debate; proponents view the punishment as a just way to punish someone who has committed a capital offense and a path towards closure for families of victims, while some on the other side hold that it is wrong to take a life regardless of what a person has done or that death is a cruel, extreme, unnecessary

But nothing scares people more than the idea of death, thus with this criminals won’t be tempted to commit a serious crime without chance of paying the ultimate price for their actions. This helps protect people from murders because the crime rates will decrease. We can argue that fear is the strongest emotion we have, and if we use it by inflicting it into criminals, then our streets will be a safer place. This deference factor has been around for years, “Death Penalty Curriculum” states, “Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder.”[5] These types of results suggest that this method of deference has been around for a while, so if we adopt this form of Capital Punishment we will decrease criminal activity by just inflicting this fear into criminals.

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

“I don’t think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don’t think that’s right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives.” -- President George Bush

Four major issues in capital punishment are debated, most aspects of which were touched upon by Seton Hall’s panel discussion on the death penalty. The first issue stands as deterrence. A major purpose of criminal punishment is to conclude future criminal conduct. The deterrence theory suggests that a rational person will avoid criminal behavior if the severity of the punishment outweighs the benefits of the illegal conduct. It is believed that fear of death “deters” people from committing a crime. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives were at stake. When attached to certain crimes, the penalty of death exerts a positive moral influence, placing a stigma on certain crimes like manslaughter, which results in attitudes of horror to such acts.

Proponents of the deterrence argument say that the death penalty prevents murders because the killers, like everyone else, have a fear of death (Nathanson, 1987). I do not believe that this is a valid statement. Everyone does things that are risks to his/her life. Driving a car, riding a bike, rock climbing, swimming, smoking; we do these things for the need to get places, for adventure, excitement,

Death penalty advocates argue that the execution of convicted murderers deter others from committing murder for fear that they will also be executed, and also that murderers will be incapacitated: once dead, they will have no opportunity to commit additional murders. Death penalty opponents dispute the deterrent effect of capital punishment, arguing that few murderers rationally weigh the possibility that they might face the death penalty before committing a murder. Finally, death penalty opponents do not dispute that execution incapacitates executed murders, but argue that life imprisonment without possibility of parole is equally incapacitating. (Jacob Sullum, Los Angeles)