Is Capital Punishment A Deterrent?

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial topics in today’s world. Many people believe that it is morally wrong to have capital punishment as a sentence to a crime. People also do believe that it is morally permissible for a severe crime. Capital punishment is also known as the death penalty. It can be given as a sentence when somebody is convicted of an extremely violent crime. The biggest issue that can be seen with this is that somebody could be innocent and sentenced with the death penalty because of the nature of the crime that they have been accused of even if they didn’t commit it. I believe that there is a moral line between using the death penalty and using other forms of punishment.

Capital Punishment is a sensitive topic that seems to constantly generate controversy amongst many individuals. To give a little background, capital punishment involves executing a person deemed guilty of a severe crime. Various countries, including America, accept the use of this method. However, other countries such as Canada are strictly against the act due to many reasons. Although some argue that they are the best form of punishment, life imprisonment is the better alternative. It is more humane, improves the financial and social state of the country, and finally is safer.

The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

“Everyone who commits a crime is not committing a compulsive act” (Wasserstrom 573) and therefore, we should not act impulsively towards them. The punishment should not be grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime charged, nor should it violate the convicted individual’s dignity.      Lastly, there is the aspect of my religion (Catholic) playing a factor in the capital punishment debate. Many people point to the passage in Leviticus, which states that an eye for an eye is God's decree (Costanzo 592).

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

Even during the Early church, when death was much more common, some Catholics fought against the death penalty; one such example the Athenagoras of Athens written in 133 A.D claims “we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly. . . . We, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put a man to death?.” However, many Catholic leaders have supported the death penalty, St. Thomas Aquinas himself stated “The death penalty was not merely permitted by God: for certain crimes it was required by God.” Nevertheless, over the years the Church has become more and more uncompromising in its beliefs against the Death Penalty. Starting with Pope John Paul II a Catholic Pope who served from the late 70’s to early 2000’s creating the Evangelium Vitae which asserts ¨that [the state] ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.¨ In this doctrine, Pope John Paul II clearly and definitively makes the Catholic Church’s negative response

Capital Punishment has ended the lives of criminals for centuries. People have debated whether the government should have the power to decide one person’s life. On one side, people think the government does not have the right to play God as well as believe that the death penalty is simply unethical. Forty-eight percent of a half sample survey stated that life imprisonment was a better punishment for murder while forty-seven percent stated that capital punishment was a better punishment (Newport). However, capital punishment should be enforced throughout the country to help deter crime, benefit the economy, and ensures retribution.

The death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crime. Most criminals who commit crimes do not have intentions of being caught and believe that they are invincible from the repercussions of their actions. Because of this, the death penalty really does not deter criminals from committing a crime. In fact, the death penalty could be considered an “easy way out” because the criminal does not have to spend several months, years, or even the rest of his or her life behind bars with little contact with the outside world. The criminal can just die and no longer have to suffer with knowing what he or she did, how it has affected others, and how it will continue to affect his or her life. Also, many criminals end up committing suicide in prison because they do not want to have to spend every day locked in a jail cell for extended periods of time.

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.

My assumption is that the death penalty does not deter people from crime. I do not believe that the fear of receiving punishment or justice will deter murder. When people commit crimes, they do not think or care about the consequences at that time. If that were true, people would not speed on highways or do drugs in fear that they would be prosecuted. I believe that with or without capital punishment people will still commit crimes. I believe that the death penalty does not have conclusive evidence to be a tool in the criminal justice system to deter people.

Although the death penalty is the most extreme punishment a government can implement on its own people, Nicole Smith in Article Myriad states that the presence of capital punishment serves to deter crime and believes that the only just penalty in exchange for a willful murder is the death penalty and should be continued. Smith further explains that several studies have shown that executing murders does deter future murders. "If future criminals feel that they can easily get off with a light sentence for one of the most horrible possible crimes, it seems only natural that instances of murder would increase." She concludes that a society that doesn't deliver justice is a society which will fall apart and insists that criminals needs to be held

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

Since the mid 1900’s, capital punishment has brought many individuals into many diverse view points throughout the years. Capital punishment is a way of punishing a convict by killing him or her because of the crime he or she committed. Capital punishment will always have its pros and cons. There are opponents who absolutely disagree with capital punishment. And then there are advocates who support the idea. In the advocates view point, capital punishment is a way to minimize the threat in the world today. In the opponent’s point of view, opponents disagree with capital punishment, because of the high expenses it brings to the states. Also, opponents argue that capital punishment

Capital punishment, better known as the death penalty, is the act of killing or executing a person who was found guilty of a serious crime, by the government. Capital punishment became widespread during the Middle Ages and was applied throughout Western Europe for more than two thousand years. Although, the call to abolish it started in the 18th century, some of the first countries being Venezuela in 1863, San Marino in 1865, and Costa Rica in 1877. Great Britain abolished the death penalty in 1965 and was permanently outlawed in 1969. By 2004, eighty-one countries had abolished capital punishment, but some countries in the Caribbean, Africa and Asia still use it for ordinary crimes. At present day, China and the United States apply the

During biblical times crime not only affected society, but it was believed to have also been directed towards God himself. The Bible is the oldest book to reference with many directives to living life peacefully and without revenge. As retribution is considered a form of punishment, if not the first, the Bible itself explains that the punishment should not exceed the crime. Matthew 5:38 states, “You have heard that it has been said, eye for eye and tooth for tooth”. This passage is meant as a way to explain that the punishment should fit the crime. As a member of society, the offender was punished equally as brutal as the crime