Examples Of Deterrence Justification

Many people believe capital punishment is a better option for a community because it gets rid of the deadly criminals. Other people agree on this claim because the execution of these criminals creates space in federal prisons. While creating more jails and prisons would solve this issue, the death penalty would not drain money from the tax payers which is all that a person really looks at when considering this option.

Description of the Article “A deterrence theory holds that criminal punishment is justified because punishment reduces or deters crime” (Lee, 2). This is the core idea of deterrence theory, where if the punishment is harsh enough it would in turn hope to deter other potential criminals. However, Lee believes that this scope it too narrow because of its lack to recognize its shortcomings.

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

There are many problems facing our criminal justice system today. Some of the more important ones are overcrowded jails, the increasing murder rate, and keeping tax payers content. In light of these problems, I think the death penalty is our best and most reasonable solution because it is a highly effective deterrent to murder. And, tax payers would be pleased to know that their hard-earned tax dollars are not being wasted on supporting incorrigible criminals who are menaces to society. In addition, they would not be forced to fund the development of new penitentiaries in order to make room for the growing number of inmates in our already overcrowded jails. Moreover, the death penalty would

“Discussion of Recent Deterrence Studies.” Deathpenaltyinfo.org, Death Penalty Information Center, deathpenaltyinfo.org/discussion-recent-deterrence-studies. Accessed 18 Apr. 2017.

Capital punishment is a huge cost on the American taxpayer. It is more cost effective to have rehabilitation programs in prisons than Capital punishment. The appeals courts and lawyer fees the American people are paying for so that a possible innocent man cannot be killed is astounding. Money would be better spent on better public defenders with more access to resources to help defend the innocent until proven guilty; having better programs and a better prison system to help transition from prison to a life in the civilian world would not only help the taxpayers of this country but also the judicial system.

Not only does the death penalty not deter crime but it is also very expensive. The death penalty costs so much because of the appeal process. The appeal process is a very long and expensive process that can go on forever and costs the government millions. Many assume that abolishing the death penalty is wrong because it becomes unfair to the taxpayers because they think the cost is less than that of life in prison without parole. However life in prison is less expensive than the death penalty (Bedau). The death penalty is actually three times more than keeping a prisoner in prison for life without parole (Messerli). Death penalty trials are costly as well. “[S]tudies estimate that death penalty trials cost $1

1. A New York Times survey demonstrated that the homicide rate in states with capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those without the death penalty.

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).

Some criminologists even recommend that the death penalty causes more homicides per year. The chart below shows the crime comparison rates of states with the death penalty vs. the states without death penalty. As you can see from the chart below, the states that have the death penalty currently in place have the greatest crime rate (amnestyusa.org)

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.

The death penalty is very costly to not only the government, but also society. The death penalty has no benefits at all and should be

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.

Deterrence is a further purpose that needs to be highlighted. The aim of punishment is also to warn people from crime committing under the fear of being punished and it might be reached through the well-developed criminal justice system, one of the main aim of which is to ensure that every wrongdoer will be punished for the criminal acts. There are two kinds of deterrence. They are general and specific deterrence. Ferris defines specific deterrence as deterrence which attempts to persuade the individual before the court not to commit further offences, while general deterrence is defined as the process of persuading others who might be inclined to offend not to do so. Deterrence has its own pros and cons as well. One of the main deterrence benefits is that it may reduce crime rate significantly and sharply. For instance, there is a three strikes policy in most states of USA, which means that if an individual has already been in jail two times and if this person commits a third crime, she would be automatically sentenced for 25 years regardless of crime seriousness. On the other hand, the main drawback is that criminals usually think that they will not be caught, so they continue committing crimes.