The Death Penalty Is Truly A Crime Deterrent

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.

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

The debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished has been ongoing for quite a long period of time. While there are those who believe that the death penalty does not serve its intended purpose, proponents of the same are convinced that the relevance of the same cannot be overstated and hence it should not be abolished. In this text, I examine the arguments for and against the death penalty.

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

This criminal code is one of the most sophisticated in the country and has become a model for other states to follow. But research studies conducted to compare effects of the death penalty nationwide have shown some conflicting results. Comparison studies done to show homicide rates of retentionist and abolitionist jurisdictions from 1999 to 2001 (Sorenson & Pilgrim) have shown that death penalty states tend to have a higher murder rate than abolitionist states. This result creates the argument of the overall deterrent effect of execution. Texas is still in the top 20 of states with the highest homicide rate even though it is the highest in death penalty executions. “If the death penalty were a deterrent, the argument goes, then Texas should be located among those states with the lowest homicide rates” (Sorenson & Pilgrim, P. 25).

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. This nation, the United States of America, is currently one of fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder as of 2012. People that believe in the death penalty also believe that it will deter murders. In this paper I will argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that this nation should outlaw the practice.

The death penalty has existed in different forms dating back to Eighteenth Century B.C. Burning, hanging, beating, etc. were all means to an end to achieve this retribution. In today’s society, the debate over whether the death penalty is a viable punishment is still to be determined. Many scholars suggest that it fails to act as a deterrent and should be abolished while others cling to the idea that it continues to serve as retribution to those affected by the acts of criminals. Within this paper I will study the changing attitudes towards the death penalty as well as look into Texas and California as examples as they both portray interesting cases of the death penalty. While both actively sentence criminals to death row, California rarely executes while Texas has the highest execution rates in the country. Do these states have lower crime rates because of this or will this prove that the death penalty is unnecessary and violates the eighth amendment and is out of line with current views.

“The use of the death penalty in the United States has been rapidly declining since the end of the 1990s” (Dieter, 2015). This is contrast to the believes of the Founding Fathers where “the death penalty was widely accepted at the time the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified” (Gardner & Anderson, 2014). While the crimes have not changed, aspects of capital punishment which were once viewed as constitutional, today are deemed cruel and unusual. The prevailing liberal view sees the death penalty as morally unjustified and a vengeful form retribution. “It is the most brutal form of state power, requires massive state administrations and it costs significantly more than life imprisonment which is both more humane and equally effective” (Davidson, 2015). They point to the lack of deterrence it provides and highlight the racial and gender biases of the criminal justice system and the potential for the execution of the innocent by the State. In contrast, those in favor of capital punishment see it as a valid, moral and constitutional punishment as punishments should be imposed in proportion to the crime. The death penalty is reserved for the most violent of crimes in society and without it, justice is not achieved for victims and their families. The death penalty must be viewed again as a valid, moral and legal

Against the Death Penalty: An Annotated Bibliography While the Death Penalty has been historically used as a deterrent of crime, it is barbarity, is economically costly, and racially bias in the United States of America. With this research paper, I will explain how the death penalty should be abolish from our judicial system. Death Penalty Information Center. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org./ This is a website that gives lots of information about the death penalty from the history, current inmates and trials that could lead to death row.

In this paper, the authors examine how the death penalty argument has changed in the last 25 years in the United States. They examine six specific issues: deterrence, incapacitation, caprice and bias, cost innocence and retribution; and how public opinion has change regarding these issues. They argue that social science research is changing the way Americans view the death penalty and suggest that Americans are moving toward an eventual abolition of the death penalty.

First off, there needs to be a definition of what capital punishment and the death penalty is. According to Hugo Bedau, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The United States use

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.

let us analyze one of the often given purposes of capital punishment: deterrence. It is understandable that the criminal justice system, in wanting to ensure greater safety for its citizens, would want to deter crime. Having less violent crimes means less people will get hurt. However, this argument carries a flaw; there is little evidence to indicate that capital punishment is serving this purpose in jurisdictions where the death penalty is carried out. As a matter of fact, in the United States, some of the highest murder rates in the country occur in states where the most executions are carried out. This does not necessarily mean that murder rates are higher as a ''result'' of capital punishment; however, it goes to show that capital punishment

For lawmakers, keeping crime low is a two part problem: prevent convicted felons from breaking out or being released from preventing more crimes, and discourage people from committing crimes in the first place. All around the United States, the death penalty is debated, scrutinized, revealed, torn apart, and praised. Death as a capital punishment sparks so much attention because of its extreme logistical and ethical problems: Is it efficient? Does a human have the moral authority to decide if another may live? These are the questions asked by many, and ask they must if we wish to have any hope of reaching a solution to the ever-present question: Is the death penalty an effective means of justice? The death penalty, whatever its moral faults, is an effective method of employing and ensuring justice across the United States judicial system because the prospect of death acts as a deterrent for criminals as well as an assurance that those criminals sentenced will never go on to

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