How The Death Penalty Saves Lives Analysis

I acknowledge that the occasional execution of an innocent person is a tragic event, and the answer is not to dismantle the system, but to exercise even more care in its application.

“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.”

Many people question the need for the death penalty, the execution of those who have committed certain crimes, as a capital punishment. For instance, the author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment”, Jack Greenburg, who is a Professor of Law at Columbia University, argues that the death penalty does not benefit society and is not necessary. Likewise, Kevin Johnson, writer of “Study Finds No Evidence Death Penalty Deters Crime”, also argues against the use of the death penalty by pointing out the flaws in the common research of deterrence. On the other hand, some may also argue for the many aids the death penalty offers. Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University, Ernest Van den Haag, with his “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense”, and authors James M. Reams and Charles T. Putnam, with their article, “Making a Case for the Deterrence Effect of Capital Punishment”, both give arguments for the grander justice the death penalty offers. While each of these articles give very well thought out claims for the necessity of the death penalty, using arguments including racism, and deterrence, Van den Haag’s claim gives the clearest and best arguments.

Deterrence has been the backbone of the United States justice system for a long time now, yet does deterrence truly work? When people plan, or commit violent crimes are they considering the immediate consequences of their actions? Offenders do not typically weigh the penalties they may receive after committing a serious crime. Keeping this in mind, increasing the severe ness of punishment, ultimately, will neither decrease or increase the amount of crimes committed in the United States. Death penalty does play a larger role in the deterrence of criminal acts. The death penalty has been a hot topic regarding whether it should be a legal punishment or not. Many arguments arise from this topic including: is it moral of the state to take a life? Or what act of crime is deserving of the death penalty? And how much of a role does religion play into the decision of the death penalty? Deterrence plays a major role in the discussion of death penalty. No one wishes death upon themselves nor would be satisfied with death by the justice system. The death penalty ultimately does deter major crimes in the sense that a

In conclusion the death penalty is an inhuman act of torture that doesn’t solve criminal justice. There should not be a death penalty because of the inhumanity and disregards of of human rights. The criminal process is abused and should not be used to prevent crime with the imposition of the death penalty(the death penalty 2013). There are a lot of citizens in numerous countries that are still unaware that the death penalty is a form of brutalization not protection.in the artical stating the death penalty does not deter crime they say Abolition is gaining ground, but not fast enough this is true is that state that many are still getting killed without justice being served( the death penalty 2009) . There should not be a death penalty because it violates human rights, it does not deter crime, and is a cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty does not deter crime it increases it.

Capital punishment, otherwise known as “The Death Penalty,” has been around for many years and has been the cause of death for over twelve hundred inmates since 1976 (“Death Penalty Information Center”), but is the Death Penalty really beneficial to the American public? This question is in the back of many people’s minds, and has left many questioning the meaning of the punishment. The death penalty targets murderers or high profile cases. Some say that the death penalty should apply to those who murder, rape, or abuse human beings such as children, or women. The significance of the penalty is to teach these criminals that there are laws that must be followed. In a figurative sense, it is to teach those potential wrongdoers a lesson. By

Society agrees on the matter that crime is corrupt and the criminal justice system needs to find a way to put a stop to it. The death penalty seems sensible and logical in every way, until we ask the question: do we need the death penalty to be ‘tough’ on crime? The answer is yes, we do.

Lethal injection, electric chair, firing squad, gas, hanging, you name it, these are all the variations that states use to condemn their prisoners. The death penalty has been, ironically, alive since the 1600s, massacring thousands. A debate that has been ongoing brings the question today, should capital punishment be banned? or should it continue? The truth lies in the fact that injustice cannot be solved by inequity.

Adam Liptak, in his article “Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate” (2007), claims that the death penalty has a “deterrent effect” and is linked to lower murder rates. Liptak supports his claim by quantitative evidence and studies on crime rates, refuting the opposition’s arguments, and quoting authoritative evidence. His purpose is to settle the reoccurring debate on whether the death penalty does in fact prevent more murders and to help clear up misconceptions about the effectiveness of capital punishment. He adopts an academic tone (“Critics of the studies say they are based on faulty premises, insufficient data, and flawed methodologies”) for the scholars and specialists who are following the “intense new debate about one of the central

Dating back to ancient times, all the way up until the mid-twentieth century, it was tradition to execute criminals after they had committed a heinous crime on another victim. To this day, capital punishment is a subject undergoing intense study, and is a hot topic of controversy. It is a challenging debate with many different viewpoints. Many people are pro death penalty, while others are quite against it, and there are others with amphibological feelings towards the subject. One of the many different questions that originate when the topic of the death penalty arises is if capital punishment is deterrence for crime. Capital punishment stirs up a fierce debate, but over the years research has proven it is not deterrence, and states without the death penalty have a lower crime rate than states than allow the death penalty.

One may argue that the death penalty is a beneficial way to lower the crime rate and prevent future fraud. However, deterrence does not reduce criminality whatsoever. Those who truly believe that deterrence defends the execution of a human life have not actually proved that the death penalty is truly a deterrent. Most individuals who commit murders do not even expect to get caught at the time due to their anger and passion during the killing. As difficult as it may be, imagine yourself in the moment of committing a crime. Do you immediately say to yourself, “I must weigh my differences, will I get on death row or spend the rest of my life in prison?” No. It is a psychological, passionate, impulsive action of which there is zero time to think about the consequences that may arise

Some may argue that the death penalty deter criminals since they are likely to choose life over death. Based on Dr. William Schmitz point of view, “the death penalty should be kept and not dragged out of 20 years, and the insanity defense should be thrown out” (“In defense of death…”). While the insanity plea is an easy escape for criminals, the death penalty still does not discourage criminals from committing crimes once again. According to Jones, “in 1997 the average murder rate per 100,000 population among death-penalty states was 6.6, while for non-death penalty states it was 3.5” (Jones). If the death penalty is suppose to serve as a deterrent, then there should have been a cumulative effect in lowering the homicide rates. However, most criminals rarely consider the consequences while engaged in their crimes. Informed by the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, “from 1995-1999, states without the death penalty had a 45 percent lower average homicide rate than the states with the death penalty” (Belousek). The only public good that this system brings to society is that it serves momentary justice. Lives taken by criminals

Putting people to death, judged to have committed certain extremely heinous crimes, is a practice that’s been around for along time. In the later half of the twentieth century, it has become a controversial issue. As a supporter of the death penalty, I consider this to be a good thing for my country and its citizens. Capital punishment deters crime. Statistics prove consisted application of the death penalty deter crime. No executed murdered has ever killed again. For many years, Criminologists have thought to believe the death penalty has no affect as deterrence to homicides. From 1972-1976, a suspension was place on capital punishment. The United States had 9,140 murders in 1960 where 56 people were executed. Nine years

In the modern world, crime rates are becoming increasingly out of proportions. Even though crime rates are currently on the decline, one crime represents one too many. Proponents against crime are gradually becoming strict towards a culprit of crime including the reenactment of the death penalty, a deterrent against crime, in hopes to reduce crime rates. Although people who commit serious crimes, such as homicide, deserves a harsh punishment, death penalties are taking the concept of punishment slightly too far. The reintroduction of death penalties as a deterrent against crime will not serve as a deterrent against crime as it, similar to all other forms of political practices, can become corrupted, and the decision for weighting a crime

The controversy over the death penalty has plagued the world for years. Individuals such as William Tucker – The American Spectator’s New York correspondent and CEO of TheElevator.com – believe that the death penalty reduces crime. Meanwhile, those who oppose the death penalty, such as Eric M. Freedman – a professor at Hofstra University School of Law – argue that it is unneeded. Freedman’s article The Case Against the Death Penalty and Tucker’s article Why the Death Penalty Works reflect why