Deterrence Effects Of The Death Penalty

Death penalty is a constant source of controversy and divided opinion depending on who you ask. The punishment of death is given to criminals who commit severe crimes. The severity of crimes that attract the death penalty is debatable due to the severity of the crime. The justice system is based upon punishment for crimes committed by emphasizing the punishment fitting the crime committed. Countries such as China and Singapore, and United States, issue the death penalty to punish murderers or rapist, therefore fueling the already going debate on how to befit the punishment is in such cases. All the death penalty aims to achieve is the punishment to those who break the rules. The death penalty has well documented weaknesses as well as strengths. Not least of is brutality and finality, some of these frailties lead to the calls for its abolishment. The death penalty is inhumane. Wrongly applied as well as completely unjustifiable sometimes killing innocent people irrespective of the crime. Life sentence of imprisonment without parole or pardon achieves all that the death penalty seeks to achieve without costing the society its moral standing and families losing those they love.

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

The death sentence in America has brought financial tolls unto American society and the government. According to Source B, “the death penalty is clearly more expensive than a system handling similar cases with lesser punishment.” Using death as a punishment for wrongful crimes has put America in a tight financial condition the death penalty itself costs more than a combination of smaller punishments. This shows that although incarceration and various types 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.

Then two decades later, in 1993, the capital punishment statutes had been reinstated and performing executions, once again striking the thing criminals fear most, death (Tucker). During the 1990s as more states began to reinstate capital punishment statutes, murder rates began to plummet. They went from 9.6 people per 100,000 in 1993 dropping to 7.7 in 1996 and as low as 6.4 in 1999, which was the lowest rate since 1966. In other words, as the author observed during his study of the forty year period, homicide rates have risen when the rate of execution went down and as the execution rates had risen, the rate of homicides had decreased (Tucker). Not only does the death penalty engender an aversion amongst criminals and people who are considering performing heinous actions, it additionally promotes a positive influence towards themselves and others around. The mandate of capital punishment establishes the attitude of abhorrence toward criminals, and causes people to think about what they are doing because of the possible consequences. With people believing that living the criminal life is not the best of decisions, they are deterred away from making the decision of performing the crime (Caldwell 598).

To begin, financial sides illustrate that decapitation should be stopped. However, some argue that the imprisonment provides a comfortable life by accommodating convicts with a free health care , security and nutrition where others refute it. Notwithstanding, one thinks that the death penalty costs much more than incarceration. The latter should consider the burial’s cost , which edges higher if the murder does not have any sponsors. Also the medication and the health service are costly. Additionally, the ones who can be killed are tend to appeal with greater efforts, so it means further charges. A number of researches show that the price of the lethal injection goes even higher than the cost of a perpetual imprisonment. Moreover, few says

The question of the death penalty has been subject to heated debate on if it serves in deterring criminal activities. Through exploration into findings of several studies, it would be possible to validate whether capital punishment has a deterrent effect on crimes. Various studies are explored with the objective of understanding which side of the debate is stronger. The findings of this study will be important in informing relevant personnel on whether to continue using the penalty or not. The structure of the paper is as follows: Introduction section s, Literature review section, hypothesis statement, definition of terms and references.

After reading, Getting off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment by H. Naci Mocan & R. Kaj Gittings (2003) conducted a study to examine the deterrent effects of the capital punishment among juvenile offenders. Unquestionably, the effectiveness of capital punishment is based on how our society views it, particularly in the United States, supports the idea that capital punishment is a deterrent from committing a crime. However, H. Naci Mocan & R. Kai Grittings (2003) argues “Because of the ethical, moral, and religious aspects of capital punishment, executing death row inmates generates repercussions, even from outside the United States” (Mocan and Gittings, 2003, p, 455). No doubt, the United States needs

The first argument that I shall contend with is that capital punishment does not deter crime. Opponents of capital punishment say the death penalty is not necessary. Other countries that no longer have the death penalty have not experienced an increase in the number of murders. The idea is that the death penalty does not deter crime. Countries such as Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, and Belgium have not carried out executions since the early part of the century, yet these countries have not experienced a rise in crimr rates (Block, 1983). However, deterrence is not the question when you are looking at the retributive value of capital punishment. In short, deterrence can only work if the threat of punishment is combined with the conviction that the forbidden acts are not only illegal and therefore punishable but immoral. Without the conviction of morality, the easily frightened will not break the law, but the fearless will break the law, the irrational will break the law, and all others will break the law.

The concept of deterrence means that people should be punished to set an example for others. One assumption is that if a particular punishment is placed on offenders, it will keep them from committing others crimes. The next assumption is keeping others from committing crimes. According to Amnesty USA, different studies have shown different stances on whether or not the death penalty has an effect on crime. Other studies have shown that Over 80 percent of those polled believe that the present research does not support a deterrence effect for the death penalty (dealthpenaltyinfo.org).

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

B. However, still countless of people are imprisoned especially in third World countries. They didn’t get enough justice system and some of them are living in horrible conditions.

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.