Dylan Pidich. Boston College Philosophy. . "Does The Retributive

In “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, written and published by David B. Mulhausen on September 29, 2014, Mulhausen speaks of the reasons why the death penalty is a proper way to bring murderers to justice. He believes that “some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties” (Mulhausen). Not only does he believe that the death penalty is useful to set criminals to justice, but he also believes that the enforcement of the death penalty deters crime rates.

Historically, capital punishment has been used in almost every part of the world. Now, there are thirty six countries that have retained the death penalty in active use. That means that a lot of people, like Fein, agree that capital punishment is the right answer for the horrible crimes. Anything less than penalty of death will just trivialize the value of someone’s life. If someone’s did some horrible crime, like rape or murder, only way of stopping for something like that happens again is death for murderer or rapist. Yet, according to the N.C. Department of Justice, the the crime has declined in the years since executions stopped. Given this fact, there is no credible argument that the death penalty deters crime. It is hard to talk about this topic when you are not in position that you have someone that is murdered or raped. On the other hand, there are people that believe that no one is allowed to take someone’s life, no matter of any circumstances. Still, people like Fain have their arguments, and because of people like him we now have over 1300 executions that have occured in the U.S since

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.

It is irrational to think that the death penalty – a remote threat at best – will avert murders committed in drug turf wars or by street-level dealers” (Bedau). This shows that the death penalty is not stopping murders from occurring. The introduction to the death penalty conducted a survey were top criminologists stated that the death penalty does not deter homicide rates (Introduction). “For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9 [Murder rates by the 100,000], while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8” (Introduction).

All of the research that I have done suggests that the death penalty is not a major source of deterrence for criminals to commit severe crimes such as homicide. In a 2009 survey of America’s top criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and written by Professor Michael Radelet, eighty-eight percent of the expert criminologists stated that they do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent for criminals to commit homicide. Respondents to this survey were asked to base their answers on research, rather

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.

Those that are for the death penalty claim that it will serve as a deterrent and is the only way for retribution against murderers. Both issues are highly debatable and have even been a subject of criticism. Punishment as a deterrence has been used for ages. This concept does work, however it should not be applied to all criminals, in my opinion. Some pro capital punishment individuals claim that it is an efficient deterrence against criminals. In an article “Death penalty is a deterrence”, the authors claim that by practicing the death penalty, violent crimes will decrease.”violent crime has declined eleven percent, with murder showing the largest decline at even more than twenty two percent. We believe that this has occurred in part because of the strong signal that the death penalty sent to violent criminals and murders.” These statistics taken from this article may be inaccurate and should be closely examined.

A review was conducted from the Law and society Association, American society of criminology and the Criminal Justice sciences Academy and it revealed that a big majority concluded that capital punishment was not a deterrent to homicide. More than 80 percent of those interrogated believe that the survey doesn’t hold up the effect of deterrence for the death penalty. Other criminologists suggest that more homicides are caused due to the fact that there is death penalty. The outcome of brutalization argues that the rates of homicides will increase because of the example served by state executions.

The death penalty has been a controversial topic among society for ages. An issue often brought up when discussing the legality of capital punishment is wrongful convictions. Advocates of the death penalty say that, while wrongful convictions are an issue, those few cases do not outweigh the need for lawful execution of felons who are, without a doubt, guilty. On the other hand, the opponents argue that the death penalty is wrong from both a legal and moral standpoint, an ineffective form of punishment, and should, ultimately, be outlawed. With both advocates and challengers constantly debating on this topic, the death penalty and wrongful convictions continue to be hot buttons issues for Americans and people throughout the world.

A study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado recently made, found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective way to stop crime. The study by Lacock

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.

An issue that has continually created tension in today's society is whether the death penalty serves as a justified and valid form of punishment. Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their arguments. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder. Crime is an evident part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but the question lies in the methods and action in which it should be dealt with. In several parts of