Is The Death Penalty Moral?

From the statistics used by Mulhausen in the article, “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, it seems that the goals of the death penalty were achieved to begin with, but since then it looks as if the death penalty threat is no longer a threat at all. In observing statistics provided to us by the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1990, murder rates have steadily declined; a very good sign for the nation as a whole. What interests me about the statistics is that even when the numbers were just beginning to be taken in 1990, the murder rates in states that do not enforce the death penalty are lower than those in states that do. This observation is very significant in correspondence to the debate regarding the effectiveness and need, or lack thereof, of the death penalty. The numbers back up my claim that the death penalty is not the best method. You cannot make the case that the death penalty itself is destroying crime because the states without the penalty have a declining crime rate, or the case that it destroys crime at a higher or faster rate because the numbers tell a different story. It cannot conclusively or confidently be said that the death penalty does not destroy crime whatsoever, but the facts of the matter do inspire doubt in my mind. Criminals who know they are likely to face death, if caught, are more willing to commit crimes than criminals who know for a fact that the death penalty is not, and cannot be invoked upon them if caught and convicted. This tells me one of two things: the criminals committing these crimes in death penalty states are so good at what they do, they do not fear getting caught, or that these criminals know even if they do get convicted and sentenced to death they are getting the easy way out. These death row convicts do not have to go to prison and suffer

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.

“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.”

State executions influence the potential and active criminals by the simple “you kill, we put you to death”. A conclusion drawn from that idea could be that punishment by death would be a prevention of crime. Regrettably the information does not get along with the proposal of deterrence being effective. The truth of the matter is that the death penalty does not affect potential criminals physiologically; the effect brought about by brutalization does not deter criminal activities. An economic writer and Professor Isaac

Over the course of human history the earliest known concept of capital punishment has been around since the 18th Century BCE, where the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon codified the death penalty for twenty five different crimes (Reggio, 2015). From the 18th Century until now there have been many other societies that have used capital punishment for various crimes, such as the Hittite Code, Draconian Code of Athens, and also Roman law. Those different cultures used different methods for execution and followed different rules for people of different race, religion, creed, social status, etc. As history progressed, capital punishment itself has gone through many changes; the ways of execution have evolved from brutal and torturous methods such as burning at the stake, burying alive, bludgeoning to death, impalement,

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.

The death penalty will always be a topic some people refuse to talk about. When in fact, it is a very serious topic and people should know how and why the death penalty is not justified. I believe the death penalty is not justified in the least bit because there are people sitting up in prison just living life because the state does not want to pay for an execution, or they find it to be morally corrupt. Personally if you committed a crime that resulted in someone dying then you deserves to die as well. The idea of killing another human does not sit well with people and that is mainly the

The death penalty is one of the most controversed punishments in the United States. According to The Death Penalty Information Center, 88% of criminologist do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent. According to deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law abiding people. Individuals settle on their choices taking into account the net expenses and advantages of every option. There is a basis provided for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates, according to the deterrence theory. Throughout the years, a few studies have shown a connection in the middle of executions and reductions in homicide rates.

Capital punishment has existed since the earliest civilizations such as the ancient Greeks, Romans, and even the English have existed. Death sentences were not

Capital punishment is a method of retributive punishment as old as civilization itself. Both the Greeks and the Romans invoked the death penalty for a wide variety of

Who places the value on human life? That was the underline thought in each one of the essays read, which were written about the death penalty. Throughout this essay I will be using examples from multiple sources. Marie Cartier “Right to Life vs Right to A Life”, Edward Koch “The Death Penalty: Is it Ever Justified?”, David Bruck “The Death Penalty” which is a direct response to Koch, and lastly Zachary Shemtob and David Lat “ Should Executions Be Televised”. It should also be stated that when talking about the value of life, this author is referring to the criminal, on death row for murder. As insensitive as it may sound we are writing under the thought that what’s done is done, now what? Who has the right to determine if this criminal life has value or not.

In the matter of deterrence, the statistics shown by professor Brad Bushman were sufficient to prove the falseness argument that establishes the death penalty reduces the occurrence of homicides compared to states without the penalty, the data was concise and effective on showing the point. Brad Bushman is a professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University, the information was taken from an anthology of opinions on the death penalty, however, the original writing from professor Brad Bushman was published in ‘Psychology Today’, a well-known psychology magazine, these facts give Brad Bushman reliability on the topic. The most interesting information on the cite is the statistic itself, showing how much money is spend on death row sentences in the state of California.

as punishment for a crime. Capital punishment is used today and was used for many years to

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.